MEC and Churchill...together!?

[cj]

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=25905

[karlskorner]

Just the tip of the iceberg. Between them they own 22 race tracks, you can bet there is more to come.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Just the tip of the iceberg. Between them they own 22 race tracks, you can bet there is more to come.

And this is a good thing because........??

[andicap]

Everyone talks about how Magna is, but is Churchill any better?

Is Hollywood Park a well-run track?

I've heard lots of complaint about the CD-run tracks as well.

[nomadpat]

There is hope!

Check this out:
http://news.bloodhorse.com//viewstory.asp?id=25911

Also Brisbet will offer Magna tracks
:cool:

[kingfin66]

Doesn't it all boil down to people preferring Churchill because they more accessible as far as their signal and betting, while MEC is more restrictive requiring players to use their betting outlets?

I believe that the resentment of horseplayers against MEC clouds any objectivity.

Andicap made a good point when he asked if Hollywood is a well run track. Let's see, they couldn't run a turf race (I think they did have 1) in the last 3-4 racing days with nothing but blue skies, California sunshine and 70-80 degree weather.

Unfortunately, it's easy to point out the problems and complain about them, but getting a fix is looking to be near impossible.

[sjk]

I don't understand the point of view that Churchill tracks are more accessible. The only track that ever became inaccesible to me was Fair Grounds and that was because they were bought by CDI.

[cj]

It is good news that AmericaTab and YouBet will now carry MEC, but before I get too carried away with enthusiasm, I seem to remember going through this once before.

First, we always had these tracks. Then, the plug was pulled, and no GP or SA. Then, MEC gave it back after a few weeks. Then, the next year, the plug was pulled, this time for the whole season. Now, its back again. That is great, but how long til the plug is pulled again? Fingers crossed that it won't be, but you know the old saying: Screw me once...

[cj]

Originally posted by sjk
I don't understand the point of view that Churchill tracks are more accessible. The only track that ever became inaccesible to me was Fair Grounds and that was because they were bought by CDI.

I've never lost the ability to bet any track that wasn't owned by Magna. I've lost SA, GP, GG, Pim, Lrl, etc, etc, etc. I've never missed a race from a CD track.

I really don't care now as I use Pinnacle, but now I will have video back through BrisBet, which is nice.

I've said all along that Magna has every right to keep their signal to themselves. The irritating thing that turned me off is the on again, off again game that they have played in the past.

[kingfin66]

I agree with cj about using Pinnacle. If you do that, there is no access problem as far as betting.

The inaccessibility that I refer to has more to do with the signal. I have TVG. Among the tracks that I cannot view: Santa Anita, Laurel, Pimlico, Gulfstream, Golden Gate, Bay Meadows, etc..

I'm not interested in viewing races online so this does matter to me. And that's all I have to say about that.

Merry Christmas to All

[Mailman]

cj
You asked how long before the plug is pulled?
They said in their email that the agreement was thru 2005.
Mailman

[Buddha]

Originally posted by nomadpat

Also Brisbet will offer Magna tracks
:cool:

Nice to be able to watch and bet online, but like CJ and another mentioned, I am slowly drifting towards Pinnacle, but the video will be nice since it didnt say they will be on TVG so no sure thing I will be able to watch the TV

[so.cal.fan]

"Churchill Downs, Magna Team for Signal Export to Europe"



So.cal.fan predicts they may just get together and decide to run Churchill's Hollywood Park dates at Santa Anita until Churchill gets Fairplex built into a mile track with a turf course.
There are sure a lot of signs that the city of Inglewood would like to get rid of Hollywood racetrack and the sooner the better.
In fact, I heard that Inglewood may not even give them a license to race there at the Hollywood plant.
Do any of you legal experts know if this is possible or not?
Mayor of Inglewood has said publically that the city wants the property to develop into a mall and housing.

[plainolebill]

I think it would be a huge loss for racing if Hollywood Park closed and moved to Fpx. In my opinion it would be just another nail in the coffin for racing. Hollywood is a great plant and with it's larger dirt and turf courses has more diverse racing than the other two Socal tracks.

CDinc has allowed the place to run down and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this move wasn't their intent all along. If it's true, everyone in California who loves racing should be up in arms about this.

Don't be shocked if MEC moves Santa Anita to the fairgrounds as well.

[so.cal.fan]

Don't think Santa Anita will fold anytime soon, Bill.
They are spending millions on renovations.
Also heard that slots may be coming in.........a rumor is going around that a deal has been struck with the Tribes, the tracks and the State of Calif. If true.....this is going to change racing in Calif.
Hollywood has a casino next door, but Churchill doesn't own it.....R.D. Hubbard does.
I agree with you about Hollywood......I love their paddock and the racing is good for the most part, at least most of the time.
However, I disagree that it will be ruined at Fairplex.....maybe not....let's wait and see.

