PDA

View Full Version : Why Tracknet is in big trouble


NoCal Boy
05-10-2008, 01:32 AM
Churchill/Tracknet seems very willing to wait out the horsemen. The question remains what happens if the horsemen drop their demands to something like 5.5% of takeout instead of the 1/3 of gross which is more like 7%? Tracknet is at 4% from all accounts.

If Youbet, TVG and PTC all agree to give the horsemen 5.5% of the takeout, but Tracknet holds firm at 4%, the Tracknet ADW's will crumble due to lack of content.

Do you really think the horsemen are just a bunch of idiots? Don't you think the horsemen have attorneys and financial consultants advising them as well? Churchill made sure of the attorneys by suing them. All it will take is for Youbet and TVG to agree to some reasonable number in between the 1/3 of gross and the 4% offered by Tracknet, and Tracknet is in a major bind. Either agree to the THG deal and open up signals at the agreed upon purse rate, or crumble as ADW's with little content and virtually no content that is not also offered by other major ADW's.

How long do you think Twinspires and Xpressbet will last if Youbet and TVG have all the independent tracks except for Churchill/Magna non-CA tracks, while Tracknet's ADW's will have just a few of those same tracks and virtually none of the Churchill/Magna tracks?

This whole THG matter is actually out of the effective control of Churchill/Tracknet. All it will take is a deal between THG and TVG/Youbet and it is over for Tracknet unless they agree to the same deal and open up their signals. And then Youbet and TVG will dominate TS and XB as they did even in Q1 when the "content advantaage" was all in favor of Tracknet.

Care to disagree?

Kelso
05-10-2008, 02:00 AM
If Youbet, TVG and PTC all agree to give the horsemen 5.5% of the takeout, but Tracknet holds firm at 4%, the Tracknet ADW's will crumble due to lack of content.

Do you really think the horsemen are just a bunch of idiots?Don't you understand that the fight is between the horsemen and the tracks ... and that neither of those groups can dictate terms to the ADWs? The horsemen are trying to reserve an enormous chunk of TRACK REVENUE for themselves. This has nothing at all to do with how much the ADWs PAY for signals.

All it will take to protect ALL of their revenue streams is for the tracks to hang together. Failing that, they will surely hang individually.

Try your feeble divide and conquer game elsewhere. Few will be fooled by it here.



Do you really think the horsemen are just a bunch of idiots?Yes, they have convinced me well beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burls
05-10-2008, 04:36 AM
the horsemen and the tracks ... neither of those groups can dictate terms to the ADWs.

I don't see why not.
Unless certain ADWs have long-term contracts in place stipulating that they will pay a certain percentage of revenue for the track signal, Churchill/Magna could just tell the ADWs that the price for the signal has gone up.

The horsemen are trying to reserve an enormous chunk of TRACK REVENUE for themselves. This has nothing at all to do with how much the ADWs PAY for signals.

Not in and of itself.
But the Churchill management and the horsemen and might decide that they can find some middle ground more easily by squeezing more money out of the ADWs.

This could backfire, of course.
If enough ADWs decide that they aren't going to pay more for the signals, then Churchill will be in deep trouble.
They will have just lost a revenue stream that they can no longer get along without.
The horsemen there will suffer as well, of course.

Valupix
05-10-2008, 08:14 AM
Even if track make money you still may never see the things you wish for in this game.

But that would at least open up a good possibility of seeing them happen someday.

You can be 100%, without the slightest doubt that nothing you or I or any party in this game wishes for will every come to be if track continue to lose money and/or struggle just to break even. It ain't gonna happen no matter which way you turn it. Profit = motivation, motivation = potential progress.

Wishing otherwise as the original post to this thread suggest is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

DeanT
05-10-2008, 10:17 AM
Just remember that any cash they want to "squeeze" out of ADW's comes from one person's pocket, and one person only: the horseplayer.

trigger
05-10-2008, 10:21 AM
Churchill/Tracknet seems very willing to wait out the horsemen. The question remains what happens if the horsemen drop their demands to something like 5.5% of takeout instead of the 1/3 of gross which is more like 7%? Tracknet is at 4% from all accounts.

If Youbet, TVG and PTC all agree to give the horsemen 5.5% of the takeout, but Tracknet holds firm at 4%, the Tracknet ADW's will crumble due to lack of content.

Do you really think the horsemen are just a bunch of idiots? Don't you think the horsemen have attorneys and financial consultants advising them as well? Churchill made sure of the attorneys by suing them. All it will take is for Youbet and TVG to agree to some reasonable number in between the 1/3 of gross and the 4% offered by Tracknet, and Tracknet is in a major bind. Either agree to the THG deal and open up signals at the agreed upon purse rate, or crumble as ADW's with little content and virtually no content that is not also offered by other major ADW's.

How long do you think Twinspires and Xpressbet will last if Youbet and TVG have all the independent tracks except for Churchill/Magna non-CA tracks, while Tracknet's ADW's will have just a few of those same tracks and virtually none of the Churchill/Magna tracks?

This whole THG matter is actually out of the effective control of Churchill/Tracknet. All it will take is a deal between THG and TVG/Youbet and it is over for Tracknet unless they agree to the same deal and open up their signals. And then Youbet and TVG will dominate TS and XB as they did even in Q1 when the "content advantaage" was all in favor of Tracknet.

Care to disagree?

A couple of comments:
There is no evidence at what rate the other ADWs can make a profit and whether it is higher or lower than TNs, so your whole argument , at this point, is pure speculation.
One could just as easily argue that TN could negotiate a rate with THG that would be low enough to "close out" the other ADWs .
And, remember, unlike the past, when accepting low rates at "premium" tracks as "lost leaders" in order to generate traffic to an ADW site (as Youbet did in the past as a "partner" of TVG) was an acceptable business practice for ADWs, the results of the THG negotiations with TN will probably establish the prevailing rates for the majority of NA thoroughbred tracks that all ADWs will have to live with.

startngate
05-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Care to disagree? Yes. IMO you have put forth a scenario that will never happen.
If Youbet, TVG and PTC all agree to give the horsemen 5.5% of the takeout, but Tracknet holds firm at 4%, the Tracknet ADW's will crumble due to lack of content. If a deal is offered by the horsemen that those ADW's can accept, then TrackNet would be able to accept it too. Trigger is right, TrackNet could sign a terrible deal for their ADW's and force everyone else out. You seem to have forgotten that TrackNet's partners also own the racetracks, so they are keeping more than the "other" ADW's already. IMO that means there isn't a deal that the "other" ADW's can sign that TrackNet won't also be able to agree to. In fact, just the opposite is more likely true.

TVG is losing money without their "exclusive fees" from YouBet, who isn't exactly flush with profits either. And Ian will have to reduce his rebates to maintain whatever profitability he has. He certainly isn't going to be able to provide all the additional services (like streaming video) that others on this board keep asking him for unless he charges extra for them.

