DelMar+PTC

[betovernetcapper]

Now that DalMar has a reprive for a year at least, any chance of PTC getting their signal?

[Premier Turf Club]

Now that DalMar has a reprive for a year at least, any chance of PTC getting their signal?

We'd love to carry Del Mar, but we have been stonewalled by the TOC. We have contracts sitting at the TOC for CARF that the TOC refuses to sign off on. Not only won't they give us a reason why they won't approve us, when contacted by others on our behalf (big time names people on this board will have heard of) the TOC has responded with "we won't even talk about why we won't talk about it."

You can draw your own conclusions about what that means but it sure stinks to us. And to a LOT of other people in the industry that have suddenly gotten very interested in the goings on.

[Indulto]

We'd love to carry Del Mar, but we have been stonewalled by the TOC. We have contracts sitting at the TOC for CARF that the TOC refuses to sign off on. Not only won't they give us a reason why they won't approve us, when contacted by others on our behalf (big time names people on this board will have heard of) the TOC has responded with "we won't even talk about why we won't talk about it."

You can draw your own conclusions about what that means but it sure stinks to us. And to a LOT of other people in the industry that have suddenly gotten very interested in the goings on.PTC,
Any suggestions as to the appropriate parties to whom CA residents wishing to use your service could send e-mails and/or make phone calls in order to apply some pressure here? Who is Drew Couto accountable to?

It's bad enough that CA residents are being thwarted in betting on CA races by competing ADWs, but how can it be in the interest of thoroughbred owners in CA to prevent us from betting on non-CA races? It should be in the interest of every thoroughbred owner everywhere to enable anyone who wants to place a wager on a thoroughbred race anywhere to do so at any legal parimutuel ADW.

It sure sounds to me like Couto is carrying tracknet's water pail and it's hard for me to believe that represents the thinking of a majority of thoroughbred owners.

[Premier Turf Club]

You can try Drew Couto, though I don't know who he answers to. He has refused to explain his position to anyone, including a representative of a TOC board member who has called four or five times on our behalf. If you live in or near the San Francisco area, State Senator Leland Yee has been pretty active when it comes to reforming the TOC and CHRB. How it could possibly be in the interest of ANY owner in California NOT to allow us to take wagers on California races from NON-CALIFORNIA residents I can't fathom.

I hope there are some California owners that read this board that will find this whole matter as curious as we do.

And P.S. for those who might wonder if it's a PTC issue, in addition to be signed off by the ND Racing Commission and the NYS Racing & Wagering Board who have done the requisite background checks, we have been cleared by the TRPB who ran background checks on all the partners in conjunction with another track's due diligence on PTC.

[Indulto]

You can try Drew Couto, though I don't know who he answers to. He has refused to explain his position to anyone, including a representative of a TOC board member who has called four or five times on our behalf. If you live in or near the San Francisco area, State Senator Leland Yee has been pretty active when it comes to reforming the TOC and CHRB. How it could possibly be in the interest of ANY owner in California NOT to allow us to take wagers on California races from NON-CALIFORNIA residents I can't fathom.

I hope there are some California owners that read this board that will find this whole matter as curious as we do.

And P.S. for those who might wonder if it's a PTC issue, in addition to be signed off by the ND Racing Commission and the NYS Racing & Wagering Board who have done the requisite background checks, we have been cleared by the TRPB who ran background checks on all the partners in conjunction with another track's due diligence on PTC.They may not read this board, but I'll bet they read the transcripts of the CHRB meetings -- and probably watch the meetings if they are still being televised. Perhaps a complaint to and before the CHRB is justified here. In several prior meetings, it appeared that an owner named Jamgotchian got several consecutive opportunities to speak in order to present a variety of grievances or to comment on the board's actions.

[Premier Turf Club]

They may not read this board, but I'll bet they read the transcripts of the CHRB meetings -- and probably watch the meetings if they are still being televised. Perhaps a complaint to and before the CHRB is justified here. In several prior meetings, it appeared that an owner named Jamgotchian got several consecutive opportunities to speak in order to present a variety of grievances or to comment on the board's actions.

