Impasse over simulcast fees for Stronach tracks

[Al Gobbi]

Major simulcast sites in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states on Monday dropped the signals from tracks controlled by one of the U.S.’s largest racing companies due to an impasse over the terms of a new contract, officials for both sides of the talks have confirmed.

The impasse is pitting Monarch Content Management, which controls the simulcast rights to Santa Anita Park, Gulfstream Park, Tampa Bay Downs, and a handful of other major racing signals, against the MidAtlantic Cooperative, a collective of Thoroughbred and Standardbred racetracks.

http://www.drf.com/news/impasse-over-simulcast-fees-stronach-tracks

[alydar]

Here we go again. We continue to fight over a ever shrinking pie. Not easy to see this as good news for anyone.

[proximity]

[I]Major simulcast sites in Ohio, Pennsylvania....

penn national attendance this afternoon was approximately 22. five or six upstairs and 16-17 downstairs. :(

[EMD4ME]

That is sad.... remember growing up around there....

Used to make 1 visit a month for years, up until the cancerous casino came to town. Hated it, haven't gone back in 4 years.

[TravisVOX]

Honest question...

Let's say takeout was 10%, so forget about the takeout discussion for a moment. If a track handles $1 million and $100,000 is the takeout (for the sake of simplicity, let's forget about taxes etc.) - what is a fair distribution of the $100,000?

How much should the track get?

How much should the bet taker (the simulcast outlet, the OTB, the ADW...) get?

How much should go to the horsemen (purses)?

What does everyone think?

[Robert Goren]

Honest question...

Let's say takeout was 10%, so forget about the takeout discussion for a moment. If a track handles $1 million and $100,000 is the takeout (for the sake of simplicity, let's forget about taxes etc.) - what is a fair distribution of the $100,000?

How much should the track get?

How much should the bet taker (the simulcast outlet, the OTB, the ADW...) get?

How much should go to the horsemen (purses)?

What does everyone think? The home track should no more than a fourth of the money bet off site. They should split that with the horsemen 50/50. The bet taker gets the rest and then offer rebates to the bettors who bet with them. You asked and this my opinion.

[cj]

Honest question...

Let's say takeout was 10%, so forget about the takeout discussion for a moment. If a track handles $1 million and $100,000 is the takeout (for the sake of simplicity, let's forget about taxes etc.) - what is a fair distribution of the $100,000?

How much should the track get?

How much should the bet taker (the simulcast outlet, the OTB, the ADW...) get?

How much should go to the horsemen (purses)?

What does everyone think?


Honest answer, I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Racing needs to figure it out though, only had 30 years now.

[Robert Goren]

penn national attendance this afternoon was approximately 22. five or six upstairs and 16-17 downstairs. :(This what you eventually get when you put a casino next to race tracks. It happens over and over again, yet they keep doing it. I don't know where anybody gets the idea that somehow they are going to be the exception to the rule when there has not been exceptions after 8 years or so. NY seems to think it is going to be an exception and maybe they will. It is a heck of bet to take with the best racing in the country. We will see in another 6 years or so.

[TravisVOX]

Honest answer, I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Racing needs to figure it out though, only had 30 years now.

As someone who has a vested interest in the future of horse racing, this answer surprises me.

[TravisVOX]

The home track should no more than a fourth of the money bet off site. They should split that with the horsemen 50/50. The bet taker gets the rest and then offer rebates to the bettors who bet with them. You asked and this my opinion.

Let's assume 15% of handle is bet on-track, the rest is off track.

So of the $85,000 bet off-track it goes like this...

Horsemen get $10,625
Track gets $10,625
Bet taker gets $63,750

I'm assuming the on-track money (all $15,000 of it) would be split between track/horsemen 50% (this arrangement is not uncommon at slot tracks)... so that brings those groups to a total of $18,125.

So the facility putting on the races and the participants in those races each get $18,125... while the entity taking the bet gets $63,750?

I'm not being snarky... does that breakdown seem fair, realistic and in the best interests of racing long term?

[Rex Phinney]

Let's assume 15% of handle is bet on-track, the rest is off track.

So of the $85,000 bet off-track it goes like this...

Horsemen get $10,625
Track gets $10,625
Bet taker gets $63,750

I'm assuming the on-track money (all $15,000 of it) would be split between track/horsemen 50% (this arrangement is not uncommon at slot tracks)... so that brings those groups to a total of $18,125.