And forget about takeout reductions. Dean T (and others on this board) have mentioned this additional revenue the horsemen are seeking will keep that from happening.
Do you really think the horsemen are just a bunch of idiots? Yes, IMO they are, because they are asking for something they will never get, and are willing to shoot themselves in the foot (purse reductions) to try to make a point they have no chance of winning. They are alienating the tracks, and more importantly the customers. Not to mention, all the "little guys" among the horsemen are suffering the most because they get hit hardest by the purse reductions. Not smart.

The one thing that annoys me the most is that if you can believe the reports, TrackNet has already gotten the horsemen a lot more money for purses from raising host fees. Instead of saying thank you for that, the horsemen are saying "we know your business better than you do, and you didn't get us enough". Maybe there is more money to be had, or maybe not, but sitting down to see if there are still some areas for improvement on an outlet by outlet basis IMO would be the better way to go about this. Instead they are trying to throw a blanket over alll ADW's, of which each has its own business model that may require different terms and conditions to make work. Every business needs to have some expectation of turning a profit. If the math doesn't work then you go out of business.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing about this situation that is good for us (the customers). I'm not much of a baseball fan any more since the player's strike in 1994. I'm already playing less since my favorite tracks aren't available, and expect that to continue if this doesn't get resolved soon.

NoCal Boy
05-10-2008, 11:32 AM
Very sound arguments from all. I appreciate it. I am merely basing my thoughts on what we know to date. Tracknet has said that 1/3 of gross in not economically feasible, and I believe all ADW's feel the same way. Reports have also indicated Tracknet is only willing to give the THG an extra 1/4% to 4%. This means there is a difference of around 3% between Tracknet/ADW's and THG. Of course Tracknet could go ahead and agree to somthing very close to 1/3 of the gross and force TVG/Youbet and PRC to do the same. However, this runs counter to everything they have stated thus far. Churchill has even gone to lengths and sue the THG et al. Assuming Tracknet is true to its word, and assuming THG is willing to come down to a more reasonable number, then this matter essentially gets resolved with one of the major ADW's becoming willing to pay that price, be it 4.5%, 5.% or whatever.

I am a horseplayer. The vast majority on this board are horseplayers. While I am just as disturbed as to what is going on as others here, I also love to play the game and will continue to find tracks and races to play. I believe I am in the huge majority. Despite all the supposed problems in racing, if all ADW's and simulcast sites had acess to all tracks, the handles would increase over current levels. It will eventually come to that soon. How soon is the question.

Good handicapping today. My Youbet screen is full of tracks to play, as TVG and Twinspires are as well. I want this settled, but I am not going to allow this impasse to affect my enjpoyment in playing the ponies.

Indulto
05-10-2008, 12:07 PM
What I don't understand is all the antipathy toward horsemen here after more than a YEAR of continuous complaining about CDI, MEC, DragNet, Evans, Stronach, and Daruty.

So you can't place a bet while somebody takes these guys on with a discipline you can't muster without some industry marketing mouthpiece holding your hand. Too bad!

If you really want the changes to the industry that I've been reading here for the last 2.5 years, then you should support the horsemen and then follow their example to achieve what you want.

Evans comes off as a malevolent despot and Stronach an emporer in need of clothes. Daruty is seldom quoted in other than vague generalities while nothing good has happened for horseplayers outside of CA since he appeared on the scene. And that was in spite of his efforts, not because of them.

The Eight Belles tragedy isn't the only straw breaking the camel's back. It will take a revolution to straighten this game out and we've just witnessed the Louisville Tea Party. ;)

alydar
05-10-2008, 12:16 PM
What I don't understand is all the antipathy toward horsemen here after more than a YEAR of continuous complaining about CDI, MEC, DragNet, Evans, Stronach, and Daruty.

So you can't place a bet while somebody takes these guys on with a discipline you can't muster without some industry marketing mouthpiece holding your hand. Too bad!

If you really want the changes to the industry that I've been reading here for the last 2.5 years, then you should support the horsemen and then follow their example to achieve what you want.

Evans comes off as a malevolent despot and Stronach an emporer in need of clothes. Daruty is seldom quoted in other than vague generalities while nothing good has happened for horseplayers outside of CA since he appeared on the scene. And that was in spite of his efforts, not because of them.

The Eight Belles tragedy isn't the only straw breaking the camel's back. It will take a revolution to straighten this game out and we've just witnessed the Louisville Tea Party. ;)

Very well put.

cj
05-10-2008, 12:43 PM
What I don't understand is all the antipathy toward horsemen here after more than a YEAR of continuous complaining about CDI, MEC, DragNet, Evans, Stronach, and Daruty.

So you can't place a bet while somebody takes these guys on with a discipline you can't muster without some industry marketing mouthpiece holding your hand. Too bad!
If you really want the changes to the industry that I've been reading here for the last 2.5 years, then you should support the horsemen and then follow their example to achieve what you want.

Evans comes off as a malevolent despot and Stronach an emporer in need of clothes. Daruty is seldom quoted in other than vague generalities while nothing good has happened for horseplayers outside of CA since he appeared on the scene. And that was in spite of his efforts, not because of them.

The Eight Belles tragedy isn't the only straw breaking the camel's back. It will take a revolution to straighten this game out and we've just witnessed the Louisville Tea Party. ;)

I think the reason is that the plan the horsemen want will do absolutely nothing to help the bettor, and could even hinder any bettor friendly changes in the future. At least with the status quo, there is an opportunity for the bettors, as PTC demonstrates, to get a break. The more you give horsemen, the less there is for us. What do you think the horsemen winning will gain for the horseplayer?

Indulto
05-10-2008, 01:15 PM
I think the reason is that the plan the horsemen want will do absolutely nothing to help the bettor, and could even hinder any bettor friendly changes in the future. At least with the status quo, there is an opportunity for the bettors, as PTC demonstrates, to get a break. The more you give horsemen, the less there is for us. What do you think the horsemen winning will gain for the horseplayer?Why should we expect the horsemen to gain anything for the players other than an opportunity to see that track management is not all-powerful? In fact we have the power to end that stalemate in our favor simply by not betting. Do you really think any future bettor-friendly changes would be forthcoming without collective action on the part of horseplayers?

In the wake of the wake-up call at CD on Derby Day, we finally have the focus of the world on us. What better time to organize?

cj
05-10-2008, 01:22 PM
You shouldn't answer a question with several questions. :)

It is kind of comical you suggest not betting. When I mentioned that very thing for the Derby, you were unwilling to do so. I agree we need to organize, but that has nothing to do with the current power struggle. There is no incentive for me, as a bettor, to support the horsemen any more than there is to support track management. What am I missing?

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 01:26 PM
Do you really think any future bettor-friendly changes would be forthcoming without collective action on the part of horseplayers?