Trust me. They will hear our grievances.

[Southieboy]

what reprive?

[betovernetcapper]

My mistake-reprieve was for BM (poly exemption)-would like to play them both on PTC`

[boomman]

I can promise everyone here that if you stand up and write letters/file grievances on this, you WILL be heard! I know the horseplayers realize what's happening here, but I cannot believe the horsemen groups have not gotten involved in a BIG way. They are totally being screwed in terms of lost revenue, and have not said a word!

Boomer

[trigger]

We'd love to carry Del Mar, but we have been stonewalled by the TOC. We have contracts sitting at the TOC for CARF that the TOC refuses to sign off on. Not only won't they give us a reason why they won't approve us, when contacted by others on our behalf (big time names people on this board will have heard of) the TOC has responded with "we won't even talk about why we won't talk about it."

You can draw your own conclusions about what that means but it sure stinks to us. And to a LOT of other people in the industry that have suddenly gotten very interested in the goings on.

Assuming this is a current regulation, perhaps it has something to do with TOC's stance:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_and_regulations_database.asp?form_quer y_action=display_rule&form_query_rule_number=1950.1&form_query_rule_title=Rebates+on+Wagers%2E&form_query_article=Rebates+on+Wagers%2E&form_query_article_index=20&form_query_argument=1950.1
California Horse Racing Board
1010 Hurley Way Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95825
Phone: (916) 263-6000 Fax: (916) 263-6042


California Horse Racing Board
State of California

Display of Rule No. 1950.1 , "Rebates on Wagers."

Rule No. Rule Title
1950.1 Rebates on Wagers.
Rule Text No racing association or simulcast organization shall enter into an agreement with any off-track betting facility unless the agreement contains a provision that prohibits programs where the off-track betting facility accepts less than the face amount of wagers from patrons, or agrees to refund or rebate any consideration based on the face amount of any wagers to patrons. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19602, Business & Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19602, Business & Professions Code. HISTORY: 1. New rule filed 5-21-96; effective 6-20-96.

[Premier Turf Club]

Assuming this is a current regulation, perhaps it has something to do with TOC's stance:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_and_regulations_database.asp?form_quer y_action=display_rule&form_query_rule_number=1950.1&form_query_rule_title=Rebates+on+Wagers%2E&form_query_article=Rebates+on+Wagers%2E&form_query_article_index=20&form_query_argument=1950.1
California Horse Racing Board
1010 Hurley Way Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95825
Phone: (916) 263-6000 Fax: (916) 263-6042


California Horse Racing Board
State of California

Display of Rule No. 1950.1 , "Rebates on Wagers."

Rule No. Rule Title
1950.1 Rebates on Wagers.
Rule Text No racing association or simulcast organization shall enter into an agreement with any off-track betting facility unless the agreement contains a provision that prohibits programs where the off-track betting facility accepts less than the face amount of wagers from patrons, or agrees to refund or rebate any consideration based on the face amount of any wagers to patrons. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19602, Business & Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19420, 19440 and 19602, Business & Professions Code. HISTORY: 1. New rule filed 5-21-96; effective 6-20-96.

Only holds for California customers. TOC has signed agreements with IRG, Elite, RGS, Philly Park, CT OTB, Penn National, etc. ALL of whom rebate. No, there is likely something more sinister afoot here.

See link to RGS schedule (click on Wed on their calendar as HOL doesn't race today) http://www.rgs.net/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=7.

[gIracing]

so if you live in california and say.... you wanna bet a race at churchill.. can't you use xpressbet?

[trigger]

Only holds for California customers. TOC has signed agreements with IRG, Elite, RGS, Philly Park, CT OTB, Penn National, etc. ALL of whom rebate. No, there is likely something more sinister afoot here.

