Belmont Park In Danger Of Closure?

[Thomas Roulston]

According to a report on WPIX-TV last week, Belmont Park is on a short list of sites being considered for a permanent new stadium for the NHL's New York Islanders, as neither the Barclays Center nor the just-reopened Nassau Coliseum conform to NHL "standards."

At least Aqueduct's racing surfaces would have to be redesigned if this happens. Since Parx has no separate winter dirt track, why does Aqueduct need one? Then the Inner Dirt Track can revert to a turf course - and the permanent rail that currently separates the Inner Dirt Track from the existing turf course can be dismantled, leading to an Arlington/Gulfstream/Laurel type scenario. The Saratoga meet would likely be lengthened as well.

[sour grapes]

belmont will not close,the arena will be built on the south side of hempstead tpke if approved,this has been debated over the past year and persinally would like to see the islanders back on the island.

[WoxFan]

When i google for belmont arena, i find articles that say the new arena would be near belmont park, not bulldozing belmont park. Aqueduct would probably be first to go to put in more slots.

[Thomas Roulston]

But what would happen to winter racing in New York if Aqueduct is closed?

[sour grapes]

if aqueduct closed the belmont training track would be where winter racing would take place,closing the big a is a long way off and building a small facility for bettors would not take long to build,rest assured belmont is not closing down.

[Thomas Roulston]

Using the Belmont training track to conduct winter racing would be a nightmare. And is the grandstand or even the clubhouse heated?

[jk3521]

Using the Belmont training track to conduct winter racing would be a nightmare. And is the grandstand or even the clubhouse heated?

If it comes to pass, at least a part of the Belmont grandstand area could be enclosed. The coldest I've ever been at a race track was a day with temperatures in the fifties at Belmont and the wind whistling through.

[Secondbest]

Belmont in the winter!!!. Break out the Gortex.

[Hambletonian]

Both the Belmont and Aqueduct properties are more valuable for non racing activities...and if it weren't for the massive cost of tearing down the Belmont grandstand there would probably be trial balloons being floated all the time. The greatest virtue of Belmont Park to the community is as open space, and not an entertainment center.

Considering low on track attendance, why do you need a track in the midst of a population center anyway?

Close both of them and construct an appropriately sized facility to suit the crowds of today somewhere where land is less valuable.

[PaceAdvantage]

Both the Belmont and Aqueduct properties are more valuable for non racing activities...and if it weren't for the massive cost of tearing down the Belmont grandstand there would probably be trial balloons being floated all the time. The greatest virtue of Belmont Park to the community is as open space, and not an entertainment center.

Considering low on track attendance, why do you need a track in the midst of a population center anyway?

Close both of them and construct an appropriately sized facility to suit the crowds of today somewhere where land is less valuable.Belmont Park will never be torn town, not in my lifetime anyway.

Low on track attendance? You could say that for every track in the country with a few choice boutique-meet exceptions.

What are you going to do? Tear down Aqueduct and Belmont and leave only Saratoga to run in the Summer? Or should we tear that down too...yeah, that will go over well with all the jobs and $$$$ associated with the Thoroughbred industry in NY.

Your post = fake news.

[SuperPickle]

Belmont Park will never be torn town, not in my lifetime anyway.

Low on track attendance? You could say that for every track in the country with a few choice boutique-meet exceptions.

What are you going to do? Tear down Aqueduct and Belmont and leave only Saratoga to run in the Summer? Or should we tear that down too...yeah, that will go over well with all the jobs and $$$$ associated with the Thoroughbred industry in NY.

Your post = fake news.

PA, He's not wrong. Actually the idea of closing Belmont and keeping Aqueduct is gaining momentum in political circles. Here's the background...

Everyone has know for 20-30 years that retaining two tracks 20 miles apart in suburban NYC is unrealistic. Everyone has always assumed Aqueduct would close because it's less attractive to Horseman and more attractive to development because it's closer to NYC.

I generally have few good things to saw about horsemen groups but the horsemen know they can't have two tracks and actually have a plan. Their plan is and always has been to use giving Aqueduct in exchange for a fully renovated Belmont.

Now these are two things have changed that affect Belmont...

1. The horsemen have under estimated the amount of work Belmont needs. It's now in the same boat as Pimlico. It's too expensive to renovate. It needs to be torn down and re-built. So sooner or later Belmont does need to be torn down whether you rebuild it or not. The horsemen now want to do a Meadowlands deal where the existing grandstand is torn down and a new, smaller one is built somewhere else. I don't know Belmont well enough but I believe it would be on the Hempstead Higheay side????

2. The horsemen assumed that once the casino went in at Aqueduct it would make it more attractive for redevelopment giving them some leverage to get the deal they want at Belmont. Here's where things got off the track. The Aqueduct casino is the most profitable casino in the country. It's a massive gravy train. Everyone getting that gravy realized that re-development Aqueduct would put NYC's largest construction project surrounding their gravy train. So in short there's a real concern that construction at Aqueduct would impact casino revenue and we can't have that happen.

So now you have a growing concept among politicians and political appointees that rather than mess with Aqueduct let's take Belmont and give the horsemen Aqueduct since the casino is already there and they can figure it out because we don't give a shit about horse racing. I know this idea is stupid to us but keep in mind politicians understand less than zero about horse racing.

So to sum it up yes there's a real scenario Belmont goes away and if you see that as fake news you're vastly underestimating the stupidity of NY politicians.

[RunForTheRoses]

Belmont is a lot of wasted real estate. They don't have to get rid of the track but creative ideas with the premises would be nice. Probably only on Belmont Day is a lot of that space used.

[dilanesp]

belmont will not close,the arena will be built on the south side of hempstead tpke if approved,this has been debated over the past year and persinally would like to see the islanders back on the island.

Since when is Brooklyn not located on Long Island.

Seriously, they made a mistake moving to the Barclays Center, which is a terrible arena for hockey. It is designed to fit snugly around a basketball court and is full of obstructed views for hockey. Phoenix had the same problem and eventually had to build a new arena for the Coyotes.

And yeah, the Belmont Park site, which is literally right down the road from the old Nassau Coliseum, is a pretty good spot to put up a new arena for the Islanders. (On the other hand, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense as the Coliseum has been renovated for concerts and the Islanders would have trouble leasing out the arena when they aren't playing. Would have made more sense to just renovate the Nassau Coliseum for both hockey and concerts.)

There is an interesting long-term issue about Belmont-Aqueduct. There's probably more than a negligible amount of money to be saved by NYRA by operating one plant instead of two. But I am skeptical that the hockey arena plan has anything to do with that.

[sour grapes]

brooklyn is a borough in nyc,suffolk and nassau counties make up long island.
fact is the islanders were getting more people to go to nassau coliseum than are going to brooklyn.the city is ranger country,beleive me the biigest complaint of islander fans is the commute of 2 hours each way to get to barclays while if you live in nassau or suffolk at most its a 25 minute drive.

[Thomas Roulston]

If it comes to pass, at least a part of the Belmont grandstand area could be enclosed. The coldest I've ever been at a race track was a day with temperatures in the fifties at Belmont and the wind whistling through.


The wind chill must have been in the 20s for the Breeders' Cup in 1990 - which I attended.

And if Belmont Park ever was torn down, the Belmont Stakes would likely be shortened to 1 3/8 miles - the distance it was when Man o'War won it, which would sure warm the heart of D. Wayne Lukas. Some sort of chute would be built to make the run down the stretch the first time more straight.

[cj]

brooklyn is a borough in nyc,suffolk and nassau counties make up long island.
fact is the islanders were getting more people to go to nassau coliseum than are going to brooklyn.the city is ranger country,beleive me the biigest complaint of islander fans is the commute of 2 hours each way to get to barclays while if you live in nassau or suffolk at most its a 25 minute drive.

Brooklyn is technically on Long Island as is Queens. But most people, as in nearly everyone, are referring to the two counties you mention when saying "Long Island".

Just trying to put an end to that argument and get back to racing. :)

[dilanesp]

brooklyn is a borough in nyc,suffolk and nassau counties make up long island.

I don't want to harp on this, and I live over on the other side of the country, but I could have sworn that the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island. Am I wrong?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

One of the suggestions I've made is to make the racetrack a multiple use destination.

Realistically, how do you justify a facility that is used by the public only part of the year for five or six hours a day? You’ve got to have additional revenue streams, and I don’t mean just a casino or upping the prices for parking, admission and programs. In fact, general parking should be free, the grandstand admission should be $5 and you should get a $3 betting only voucher in return.

I was at the South Pointe Hotel and Casino recently. It’s on Las Vegas Boulevard, but about seven miles from the wall-to-wall casino part of the strip, so it has to be relatively self-contained. It had 11 restaurants, a big multiplex movie theater, a large bowling alley, a bingo parlor, meeting rooms, a show room – you could stay there for three days and never get outside, which thinking about it is probably the point. Tracks should have a great sports bar, a nightclub, some good shopping – and I don’t mean just the gift shop – for those who might bring someone who isn’t quite as interested in the horses, good restaurants where you would be happy to stay after the races and eat dinner, recreational opportunities for the kids that are out of any area where people are betting – you get the idea. Design a destination that will generate traffic from morning until late at night. And if people show up for lunch or dinner and only bet a few bucks, that’s still more than the track would get if they never showed up in the first place.

In the right location, a hotel/conference center would be a good revenue source. The shops and restaurants should have separate outside entrances, and if you spend any money at one, your track admission is free. The track makes money on a lease, people have a reason to go to the track other than horseracing, it becomes far more attractive to millennials, and you can accommodate people who wouldn’t go to the track unless they could induce family/friends to come along. The track also becomes a year-round destination if it is designed right.