I can only speak for PTC, but we're always working on bettor-friendly changes. Joe and I put a lot of money through the windows every year and we were horseplayers for decades before we ever had anything to do with an ADW.

cj
05-10-2008, 01:29 PM
I can only speak for PTC, but we're always working on bettor-friendly changes. Joe and I put a lot of money through the windows every year and we were horseplayers for decades before we ever had anything to do with an ADW.

How would the horsemen's proposal affect PTC?

Cangamble
05-10-2008, 01:32 PM
You shouldn't answer a question with several questions. :)

It is kind of comical you suggest not betting. When I mentioned that very thing for the Derby, you were unwilling to do so. I agree we need to organize, but that has nothing to do with the current power struggle. There is no incentive for me, as a bettor, to support the horsemen any more than there is to support track management. What am I missing?
If the horsemen get their way there is no chance of seeing a reduction of takeouts in the next few decades and probably beyond.
If it was up to horsemen, and they had a chance to increase takeout if the increase went into purses, they would agree in a split second, not understanding the long term affect of such an action.
They are less in touch with the bettor than the racing exec...and even though almost impossible, it is true.

cj
05-10-2008, 01:34 PM
If the horsemen get their way there is no chance of seeing a reduction of takeouts in the next few decades and probably beyond.
If it was up to horsemen, and they had a chance to increase takeout if the increase went into purses, they would agree in a split second, not understanding the long term affect of such an action.
They are less in touch with the bettor than the racing exec...and even though almost impossible, it is true.

That is how I see it and what I was trying to convey to Indulto.

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 01:43 PM
How would the horsemen's proposal affect PTC?

CJ:

Our net hold (takeout-less tote-less taxes-less rewards) is very small, less than 50% of what other ADWs hold. That's not an indictment of anyone, it's just the economics based upon the fact that much of our margin is returned to customers. And this net hold doesn't even take into account our fixed costs.


Anything increase in rates means

a) our thin margins get thinner and

b) rewards to customers will go down.

There are a lot of fixed costs associated with running and ADW, especially an internet based one.

cj
05-10-2008, 01:44 PM
CJ:

Our net hold (takeout-less tote-less taxes-less rewards) is very small, less than 50% of what other ADWs hold. That's not an indictment of anyone, it's just the economics based upon the fact that much of our margin is returned to customers.

Anything increase in rates means

a) our thin margins get thinner and

b) rewards to customers will go down.

There are a lot of fixed costs associated with running and ADW, especially an internet based one.

This is exactly what I suspected, but wanted to ask before I made myself look dumb(er). :)

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 01:55 PM
And following up, while we don't have anywhere near as much sunk into this as CD, Magna, TVG, Youbet, etc. our investment is well into seven figures. Hey, it was our choice, I'm not asking anyone to throw a benefit, I'm just saying the premise that ADWs are parasites that simply suck out big $$$ is completely false.

Any one that knows me knows I work very hard at this, seven days a week 52 weeks a year. I take calls from customers (much to my wife's chagrin) up to 11 PM most nights.

Indulto
05-10-2008, 02:19 PM
You shouldn't answer a question with several questions. :)

It is kind of comical you suggest not betting. When I mentioned that very thing for the Derby, you were unwilling to do so. I agree we need to organize, but that has nothing to do with the current power struggle. There is no incentive for me, as a bettor, to support the horsemen any more than there is to support track management. What am I missing?Some questions don't warrant an answer and others simply raise more.;)

In fact I didn't bet the Derby this year, but not because of principle, and I was fortunate because Gayego did zilch. An aquaintance I respect really liked EB, and though I couldn't see her myself, I realized there was more going on than I could ever glean from the DRF PPs. My bankroll lives to squander another day.

I refuse to go along with professional horseplayers and industry management who try to deprive racing fans of TC and BC days. :bang:

What you are missing IMO (in addition to the entertainment aspect of horseplaying and posting :D) is that once the double-dipping "Axis of Greed" is neutralized, we stand a better chance of collectively making the case that bettors are no less important than horsemen. And, if the horsemen expect to increase takeout -- directly or effectively -- we will also be more motivated.

I believe players have the collective power to extract takeout concessions from both these opponents, but it will take a concerted wallet-opening/moth-release program to do so on the other 360 days of the year.

cj
05-10-2008, 02:31 PM
Well, you hit the hardest on the biggest days in my opinion.

Tracks are buying up ADWs to cut out the middle man. Horsemen are realizing what the tracks are doing and trying to get their cut. Right now, is it better financially for Churchill/Magna to take a bet on track for live racing or via TwinSpires/XpressBet?

Indulto
05-10-2008, 02:56 PM
Do you really think any future bettor-friendly changes would be forthcoming without collective action on the part of horseplayers?I can only speak for PTC, but we're always working on bettor-friendly changes. Joe and I put a lot of money through the windows every year and we were horseplayers for decades before we ever had anything to do with an ADW.PTC,
That goes without saying. I was referring to future changes on the part of other ADWs and tracks. If you guys can succeed and get NY and CA tracks for all U.S. citizens, I couldn’t ask for more. But that battle is apparently uphill, and even you may need collective horseplayer support of the kind I am talking about to get there.And following up, while we don't have anywhere near as much sunk into this as CD, Magna, TVG, Youbet, etc. our investment is well into seven figures. Hey, it was our choice, I'm not asking anyone to throw a benefit, I'm just saying the premise that ADWs are parasites that simply suck out big $$$ is completely false.

Any one that knows me knows I work very hard at this, seven days a week 52 weeks a year. I take calls from customers (much to my wife's chagrin) up to 11 PM most nights.I promise no premise of parasitic proclivity with respect to PTC will ever be proclaimed, promoted, or publicized in any post of mine. ;)

Maybe a stained glass or two by Chagall would reduce the chagrin to mere distain. :lol:

Kelso
05-10-2008, 03:49 PM
This could backfire, of course.
If enough ADWs decide that they aren't going to pay more for the signals, then Churchill will be in deep trouble.
They will have just lost a revenue stream that they can no longer get along without.
The horsemen there will suffer as well, of course.I think we're reading from the same page.

But neither of us are reading anything that says the ADWs are trying to dictate how the players spend their winnings. Nor are we reading anything of the players trying to dictate how the horsemen must spend their purse money. That's because neither is happening. But that is precisely what the horsemen are trying to do to the tracks.

I urge all sides to reduce the argument to the essentials of the transactions, and then to haggle over only price and product. Neither the sources nor the circumstances of how any party makes its money should be a consideration in any of the negotiations or decisions.

The tracks pay the horsemen (purses) for successfully competing against other horsemen in races. The ADWs pay the tracks (fees) for successfully competing against other tracks in providing bettable races. The players pay the ADWs and/or the tracks (takeout) for successfully competing with other gambling venues in providing wagering opportunities. A free market will efficiently reveal the true values of purses, fees and takeout.