So the facility putting on the races and the participants in those races each get $18,125... while the entity taking the bet gets $63,750?

I'm not being snarky... does that breakdown seem fair, realistic and in the best interests of racing long term?

Absolutely not.

[proximity]

As someone who has a vested interest in the future of horse racing, this answer surprises me.

i think a player can only read the same matt hegarty article so many times over the years. mid-atlantic co-op vs. whoever.

just how exactly will the takeout on the mahoning valley simulcast bets get split up. major drama. :sleeping:

[Stillriledup]

Let's assume 15% of handle is bet on-track, the rest is off track.

So of the $85,000 bet off-track it goes like this...

Horsemen get $10,625
Track gets $10,625
Bet taker gets $63,750

I'm assuming the on-track money (all $15,000 of it) would be split between track/horsemen 50% (this arrangement is not uncommon at slot tracks)... so that brings those groups to a total of $18,125.

So the facility putting on the races and the participants in those races each get $18,125... while the entity taking the bet gets $63,750?

I'm not being snarky... does that breakdown seem fair, realistic and in the best interests of racing long term?

I think the breakdown would only not be fair if there was a track putting on races and NOT accepting bets on other tracks. As far as i know though, isn't every live track also accepting bets on a menu of simulcasts?

I guess the better your track is, the less "fair" it is for you since more people are betting the better signals around the country. If you are the owner of SRU downs, you make out like a bandit accepting bets on Belmont, Santa Anita, etc. where as Belmont and SA is forced to accept bets from SRU and the handle at SRU is very small compared to the majors.

[proximity]

I think the breakdown would only not be fair if there was a track putting on races and NOT accepting bets on other tracks. As far as i know though, isn't every live track also accepting bets on a menu of simulcasts?


for the majority of simulcasting history, california did not take bets on co-op tracks.

[Rex Phinney]

The simulcast sites aren't providing anything that the groups who own the tracks can't (and do) provide.

Like it says right in the article Stronach also owns Xpressbet. So if the simulcast sites aren't happy getting whatever is offered, they can hit the bricks.

This is like a trucking company getting pissed because The grocery store it hauls for creates it's own fleet of trucks. What leverage do they have??? None.

What is the argument here? That the guy with the product to sell shouldn't be able to name his price? Good luck with that.

[Stillriledup]

for the majority of simulcasting history, california did not take bets on co-op tracks.

But, that's on them. They're still idiots and don't offer full card simo, imagine that, a month away from 2015 and they still act like its 1990.

[EMD4ME]

The model was broken from the start. If I'm putting on the show, I should get all but 3%. You're in Wyoming (for example) and you only run 3 weeks a year , you only deserve 3% as I never take you're little track (if I'm NYRA or Stronach etch). If I never take bets for your track, why are you making 13% to 22% on my product 12 months a year???

[cj]

As someone who has a vested interest in the future of horse racing, this answer surprises me.

Of course I want racing to succeed, but I've been doing this a long time. These aren't new issues. I've just grown tired of it. How many years does out take to get the business model right?

The best answer I can give is that there should be no middle men. Racing is paying too much to ADWs. Racetracks should have long ago formed their own ADW. The problem is that would actually take cooperation. I also have no faith that a track run ADW would be innovative and bettor friendly.

[Robert Goren]

Let's assume 15% of handle is bet on-track, the rest is off track.

So of the $85,000 bet off-track it goes like this...

Horsemen get $10,625
Track gets $10,625
Bet taker gets $63,750

I'm assuming the on-track money (all $15,000 of it) would be split between track/horsemen 50% (this arrangement is not uncommon at slot tracks)... so that brings those groups to a total of $18,125.

So the facility putting on the races and the participants in those races each get $18,125... while the entity taking the bet gets $63,750?

I'm not being snarky... does that breakdown seem fair, realistic and in the best interests of racing long term?Yes, it does. Remember if the bet takers were not there, you would not even be getting the 10k. It is ADWs and the OTBs that bring in the bettors. If you want more, start your own ADW or make it easier for people to bet on track. It is not easy for the ADWs to get people to bet on the lousy product that is being put out by the tracks and the horsemen. They earn every penny they get.