As much as I love the racing at Belmont - it is one of the great turf racing venues in America - it is the better choice for closure and they've already got a head start on the additional revenue streams. That being said, I would be fine with Aqueduct staying a mile and an eighth on the main, getting rid of the inner and putting in a second turf course THAT IS DESIGNED LIKE EURO COURSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE EVEN IN WET WEATHER. Of course, that would mean the end of winter racing in NY, which is fine with me. The product has gotten crappier each year, and I have a feeling it stays open to a large degree because of state-bred horses. Aqueduct would run April 1 to early/mid July, and then from the close of Saratoga to November 1. It would also bring up the discussion of extending the Saratoga meeting another two weeks, which would also be fine with me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't want to harp on this, and I live over on the other side of the country, but I could have sworn that the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island. Am I wrong?

Even I would have to agree with you on that. Geographically they are, but politically and culturally Long Island to anyone from New York means Nassau and Suffolk counties.

[cj]

I don't want to harp on this, and I live over on the other side of the country, but I could have sworn that the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island. Am I wrong?

I already cleared this up...why are you harping on it?

[Bigadam119]

I don't see how in any way shape or form Belmont Park closing would be good for horse racing. We're talking about probably the most historic track in racing. This would be the end in my opinion.

[cj]

I don't see how in any way shape or form Belmont Park closing would be good for horse racing. We're talking about probably the most historic track in racing. This would be the end in my opinion.

It probably will never happen, but don't think for a second that New York politicians care about what is good for horse racing.

[SuperPickle]

It probably will never happen, but don't think for a second that New York politicians care about what is good for horse racing.

I honestly think they give up Aqueduct and rebuild Belmont. I think a lot of it is political theatrics. However like CJ said I'd never undersell NY politicians.

[PaceAdvantage]

Belmont isn't going anywhere. And anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up.

Yes, there may be development at Belmont, but the track itself? No way is it going away.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't see how in any way shape or form Belmont Park closing would be good for horse racing. We're talking about probably the most historic track in racing. This would be the end in my opinion.

You'd be right about it being the most historic track in racing as long as you don't count Saratoga (1863) and Churchill (1875).

Belmont Park opened in 1905.

The amount of money it would take to refurbish Belmont would be enormous, and it really makes no sense to spend that kind of money so you can have two major tracks within spitting distance of each other. The other option is to basically sell off everything at Aqueduct except for the casino and use the money to refurbish/repair/rebuild Belmont. Aqueduct has had the charm of a 1950's built factory, although from an historical perspective, Aqueduct is 11 years older than Belmont.

At the turn of the century horseracing was not just the sport of kings, it was the king of sports. In addition to Belmont, Saratoga, and Aqueduct, the old Jamaica Race Track was open until 1959. Suppose you had to make a business decision, not an emotional one. As long as you have to pay operating costs on facilities that are not in use half the year, you have no chance to drop the take, which should be the number one outcome of any decision you make. It makes no sense to have two tracks operating in the NY metro area anymore, and it certainly doesn't make sense to be paying all the operating expenses on a closed track while the other is running. So you tell me. If you wanted to make racing profitable for NYRA (or the state) without having to gouge players, would you run three tracks through the year? Or would you close one in an effort to save money?

Tons of people will make emotional arguments for tracks that have "historical" value. Pimlico comes to mind. Hollywood Park (opened 1938, which is really old for California) had plenty of history. You have an argument for how it was bad for racing to close it?

[rastajenk]

Speaking of year-round seasons at multiple venues, I'd like to suggest that the background picture be updated...time for greener pastures. :coffee:

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I cant see Belmont closing. I do agree it seems crazy having two tracks located 9 miles apart but think Aqueduct closing is more realistic especially with Genting having its hooks in it.

A decent amount of capex has been put into Belmont and alot more will be needed. If winter racing will be moving there from Aqueduct they will certainly have to winterize at least some of the grandstand. Another thing to consider is the way the sun hits the track, or lack there of which would certainly affect the surface in the winter months.

Not sure if it can be done or has been done, but is there any way to put some type of heating mechanism in the base of the main track to keep it from freezing? I would think that would be the answer to the track freezing. I honestly have no idea if this is realistic.

[onefast99]

PA, He's not wrong. Actually the idea of closing Belmont and keeping Aqueduct is gaining momentum in political circles. Here's the background...

Everyone has know for 20-30 years that retaining two tracks 20 miles apart in suburban NYC is unrealistic. Everyone has always assumed Aqueduct would close because it's less attractive to Horseman and more attractive to development because it's closer to NYC.

I generally have few good things to saw about horsemen groups but the horsemen know they can't have two tracks and actually have a plan. Their plan is and always has been to use giving Aqueduct in exchange for a fully renovated Belmont.

Now these are two things have changed that affect Belmont...

1. The horsemen have under estimated the amount of work Belmont needs. It's now in the same boat as Pimlico. It's too expensive to renovate. It needs to be torn down and re-built. So sooner or later Belmont does need to be torn down whether you rebuild it or not. The horsemen now want to do a Meadowlands deal where the existing grandstand is torn down and a new, smaller one is built somewhere else. I don't know Belmont well enough but I believe it would be on the Hempstead Higheay side????

2. The horsemen assumed that once the casino went in at Aqueduct it would make it more attractive for redevelopment giving them some leverage to get the deal they want at Belmont. Here's where things got off the track. The Aqueduct casino is the most profitable casino in the country. It's a massive gravy train. Everyone getting that gravy realized that re-development Aqueduct would put NYC's largest construction project surrounding their gravy train. So in short there's a real concern that construction at Aqueduct would impact casino revenue and we can't have that happen.

So now you have a growing concept among politicians and political appointees that rather than mess with Aqueduct let's take Belmont and give the horsemen Aqueduct since the casino is already there and they can figure it out because we don't give a shit about horse racing. I know this idea is stupid to us but keep in mind politicians understand less than zero about horse racing.

So to sum it up yes there's a real scenario Belmont goes away and if you see that as fake news you're vastly underestimating the stupidity of NY politicians.
It was the top tax generating gaming property in the USA for May 2016. Not the most profitable as you claim.

[SuperPickle]

It was the top tax generating gaming property in the USA for May 2016. Not the most profitable as you claim.


People at NYRA refer to that way. Whether its true is not is irrelevant. The point is its a golden goose and everyone enjoying the goose is terrified to touch it.

[SuperPickle]

Belmont isn't going anywhere. And anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up.

Yes, there may be development at Belmont, but the track itself? No way is it going away.


PA, I think you'll agree with this assessment. Do you think having the Islanders, a team who's whole fan base in on Long Island, generally central Long Island, play in Brooklyn rather than build an arena on Long Island is any more stupid to hockey fans than shutting Belmont and racing at Aqueduct is to horse racing fans?

My point is its a bold statement to say this "could never happen" when in fact the same group of humans who control Belmont's future already did something THIS stupid.

I'm not sure you've been to the Barclay's Center but it has ZERO parking. You can not drive to it. Combine that with hockey games generally starting at 7pm meaning Long Island hockey fans have to fight rush hour commuters to attend games. Anyone with a triple digit IO could see this would be the trainwreck it currently it is.

I would peg the chance of Belmont being developed at less than 10% and the chance of Aqueduct being developed at over 90%. But as Prince said "never is a really long time."

However I'll leave you with this thought. Politicians are the reason this whole problem exists and the Islanders moved to Brooklyn, failed, and now have to go somewhere else. Politicians are the reason the Prudential Center was built in downtown Newark instead of the Meadowlands and the Devils rank 27th in NHL attendance last season (the Islanders in Brooklyn ranked 28th.) And finally politicians are the geniuses behind everyone's favorite boondoggle Xanadu which was launched in 2002 and now 15 years later have never been opened to the public.

So be careful when you say "never" because there's a whole group of politicians who have made a career out of making the "never" happen.

[Bigadam119]

You'd be right about it being the most historic track in racing as long as you don't count Saratoga (1863) and Churchill (1875).

Belmont Park opened in 1905.

The amount of money it would take to refurbish Belmont would be enormous, and it really makes no sense to spend that kind of money so you can have two major tracks within spitting distance of each other. The other option is to basically sell off everything at Aqueduct except for the casino and use the money to refurbish/repair/rebuild Belmont. Aqueduct has had the charm of a 1950's built factory, although from an historical perspective, Aqueduct is 11 years older than Belmont.

At the turn of the century horseracing was not just the sport of kings, it was the king of sports. In addition to Belmont, Saratoga, and Aqueduct, the old Jamaica Race Track was open until 1959. Suppose you had to make a business decision, not an emotional one. As long as you have to pay operating costs on facilities that are not in use half the year, you have no chance to drop the take, which should be the number one outcome of any decision you make. It makes no sense to have two tracks operating in the NY metro area anymore, and it certainly doesn't make sense to be paying all the operating expenses on a closed track while the other is running. So you tell me. If you wanted to make racing profitable for NYRA (or the state) without having to gouge players, would you run three tracks through the year? Or would you close one in an effort to save money?

Tons of people will make emotional arguments for tracks that have "historical" value. Pimlico comes to mind. Hollywood Park (opened 1938, which is really old for California) had plenty of history. You have an argument for how it was bad for racing to close it?

I didn't mean historic as in the oldest track. I meant historical as the track with the most historical moments in racing. Of all the greatest horses we've seen, the majority have raced at Belmont Park. How many iconic moments that would span further than the people who are at the track every week happened at Hollywood park?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

New York has been having this fight since Robert Moses told Walter O'Malley that the Dodgers were going to Flushing Meadows but they weren't staying in Brooklyn, while New York City told the baseball Giants...pretty much nothing, sentencing them to decades at Candlestick Park, where you always had a knit cap and ski gloves in your pocket if you attended night games.

A few years ago, the aquarium in Denver opened to great fanfare but within two years they had hit the skids. It was panic time. Every great city needs an aquarium after all. The best part was when they interviewed people, they all were insistent we had to save the aquarium. However, when they asked how many times they had visited the aquarium in the last year, they would admit maybe once.

The point is that people develop emotional attachments to things, even if they don't make any business sense or they don't support them to the degree needed to keep them economically viable. Like putting an aquarium called Ocean Journey a thousand miles from the nearest ocean because, I don't know, nobody gets Animal Planet on cable and otherwise thousands of landlocked children would never know what a cuttlefish looks like.