(Hmmm, did you notice that only the horsemen pay no money to any of the other major participants? How much is barn space worth, anyway? As well, did you spot that only the players take no money from any of the others ... except in the still-rare instance of rebates? Why is that, I wonder.)

But it is not helpful, nor economically (legally?) appropriate, for any of the participants in the transactions to tell the others how they MUST spend their revenues. Again, the horsemen are trying to do precisely that.

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 03:54 PM
But that battle is apparently uphill, and even you may need collective horseplayer support of the kind I am talking about to get there.



We can never have too much horseplayer support. In fact, without it we are dead.

chickenhead
05-10-2008, 04:16 PM
There are a lot of fixed costs associated with running and ADW, especially an internet based one.

Which is why I've been rethinking some things about what a better structure for horseplayers would look like. Every ADW is going to have a certain level of fixed costs, and compete for a slice of the ADW wagering buck.

So my question is, is that really the most efficient model? I assume there are some (many) economies of scale in play, adding x dollars or x number of accounts becomes marginally cheaper and cheaper the more you add, but what we have are all ADWs duplicating effort, decreasing each of their efficiencies, which in some ways necessitates a larger bite to sustain.

TVG, Youbet, TwinSpires, you, others, all running their own duplicate operations, the total costs that horseplayers are paying are multiplied far beyond what it would cost any one of those operations to service the aggregate handle over a single platform. Until PTC came along, it really can't even be called competition, as they all basically have the exact same cost for the consumer, all they are really ensuring is that the market is as inefficient as possible. PTC is injecting some actual cost competition, and thats a very good thing.

The same argument can largely be made for marginal bush league tracks...if they were closed, even if your overall revenue shrunk, what you did retain would be concentrated into a much more profitable operation for the remaining tracks.

The best way to reduce takeout, if you had any sort of structure in place, may well be to decrease intra-industry competition, rather than increase it. The real competition that needs to be focused on is competing with other forms of gambling and entertainment.

Maybe I'm moving over to the darkside, I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me.

cj
05-10-2008, 04:37 PM
A lack of competition is NEVER good for the consumer. That is why Churchill (TwinSpires) and Magna (Xpressbet) are trying to reduce/eliminate as much of it as they can.

Indulto
05-10-2008, 04:39 PM
Which is why I've been rethinking some things about what a better structure for horseplayers would look like. ...

... The best way to reduce takeout, if you had any sort of structure in place, may well be to decrease intra-industry competition, rather than increase it. The real competition that needs to be focused on is competing with other forms of gambling and entertainment.

Maybe I'm moving over to the darkside, I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me.IF the NTRA under Smith had done it's job, it would have created a single ADW funded by all tracks which took bets on all without being a profit center.

Turns out Smith's dark side was the Empire. ;)

chickenhead
05-10-2008, 04:46 PM
A lack of competition is NEVER good for the consumer. That is why Churchill (TwinSpires) and Magna (Xpressbet) are trying to reduce/eliminate as much of it as they can.

That depends on what the consumer cares about. Walmart can deliver the absolute lowest costs to the consumer due to scale, and being flat out more efficient than anyone else. If what we care about are costs, the Walmart model works much better for us than a bunch of high marginal cost "competitive" boutiques.

This industry requires a Walmart, is my argument. One single dominant entity that can deliver the lowest price technically possible. It is a fact that in a fractured landscape, like we have now, NO ONE can hit that price point.

cj
05-10-2008, 04:58 PM
You are right, but I have little faith that this industry could do anything as efficiently as Walmart. I have even less faith they would try to price the product to generate growth.

chickenhead
05-10-2008, 05:00 PM
You are right, but I have little faith that this industry could do anything as efficiently as Walmart. I have even less faith they would try to price the product to generate growth.

I know, and that's the problem, idiots at the helm.

For now we need to root for PTC to become the Walmart.

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 05:08 PM
I know, and that's the problem, idiots at the helm.

For now we need to root for PTC to become the Walmart.

More than just root. Player's have to vote with their wallets. It's handle that catches everyone's attention. The more handle we have, the more room they make for us at the table.

I know that sounds self-serving (and to an extent it is) but anyone that plays with us can attest that there is a difference in terms of technology and customer service. I hope now that we've gotten more content we will see a big spike in handle.

chickenhead
05-10-2008, 06:01 PM
More than just root. Player's have to vote with their wallets. It's handle that catches everyone's attention. The more handle we have, the more room they make for us at the table.

I know that sounds self-serving (and to an extent it is) but anyone that plays with us can attest that there is a difference in terms of technology and customer service. I hope now that we've gotten more content we will see a big spike in handle.

I'm sure this is stating the obvious, but you have to get California opened up. For a large percentage of players, rooting is what we're limited to.

Murph
05-10-2008, 06:15 PM
What I don't understand is all the antipathy toward horsemen here after more than a YEAR of continuous complaining about CDI, MEC, DragNet, Evans, Stronach, and Daruty.

So you can't place a bet while somebody takes these guys on with a discipline you can't muster without some industry marketing mouthpiece holding your hand. Too bad!

If you really want the changes to the industry that I've been reading here for the last 2.5 years, then you should support the horsemen and then follow their example to achieve what you want.

Evans comes off as a malevolent despot and Stronach an emporer in need of clothes. Daruty is seldom quoted in other than vague generalities while nothing good has happened for horseplayers outside of CA since he appeared on the scene. And that was in spite of his efforts, not because of them.

The Eight Belles tragedy isn't the only straw breaking the camel's back. It will take a revolution to straighten this game out and we've just witnessed the Louisville Tea Party. ;)Thank you Indulto, I agree whole heartedly.

Murph
05-10-2008, 06:25 PM
I think the reason is that the plan the horsemen want will do absolutely nothing to help the bettor, and could even hinder any bettor friendly changes in the future. At least with the status quo, there is an opportunity for the bettors, as PTC demonstrates, to get a break. The more you give horsemen, the less there is for us. What do you think the horsemen winning will gain for the horseplayer?What it will gain for bettors is an ADW platform that can be served by anyone who builds an interface. I do not understand why folks think the tracks should have the majority of profits from ADW sites. When the horsemen can sell their signal to anyone willing to pay the cut, the wagering opportunities will increase. As far as keeping a cut aside for rebates, I cannot support this in any way.

Some one who would presume to tell me how much and when I must bet in order to recieve anything, can go to hell. I will bet when and where I choose without restrictions or rebates.

Sit on your ass at home and play by the same rules and track takes as everyone else. Don't expect to be rewarded with rebates on your action unless you choose to knuckle under to an ADW's terms for distribiuting any returns. That is the choice for ADW's to make. They do not deserve anything additional from the horsemen's purse account because this is how they choose to operate their ADW.

cj
05-10-2008, 07:22 PM
What it will gain for bettors is an ADW platform that can be served by anyone who builds an interface. I do not understand why folks think the tracks should have the majority of profits from ADW sites. When the horsemen can sell their signal to anyone willing to pay the cut, the wagering opportunities will increase. As far as keeping a cut aside for rebates, I cannot support this in any way.