[proximity]

But, that's on them. They're still idiots and don't offer full card simo, imagine that, a month away from 2015 and they still act like its 1990.

it wasn't just on them because co-op tracks were denied their rightful percentage (whatever that is) of what the california players would have bet on their cards.

i agree that it doesn't make sense to lump pen or ct in with tracks that hardly run like ac or cnl.

[Jeff P]

I think most of us posting here love racing and want to see it excel.

Yet I can't help but be struck with the thought that demanding a bigger slice of the pie (each and every time a signal contract comes up for renewal) in the face of falling demand is nothing short of pure insanity.

I made a post about 10 days ago in the thread about the recent handle fall-off at Belmont. I can't help but think the content of that post bears repeating in this thread. In my opinion the subject matter is related.

Here is a link to that post:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1740484&postcount=322

I tend to agree with you.

If I had to make an educated guess I would say that higher signal fees (at North American tracks in general) are likely responsible for the biggest portion of the recent fall off in handle.

But that doesn't mean source market fee hasn't contributed to the recent fall off in handle.

Within the past year:

New York and Pennsylvania both implemented source market fee.

Texas banned ADW wagering altogether.

Those three states represent a significant portion of interstate handle.

Adding to that:

Churchill had a significant takeout hike.

Literally every track signal 'managed' by Churchill saw signal fee hikes. In addition, Churchill content was recently pulled from one of the major ADWs.

Literally every track signal 'managed' by The Stronach Group also saw hikes in signal fees. (My understanding is that signal fees for 2015 are going to be even higher.)

All of this compounds to create an environment that is (to say the least) unfriendly to the high volume player (and the would be high volume player.)

At its core 'racing' is a business.

Here's a link to a PDF on the National HBPA website to a study titled "Analysis of the Data and Fundamental Economics Behind Recent Trends in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry" written by Will Cummings:
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

You could read the entire study if you want (it contains lots of insights) but Cummings makes some very poignant points in his CONCLUSIONS on pp 29-30:

quote--

The takeout has also played a role. Bettors, or at least a very significant fraction of them, are highly sensitive to the rate of takeout. This is demonstrated by the experiences of NYRA and New York City OTB, by statistical studies that have looked at broad cross-sections of data, by the dramatic increases in handle that small numbers of bettors have provided at Incentive Wagering Services, and by parallels with other types of gambling. Even the industry’s frequently-touted "churn factor" of 7 implies that lower takeouts would benefit the industry. Higher takeouts have depressed handle, but this trend can be reversed. Investing in players (via rebates) can be just as or more effective than investing in bricks, mortar and new technology in terms of growing revenues for the industry.

Economic theory holds that a competitive marketplace is the best way to match producers and consumers of almost every product. It also says that in a competitive market, price equals marginal cost. That maximizes joint benefits to the buyers and sellers. But the most relevant factor here is marginal cost, not average cost. The marginal cost of a simulcast signal / betting opportunity is close to zero. The high average cost of putting on a horse race is unfortunately almost irrelevant -- the consumer is under no obligation to support a hundred race tracks and a hundred thousand horses. The only industries that can successfully charge more than the competitive price are monopolies. Monopolies don’t last. Horse racing’s ended years ago. If we charge more than the competitive price, we will lose customers.

What the industry needs most, in my opinion, and has been working on for 20+ years, is a diversified set of delivery mechanisms to bring our product to the customer, as well as attract more customers to our product. These delivery systems have different costs. Customers have different sensitivities to price.

If we try to shoehorn all our customers and delivery systems into one uniform cost/price structure, we’ll be leaving money on the table. Incentive Wagering Services provide benefits to the industry by bringing customers to the table, and should therefore be included as a significant component of the industry’s diversified distribution network.

--end quote

FYI, the study was published in 2004 - one year after North American thoroughbred handle saw its all time high - according to stats found on The Jockey Club website here:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8

In my opinion, back in 2004 the 'industry' was still doing a pretty good job of putting the recommendations of Cummings into practice (especially the part that I bolded above.)

In my opinion, since 2004, the 'industry' has been making a concerted effort to (as Cummings puts it) 'shoehorn' all customers and delivery systems into one uniform cost/price structure.

In my opinion the 'industry' has paid a steep price for that effort in the form of lost handle and revenue.

