Premier Turf Club...any comments?

[NoCal Boy]

This was excerpted from the Louisville Courier-Journal this morning:

>>>Churchill and Magna said their goal with the marketing company, TrackNet Media Group, is to have their races bet on through as many different account-wagering and simulcasting providers as feasible. Previously, Churchill has relied on TVG, which tries to control the number of distribution outlets.
Exclusive arrangements have made it difficult for customers to bet on races, Neuman said. "To make customers buy more, you have to make yourself easy to buy from," he said.<<<

[Indulto]

From the same article:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070328/BUSINESS/703281145
... Neuman said Magna will look to create lottery-like bets that offer "life-changing" payouts.

Our challenge in product development is to take our aging product life cycle and, rather than follow it down the curve of its product life, develop new products that'll attract bettors from existing categories where we know the money is spent -- lotteries, casinos and sporting events -- into the horse-racing marketplace," he said.Contrast that with the following:

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=38175
The Decline of the Sport By Morton Cathro
... a prescient sportsman, John Hay “Jock” Whitney, ... decried what he called the conflict of interest between commercialism and sport ...

...While acknowledging the need for commercial involvement, Whitney asked, “Where do we draw the line that keeps commercialism within safe bounds? We draw it, I submit, at the point at which the horse begins serving the ends of commercialism, rather than commercialism serving the needs of the horse.”

Off-track betting, he believed, would exploit racing. ...

... Moreover, he asserted, gimmicked-up wagering combinations “will increase the temptation to treat horse racing as a giant lottery rather than a sport.”

... Whitney further worried about racetracks operated by businessmen with scant backgrounds in racing.

“The spirit of racing,” he said, “is in jeopardy whenever sportsmen lose control. Lose this spirit, and there will be no racing—only races.”

[Premier Turf Club]

This was excerpted from the Louisville Courier-Journal this morning:

>>>Churchill and Magna said their goal with the marketing company, TrackNet Media Group, is to have their races bet on through as many different account-wagering and simulcasting providers as feasible. Previously, Churchill has relied on TVG, which tries to control the number of distribution outlets.
Exclusive arrangements have made it difficult for customers to bet on races, Neuman said. "To make customers buy more, you have to make yourself easy to buy from," he said.<<<

Deeds not words. TrackNet has done absolutely nothing to date to indicate they will keep to this statement. In fact, everything they have done has been contrary to that (i.e. Bob Evans telling the Blood Horse that "they are in due diligence" when Scott Daruty told us a day earlier we are at least 10 days away from even having finished the due diligence questions, MEC telling us on February 9 we "would have simulcast agreements in 72 hours.", etc.)

We always wanted to be able to work this out quickly and quietly. Still do. But we aren't just sitting around anymore waiting for the phone to ring. That horse has left the barn. :bang:

[NoCal Boy]

You are in a difficult situation so I can not blame you for pushing the envelope a bit.

If I was representing TrackNet, I would make sure I had an agreement in place with Youbet and AmericaTab on the domestic side, and a few large off shore outfits on the rebate side (IRG et al) and then make the argument that we are not stifling competition in an unlawful manner. THe signals are being distributed by existing independent outlets that are the leaders in the domestic and rebate industry. This way they could argue that their distribution closely relates to what it was pre-TrackNet days, absent TVG who walked away, but they are not obligated to give their signal to every outlet at the same price, especially start up entities.

If TrackNet effectively prices out large domestic ADW's like Youbet and AnmericaTab, then they are skating on very thin ice. It seemingly makes no sense for them to do so since 6% from Youbet's wide distribution certainly beats 0% if they are precluded. Magna and Churchill control too much content for it to be quasi-exclusive. This does not mean that all outfits should be entitied to the signal at the same price.

[Kelso]

they are not obligated to give their signal to every outlet at the same price, especially start up entities.

<snip>

This does not mean that all outfits should be entitied to the signal at the same price.



I don't think that's correct in this instance (industry). Price discrimination must, as I understand it, be generally cost-based if it is to be lawful. One may sell cheaper only if one can demonstrate a proportionally lower unit cost for larger sales over lesser.

For something as ephemeral as a radio signal, I doubt there is any marginal expense at all. Once produced, it costs just as much to deliver it to one customer as to a thousand. The same applies to the cost of content.

Could be wrong, but I think TrackNet would have a large nut to crack if it tried to justify any price discrimination at all. (Terms, of course, are another matter.)