See link to RGS schedule (click on Wed on their calendar as HOL doesn't race today) http://www.rgs.net/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=7.

I don't know about the others but I certainly thought that IRG(Youbet subsidiary) was not approved to accept wagers on California races...can you provide any specifics on the IRG/California agreement?

[betovernetcapper]

According to the IRG website they cover all the Ca tracks.

http://www.betirg.com/tracks.php

[trigger]

According to the IRG website they cover all the Ca tracks.

http://www.betirg.com/tracks.php

Yea, suprisingly, the California tracks are listed (for non California residents only) on the IRG site --the only obvious USA tracks not listed are the NYRA trio. IRG only takes telephone wagers....I wonder if that makes a difference in the TOC accepting rebate shops?

[Premier Turf Club]

I don't know about the others but I certainly thought that IRG(Youbet subsidiary) was not approved to accept wagers on California races...can you provide any specifics on the IRG/California agreement?

IRG accepts bets on California RACES. I know because I have an account there. They don't accept bets from California RESIDENTS. Neither do we.

We are talking about contracts from C.A.R.F. that would allow us to take wagers from residents of North Dakota, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, etc. The TOC simply refused to sign off on them. They gave NO reason for their decision:

Not to us, not to the simulcast director from CARF when she inquired, not to the TOC Board Member whose attorney has called Mr. Couto on our behalf at least four times to ask why, not to the California thoroughbred owner with 40 or 50 horses in training that saw Mr. Couto at the CHRB meeting last Wednesday and asked why. The TOC just won't give us their approval and refuses to answer any questions about it even when it comes from their constituents or even their own board members. But this is the way business has been done in California for a LONG time.

If someone can come up with a logical explanation other than WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE , we would love to hear it.

[Premier Turf Club]

IRG only takes telephone wagers....I wonder if that makes a difference in the TOC accepting rebate shops?

NO. See my previous post. There IS NO REASON. It is simply arbitrary and capricious. They take positions like that all the time. No one has ever called them on it until now.

[DJofSD]

IRG - any one look at the web site or the application form? What a joke. This is the best that I can expect - fill out a form that looks like a high school graphics art flunky designed and FAX it to some office with my social security number, date of birth and address?

[gIracing]

that's whaqt I had to do with xpressbet because my address on my credit file didn't match where I put down as my address... why you need to pull my credit to open an prepaid account is byond me

[betovernetcapper]

I have a new hero and it's senator Leland Yee of California. He's just introduced
legislation that would introduce major reform in the CHRB. It turns out that the majority of the board has a financial interest within the industry.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=39532

[Premier Turf Club]

I have a new hero and it's senator Leland Yee of California. He's just introduced
legislation that would introduce major reform in the CHRB. It turns out that the majority of the board has a financial interest within the industry.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=39532

Sen. Yee needs to do the same thing with the TOC. I'm not sure who's interests the TOC thinks they represent but witholding the signal from us (or ANYONE for that matter) can't be in the best interests of the California owners. It's certainly not in the best interests of the tracks or the players, either.

Must be in SOMEBODY's best interest though.:rolleyes:

[trying2win]

Pardon my ignorance, but I keep seeing the term TOC mentioned in this thread. Maybe it's because I'm from Canada, and TOC might be some organization based in the USA that I don't know about. Could someone enlighten me about TOC?

Thanks,

T2W

[trying2win]

I just did a GOOGLE search with TOC. I found the answer to my own question.

T2W

[trying2win]

Another mystery...How is it that an online betting service like LINK2BET, got permission from someone to take bets on C.A.R.F. races, but PTC hasn't been able to get the same permission yet? Seems unfair to me.

LINK2BET is similar to PTC, in that the bets made at their website are sent to the host track's parimutuel pool. In addition, LINK2BET also gives players rebates....although overall (in my case at least) the rebates at LINK2BET are considerably lower than PTC.