There is little question no sane planner would put two tracks a stone's throw from each other in 2017 much less making one of them a mile and a half in circumference so that you can run mile and an eighth races around one turn. Although considering I almost got killed in Ozone Park, perhaps I should shift my one track allegiance to Belmont.

Considering we thought a "businessman" should run the country, maybe we should turn over decision making at NYRA to an equally large businessman.

[Run Nicholas Run]

thats nonsense about belmont closing , as I was still living in ozone park years ago when there was talk about the Big A getting lights and having night time
harness racing and yonkers closing, we see how that worked out.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I didn't mean historic as in the oldest track. I meant historical as the track with the most historical moments in racing. Of all the greatest horses we've seen, the majority have raced at Belmont Park. How many iconic moments that would span further than the people who are at the track every week happened at Hollywood park?

I knew what you meant.

Not to prolong this, and it really isn't worth having a sports talk radio argument about it, but even using your measure of the greatest horses, Saratoga and Churchill still come out ahead of Belmont in terms of racing's greatest moments, and I'm not sure you could find a lot of racing fans to disagree with that. Not that there haven't been great moments at Belmont.

Frankly, I wasn't suggesting Hollywood Park was the equivalent of Belmont, but for people who were great fans of Hollywood Park, it did have historical value, the point being when they decided to close Hollywood the people who were attached to the track made the same type of "historical" arguments.

Do this as a poll question in an effort to discern the most historical track. You have to close one of these two tracks: Saratoga or Belmont. Which one wins? And I'll be the poll isn't close.

But even if Belmont is the most historical track ever, the decision needs to be a business decision, not an emotional one.

[rastajenk]

I'm not sure I want to buy in to the side that claims having two tracks is inefficient. One is engineered to grind out the product for five months, the other is better equipped for showing off the sport side of racing at the highest level for another 5.5 months. A nearly year-round schedule at one place makes racing even more tedious than it already is.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not sure I want to buy in to the side that claims having two tracks is inefficient. One is engineered to grind out the product for five months, the other is better equipped for showing off the sport side of racing at the highest level for another 5.5 months. A nearly year-round schedule at one place makes racing even more tedious than it already is.

Do you think upkeep on a facility that is not used for racing seven months out of the year is efficient? Is the cost irrelevant to the bottom line of NYRA? Would you own a Home Depot and Lowe's and keep one open six months, one open five months, and then close them both and open an Ace Hardware for six weeks? How does having a racing factory and a garden track have anything to do with efficiency, and how does closing one track prevent the other from showing the sport side of racing at the highest level?

There are two sensible things to do. Make one of the two tracks a 12-month entertainment destination so that you have viable revenue streams beyond the racing, and have racing go dark from mid-November to mid-March. They are giving us a lousy product in the winter, and with other revenue streams (and no need to distribute purses) they can stay revenue neutral.

If you don't believe contraction in the racing business is ultimately going to have to happen you're fooling yourself. It's that or extinction.

[sour grapes]

the big a also stables 900 horses for training during the off season,its possible to build more stables at belmont but to say it is completly idle from may to november is wrong.

[lamboguy]

Do you think upkeep on a facility that is not used for racing seven months out of the year is efficient? Is the cost irrelevant to the bottom line of NYRA? Would you own a Home Depot and Lowe's and keep one open six months, one open five months, and then close them both and open an Ace Hardware for six weeks? How does having a racing factory and a garden track have anything to do with efficiency, and how does closing one track prevent the other from showing the sport side of racing at the highest level?

There are two sensible things to do. Make one of the two tracks a 12-month entertainment destination so that you have viable revenue streams beyond the racing, and have racing go dark from mid-November to mid-March. They are giving us a lousy product in the winter, and with other revenue streams (and no need to distribute purses) they can stay revenue neutral.

If you don't believe contraction in the racing business is ultimately going to have to happen you're fooling yourself. It's that or extinction.i couldn't disagree more. for racing to exist you are going to need more tracks, but more important the game needs parity just like in any other sport.


there are so many people out there that would love nothing more than to either bet or take part in ownership in this game but will not do it until there are structural changes to game made.

you can cutback all the tracks you want and that is only going to lead to less people being interested and is a surefire way to get rid of the game altogether.

[HorsemenHeist]

Tons of people will make emotional arguments for tracks that have "historical" value. Pimlico comes to mind. Hollywood Park (opened 1938, which is really old for California) had plenty of history. You have an argument for how it was bad for racing to close it?


Hollywood Park closing has been disastrous for Southern California racing. The best surface to train on was gone and the CHRB still hasn't figured out the stabling/scheduling situation as it seems to change every year and it's been 4 years. Things could have been different if Churchill hadn't sold the track to the killers, but that's a discussion for another day. The old Hollywood Park stakes schedule has truly been bastardized. And who really wants to see Santa Anita racing in June-July in nearly 100 degree heat anyway?

[HorsemenHeist]

i couldn't disagree more. for racing to exist you are going to need more tracks, but more important the game needs parity just like in any other sport.


there are so many people out there that would love nothing more than to either bet or take part in ownership in this game but will not do it until there are structural changes to game made.

you can cutback all the tracks you want and that is only going to lead to less people being interested and is a surefire way to get rid of the game altogether.

Absolutely agree... I can agree with cutting race days but advocating for closing tracks takes away fan interest, jobs in the sport, and general enthusiasm about the health of the sport. Many a racing fan got their starts at the types of tracks that are closing. That is a whole generation of racing fan that the sport is losing.

[onefast99]

People at NYRA refer to that way. Whether its true is not is irrelevant. The point is its a golden goose and everyone enjoying the goose is terrified to touch it.
For the time being the goose that continues to lay the golden eggs will supply plenty of $ to NYRA. As we are now seeing in West Virginia and Pa (Parx),to name just a few, the days are numbered for the large contributions to horse purses from the slots due to the monies being needed elsewhere in those states. 2018 will be a year that could define the future of the Racino and racing itself unless a new revenue stream is developed, which could be sports wagering.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure you've been to the Barclay's Center but it has ZERO parking. You can not drive to it. Combine that with hockey games generally starting at 7pm meaning Long Island hockey fans have to fight rush hour commuters to attend games. Anyone with a triple digit IO could see this would be the trainwreck it currently it is.To be accurate, they aren't fighting rush hour at all...in fact, they are reverse commuting, so the trains they are riding in on are pretty empty, since most everyone is travelling the opposite way at that point in the day...so...actually, taking the train to the Barclay center is pretty damn easy.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

i couldn't disagree more. for racing to exist you are going to need more tracks, but more important the game needs parity just like in any other sport.


there are so many people out there that would love nothing more than to either bet or take part in ownership in this game but will not do it until there are structural changes to game made.

you can cutback all the tracks you want and that is only going to lead to less people being interested and is a surefire way to get rid of the game altogether.

From an economic perspective, more tracks will simply cannibalize each other, keeping handle less than what it could be. You simply don't have the horses to sustain even as many meets as there currently are. As the number of starters per race decreases, things will continue to get worse. If you want to kill racing quicker, dilute the product even more than it already is.

Considering the shift from people attending live to playing on line - even retail stores are losing business rapidly to on-line retailers - there is less need for 3 or 4 physical plants per state than there has ever been.

If the laws of business and economics don't apply to racing, that would be one thing. But they do. The way to get more people interested is to offer a top-rate product where people have a reasonable chance to win, which is hardly how we would describe racing at a majority of tracks.

As I mentioned, I have nothing against the people who go to the track once or twice a year, but to develop a loyal fan base you have to satisfy the players who would regularly bet good money. You do that by growing the handle and dropping the take, which will never happen while racing is in its current state.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Absolutely agree... I can agree with cutting race days but advocating for closing tracks takes away fan interest, jobs in the sport, and general enthusiasm about the health of the sport. Many a racing fan got their starts at the types of tracks that are closing. That is a whole generation of racing fan that the sport is losing.

What is your solution? I already proposed that for tracks that close, you can develop a revenue sharing agreement to keep the state breeding industry going, and you an run a meet at a track in an adjacent state with simulcasting back. Having a simulcasting operation can keep fan interest at previous levels. You think the current structure is doing anything to capture millennials? Racing is failing and it's not because they are doing everything right. You know the definition of insanity. Doing the same things the same way and expecting a different result.

[dilanesp]

i couldn't disagree more. for racing to exist you are going to need more tracks, but more important the game needs parity just like in any other sport.


there are so many people out there that would love nothing more than to either bet or take part in ownership in this game but will not do it until there are structural changes to game made.

you can cutback all the tracks you want and that is only going to lead to less people being interested and is a surefire way to get rid of the game altogether.

I don't think that is true at all. The one race non-horse racing people still care about is at a track most of them will never go to.

The future of the sport is a handful of mega-tracks, plus a few boutique meets and lots of wagering on the Internet.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

i couldn't disagree more. for racing to exist you are going to need more tracks, but more important the game needs parity just like in any other sport.


there are so many people out there that would love nothing more than to either bet or take part in ownership in this game but will not do it until there are structural changes to game made.

you can cutback all the tracks you want and that is only going to lead to less people being interested and is a surefire way to get rid of the game altogether.


Myself, along with plenty others i have know, fell in love with the sport by GOING to the track. I don't know many people that became interested watching simulcast at some OTB or a TV broadcast.

My wife and her parents came to Jersey from Ohio. They had no idea racing existed outside of Kentucky. When i suggested going to the track one day and bringing her parents, she couldnt believe there was racing in Jersey. They love it now, and go to both Monmouth as well as Belmont and Saratoga.

Yes, they were lucky to visit some great facilities for their first time. But even other fans love their little home tracks and became interested in it. Whether that is Wyoming Downs, ND horse park, fair racing, they all served as an introduction into the sport. In the long run, fewer tracks IMO will lead to fewer fans.

[VeryOldMan]

From an economic perspective, more tracks will simply cannibalize each other, keeping handle less than what it could be. You simply don't have the horses to sustain even as many meets as there currently are. As the number of starters per race decreases, things will continue to get worse. If you want to kill racing quicker, dilute the product even more than it already is.