Some one who would presume to tell me how much and when I must bet in order to recieve anything, can go to hell. I will bet when and where I choose without restrictions or rebates.

Sit on your ass at home and play by the same rules and track takes as everyone else. Don't expect to be rewarded with rebates on your action unless you choose to knuckle under to an ADW's terms for distribiuting any returns. That is the choice for ADW's to make. They do not deserve anything additional from the horsemen's purse account because this is how they choose to operate their ADW.

ADWs aren't asking for anything additional...horsemen are.

I'm not all that concerened with rebates. It isn't personal...for the game to thrive, we need lower takeouts, which is all that rebates are. I'd much rather have lower rake for EVERYONE.

Premier Turf Club
05-10-2008, 07:32 PM
Re: California:

Yeah, I know we need to get licensed there. We're trying to now. Again, the biggest issue is going to be that California doesn't allow rebaters. I don't know how we're going to get around that.

chickenhead
05-10-2008, 07:50 PM
Again, the biggest issue is going to be that California doesn't allow rebaters. I don't know how we're going to get around that.

If the rule is CA residents can't be rebated (since Youbet rewards are limited to non CA customers I'm guessing that's it?)....just don't rebate them.

Use that extra money to increase rebates for non-CA players, improve your interface, hire lobbyists, whatever.

If the rule is you can't get in if you rebate non CA players on non Ca tracks...that's a different story.

Indulto
05-10-2008, 08:08 PM
Re: California:

Yeah, I know we need to get licensed there. We're trying to now. Again, the biggest issue is going to be that California doesn't allow rebaters. I don't know how we're going to get around that.Like Chick says, just get in here, rebates or not. Given a chance to vote with our wallets., we should be able tohelp address that deficiency with you. I'd suggest, however, that you hold onto our share until you are able to find a legal way to use it to our individual benefit.

Javagold
05-10-2008, 09:12 PM
Smith turned out to be a joke and a fraud....all of horse racing took a few steps back with that pansy at the helm



IF the NTRA under Smith had done it's job, it would have created a single ADW funded by all tracks which took bets on all without being a profit center.

Turns out Smith's dark side was the Empire. ;)

Kelso
05-10-2008, 11:47 PM
What it will gain for bettors is an ADW platform that can be served by anyone who builds an interface.

You are transparantly trying to play the players for fools, Murph. It won't wash. When the horsemen are fighting for ONLY open access, they will deserve and receive the support of players. But we both know your inference that the greedy bastards are trying to do something for the players is a load of horseshit, don't we.


I do not understand why folks think the tracks should have the majority of profits from ADW sites.

That's only because you refuse to see the inconvenient reality of the horsemen's economic position. The tracks and ADWs/OTBs should be allowed to keep whatever the market says they should because the tracks are the ONLY sellers and the ADWs/OTBs are the ONLY buyers of signals. The horsemen have no place, whatsoever, in that interplay.


When the horsemen can sell their signal to anyone willing to pay the cut,

You can't be that naieve ... or dumb ... can you? The HORSEMEN HAVE NO SIGNALS TO SELL!! They don't own any signals because they don't own any races. If horsemen want to get into the signal-selling business, let 'em buy a damed track so they can have races to call their own. Until then, the ALL of the signals belong to the tracks ... and to the tracks ALONE.


the wagering opportunities will increase. As far as keeping a cut aside for rebates, I cannot support this in any way.

You just managed to contradict yourself within one sentence. (Hey ... I'll bet your a horseman, aren't you. They don't make any sense, either.) You don't give a damn about "bettng opportunities" for the players. Stop trying to play us for fools.


Some one who would presume to tell me how much and when I must bet in order to recieve anything, can go to hell.

But it's perfectly acceptable for you horsemen to be able to dictate to the tracks how they spend THEIR revenue, isn't it? Typical selfish, hypocritical, horsman horseshit.


<snip>


Sit on your ass at home and play by the same rules and track takes as everyone else. Don't expect to be rewarded with rebates on your action unless you choose to knuckle under to an ADW's terms for distribiuting any returns. That is the choice for ADW's to make.

That's exactly what you just finished saying you want!! No rebates for the players. In other words ... "the same rules and track takes as everyone else." Your comments are solid confirmation of horseman ignorance.


They do not deserve anything additional from the horsemen's purse account because this is how they choose to operate their ADW.

That's probably why they aren't trying to get anything from the horsemen. The ADWs/OTBs negotiate only with tracks.

And, in so doing, they aren't behaving like horsemen ... whining like a bunch of greedy, selfish, spoiled brats demanding something it makes no economic sense for them to have.


Furthermore, I suspect that the ADWs understand that they can't take anything from you that YOU DON'T HAVE in the first place ... such as REVENUES FROM SIGNALS THAT DON'T BELONG TO YOU!!
Murph, horsemen such as you are the reason you're finding little sympathy for your greed among players.

Scav
05-10-2008, 11:51 PM
Re: California:

Yeah, I know we need to get licensed there. We're trying to now. Again, the biggest issue is going to be that California doesn't allow rebaters. I don't know how we're going to get around that.

Why not offer ZERO rebates on California, but maybe tie California bets to say another track (one of your larger margin tracks, lets say ABC Track)

If you make bets at California tracks, you get an extra X% on your bets at ABC Track.

Zero rebates for california tracks, but more on ABC...

Just a thought, probably wouldn't work because it would be seen as backend...

startngate
05-11-2008, 12:21 AM
Why not offer ZERO rebates on California, but maybe tie California bets to say another track (one of your larger margin tracks, lets say ABC Track)

If you make bets at California tracks, you get an extra X% on your bets at ABC Track.

Zero rebates for california tracks, but more on ABC...

Just a thought, probably wouldn't work because it would be seen as backend...

Actually Scav, I think Ian is saying California doesn't allow its residents to receive rebates, which is the "issue" he has as far as getting licensed goes.

Burls
05-11-2008, 02:05 AM
Actually Scav, I think Ian is saying California doesn't allow its residents to receive rebates, which is the "issue" he has as far as getting licensed goes.

Unfortunately, it's much worse than that.
Drew J Couto, President of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, maintains the following (in another PA thread):

From what we have seen, there is an abundance of evidence demonstrating that "rebates" do not increase overall handle, but rather simply enable those players with access to such rebates to enjoy a competitive advantage not afforded ordinary players. The net effect is to substantially increase the effective takeout rate for all other players, artificially reducing payouts, and reducing the overall amount of churn through the systematic siphoning of so-called "profits" from the pools. Despite what some say, this is not founded on a "winners not welcomed" philosophy, but upon earnest recognition of the fact that rebates simply create a competitive advantage for some, with little or no benefit to the pool, handle, or associated revenues.

