This has been an interesting week to say the least. The Wall Street Journal story concerning a possible move by MGM to buy the Wynn casino, which would then force them to sell the Springfield location, is the type of news that I’m sure sent a number of local officials scrambling for a stiff drink or two.

Now, I’ve been accused of “hating” MGM, when nothing is farther than the truth. As I’ve written numerous times I want MGM to be an incredible success because I want my hometown of Springfield to be an incredible success.

I just haven’t drunk the quantity of Kool-Aid that other people have consumed when the company has made claims. I’m a reporter and cynicism is part of the gig.

I’m not sure about how successful MGM will be and whether or not it’s success will be shared by other businesses in the region. These are events yet to be seen.

What does concern me is if the Wall Street Journal story is accurate – I would love to know who the unnamed source is for it – is just which company would be in line as the next owner of the casino complex.

Mayor Domenic Sarno and other city officials believe the Host Community Agreement would protect the city. Essentially there would be no new agreement for the next company. It would have to live with all of the requirements to which MGM and the city agreed.

What would change, though, if this actually happened, would be the narrative of commitment MGM would have for Springfield. Much has been made of the casino giant’s love for the City of Homes. MGM CEO James Murren has even expressed his affection for the city, recalling his student days at Trinity College in Hartford and how he would come to Springfield.

The relationship was spun as personal, which always struck me as a bit suspect. I’m cynical, remember?

Whoever takes MGM’s place would have to make the same claims of commitment and concern and probably would have to slide down Main Street on a bed of broken glass to prove its love to people.  

This story about the development of casinos is Western Massachusetts is fraught with change. Remember that Sarno wanted the “casino in the woods” model at one point and did not want a casino in Springfield? MGM originally wanted to go into Brimfield but was stymied when the company realized it couldn’t get a dedicated exit off the Turnpike. Ameristar bought the former Westinghouse parcel and cleaned it up because that company was convinced no other gaming company would be interested in Springfield.  That move was lousy for them and great for the city.

Do you recall that Penn Gaming was thought to have Springfield in the bag with the support of Peter Picknelly, the Springfield Newspapers and other movers and shakers?  

That didn’t work out did it?

Palmer was thought to be a given that its voters would approve the location of a casino. West Springfield voters were thought, until the election, to see a casino on the grounds of the Big E as beneficial to the town.

Hard Rock wanted not only to buy Tower Square but other buildings on Main Street for a casino. That didn’t work out.

Change and surprise have been a key part of the saga here.  I think that’s why this unattributed story in the Wall Street Journal interests me so much. It would make financial sense for MGM to go into the Boston market. It’s more lucrative. There is a history of MGM buying Wynn properties. As long as a buyer could be found for Springfield and the city still has a nearly $1 billion casino here with a competent operator I think most folks will be happy.

At this point there is much speculation. Perhaps none of this will happen, but perhaps it will.

Ultimately, all I care about is that people have jobs and that this casino is a success, whoever runs it.