Considering the shift from people attending live to playing on line - even retail stores are losing business rapidly to on-line retailers - there is less need for 3 or 4 physical plants per state than there has ever been.

+1

I've disagreed on the board with Halv but couldn't be in more agreement re the online issue.

For example - I loved the Sunday afternoon live racing at CT. Could stand by the finish line, watch the horses in the paddock, have fun, make some money, etc. - as a recreational player. It's gone. CT horse racing is maintained solely for the casino. CT could be shut down on the racing front and few would notice.

[lamboguy]

I don't think that is true at all. The one race non-horse racing people still care about is at a track most of them will never go to.

The future of the sport is a handful of mega-tracks, plus a few boutique meets and lots of wagering on the Internet.that is wrong and this is why, American racing was built on racing everywhere to attract local fans. by closing tracks you are discouraging fans from supporting the local product.

but seriously even if they built 100 new tracks all over the place that wouldn't help unless you also change the structure of the game.

the game used to have racing 6 days a week in lots of tracks with 9 races, now in many places you are down to 3 or 4 days a week with 8 races a day in some places. all this and numbers keep on declining.

don't get me wrong, conventional theory which is wrong most of the time thinks you need to diminish the amount of races, dates and places that horses race.

in short the game needs to be run right and expanded.

[Hambletonian]

Belmont Park will never be torn town, not in my lifetime anyway.

Low on track attendance? You could say that for every track in the country with a few choice boutique-meet exceptions.

What are you going to do? Tear down Aqueduct and Belmont and leave only Saratoga to run in the Summer? Or should we tear that down too...yeah, that will go over well with all the jobs and $$$$ associated with the Thoroughbred industry in NY.

Your post = fake news.

Come on, PA, that is a little harsh. And I can't tell how visionary you are about the "not in my lifetime" quote, you could be 80 years old and just hedging your bets!

I love live racing, was a track collector for many years, but it just seems that maintaining two huge facilities for the current usage is just a waste.

Sell off Belmont and Aqueduct and build a destination training center on Long Island or in the Hudson Valley. Plenty of stalls, no wasted space, sized for today's crowds.

The real estate is just way too valuable for what it is being used for.

Whether us old guys like it or not..live racing is dead as an entity, and once you are not worried about tracks being situated near population centers, a whole world of opportunities presents itself.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't think that is true at all. The one race non-horse racing people still care about is at a track most of them will never go to.

The future of the sport is a handful of mega-tracks, plus a few boutique meets and lots of wagering on the Internet.

That's twice we've agreed in a week.

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you realize how much money betting on NYRA gets the state of NY? Look at their yearly handle numbers on AQU & BEL, then figure the cut of NYS. Let's not even count Saratoga.

NYRA is the highest handle producer in the country...is it not? And you're going to mess with that? Not to mention the NYS Breeding Industry. Not to mention all the other jobs associated with the racing industry in NY.

And for what? Another mall? Hell, they could build an arena on the Belmont site and not even touch the track.

Good luck with your theory. Never going to happen, at least at Belmont.

[cnollfan]

Myself, along with plenty others i have know, fell in love with the sport by GOING to the track. I don't know many people that became interested watching simulcast at some OTB or a TV broadcast.



I agree with this. Aside from the Kentucky Derby (and the potential of a Triple Crown winner), simulcast racing does nothing for people who aren't fans to begin with. Attending live racing is what creates new fans, even if it's at a podunk track.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

that is wrong and this is why, American racing was built on racing everywhere to attract local fans. by closing tracks you are discouraging fans from supporting the local product.
That's what they said right before they built that new WalMart that wound up putting all those "local products" out of business. You always get those people who will support the local guy, but ultimately lower prices and mega-stocked shelves win out.

There are 30 professional football teams in America. If there were 50 would we get even more people whacked out about football? I can tell you in places like Denver or Dallas there are tons of people who have never gone to a game or have only been a couple of times, but during the football season the front page of the paper and the lead story on the local news is the Broncos or the Cowboys. World War III could have started at halftime to the game and they'd wait until the game was over to break in with the news. Half of the states in America don't have a football team, but every single one of them is full of football fanatics.

A small handful of people went to the track as adults and fell in love with racing. The great majority of people either had relatives who were fans or watched the Derby on TV and thought it was an exciting sport, but I'd be hard pressed to believe someone went to Aqueduct and said, I want to hang out here on weekends. On any given day at Saratoga or Del Mar, most of the people are making their annual pilgrimage, but are not 12 month a year players.


the game used to have racing 6 days a week in lots of tracks with 9 races, now in many places you are down to 3 or 4 days a week with 8 races a day in some places. all this and numbers keep on declining.

don't get me wrong, conventional theory which is wrong most of the time thinks you need to diminish the amount of races, dates and places that horses race.

in short the game needs to be run right and expanded.
You could put a million hula hoops on the shelves and not sell very many. The demand is not there. Again, they play 15 professional football games in a full week. If they played more games, would the sport increase in popularity? Ever hear the phrase less is more?

Tracks that are giving players a basically low-grade product could run two cards a day and not see handle increase. We don't need more tracks as much as we need better tracks with better racing. You can make racing a seven day a week sport by distributing the racing days among tracks. But what you can't do is have 30 tracks competing with each other on a Saturday during the summer. It's not 1930 where you had to find a local track if you wanted to either bet OR watch a race. It's 2017 and you can bet any track, anywhere, and watch everyone of the races on your computer. You don't need 9 races, six days a week. This weekend I can bet 200 races at 20 tracks. And you don't think that is about 150 more races than we need to bet?

As for running the game right, I couldn't agree more, except what I think is right is running it like a smart business should be run, not the way it is currently run.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Do you realize how much money betting on NYRA gets the state of NY? Look at their yearly handle numbers on AQU & BEL, then figure the cut of NYS. Let's not even count Saratoga.

NYRA is the highest handle producer in the country...is it not? And you're going to mess with that? Not to mention the NYS Breeding Industry. Not to mention all the other jobs associated with the racing industry in NY.

And for what? Another mall? Hell, they could build an arena on the Belmont site and not even touch the track.

Good luck with your theory. Never going to happen, at least at Belmont.

So one track running an equivalent number of days isn't the same as two tracks running those days? If they closed Aqueduct, who would miss it? And if they closed Belmont but made Aqueduct more attractive, how long do you figure it would take to get over that? I have an idea. Let's just change the name from Aqueduct to New Belmont. Like from Philadelphia Park to Parx. A rose by any other name.

And what happens if they shut Aqueduct or Belmont? People are going to be so miffed the handle is going to plummet? You can't mess with closing one of the tracks because we have a winning formula of spending oodles of money unnecessarily on upkeep of two facilities? You can't mess with having a facility that is open to customers six hours a day and is closed between 30 and 35 weeks a year?

You bet if I'm the state I'm hoping you run 365 days a year. The only thing better than horseracing would be if the state started running a protection racket. Name me a business other than gambling where the state takes a cut off the top and could give a rat's ass whether the business makes any money after they snatch theirs.

I'm going to throw one other thing into the mix. If you have a sports destination you better be able to handle the traffic that is generated.

The question is hardly whether two tracks can survive. I guess the answer to that is yes. The question is how do we maximize the bottom line for NYRA in an effort to make the game have a lower take.

You're a New Yorker. So was I. Forget the track. Considering location only, at which place would you rather attend the races?

[elhelmete]

So one track running an equivalent number of days isn't the same as two tracks running those days? If they closed Aqueduct, who would miss it? And if they closed Belmont but made Aqueduct more attractive, how long do you figure it would take to get over that?

I have no numbers to back me up, so feel free to toss my comments BUT on this matter I am answering here as a fan and fan only, and a SoCal living one at that:

It matters.

Santa Anita all year gets boring. It shouldn't, but it does.

Hollywood Park was a dump. I miss it. Miss the change, miss seeing different distances and layouts and whatnot.

I'm sure having 2 tracks that close, with their huge real estate parcels and physical plants, is the opposite of having economies of scale...but it still works. I believe there's a way to maximize the strengths of AQU and BEL to keep them both open.

[Hambletonian]

Do you realize how much money betting on NYRA gets the state of NY? Look at their yearly handle numbers on AQU & BEL, then figure the cut of NYS. Let's not even count Saratoga.

NYRA is the highest handle producer in the country...is it not? And you're going to mess with that? Not to mention the NYS Breeding Industry. Not to mention all the other jobs associated with the racing industry in NY.

And for what? Another mall? Hell, they could build an arena on the Belmont site and not even touch the track.

Good luck with your theory. Never going to happen, at least at Belmont.

You are just being a romantic.

Ask yourself this question. Would anyone build that facility on that amount of acreage today, with only racing handle to support it?

Also, do you seriously believe the handle on a replacement track elsewhere would go down?

Belmont is not Saratoga. It is not Churchill Downs. It is located in an area where most people would not give a hoot if it disappeared tomorrow. And considering the graveyard of tracks in NYC and environs, I would think that the past indicates quite strongly that Belmont will not be there forever.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have no numbers to back me up, so feel free to toss my comments BUT on this matter I am answering here as a fan and fan only, and a SoCal living one at that:

It matters.

Santa Anita all year gets boring. It shouldn't, but it does.

Hollywood Park was a dump. I miss it. Miss the change, miss seeing different distances and layouts and whatnot.

I'm sure having 2 tracks that close, with their huge real estate parcels and physical plants, is the opposite of having economies of scale...but it still works. I believe there's a way to maximize the strengths of AQU and BEL to keep them both open.

I've been to Santa Anita often enough to know I could hang out there every weekend without getting bored, but that's me.

And remember the Belmont meeting is split in half by Saratoga.

I just have the same question. Considering NYRA operates all the AQU, BEL and SAR, would closing either AQU or BEL increase the bottom line enough that we could see a reduction in take (as opposed to what the horsemen would advocate for - bigger purses)?