So Drew doesn't want any bettors anywhere to get rebates from betting on California tracks. According to his Bizzaro logic, by giving me a rebate on my wagers, instead of just keeping that money for themselves, Joe and Ian are actually causing the California betting pools to shrink. So it is crucial that the Thoroughbred Owners of California do everything they can to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The best way they can do this is by vetoing all attempts by PTC, or any other ADWs that offer rebates to bettors, to gain access to the California Track signals.

A sensible person would think that if my bankroll is eroding more slowly per $100 wagered, as a result of the cushioning effect of the rebates, the total amount I wager over time will actually be increased by the rebates. Rebates would create churn; not reduce it.

What if I am actually profitting by my wagering, though?
With the rebates, I would profit at a slightly higher percentage.
According to Drew, this would "reduce the overall amount of churn in the pools"?
How? You may ask.
The additional money I'm getting from the rebates is not coming from the pools.
It's coming from the PTC bottom line.
So, if some of my profits are coming from the rebates, this actually reduces the amount of profit that would have to come from the pools, thus increasing, not reducing, churn.
The fact that Joe and Ian are allowing their profit margin to be reduced "harms" no one but them.
And, regardless of whether I am a winning or losing bettor, it helps the pools.

This seems simple enough to me.
But Drew et al refuse to listen to reason here.
Their minds are made up and that's the end of it.
And these are the people Ian has to convince that it would be a good thing to give PTC access to California Track signals.
You have my condolences on that front, Ian.

Cangamble
05-11-2008, 08:05 AM
Anyone who wins money in the long run is taking out churn money from the system, and increases the takeout for everyone.
However, winners serve a better purpose for the industry. Winners are the only way to attract a sustantial new base of customers.
The problem with regular track takeouts is that winnng players (if any) make up such a minute amount that new players aren't attracted.
With rebaters, the tide has turned, and ADW's like PTC create HOPE again, that one can break even, or even win in the long term.

Cangamble
05-11-2008, 08:07 AM
Murph, horsemen such as you are the reason you're finding little sympathy for your greed among players.
I caught all the things you caught in Murph's propaganda piece. Good luck to those who "think" like him.

Murph
05-11-2008, 08:25 AM
Murph, horsemen such as you are the reason you're finding little sympathy for your greed among players.Hello Kelso,
I like your ardor in support of the players but your enthusiasm may have clouded your vision of the bigger picture. You can't seem to find the forest due to all of the trees.

How many times have you seen my name listed as owner or trainer in the entries?

Horsemen DO in fact OWN their share of the racing signal. (By law of the Interstate horseracing act) They are allowed to sell or NOT sell the signal as they see fit.

ADWs aren't asking for anything additional...horsemen are.

I'm not all that concerened with rebates. It isn't personal...for the game to thrive, we need lower takeouts, which is all that rebates are. I'd much rather have lower rake for EVERYONE.No, ADW's are not asking for additional revenue beyond the scope of current agreements. The horsemen realize that tracks allowing them to sell their signal to ALL, can only benefit them (and players) in the long run. They are asking for their same share of all ADW wagering revenue as they recieve from on track wagers, nothng more.

I agree with you totally that any rebate action should be reflected instead in lower takeout percentages for ALL bettors. I say that horsmen are not interested in rebating anyone and they would rather support a lower takeout. They seem to understand that allowing the track owned ADW's to keep more than they do from the on track pools will only hurt them long term. Once given to magna and CDI et al, the profits vanish into the botom line of those corporations. Much better for everyone to OPEN the sale of the signal to all ADW's and then let them compete for online wagering dollars.

Horsemen do not care where the bet originates as long as they get he same cut into the pusre account for all wagers. Not 7% of on track, 5.5% of OTB and then only 3.3% of ADW. Hosremen do not care what the takeout percentages are as long as that does not decrease the overall contribution to their purse fund.

ADW's will be free to compete with rebates or what ever schemes they can dream up once the racing signals are not monopolized by any exclusive rights deals made in the past. Forgive horsmen their past mistakes and allow them to proceed in their best interest for the good of everyone.

So many long time experienced handicappers should really have a greater understanding of what is happening now and in how it can relate to better times for all in the industry who are willing to compete on a level that will allow service and satisfaction - for players to decide where to put their wagering dollars.

I'll shop at a Kroger type of ADW as soon as I can get the loss leader ad for the best deal. If CD is allowed to let Twin Spires monopolize the ADW market through exclusive rights to online wagering and services for their network of tracks it is bad for everyone - except the track operators. Let the track execs earn their keep by makng players happy and competing (with ALL allowed to purchase the signal/wagering rights) for our business.

Allowing the horsemen to keep their current share will make the game stronger. This is only a single part of the equation to begin returning our sport to the players. I think we are in basic agreement on several points here but this is a very complex issue. I am on the players side and I believe that the current horseman action on the ADW signal front is proper and good for players as well.

All of the tracks in Kentucky put together cannot come close to the economic impact to the state and country that the horsemen bring to the table. If CD and Magna shutter all of their tracks because of this ADW standoff, I say that is a very good start to getting our game back in order.

Murph

Murph
05-11-2008, 08:32 AM
I am a horse race handi capping fool and one of the best too, dam it. You just don't get it .... dam it ...
Murph

Cangamble
05-11-2008, 08:59 AM
Murph, show me one time that horsemen have ever supported lower takeouts.

Murph
05-11-2008, 09:22 AM
Murph, show me one time that horsemen have ever supported lower takeouts.I believe New York horsemen supported lower take outs when that was proposed by NYRA for their straight pool wagring some years ago. That's why it was approved without major incident or argument.

As I have already stated, horsemen's concern with takeout rates is a matter of overall contributition to the purse fund. If lower takeout will help boost the purse fund, they will support that issue. If higher takeout results in greater contribution to the purse fund, they will support that as well. Show the horsemen something they or the tracks can do to increase the purse fund accounts and horsemen will certainly support that.

Murph

rrbauer
05-11-2008, 09:54 AM
I say that horsmen are not interested in rebating anyone and they would rather support a lower takeout.


You say this, because? I haven't seen anything, anywhere, that makes me believe that horsemen support lower takeouts....indeed, just the opposite.



Much better for everyone to OPEN the sale of the signal to all ADW's and then let them compete for online wagering dollars.

And, the current horsmens' actions accomplishes this?



Horsemen do not care where the bet originates as long as they get he same cut into the pusre account for all wagers. Not 7% of on track, 5.5% of OTB and then only 3.3% of ADW. Hosremen do not care what the takeout percentages are as long as that does not decrease the overall contribution to their purse fund.


The first four words say it all: Horsemen do not care. They don't care about the players (recall the Jeff Mullins tirade a couple years ago?); they don't care about the quality of the product...every time reducing race dates and increasing field sizes is brought up, it's the horsemen who shoot it down; they don't care about the decline in the race track "plant" that results in dirty and ill-repaired facilities for the customers AND the low-paid backstretch help. (Delaware Park being a prime example. Delaware has gone to hell but the purses are up. That's all the horsemen care about.)