Consider. Each year since the time the study was published, things have gotten progressively worse:

Takeout for the retail customer has gotten progressively higher.

More and more states have gone to source market fee.

Track signal fees have gotten progressively higher.

At the same time, fewer and fewer ADWs have been 'allowed' to carry premium content.

Field sizes keep shrinking.

The number of starts per horse per year keeps shrinking too.

All of this (compounded) has played a part in the fall off in handle over the past 10-12 years.

I submit to you the idea that the fall off in handle is a direct (predictable) result of industry decision makers enacting new policies that are in effect the exact opposite of what their paid for economic experts (Cummings and others) have suggested they do.

I also submit to you that the downward handle trend can be reversed. But reversing it requires enacting/reenacting the recommedations of Cummings and others.


-jp

.

[cj]

I'm not being snarky... does that breakdown seem fair, realistic and in the best interests of racing long term?

Racetracks brought this on themselves. They have every right to try to get it back, but the rebate cat is out of the bag. Tracks may very well get it all back, but handle will shrink. There is no way people are going to bet the same amount of money with higher takeout, i.e. less rebates. We're seeing this every month when handle numbers are released.

[Robert Goren]

The simulcast sites aren't providing anything that the groups who own the tracks can't (and do) provide.

Like it says right in the article Stronach also owns Xpressbet. So if the simulcast sites aren't happy getting whatever is offered, they can hit the bricks.

This is like a trucking company getting pissed because The grocery store it hauls for creates it's own fleet of trucks. What leverage do they have??? None.

What is the argument here? That the guy with the product to sell shouldn't be able to name his price? Good luck with that.They ask any price they want, but nobody has to buy. This model has been around long enough that the bet takers know what they can afford to pay. This is how the free market works.

[Rex Phinney]

Yes, it does. Remember if the bet takers were not there, you would not even be getting the 10k. It is ADWs and the OTBs that bring in the bettors. If you want more, start your own ADW or make it easier for people to bet on track. It is not easy for the ADWs to get people to bet on the lousy product that is being put out by the tracks and the horsemen. They earn every penny they get.

Twinspires.com and xpressbet.com are owned by who?

If I own the product and my own ADW and I know that without the OTB/ simulcast guys my handle will be cut in half BUT I'll keep all of it instead of a measly 25%. I just did addition by subtraction.

[TravisVOX]

The point of my post was to try and shed some light onto how the dollar breaks down in racing which, in my opinion, is really misunderstood by the experts on Twitter and the like. It also shows how complicated the entire system is thus making sweeping, rapid change is nearly impossible.

It's painfully clear how signals were priced poorly when simulcasting fist came around and fixing that is a long process - nothing that can happen overnight or with one contract renewal.

[cj]

The point of my post was to try and shed some light onto how the dollar breaks down in racing which, in my opinion, is really misunderstood by the experts on Twitter and the like. It also shows how complicated the entire system is thus sweeping, rapid change is nearly impossible.

It's painfully clear how signals were priced poorly when simulcasting fist came around and fixing that is a long process - nothing that can happen overnight or with one contract renewal.

But like I've said, that bad model has a carryover effect. It enabled rebaters, and if tracks just keep raising prices while not lowering takeout, they are doomed. I would argue that rebates actually kept handle artificially high for a while, otherwise the sport would have been in much bigger decline for a while now.

[andtheyreoff]

Does anyone know what the current rate for the signals are? I didn't see it mentioned in any articles.

[Tom]

Honest answer, I don't care. It doesn't concern me. Racing needs to figure it out though, only had 30 years now.

Hear, hear!
As the CUSTOMERS, it is not our problem.
We want to make bets, and if the sleeze bags that run racing can't get that right, then they deserve to go broke and close. No track ever went out of business that did not deserve it.

IMHO, Stronach is the worst thing that ever happened to racing.

[cj]

Does anyone know what the current rate for the signals are? I didn't see it mentioned in any articles.

It is a state secret, just like rebate percentages.

[dirty moose]

I have to agree with CJ and Tom, if they haven't gotten it right by now, maybe they deserve to go belly up.

[Robert Goren]

Twinspires.com and xpressbet.com are owned by who?