'Cause at the end of the day if NYRA dropped the take, they would increase the handle even more and go from being the best racing in the country to the best-est racing in the country.

[PaceAdvantage]

Belmont is not Saratoga. It is not Churchill Downs.Whatever man. Yeah, Belmont is on par with Hollywood Park and Hawthorne. :rolleyes:

If any track goes, it's Aqueduct, not Belmont.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Whatever man. Yeah, Belmont is on par with Hollywood Park and Hawthorne. :rolleyes:

If any track goes, it's Aqueduct, not Belmont.

There's a way to determine which of the two tracks would be more advantageous to close. I'd live with the decision as long as the analysis was done fairly.

[jk3521]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage;

If any track goes, it's Aqueduct, not Belmont.[/QUOTE]


Belmont is a diamond, Aqueduct is a lump of coal.

[lamboguy]

That's what they said right before they built that new WalMart that wound up putting all those "local products" out of business. You always get those people who will support the local guy, but ultimately lower prices and mega-stocked shelves win out.

There are 30 professional football teams in America. If there were 50 would we get even more people whacked out about football? I can tell you in places like Denver or Dallas there are tons of people who have never gone to a game or have only been a couple of times, but during the football season the front page of the paper and the lead story on the local news is the Broncos or the Cowboys. World War III could have started at halftime to the game and they'd wait until the game was over to break in with the news. Half of the states in America don't have a football team, but every single one of them is full of football fanatics.

A small handful of people went to the track as adults and fell in love with racing. The great majority of people either had relatives who were fans or watched the Derby on TV and thought it was an exciting sport, but I'd be hard pressed to believe someone went to Aqueduct and said, I want to hang out here on weekends. On any given day at Saratoga or Del Mar, most of the people are making their annual pilgrimage, but are not 12 month a year players.



You could put a million hula hoops on the shelves and not sell very many. The demand is not there. Again, they play 15 professional football games in a full week. If they played more games, would the sport increase in popularity? Ever hear the phrase less is more?

Tracks that are giving players a basically low-grade product could run two cards a day and not see handle increase. We don't need more tracks as much as we need better tracks with better racing. You can make racing a seven day a week sport by distributing the racing days among tracks. But what you can't do is have 30 tracks competing with each other on a Saturday during the summer. It's not 1930 where you had to find a local track if you wanted to either bet OR watch a race. It's 2017 and you can bet any track, anywhere, and watch everyone of the races on your computer. You don't need 9 races, six days a week. This weekend I can bet 200 races at 20 tracks. And you don't think that is about 150 more races than we need to bet?

As for running the game right, I couldn't agree more, except what I think is right is running it like a smart business should be run, not the way it is currently run.
think about what you just wrote for a second and take the clock back 60 years when the population in our country was about 100 million people and race tracks were packed on weekday afternoons. now fast forward to 2017 where the population is something like 325 million people and the attendance at the race track is less than 10% of what it was 60 years, and the amount of owners of race horses is about 20% of what it was back then. people are obviously either scared or completely turned off by horse racing. take my word on this, people love horses and horse racing and are dying to have reason's to be fans, owner's and participants of the sport. the game flat out sucks from all levels now. if you want to get rid of the game then the best way to do it would be to first ignore the customer of the sport like they have been doing the last 50 years and then close up more and more tracks and eventually you will have no farms breeding horses and no one to buy horses from those farms here to race them and nobody interested in the game one way or the other and then we won't have this conversation either.

[barahona44]

think about what you just wrote for a second and take the clock back 60 years when the population in our country was about 100 million people and race tracks were packed on weekday afternoons. now fast forward to 2017 where the population is something like 325 million people and the attendance at the race track is less than 10% of what it was 60 years, and the amount of owners of race horses is about 20% of what it was back then. people are obviously either scared or completely turned off by horse racing. take my word on this, people love horses and horse racing and are dying to have reason's to be fans, owner's and participants of the sport. the game flat out sucks from all levels now. if you want to get rid of the game then the best way to do it would be to first ignore the customer of the sport like they have been doing the last 50 years and then close up more and more tracks and eventually you will have no farms breeding horses and no one to buy horses from those farms here to race them and nobody interested in the game one way or the other and then we won't have this conversation either.

The stands were packed because outside of Nevada, it was the only place to make a legal wager.Adjusted for inflation, handle hit its peak in 1964, the same year New Hampshire had the first lottery.When it was a success, other states quickly followed and horse racing started its long, slow descent.I think horse racing will have to be treated as a niche sport moving forward; it is simply never going to have a fraction of the impact it once did.

[lamboguy]

The stands were packed because outside of Nevada, it was the only place to make a legal wager.Adjusted for inflation, handle hit its peak in 1964, the same year New Hampshire had the first lottery.When it was a success, other states quickly followed and horse racing started its long, slow descent.I think horse racing will have to be treated as a niche sport moving forward; it is simply never going to have a fraction of the impact it once did.they got lotteries all over the world like in France where handles are only increasing year by year and the same with Sweeden, not to mention Hong Kong, Australia and South Africa. that lottery is a very poor excuse around the world these days for falling handles in the United States.

[dilanesp]

The stands were packed because outside of Nevada, it was the only place to make a legal wager.Adjusted for inflation, handle hit its peak in 1964, the same year New Hampshire had the first lottery.When it was a success, other states quickly followed and horse racing started its long, slow descent.I think horse racing will have to be treated as a niche sport moving forward; it is simply never going to have a fraction of the impact it once did.

This is probably right, but also tastes change.

Think about boxing. Boxing was one of the "big three" sports 80 years ago, alongside baseball and horse racing. Championship fights drew 60,000 people to Yankee Stadium and huge audiences on the radio. Now boxing is a niche sport. Pro football, which was minor in the 1930's, is now the biggest sport, and the NBA, which didn't exist at all, is second or third. And even sports like hockey and the UFC are bigger than boxing. So are figure skating, golf, and tennis really.

And notably, this isn't a marketing issue. It isn't as though horse racing or boxing could have stopped the rise of the NFL with better marketing.

80 years from now, tastes may change some more. Maybe the concussion and drug issues will hit football, and some commenters on an NFL forum will be posting on how to regain the sport's popularity. Meanwhile the World Snowboarding Championships will get the biggest television rating of the year.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

they got lotteries all over the world like in France where handles are only increasing year by year and the same with Sweeden, not to mention Hong Kong, Australia and South Africa. that lottery is a very poor excuse around the world these days for falling handles in the United States.

Your devotion to the sport is admirable, and I believe you really want to see it prosper. Ask yourself this question. Why did lotteries, sports betting, on-line poker (and poker rooms) and Daily Fantasy Sports proliferate while racing declined?

The answers are simple. When it comes to the lottery, any idiot with $2 can play, and despite the fact that the chances of winning are minuscule, the payoffs are so gigantic people do it anyway. Sports betting was a direct result of two things. One, you have a 50-50 chance of winning, and two, many people have an emotional stake in the outcome. You can bet sports and the lottery with very little handicapping skill. Poker is a game of skill, and that is one of the main reasons it is popular with millennials. And Daily Fantasy Sports is a great blend between sports betting on teams and players you care about, and a skill based game. Now if DFS are that popular, ask yourself why horseracing isn't, and the obvious answer is you have to pay a huge premium to play the horses. 15-30% to make a bet. You don't have to be a genius to figure out you're getting played for a sucker.

Most people think they know two things about American horse racing. It is rampant with illegal drugs (fake news), and it costs too much to play it. Solve those two problems and you have a chance.

[rastajenk]

Speaking of year-round seasons at multiple venues, I'd like to suggest that the background picture be updated...time for greener pastures. :coffee:
Nice....:jump:

:ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

This is probably right, but also tastes change.

Think about boxing. Boxing was one of the "big three" sports 80 years ago, alongside baseball and horse racing. Championship fights drew 60,000 people to Yankee Stadium and huge audiences on the radio. Now boxing is a niche sport. Pro football, which was minor in the 1930's, is now the biggest sport, and the NBA, which didn't exist at all, is second or third. And even sports like hockey and the UFC are bigger than boxing. So are figure skating, golf, and tennis really.

And notably, this isn't a marketing issue. It isn't as though horse racing or boxing could have stopped the rise of the NFL with better marketing.

80 years from now, tastes may change some more. Maybe the concussion and drug issues will hit football, and some commenters on an NFL forum will be posting on how to regain the sport's popularity. Meanwhile the World Snowboarding Championships will get the biggest television rating of the year.

I agree with you to a large extent, but I think on some level horse racing has been unable to shake its reputation as being somewhat seedy in terms of the kind of people that attend tracks, OTBs etc...

It's similar to the game of pool. Ralph Greenleaf was a huge celebrity in his day. But when you think of pool and pool rooms now many people still think of seedy gamblers, hustlers, and gangsters even though some modern pool rooms are date friendly and family oriented.

At the margin if you can turn these kinds of sports into "happenings" where celebrities and other well to do people hang out, imo that would help.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I agree with you to a large extent, but I think on some level horse racing has been unable to shake its reputation as being somewhat seedy in terms of the kind of people that attend tracks, OTBs etc...

It's similar to the game of pool. Ralph Greenleaf was a huge celebrity in his day. But when you think of pool and pool rooms now many people still think of seedy gamblers, hustlers, and gangsters even though some modern pool rooms are date friendly and family oriented.

At the margin if you can turn these kinds of sports into "happenings" where celebrities and other well to do people hang out, imo that would help.

As I've mentioned previously, you have to make tracks entertainment destinations. If you want to change the image of the track make people want to come for reasons beyond the races. You look at a property like Belmont and you have the room to do tons of things, from fine dining and shopping, to a major league sports bar, to a night club...you get the idea.

A key idea is to get the people who come to the track and win to spend some of their money on one of the other revenue streams. Imagine a smaller version of downtown Saratoga at Belmont (or Aqueduct), a place to wander around after the races, eat dinner, listen to some music, watch a baseball game at the sports bar. Lots of ideas that can be thrown around.