In all of the reports and press releases surrounding any of these issues (purses, adw splits, takeout, etc.) I NEVER SEE THE CUSTOMER MENTIONED.
Does this tell anyone, anything? Why should we waste our time and energy arguing about what is completely out of our control? Let them have their pissing matches. Let them show themselves for what they are. When the dust clears, if there is anything left worth supporting, fine...we can do that. Until then put your money away; watch baseball, play golf, play poker, mow the yard, go fishing but DO SOMETHING BESIDES BITCH!

NoCal Boy
05-11-2008, 10:00 AM
Murph


I am neither a trainer nor owner, but an avid player and a customer/shareholder in Youbet (stop laughing, but I do believe the tide is turning with its new management in place controlling expenses and focusing on customer service!!). FWIW (and admittedly maybe not much), I am a corporate attorney with an MBA that has worked on numerous M&A and contractual matters over the years. I do believe I have seen quite a few things over the years. I have read the court filings in the Churchill-THG matter and corresponded with some of the principals involved. However, there does appear to be somewhat of a silent period going on at present. Hopefully that means some movement somewhere.

What you are reading on this thread are emotional responses from good intentioned horse players. The theme of how can the customer be taken care of in this industry runs throughout most of them. There is nothing wrong with that as everyone in this industry is trying to get their proper piece of the pie. However, many of the comments simply will not work and are more fanciful in nature than anything else.

Someone said in response to one of my comments yesterday that I was simply playing word games. Unfortunately, words mean an awful lot when you are dealing with legal issues. You are absolutely correct that the Interstate Horse Racing Act provides horsemen with certain rights. These are not privileges, but rights. There is a big difference. Players have the privilege of placing wagers on certain tracks. Tracks have the privilege of conducting races at their tracks. However, these are not legal rights. Horsemen have the legal right to grant or withhold signals at their tracks. This is specifically provided for in the IHA. It is a legal right. Such consent can be granted or withheld by horsemen and there is nothing the track can do about it in the absence of illegal activity by the horsemen.

I believe this current impasse with THG has everything to do with Tracknet's actions and policies over the past year. When Tracknet was formed it boldly stated it was for open access. However, it has repeatedly stymied that open access through its actions and pricing. What happened when the Florida horsemen wanted Youbet in the Gulfstream pools this winter? Stirling stated Tracknet put the proverbial gun to their head in demanding the signal stay exclusive. The result is now we have the impasse at Calder. Tracknet has succeeded in getting host fees up and they should be commended for it. However, their apparent ADW strategy to squeeze out TVG and Youbet has failed. In Q1 of 2008, the most exclusive of Tracknet's quarters, Twinspires had $62MM in handle and XpressBet had $57MM in handle. XpressBet's handle was only up $1MM over Q1 of 2007. Youbet had $96MM in handle and TVG had $108MM. Yet, major race meets at Gulfstream, Oaklawn and Fair Grounds were exclusive to Tracknet, and Tracknet also had access to NYRA and Meadowlands on a non-exclusive basis. What will happen once open access on all signals occurs? I dare say Youbet and TVG will simply widen the gap over the Tracknet ADW's. As it is, I doubt many large players ar pushing much money through Xpressbet given Magna's financial issues.

Let the players here vent. I am also frustrated by what is going on and in many ways they are right in an idealistic world. But unfortunately the practical realities of the racing industry and its legal structures have to be recognized. I do believe that 1/3 of the gross is absurd. I also believe that the THG knows this and does not expect the ADW's to agree to this structure. However, it also appears Tracknet is barely willing to move. In the meantime, the Churchill and Calder meets are being hit, but more importantly the Tracknet ADW's are likely stalled and their apprarent attempt at squeezing out TVG and Youbet irreparably gone. Twinspires and Xpressbet were already behind Youbet and TVG and that is likely to widen because of this impasse. What reasons are there other than Arlington and the Preakness to sign up and remain with the Tracknet ADW's? I am not saying people will leave those ADW's, but why sign up over TVG and Youbet? Some will, most will not.

I do believe this mess gets settled by the summer. For all involved, including the horseplayers that generate the wagering revenues, let's hope it is much sooner than later.

Murph
05-11-2008, 10:01 AM
You say this, because? I haven't seen anything, anywhere, that makes me believe that horsemen support lower takeouts....indeed, just the opposite.

And, the current horsmens' actions accomplishes this?
------- cut
Until then put your money away; watch baseball, play golf, play poker, mow the yard, go fishing but DO SOMETHING BESIDES BITCH!

OK Rich,
I am in the minority on this debate (as usual) so I can just keep my thoughts to myself. I wouldn't want to help anyone further rationalize hating horsemen, or cause someone else to think that I actually am one.

Murph

Indulto
05-11-2008, 02:49 PM
Thank you Indulto, I agree whole heartedly.Thank you Rev. Wrong.

Hey Murph,
Next time you give me a ringing endorsement, please do it when you're not PWI. :jump:

The following post is more reasoable than several others of yours that preceded it:
... ADW's are not asking for additional revenue beyond the scope of current agreements. The horsemen realize that tracks allowing them to sell their signal to ALL, can only benefit them (and players) in the long run. They are asking for their same share of all ADW wagering revenue as they recieve from on track wagers, nothng more.

I agree with you totally that any rebate action should be reflected instead in lower takeout percentages for ALL bettors. I say that horsmen are not interested in rebating anyone and they would rather support a lower takeout. They seem to understand that allowing the track owned ADW's to keep more than they do from the on track pools will only hurt them long term. Once given to magna and CDI et al, the profits vanish into the botom line of those corporations. Much better for everyone to OPEN the sale of the signal to all ADW's and then let them compete for online wagering dollars.

Horsemen do not care where the bet originates as long as they get he same cut into the pusre account for all wagers. Not 7% of on track, 5.5% of OTB and then only 3.3% of ADW. Hosremen do not care what the takeout percentages are as long as that does not decrease the overall contribution to their purse fund.

ADW's will be free to compete with rebates or what ever schemes they can dream up once the racing signals are not monopolized by any exclusive rights deals made in the past. Forgive horsmen their past mistakes and allow them to proceed in their best interest for the good of everyone.

... If CD is allowed to let Twin Spires monopolize the ADW market through exclusive rights to online wagering and services for their network of tracks it is bad for everyone - except the track operators. Let the track execs earn their keep by makng players happy and competing (with ALL allowed to purchase the signal/wagering rights) for our business.

Allowing the horsemen to keep their current share will make the game stronger. This is only a single part of the equation to begin returning our sport to the players. I think we are in basic agreement on several points here but this is a very complex issue. I am on the players side and I believe that the current horseman action on the ADW signal front is proper and good for players as well.