If I own the product and my own ADW and I know that without the OTB/ simulcast guys my handle will be cut in half BUT I'll keep all of it instead of a measly 25%. I just did addition by subtraction.The days of where your handle will only cut by half by refusing to do business with ADWs are long over. The ADWs have grabbed the market because they have gone after gamblers. What little marketing being geared to gambler is being done by the ADWs. There are places where simulcast center and OTBs still are going strong, but most are a shadow of their former selves and filled with people in their 70s and 80s. In ten years, nobody will even remember what they were. The problem with a track owning with an ADW is that they will be run by the same bad management as the track. We see that with Twinspires.com.

[alydar]

Racetracks brought this on themselves. They have every right to try to get it back, but the rebate cat is out of the bag. Tracks may very well get it all back, but handle will shrink. There is no way people are going to bet the same amount of money with higher takeout, i.e. less rebates. We're seeing this every month when handle numbers are released.

I think that CJ has nailed the issue. The tracks may well get a higher percentage, but the result of ever higher signal fees will inevitably be lower handle. Low signal fees to ADWs are what allowed rebates to grow, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube at this point.

While I understand that the tracks want to get their fair share of the revenue, they will have to live with the fact that they may well be getting a less income in the end through lower handle. There is a risk of a "deflationary like spiral" as handle continues to decline, which will lead to less interest and even less handle.

[castaway01]

I think that CJ has nailed the issue. The tracks may well get a higher percentage, but the result of ever higher signal fees will inevitably be lower handle. Low signal fees to ADWs are what allowed rebates to grow, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube at this point.

While I understand that the tracks want to get their fair share of the revenue, they will have to live with the fact that they may well be getting a less income in the end through lower handle. There is a risk of a "deflationary like spiral" as handle continues to decline, which will lead to less interest and even less handle.

CJ was on target, as is your post. I think the tracks are walking a very tricky line. They want to inch up fees while not collapsing rebated handle...very tricky. Right now the industry has a house of cards and is slowly pulling a card away a time and hopes it keeps standing. So far, it's wobbly but hanging on. I think that's why we never see major, earth-shaking changes attempted. When you know there's a 90% chance the house collapses, you tend it patch it up and hope for the best.

[Rex Phinney]

The days of where your handle will only cut by half by refusing to do business with ADWs are long over. The ADWs have grabbed the market because they have gone after gamblers. What little marketing being geared to gambler is being done by the ADWs. There are places where simulcast center and OTBs still are going strong, but most are a shadow of their former selves and filled with people in their 70s and 80s. In ten years, nobody will even remember what they were. The problem with a track owning with an ADW is that they will be run by the same bad management as the track. We see that with Twinspires.com.

I agree that in 10 years nobody will remember the OTB/ simulcast centers. Really that is what this is about. The tracks/ management groups have invested a boatload of money on their own ADW, so now they own the product, the outlet to bet on the product, and they know the OTB/ simulcast center is not the future.

The play then here is to speed up the inevitable, why do I want to let the simulcast guy bleed me for part of the handle for 10 more years? I've got everything in place to take all those gambling dollars now (or at least however many of those dollars will switch to my service).

Remember when NY closed the OTB a few years ago? Then they had to get Twinspires involved to handle all the calls to the phone ADW system. If I own the track/ signal and now an ADW service, I'm licking my chops and looking for the fastest way to sweep the OTB/ simulcaster out of my way.

[Rex Phinney]

My point there is made only from a business perspective. I'm not sure it's the best play for the game.

For example I spent Travers day 2014 in the sports book at Mandalay Bay. Getting the guys behind the counter to put the race on was like pulling teeth. Seems everybody in the place was more interested in football games. My Beef? It was preseason football. :confused:

That needs to change if the game stands any chance. I'm not sure how the $$$ works between tracks and casinos if it's the same as other OTB or what. But doing something (paying $$$$) to get places like sports books a little more interested in racing would be $$$ well spent.

[cj]

There is a problem with tracks owning ADWs, which they should have done from the outset IMO. At Churchill, for example, Churchill makes more by people betting via Twin Spires than they do betting on track, and horsemen get the shaft in that scenario. I imagine it isn't any different for a Stronach track and xpressbet.

[Cholly]

Honest question...

Let's say takeout was 10%, so forget about the takeout discussion for a moment. If a track handles $1 million and $100,000 is the takeout (for the sake of simplicity, let's forget about taxes etc.) - what is a fair distribution of the $100,000?