[aaron]

As I've mentioned previously, you have to make tracks entertainment destinations. If you want to change the image of the track make people want to come for reasons beyond the races. You look at a property like Belmont and you have the room to do tons of things, from fine dining and shopping, to a major league sports bar, to a night club...you get the idea.

A key idea is to get the people who come to the track and win to spend some of their money on one of the other revenue streams. Imagine a smaller version of downtown Saratoga at Belmont (or Aqueduct), a place to wander around after the races, eat dinner, listen to some music, watch a baseball game at the sports bar. Lots of ideas that can be thrown around.

It makes sense to me. If you look at the revenues of Casino's in Vegas,they have gone from a well over 50% gambling revenue to under 50%. The gambling lures the tourist, but they still want to do other things. Shows,dining,etc.
I have no idea if this approach will work with racing, but it is worth a try.

[onefast99]

As I've mentioned previously, you have to make tracks entertainment destinations. If you want to change the image of the track make people want to come for reasons beyond the races. You look at a property like Belmont and you have the room to do tons of things, from fine dining and shopping, to a major league sports bar, to a night club...you get the idea.

A key idea is to get the people who come to the track and win to spend some of their money on one of the other revenue streams. Imagine a smaller version of downtown Saratoga at Belmont (or Aqueduct), a place to wander around after the races, eat dinner, listen to some music, watch a baseball game at the sports bar. Lots of ideas that can be thrown around.Exactly what Frank did with GP and it worked, based in a year round climate. Now the summer meet will begin at GP and it looks as if the barns vacated by the snow bird trainers will be pretty full with Florida trainers including a lot of Tampa guys and those who elected not to go to Monmouth Park.

[Hambletonian]

Whatever man. Yeah, Belmont is on par with Hollywood Park and Hawthorne. :rolleyes:

If any track goes, it's Aqueduct, not Belmont.

I'll stop poking you now, I was just trying to think outside the box but I think I am just aggravating the spit out of you. I am a NYer, been to all the tracks many many times, and Belmont is quite lovely in the summer and fall.

On the other hand...this is an industry in permanent decline. And there is no reason to have a facility of that size in this day and age.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

WFAN’s Craig Carton dropped a bombshell during Thursday morning’s show, saying he has learned the Islanders have decided to relocate to a yet-to-be-constructed arena at Belmont Park down the road.

That's what I've always said. Hockey and horseracing go together like spaghetti and mustard.

[thespaah]

According to a report on WPIX-TV last week, Belmont Park is on a short list of sites being considered for a permanent new stadium for the NHL's New York Islanders, as neither the Barclays Center nor the just-reopened Nassau Coliseum conform to NHL "standards."

At least Aqueduct's racing surfaces would have to be redesigned if this happens. Since Parx has no separate winter dirt track, why does Aqueduct need one? Then the Inner Dirt Track can revert to a turf course - and the permanent rail that currently separates the Inner Dirt Track from the existing turf course can be dismantled, leading to an Arlington/Gulfstream/Laurel type scenario. The Saratoga meet would likely be lengthened as well.

No offense intended, but consider the source. I am willing to wager that WPIX management heard about this, and unwilling to place a high priority on any story regarding a horse racing facility, most likely sent a less experienced reporter to investigate, With that, the reporter in typical electronic journalism daily misconduct, did little if any research and reported items full of factual errors.
Not to criticize you or anyone else for posting a thread based on an item pertinent to the game, I would have sought out other sources to confirm before placing any credibility with the first to report.
Call me a cynic. Call me suspicious. I can tell you I have been burned by going with the first thing I saw on tv or heard on radio....Anyway, when I see a non industry specific news organization present a report, i call BS on the story until there is confirmation.

[thespaah]

If it comes to pass, at least a part of the Belmont grandstand area could be enclosed. The coldest I've ever been at a race track was a day with temperatures in the fifties at Belmont and the wind whistling through.

Breeders Cup 1990. I think the high temp was like 40. Sunny, But breezy and cold.

[thespaah]

Both the Belmont and Aqueduct properties are more valuable for non racing activities...and if it weren't for the massive cost of tearing down the Belmont grandstand there would probably be trial balloons being floated all the time. The greatest virtue of Belmont Park to the community is as open space, and not an entertainment center.

Considering low on track attendance, why do you need a track in the midst of a population center anyway?

Close both of them and construct an appropriately sized facility to suit the crowds of today somewhere where land is less valuable.

Land less valuable? Where? Ulster County? Or maybe the Southern Tier where the economy still sucks?
Maybe they could build a track on the old Parr Meadows site in Yaphank? That track closed 25 + years ago and the land is still vacant.

[thespaah]

Belmont Park will never be torn town, not in my lifetime anyway.

Low on track attendance? You could say that for every track in the country with a few choice boutique-meet exceptions.

What are you going to do? Tear down Aqueduct and Belmont and leave only Saratoga to run in the Summer? Or should we tear that down too...yeah, that will go over well with all the jobs and $$$$ associated with the Thoroughbred industry in NY.

Your post = fake news.

After reading the musings of some, I find myself wondering if that person proofread their post before hitting "submit reply"....Oh well

[thespaah]

Since when is Brooklyn not located on Long Island.

Seriously, they made a mistake moving to the Barclays Center, which is a terrible arena for hockey. It is designed to fit snugly around a basketball court and is full of obstructed views for hockey. Phoenix had the same problem and eventually had to build a new arena for the Coyotes.

And yeah, the Belmont Park site, which is literally right down the road from the old Nassau Coliseum, is a pretty good spot to put up a new arena for the Islanders. (On the other hand, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense as the Coliseum has been renovated for concerts and the Islanders would have trouble leasing out the arena when they aren't playing. Would have made more sense to just renovate the Nassau Coliseum for both hockey and concerts.)

There is an interesting long-term issue about Belmont-Aqueduct. There's probably more than a negligible amount of money to be saved by NYRA by operating one plant instead of two. But I am skeptical that the hockey arena plan has anything to do with that.

Yes Technically Brooklyn is part of the landmass that makes up "Long Island"..What you are forgetting is that Brooklyn has as much of a connection to Long Island proper as does Hartford, CT. These (Brooklyn and Long Island) are two different worlds.
Now, from what I understand about the newly renovated Nassau Coliseum, is that the job was done well.
At this point, I believe that the reason the NHL has declared the "Old/new" building off limits is political. I think the NHL powers that be, including that Gary Bettman person are pissed off because the taxpayers of Nassau county dared to defy the NHL with their refusal to allow for tax hikes to refurbish the arena. So I think the NHL, which has over my tenure as a hockey fan have made some mighty curious decisions regarding the direction of the league. The latest debacle is the expansion by one team and placing it of all freakin places, Las Vegas. That franchise is being set up for failure. Mark my words.
Anyway, If an arena is built near Belmont, I can only seeing that help the track.

[thespaah]

The wind chill must have been in the 20s for the Breeders' Cup in 1990 - which I attended.

And if Belmont Park ever was torn down, the Belmont Stakes would likely be shortened to 1 3/8 miles - the distance it was when Man o'War won it, which would sure warm the heart of D. Wayne Lukas. Some sort of chute would be built to make the run down the stretch the first time more straight.

I was there as well. Yep, it was cold. I was not dressed properly for the chill.
That's my fault.

[thespaah]

they got lotteries all over the world like in France where handles are only increasing year by year and the same with Sweeden, not to mention Hong Kong, Australia and South Africa. that lottery is a very poor excuse around the world these days for falling handles in the United States.

I am with you on that one point.
One issue. I started to notice drop off in handle and attendance in the mid to late 80's. I was discussing this with friends. One of did bring up competition for the gambling dollar.
Now, I am simply amazed at how race track managements continue to ignore the far more successful horse racing industries on other countries.
Handle and attendance in Japan and Hong Kong dwarfs that of US tracks.
The Tokyo meeting does as much handle in the 24 days spread over several months than Saratoga and Delmar do for their combined 80+ race days.
My question is this. Why are track managements here at least having a look at the way things are done in other countries and applying some of those concepts here in the US?
First thing I see is the JRA races primarily on Saturdays and Sundays. Some weekdays here and there.
here's the JRA calendar.
http://japanracing.jp/en/racing/schedule/jra/2017.html

[dilanesp]

I was there as well. Yep, it was cold. I was not dressed properly for the chill.
That's my fault.

My recollection was 2001 was even colder than 1990, and 1995 was rainy.

I like Belmont and there are compelling arguments for staging the BC there, but the weather is usually horrible that time of year.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I am with you on that one point.
One issue. I started to notice drop off in handle and attendance in the mid to late 80's. I was discussing this with friends. One of did bring up competition for the gambling dollar.
Now, I am simply amazed at how race track managements continue to ignore the far more successful horse racing industries on other countries.
Handle and attendance in Japan and Hong Kong dwarfs that of US tracks.
The Tokyo meeting does as much handle in the 24 days spread over several months than Saratoga and Delmar do for their combined 80+ race days.
My question is this. Why are track managements here at least having a look at the way things are done in other countries and applying some of those concepts here in the US?
First thing I see is the JRA races primarily on Saturdays and Sundays. Some weekdays here and there.
here's the JRA calendar.
http://japanracing.jp/en/racing/schedule/jra/2017.html

The population of Hong Kong is a little smaller than the population of New York City. The also have 83 racing days. Wednesday is a big racing racing day in Hong Kong, along with Sunday, so it doesn't seem like the weekend is the reason for success. The nearest Casino is not at one of the tracks or a short bus ride to Connecticut or New Jersey, it is an hour away by boat in Macau.

Hong Kong does have a lottery. Guess who runs it? That's right, the Hong Kong Jockey Club. It also doesn't build jackpots like the Power Ball does here.

There are currently about 1200 horses stabled in Hong Kong. I bet we could find 1200 horses here healthy enough to run Lasix free if the argument is that Hong Kong and Japan are better because of their drug policies.

So you basically have a monopoly of gambling run by the HKJC, and not to use a stereotype, but Asians are well known to love gambling.