[Rookie]

It would be difficult for the City of Inglewood to "pull the plug" on Hollywood Park.

Not sure what "City" regulatory guidleines the track operates under (I assume most of the oversight comes from the State), but you have to remember that the track has been around for many many years and City zoning laws were much more relaxed back when Holly park opened.

If Hollywood Park goes away, it will be because it makes economic sense for Churchill Down, not because the City of Inglewood makes a move. Even if they wanted to eminent domain the track property, it would be as such an expense to City and redevelopment funds that I see it nearly impossible to make economic sense.

If a deep pocket developer gets in the mix however......

[Equineer]

Did the cumulative handle outside the U.S. surprise anyone... an 85 to 15 handle ratio?

"On Dec. 10 at the University of Arizona Symposium on Racing, McAlpine outlined an MEC strategy that calls for more partnerships to move the pari-mutuel industry forward. During his talk he noted the U.S. accounts for about $15 billion in handle a year compared with $85 billion in the rest of the world."

Given racetrack operating costs here, and dwindling on-track attendance by U.S. horseplayers, surely MEC and CDI can eventually foresee outsourcing the actual show and importing the signals from plants that are cheaper to operate.

Our breeding industry sells into foreign markets, but would surely suffer if it could not lobby against such a shift.

Awhile back, I noticed Vietnam is building a new track... could anything be more ironic that playing a race from Hanoi? :rolleyes:

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Just the tip of the iceberg. Between them they own 22 race tracks, you can bet there is more to come. :eek:

Yes I guess its time MEC and CDI got married,Looking to the future,MEC will have a lot more control in the Florida racing then CDI,Im sure he has his eyes onCalder, Im sure both parties are licking their chops waiting for the slots,The biggist wolf wins!

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you really serious? You'd like to see one or two organizations own every racetrack in the United States?

Come on man. Get real. And what happened to anti-trust laws? Do they not apply in this situation?

[karlskorner]

Of the 90 or so tracks throughout the country, from what I have read here for the past 3/4 years, half of them are "dumps". I think I would rather see 45 well managed tracks, which would mean larger fields and more races per se. A better control over the use of drugs, possibly the same "take out" at each and every track For those who attend "live racing" cleaner plants, at CRC a disgarded ticket doesn't last 20 seconds on the floor before someone has swept it up. Since "at home" players are becoming a factor in the industry I dont't think the possibility of 3/4 companies running racing would be nothing but an improvement and the "voice" of the players would be adhered too. The business of racing horses has been 1/2 ass for too long and needs to improve.

[ratpack]

[Andicap made a good point when he asked if Hollywood is a well run track. Let's see, they couldn't run a turf race (I think they did have 1) in the last 3-4 racing days with nothing but blue skies, California sunshine and 70-80 degree weather.

Unfortunately, it's easy to point out the problems and complain about them, but getting a fix is looking to be near impossible. [/B][/QUOTE]

I went to Hol alot during the Fall meet and as far as customer operation it was the same it has been in past years.

I heard someone say they are not maintaining the track because they plan to move, that may well be but they had better get on the stick because in 4 months Hol summer meet opens.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Are you really serious? You'd like to see one or two organizations own every racetrack in the United States?

Come on man. Get real. And what happened to anti-trust laws? Do they not apply in this situation?

PA you sound like a bad relationship..Your in denial

[garyoz]

And what happened to anti-trust laws? Do they not apply in this situation?

In the simplest test there are two markets to be considered, the relevant product market and the relevant geographic market.

The relevant product market is defined by product substitutability as measured by cross elasticity of demand. So the question is: does the relevant product market consist of thoroughbred racing or thoroughbred and standardbred racing, all parimutual wagering or all types of legal gambling in the U.S. Ownership concentration of >60% is usually where questions start. Part of the question is industry specific such as barriers to entry, pricing power, supranormal profits, etc.

The geographic market would either me defined as the State (e.g., political boundaries) or the whole U.S. Prior to simulatcast wagering, the relevant geographic would definitely be the State.

In reality given the high degree of oversite by State Regulators, including licensing, there is very little likelihood that the Department of Justice would be interested in Concentration of Ownership of Race Tracks.

I would think that the activities by the NTRA would be more likely to raise questions of collusion. Trade Associations have to be careful about the types of activities they promote.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by McSchell_Racing
PA you sound like a bad relationship..Your in denial

Huh?