Back when I lived in Texas, we had a saying, "The Fair is what comes once a year in October"; i.e., big money is involved here and "fair" is of no consequence. It's an expensive show the tracks put on, so I would prefer that any money that doesn't come back to me go to those putting the show on, and not some middle party. But most of those monies you portray as going to the middlemen are going right out the back door in the form of rebates.

I hope NYRA, Stronach, and CDI can slightly improve their positions by squeezing a bit more, but they're likely playing "whack a mole". My speculation is the horse-gambling markets are mostly in equilibrium, and that includes the take-out rates many think the lowering of which would magically cure racing's ills.

[Rex Phinney]

There is a problem with tracks owning ADWs, which they should have done from the outset IMO. At Churchill, for example, Churchill makes more by people betting via Twin Spires than they do betting on track, and horsemen get the shaft in that scenario. I imagine it isn't any different for a Stronach track and xpressbet.

I agree that's a problem, the % to horsemen should be set in stone, no matter where the bet comes from.

[lamboguy]

it doesn't matter how big the purses are for most people that follow the straight and narrow. they aren't taking their horses off the track to shock wave them, tap them or do any other risky procedures the day of the race. they don't have traveling vets treat their horses, and they have no chance to win races, therefore they have quit the game and the game hasn't found any other suckers to replace them as of now. without those people the game has lost those bettors that came to the track with those owner's.

look up the $500,000 stake race at the Meadowlands the other night, one trainer entered 4 horses to the race and he finished 1-2-3 to the race. that guy trains strictly off his farm. this past Breeder's cup, 3 trainers won almost half the races and the handle went down year to year and will probably continue on the down slide.

[Stillriledup]

I agree that's a problem, the % to horsemen should be set in stone, no matter where the bet comes from.

Even though the horsemen are replacable? If i owned big tracks i would much rather have Todd Pletcher or Bob Baffert retire than the biggest bettor retire.

[cj]

Even though the horsemen are replacable? If i owned big tracks i would much rather have Todd Pletcher or Bob Baffert retire than the biggest bettor retire.

I don't see how the two things have any relation. Horsemen get shafted when a person uses TwinSpires to bet on track at Churchill, regardless of who the horsemen are. They all do.

[Stillriledup]

I don't see how the two things have any relation. Horsemen get shafted when a person uses TwinSpires to bet on track at Churchill, regardless of who the horsemen are. They all do.

I was commenting on what Rex said about horsemen getting a fixed percentage.

[cj]

I was commenting on what Rex said about horsemen getting a fixed percentage.

He was talking about horsemen getting the same regardless of where the bet is placed. Not sure what you think he meant. It is clearly not fair to horsemen that Churchill makes more on bets off track than on to the detriment of owners, trainers, and jockeys.

[Rex Phinney]

Even though the horsemen are replacable? If i owned big tracks i would much rather have Todd Pletcher or Bob Baffert retire than the biggest bettor retire.

The $$$ to owners has to be there. The trainers don't matter. Most owners lose money in this game hand over fist as it is. Leave the door open for the tracks to start relying more on their ADW handle to pay the bills vs. on track handle and two things will happen:

#1. The horsemen get less of the $$$
#2. The on track experience will suffer, tracks will become even less concerned with the on track experience if they are allowed to collect more $$$ via ADW bets. Why would you want to deal with things like concession sales, parking and facility upkeep if you make more $$$ thru your ADW anyway?

So yes whatever % agreed upon for horsemen needs to be the same, OTB, ADW, on track whatever.

[Stillriledup]

He was talking about horsemen getting the same regardless of where the bet is placed. Not sure what you think he meant. It is clearly not fair to horsemen that Churchill makes more on bets off track than on to the detriment of owners, trainers, and jockeys.

I was under the impression that he was implying the horsemen are more important than the bettors and that's why they need "guaranteed/fixed" income.

[cj]

I was under the impression that he was implying the horsemen are more important than the bettors and that's why they need "guaranteed/fixed" income.

Rex has since explained, and he is 100% right.

[Stillriledup]

Rex has since explained, and he is 100% right.

Ok, i saw the explanation. When i heard "horsemen" i didnt think of owners per se, just thought of trainers and jockeys, but he meant owners specifically, that's where i got a little thrown off.