T2W

[betovernetcapper]

A deeply cynical paranoid person might suspect it is because members of the board are pursuing their own personal financial agenda at the expense of the players-horseman and the state of California.

[NoCal Boy]

My understanding is IRG caters to a very select high end player. Youbet has not touched the IRG website since it purchased them a few years ago. I do not think the IRG customers go to the website. It is a far more personal relationship. I am sure they are directed to the Youbet site for their racing information. Also, IRG is big on the CRW side through the Oregon hub.

ADW is due for reauthorization in California on 1/1/08 and you can expect some changes. For all of the negativity thrown the TOC's way, some of which is justified, they are attempting to open access to all ADW's that ar licenses in the state (TVG, Youbet and XpressBet). The problem is TVG has existing contracts that must run their course unless TVG allows them to be amended. The TOC has previously stepped in to keep SA and GG on Youbet. My guess is you will see a different CA ADW scene in 2008 which will function better than the current system.

[Premier Turf Club]

For all of the negativity thrown the TOC's way, some of which is justified, they are attempting to open access to all ADW's that ar licenses in the state (TVG, Youbet and XpressBet).

With all due respect No Cal Boy because I think you are a smart, well-meaning guy, but the hell they are. They are doing their level best to STIFLE competition, not let new ADWs in. We (PTC, a TOC board member, ND Racing Commission, at least one big California owner I know of,simulcast director for CARF, etc.) now have at least 12 phonecalls into Drew Couto asking for an explanation for why we were turned down. None have been returned.

Does that sound like "open access" to you?

[NoCal Boy]

I do not understand the position of not allowing PTC or others to bet on CARF. Makes little sense to me. However, the TOC is active in trying to break down the walls inside of California on exclusivity. It is not attractive to operate as an ADW within California with the fees being what they are. Youbet barely makes any money on TVG tracks. This probably will start to change in 2008. The more interesting question is how the exclusivities play out in 2008. The TOC stepped in before to give Youbet access to GG and SA and it would not surprise me to see it happen again.

[boomman]

Anyone that thinks the TOC doesn't have their own agenda on EVERYTHING they handle (along with Drew Couto having his own personal agenda) are just kidding themselves. Wake up California and smell the coffee!

Boomer

[trying2win]

I just read this interesting article in regards to 'suggested retail pricing". There seems be some similarity in what the manufacturer and retailer are trying to accomplish in this court case, and what TOC might have on its agenda against some rebate shops...hmmm...I wonder what PACE ADVANTAGE members think of this story?:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/management/legalissues/article172670.html


T2W

[DJofSD]

T2W - that court case was ruled upon by the SC last week. Bottom line: key provisions of the 1920's anti-trust act were thrown out -- higher prices very likely as a result since manufactors will be able to dictate prices and the retailers will not be able to lower them.

Let's see how this pits products made on shore v. off shore. Protectionism v. competition.

My opinion: the US is well on its way to 3rd world status.

[Premier Turf Club]

Here is the decision. DJ, you are correct in that it weakens Sherman. What the court decided is that price agreements are not anti-competitive per se, that each need case needs to be looked on an individual basis.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-480.pdf


From the decision:


...(the previous Federal Court precedent) is overruled and vertical price restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason. (a) The accepted standard for testing whether a practice restrainstrade in violation of §1 is the rule of reason, which requires the fact-finder to weigh “all of the circumstances,”...

... Setting minimum resale prices may also have anticompetitive effects; and unlawful price fixing, designed solely to obtain monopoly profits, is an ever present temptation. Resale price maintenance may, for example, facilitate a manufacturer cartel or be used to organize retail cartels. It can also be abused by a powerful manufacturer or retailer. Thus, the potential anticompetitive consequences of vertical price restraints must not be ignored or underestimated...


Additionally, this is a Sherman Anti-Trust case, not a Clayton Anti-Trust case (price discrimination) so it wouldn't apply re companies selling their products at different rates to different types of retaliers for reasons other than volume discounts (which are permitted).