How about Japan? Horseracing is the dominant gambling activity. Lotteries are generally small potatoes, and there are no legal casinos.

As often as I hear, why can't we be Hong Kong or Japan, my response is generally, sure, we can become Hong Kong or Japan. Let's give the Jockey Club control over all horse racing meets - in Hong Kong, everyone except trainers and owners works for the HKJC - and the lotteries, let's get rid of sports betting and casinos, and I'll make you a bet. People will flock to the racetrack.

It makes no more sense than saying, Sweden gives parents 480 days off to stay at home with their children and they get 80% of their salary when they are too sick to work. Why can't we be Sweden? We can. It just would take a lot of adjustment to get there.

[thespaah]

The population of Hong Kong is a little smaller than the population of New York City. The also have 83 racing days. Wednesday is a big racing racing day in Hong Kong, along with Sunday, so it doesn't seem like the weekend is the reason for success. The nearest Casino is not at one of the tracks or a short bus ride to Connecticut or New Jersey, it is an hour away by boat in Macau.

Hong Kong does have a lottery. Guess who runs it? That's right, the Hong Kong Jockey Club. It also doesn't build jackpots like the Power Ball does here.

There are currently about 1200 horses stabled in Hong Kong. I bet we could find 1200 horses here healthy enough to run Lasix free if the argument is that Hong Kong and Japan are better because of their drug policies.

So you basically have a monopoly of gambling run by the HKJC, and not to use a stereotype, but Asians are well known to love gambling.

How about Japan? Horseracing is the dominant gambling activity. Lotteries are generally small potatoes, and there are no legal casinos.

As often as I hear, why can't we be Hong Kong or Japan, my response is generally, sure, we can become Hong Kong or Japan. Let's give the Jockey Club control over all horse racing meets - in Hong Kong, everyone except trainers and owners works for the HKJC - and the lotteries, let's get rid of sports betting and casinos, and I'll make you a bet. People will flock to the racetrack.

It makes no more sense than saying, Sweden gives parents 480 days off to stay at home with their children and they get 80% of their salary when they are too sick to work. Why can't we be Sweden? We can. It just would take a lot of adjustment to get there.

Look, I am well aware racing here in the US cannot become HK or JPN. My point is why US Track managements not taking a look at how things are done in these places.
IMO, if one wants to be successful in business, they copy what the successful businesses are doing. Or at least implement the most practicable policies.
US track managements do nothing or virtually nothing to effect change for the better. They are their own worst enemy
I am sick and tired of "Ooh, lets not try that. it might fail and why should we change anyway."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Look, I am well aware racing here in the US cannot become HK or JPN. My point is why US Track managements not taking a look at how things are done in these places.
IMO, if one wants to be successful in business, they copy what the successful businesses are doing. Or at least implement the most practicable policies.
US track managements do nothing or virtually nothing to effect change for the better. They are their own worst enemy
I am sick and tired of "Ooh, lets not try that. it might fail and why should we change anyway."

They do look at it. Go to an HBPA meeting sometime. It comes up regularly. The point is not that they aren't looking at Hong Kong, it is that many of the things that make Hong Kong or Japan as successful are not possible here. We can't have one authority in charge of everything except trainers and owners. We can't get rid of casinos or the state-run lottery. The only thing we can do to emulate Hong Kong or Japan is the drug/medication policy, which may or may not hurt the availability of runners, but is not the panacea for racing. The PETA people would still find racing to be animal abuse, and the take would still be irresponsibly high.

What is it that Hong Kong and Japan are doing that we are unwilling to try? The Swinger Quinella? Like we don't already have too many betting options per race. The problems with horseracing here are structural. You can't band-aid an idea or two and fix it. I gave you my list of things to fix racing; give us your list of the changes that will make us as successful as Hong Kong and Japan

[onefast99]

Mike Francesa had Gary Bettman on here is what he said:
The Isles are heavily leaning towards Elmont, and were in negotiations to build a new home next to Belmont race track. Of course, right now everything is just conjecture, but if this has any legs to it whatsoever, the Islanders must pursue it.
Oh, and if you’re worried about this whole thing breaking down, and Ledecky and Malkin moving the team elsewhere? Forget it. Bettman told Francesa, “Scott Malkin did not buy this team to move them out of the area.” While that’s good news, it often feels like as an Islanders’ fan you wait for the other shoe to drop.
Let’s just hope that for once, this is the start of a major change for the positive for the Islanders and the fans. We have certainly waited long enough.

[jdhanover]

Mike Francesa had Gary Bettman on here is what he said:
The Isles are heavily leaning towards Elmont, and were in negotiations to build a new home next to Belmont race track. Of course, right now everything is just conjecture, but if this has any legs to it whatsoever, the Islanders must pursue it.
Oh, and if you’re worried about this whole thing breaking down, and Ledecky and Malkin moving the team elsewhere? Forget it. Bettman told Francesa, “Scott Malkin did not buy this team to move them out of the area.” While that’s good news, it often feels like as an Islanders’ fan you wait for the other shoe to drop.
Let’s just hope that for once, this is the start of a major change for the positive for the Islanders and the fans. We have certainly waited long enough.

I have thought all along that this is where the Isles ends up. There are two parcels of land that would work. all the parking lots for BEL would double for parking for the arena. Whole thing makes a lot of sense.

Wouldn't be shocked to eventually see some sort of gaming too.

And LIRR make that a full station.

50/50 on all of this...but best chance of any of the options I see.


Oh, and I see AQU closing and NYRA running Belmont-Saratoga. WOuld think they could put an inner winter track in at BEL, no? it is a big oval...would think you can go inside and make it work. Turns might be tight but so are other tracks

[alhattab]

I have thought all along that this is where the Isles ends up. There are two parcels of land that would work. all the parking lots for BEL would double for parking for the arena. Whole thing makes a lot of sense.

Wouldn't be shocked to eventually see some sort of gaming too.

And LIRR make that a full station.

50/50 on all of this...but best chance of any of the options I see.


Oh, and I see AQU closing and NYRA running Belmont-Saratoga. WOuld think they could put an inner winter track in at BEL, no? it is a big oval...would think you can go inside and make it work. Turns might be tight but so are other tracks

Belmont is a no-brainer. Easy car access and rail access- currently via a spur but with a full time station seemingly easily created- and plenty of land. The only hold up would be that a new arena would result in there being 5 > 15,000 seat venues- MSG, Pru Center, Barclays, Nassau Coliseum and Belmont- in a 20 mile radius. One issue I could see would be the arena being right on top of the homes in Floral Park.

In terms of an inner winterized track, the Inner Turf is 1 3/16 miles, so the inner dirt would be about 1 1/16. For context, the turn radius of Belmont's main track is 643 feet (the link below didn't have radii for the grass courses). Aqueduct's main track is 470 and Inner Track is 350. One may roughly deduce that every move inside is worth about 120 feet- not precise but a good gauge. That means Belmont's Widener Turf turn radius is about 520, Inner Turf is 400 and any Inner Turf would be 280. That is too tight- Hawthorne is 362, Churchill is 406 (Pimlico, which seeminlgy everyone says during the Triple Crown has tighter turns, is 422). Also of interest, Saratoga's main is 470, (Thornton) Mellon Turf is 380- the Inner Turf isn't listed but we've all seen horses blow the turn there- now we know why.

http://www.drf.com/sites/default/files/US%20Track%20Dimensions%20List%20-%20May%202015.pdf

[thespaah]

They do look at it. Go to an HBPA meeting sometime. It comes up regularly. The point is not that they aren't looking at Hong Kong, it is that many of the things that make Hong Kong or Japan as successful are not possible here. We can't have one authority in charge of everything except trainers and owners. We can't get rid of casinos or the state-run lottery. The only thing we can do to emulate Hong Kong or Japan is the drug/medication policy, which may or may not hurt the availability of runners, but is not the panacea for racing. The PETA people would still find racing to be animal abuse, and the take would still be irresponsibly high.

What is it that Hong Kong and Japan are doing that we are unwilling to try? The Swinger Quinella? Like we don't already have too many betting options per race. The problems with horseracing here are structural. You can't band-aid an idea or two and fix it. I gave you my list of things to fix racing; give us your list of the changes that will make us as successful as Hong Kong and Japan

"We can't".....See that's where the issue lies. It's always those who believe "we can't" that get their way almost 100% of the time.
Look, let's face this fact. Or rather, perception. Horsemen view the wagering public with the same contempt as flies buzzing through their barn area.
Before the advent of the casino/track ( parasitic) relationship, purses were betting handle driven. Now, purses for the most part are funded by percentage of casino revenue. Trainers, owners and to a lesser extent riders/drivers( harness) never cared to hear bettors screaming at them for the perceived wrongs done to their bets. But, the two parties needed each other. No longer. Because their income is not longer dependent upon wagering,
Horsemen can freely express their contempt for the betting public with impunity.
Now..What ideas do I have?
Lets look at the issues. Low attendance. That's an easy one.
Tracks can run all kinds of promotions.
For example.
Have a ladies day. Any woman that enters the track can pay full admission and be offered a wagering voucher of double the value to wager that day.
Have a college student day. Same thing. Do the same for veterans, First Responders, etc. The idea is to get them onto the property to take in a day at the races. They might have some fun and WANT TO come back....
The idea is to expose the game to new people.
Yeah, i've heard the griping from the old timers and hard hitting bettors who think the track should be their own little private club. That they despise "those stupid college kids".....Yeah well, here's my message to them. "You'll be DEAD in 5 years( reference to the advanced age of the typical horse player) so you need to be replaced"...."Stay home and from your computer there there".
On the other hand. How about tracks offering REAL perks to their regular customers. With a caveat. They are required to bring at least one person with them for every 20 visits to the track. For example, lets say a track sets up a "whales area"....Or "most favored customer area"....For every $500 that person wagers, they receive a half credit to a FULL lunch or dinner. For every $1000, provided they have a new "guest" along with them, that full meal is for TWO people.
I don't want to hear about how much this would cost. I own a small business. And I have come to the realization that I must spend money to make turn a profit. That's business.
One thing that is very clear. The racing business MUST get together with itself and form a national alliance of participant tracks to create a single racing entity that is self governing. How would this be possible? Get with and cooperate with state's legislatures to work WITH them. That the alliance would continue to keep the tax revenues flowing to the respective states with the idea of mutual cooperation among the states. Every state STILL gets their slice of the pie. All take rates would be standardized. All rebates to ADW players would be lowered across the board to a standard level with the caveat that if the bettor played their wagers ON TRACK, there will be a certain rebate "Bonus"
. These would A) eliminate or at least curtail the track shopping for lower take out and higher rebates. They would be the same across the alliance.
And there would be an incentive for large volume players ( where geographically practical) to go to the track instead of betting from home.
Now, you can pooh pooh these ideas. That's fine. At this point, I'm willing to try anything as long as it isn't goofy or gimmicky....
One other thing. Wagers? Yeah, its time to get away from the same boring thing that PM wagering offerings tracks have been giving us for over 100 years. What the hell is wrong with trying something new?

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I was literally just having this conversation about tracks being a horse players personal little area. I love big days and the energy it has, but hate it being crowded. At the same time, I know they need them to survive.

[thespaah]

I was literally just having this conversation about tracks being a horse players personal little area. I love big days and the energy it has, but hate it being crowded. At the same time, I know they need them to survive.

Which leads to this...."we can't have it both ways"....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

"We can't".....See that's where the issue lies. It's always those who believe "we can't" that get their way almost 100% of the time.
Look, let's face this fact. Or rather, perception. Horsemen view the wagering public with the same contempt as flies buzzing through their barn area.
Before the advent of the casino/track ( parasitic) relationship, purses were betting handle driven. Now, purses for the most part are funded by percentage of casino revenue. Trainers, owners and to a lesser extent riders/drivers( harness) never cared to hear bettors screaming at them for the perceived wrongs done to their bets. But, the two parties needed each other. No longer. Because their income is not longer dependent upon wagering,
Horsemen can freely express their contempt for the betting public with impunity.
Now..What ideas do I have?
Lets look at the issues. Low attendance. That's an easy one.
Tracks can run all kinds of promotions.
For example.
Have a ladies day. Any woman that enters the track can pay full admission and be offered a wagering voucher of double the value to wager that day.
Have a college student day. Same thing. Do the same for veterans, First Responders, etc. The idea is to get them onto the property to take in a day at the races. They might have some fun and WANT TO come back....
The idea is to expose the game to new people.
Yeah, i've heard the griping from the old timers and hard hitting bettors who think the track should be their own little private club. That they despise "those stupid college kids".....Yeah well, here's my message to them. "You'll be DEAD in 5 years( reference to the advanced age of the typical horse player) so you need to be replaced"...."Stay home and from your computer there there".
On the other hand. How about tracks offering REAL perks to their regular customers. With a caveat. They are required to bring at least one person with them for every 20 visits to the track. For example, lets say a track sets up a "whales area"....Or "most favored customer area"....For every $500 that person wagers, they receive a half credit to a FULL lunch or dinner. For every $1000, provided they have a new "guest" along with them, that full meal is for TWO people.
I don't want to hear about how much this would cost. I own a small business. And I have come to the realization that I must spend money to make turn a profit. That's business.
One thing that is very clear. The racing business MUST get together with itself and form a national alliance of participant tracks to create a single racing entity that is self governing. How would this be possible? Get with and cooperate with state's legislatures to work WITH them. That the alliance would continue to keep the tax revenues flowing to the respective states with the idea of mutual cooperation among the states. Every state STILL gets their slice of the pie. All take rates would be standardized. All rebates to ADW players would be lowered across the board to a standard level with the caveat that if the bettor played their wagers ON TRACK, there will be a certain rebate "Bonus"
. These would A) eliminate or at least curtail the track shopping for lower take out and higher rebates. They would be the same across the alliance.
And there would be an incentive for large volume players ( where geographically practical) to go to the track instead of betting from home.
Now, you can pooh pooh these ideas. That's fine. At this point, I'm willing to try anything as long as it isn't goofy or gimmicky....
One other thing. Wagers? Yeah, its time to get away from the same boring thing that PM wagering offerings tracks have been giving us for over 100 years. What the hell is wrong with trying something new?
I'm not going to pooh-pooh anything. Many of your ideas I'd already written about in Horseplayer Magazine, the HANA monthly and the blog. I'd talked about the frequent player cards casinos use to give comps, how to attract millennials (I don't know about your college experience, but most college kids are perpetually on the edge of broke, and I know any parent supporting their kids wouldn't see them as entrepreneurial if they took their spending money to the track), making sure your best customers get however many of the free giveaways they need, and so on. And I can tell you my stuff has been read widely by horsemen and track people. I've talked to enough of them about it.

Of course they need a better business model, including paying taxes like any other business does, not off the top like the protection racket. We don't need rebates if we drop the take for everyone. The idea that only whales can get the 10% rebate may be good business since whales represent such a large part of handle, but you aren't going to attract many new players at 22%. The whales will still play if the take on the WPS pools is dropped to 12%.

I will disagree about the need to have more circus and jackpot bets. People who understand wagering realize one of the main keys to increase handle and customer satisfaction is increasing the attractiveness of churn bets. Going to the track for a week, getting a lot of action and losing a hundred bucks would feel like a win to most people. On the other hand, putting all your money in jackpot pools and never making a collection is a lot more likely to get people sick of betting at the track. Yeah, it's their fault for betting into pools that they have no business being in, but the tracks know that most people don't have to discipline to pass up a potential six figure payoff. You have to make the low take, high churn bets more attractive. I'm actually fine with the Hong Kong quinella - you play three horses and collect if any two of them come in - because it's inexpensive, easy to hit and a good churn bet. The mistake that tracks make is thinking the bets players have the best shot at hitting have become moldy. Anybody who remembers the 70's at NYRA will remember having a few exactas, and a daily double that constituted exotic bets. We've tried plenty of new bets, and I can't say they've saved racing.

[thespaah]

I'm not going to pooh-pooh anything. Many of your ideas I'd already written about in Horseplayer Magazine, the HANA monthly and the blog. I'd talked about the frequent player cards casinos use to give comps, how to attract millennials (I don't know about your college experience, but most college kids are perpetually on the edge of broke, and I know any parent supporting their kids wouldn't see them as entrepreneurial if they took their spending money to the track), making sure your best customers get however many of the free giveaways they need, and so on. And I can tell you my stuff has been read widely by horsemen and track people. I've talked to enough of them about it.

Of course they need a better business model, including paying taxes like any other business does, not off the top like the protection racket. We don't need rebates if we drop the take for everyone. The idea that only whales can get the 10% rebate may be good business since whales represent such a large part of handle, but you aren't going to attract many new players at 22%. The whales will still play if the take on the WPS pools is dropped to 12%.

I will disagree about the need to have more circus and jackpot bets. People who understand wagering realize one of the main keys to increase handle and customer satisfaction is increasing the attractiveness of churn bets. Going to the track for a week, getting a lot of action and losing a hundred bucks would feel like a win to most people. On the other hand, putting all your money in jackpot pools and never making a collection is a lot more likely to get people sick of betting at the track. Yeah, it's their fault for betting into pools that they have no business being in, but the tracks know that most people don't have to discipline to pass up a potential six figure payoff. You have to make the low take, high churn bets more attractive. I'm actually fine with the Hong Kong quinella - you play three horses and collect if any two of them come in - because it's inexpensive, easy to hit and a good churn bet. The mistake that tracks make is thinking the bets players have the best shot at hitting have become moldy. Anybody who remembers the 70's at NYRA will remember having a few exactas, and a daily double that constituted exotic bets. We've tried plenty of new bets, and I can't say they've saved racing.
I am not subscribed to your on line publication. Perhaps i should be.
Anyway, the ideas I posted are my own.
I am not a fan of thsse wacky jackpot bets either. I actually agree with your assessment. My point is that the traditional WPS EX, TRI, DD bets are stale.
I have no idea why race track managements refuse to do anything to get the game back in front of the public.
Its almost a self destructive model.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I am not subscribed to your on line publication. Perhaps i should be.
Anyway, the ideas I posted are my own.
I am not a fan of thsse wacky jackpot bets either. I actually agree with your assessment. My point is that the traditional WPS EX, TRI, DD bets are stale.
I have no idea why race track managements refuse to do anything to get the game back in front of the public.
Its almost a self destructive model.

This was my article, 10 Ways to Fix Horseracing. Not everyone agreed with my ideas, but it was meant to stimulate discussion.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=4217

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Very interesting topic and I applaud the numerous comments and opinions posted to this point. As a lifelong New Yorker I appreciate Belmont park for it's history and the beautiful grounds that offer a chance to escape the rush of city life and have a chance to unwind and enjoy a pleasurable day. The breakfast at Belmont program is a wonderful way to spend an early Saturday or Sunday morning surrounded by the majestic animals.

Whatever decision is made concerning the future of the track I hope the powers realize this track is a part of Long Island history and that alone should force a discussion of ways to bring the plant up to date and start attracting more fans to enjoy the races. Through out the years a have brought new comers into both Belmont and Aqueduct and predictably Belmont won in a landslide for the purpose of an out door enjoyable event. No knock on Aqueduct, which has it's purpose.

I do believe that Belmont Park will survive and thrive with the addition of limited gaming as a support of the racing product. This is the big question because it seems the young generation loves the action every second gambling philosophy that the casinos offer as opposed to the racing product which has short breaks in simulcasting post times.

Well just wanted to air my thoughts on the Belmont issue. That being said I am just a long time fan for over 40 years who would love the politicians to think history as opposed to the quick buck...but we know how that works.

[Lose The Juice]

Small world department: the Islanders' excellent young forward Josh Ho-Sang just happens to be related to George HoSang, one of the best jocks in both Jamaica and Canada going back a few years. Moving the Isles to Elmont would be a godsend for players and fans alike. Barclays is an epic fail.