All of the tracks in Kentucky put together cannot come close to the economic impact to the state and country that the horsemen bring to the table. If CD and Magna shutter all of their tracks because of this ADW standoff, I say that is a very good start to getting our game back in order. ...IMO both tracks and horseman need fairer compensation from bets placed off-track than they have received in the past, but static distribution of that increase may not be possible. Perhaps the split needs to be established in tiers. Initially some minimum purse levels should be guaranteed after which some specified operating expenses need to be funded. Once these defined minimums are satisfied, then perhaps a different split of increased handle, if any, could fund higher purses with less resistance from the tracks.

However, tracks that are operated for profit, e.g., CDI and MEC, will prefer to have have stockholders rather than horsemen be the primary beneficiaries of increased handle. That is why I support the horsemen going after those double dippers.

It does appear that some horsemen, especially in CA, are resistant to lowering takeout in any manner, except for bonified whales. If THG is not willing to lower takeout for everybody, then it must allow rebates by PTC and others or it will not be entitled to further horseplayer support.

discodog
05-11-2008, 07:39 PM
Horse racing is in the pits when it comes to the bettors, they are all looking at slot money or raising takeout (ala the liberal thinking) instead of reducing and attracting more money. Most people shoot themselves in the foot once in a while. Horseracing has the gun aimed at their HEAD. Forty years plus playing the game, made my first bet in a year on the Derby. May be another year before I bet again.
P.S. When will Frank Stronach drop dead for the good of the game.

northerndancer
05-11-2008, 08:34 PM
A few musings about this situation:

1. THG has stated they want 1/3 of the effective takeout (average takeout) and it seems this has morphed to the theory that it is 1/3 for horsemen. 1/3 for tracks and 1/3 for the ADW;
2. You may aske yourself why has this morphed to this belief because of TNM stating that if the THG gets 1/3 than the tracks get 1/3;
3. This could be resolved if the tracks were willing to accept less than the horsemen;
4. When was Murph elected leader of the horsemen. In the future please do not state that 'the horsemen........' as I am an owner of both thoroughbred and standardbred breeds and you do not speak for me and should not be speaking for other horsemen;
5. Kent Sterling has to be looking for a very tall building right about now..... he bought into the TNM charade a year ago and now all that has happened to him is the group he leads has experienced two major purse cuts (which he does not control) and is offering some of the lowest purses in the country (rivals Suffolk levels). Kent might go down and the best whipping post for 2008..... someone needs to take the please kick me sign off of his back. What the heck was he thinking;
6. I bet you will be able to privately purchase quite easily on the backstretch of Calder right about now;
7. Interesting that one of the main leaders of the THG is the head of the Philadelphia Park Horsemen Group which does not have to rely on the wagering dollar for purse monies since it has slot revenue. The other leader is from the Ohio Horsemens Group who basically had nothing to lose by going down this road. I guess we should all learn from this be careful who you chose to follow in life;
8. Hypothetically assume that this civil war goes on into the fall..... Calder cuts purses another two or three times...... many horsemen go under at Calder....... the THG which has stated from the start it will accept nothing less than 7% (never a smart move to state it in a hard fashion) and eventually accepts something less than 7%....... I would love to be privy to the conversation between the THG and Kent Sterling.....
9. Does Churchill eventually shut down Calder and Gulfsteam assume the race dates?;

This is far from being over as both parties have chosen paths that they might not be able to retreat.

Kelso
05-11-2008, 09:25 PM
I like your ardor in support of the players but your enthusiasm may have clouded your vision of the bigger picture. You can't seem to find the forest due to all of the trees.

How many times have you seen my name listed as owner or trainer in the entries?To be perfectly candid, I have never found any worthwhile reason to look for your name anywhere. Should I?


Horsemen DO in fact OWN their share of the racing signal. (By law of the Interstate horseracing act) They are allowed to sell or NOT sell the signal as they see fit.
Horsemen have nothing more than the PRIVILEDGE of interfering in the conduct of interstate and intrastate trade; i.e., they have been ... for the time being ... allowed to impede the operation of an otherwise free market in pursuit of their own selfish interests. That priviledge was granted by Congress-creeps who were bought and paid for by the horsemen. As soon as the tracks and/or the ADWs bid more for their votes, or a competent federal judge takes even a cursory look at your congressional quid-pro-quo, you can kiss your interference priviledge goodbye.

Jeff P
05-11-2008, 09:36 PM
This is far from being over as both parties have chosen paths that they might not be able to retreat.And all the while the player bears the brunt of this.

How shortsighted can people in the industry be? A big part of me really wants to support the industry. But as a player all I really want to do is bet. Industry pissing contests like this really make it hard to care whether my actions support the industry or not.

Don't they realize that when they withhold signals from ADWs that I CAN and WILL bet offshore? Don't they realize that I pay a lower effective takeout offshore than through an ADW? Don't they realize that I (and others like me) might choose to stay offshore after this pissing contest is over?

How can both sides not realize it's in their best interest to settle this thing ASAP?


-jp

.

Kelso
05-11-2008, 09:56 PM
You are absolutely correct that the Interstate Horse Racing Act provides horsemen with certain rights. These are not privileges, but rights. There is a big difference. Players have the privilege of placing wagers on certain tracks. Tracks have the privilege of conducting races at their tracks. However, these are not legal rights. Horsemen have the legal right to grant or withhold signals at their tracks.Where in hell do you get off putting horsemen ... or anyone else ... in a superior position in law to players?

In the United States, counselor, "rights" originate in the Constitution. Anything permitted by a legislature - within a framework of regulations, limitations and prohibitions - is a "priviledge"

Whether it is the priviledge of conducting pari mutuel gambling, betting into pari mutuel pools, whipping a horse on a racetrack or selfishly interfering with free markets, they're all the same ... and they're all priviledges. It doesn't matter whether the beneficiary of the legislative action is a player or a horseman. Priviledges are priviledges to any and all who receive them.

Privilidges can be both granted and revoked by a legislative body. Rights cannot be revoked by anyone.

Kelso
05-11-2008, 10:04 PM
Initially some minimum purse levels should be guaranteed after which some specified operating expenses need to be funded. So horse racing should be gambling for players, but guaranteed income for horsemen?!?:eek:

northerndancer
05-11-2008, 11:01 PM
The more I think about the thread I realize that the Heading is not appropriate.... it should be Why MEC is in big trouble and Churchill Downs will be the beneficiary.

I find it ironic that Churchill is the entity that fired the law suit salvo..... MEC is also suffering at Lone Star due to this fiasco but they did not file a seperate or join the legal action with Churchill.

When this civil war continues through all of 2008 the entity that can afford the negative financial consequence the most is the entity that will suffer the most.... is that not MEC?

Who would benefit the most if MEC take the gaspipe....... hmmmmmmm

That being said MEC does have protection in CA to assist the SA & GG operations compared to no Churchill product in CA. Since the state statue requires open access to all ADW's in CA.

I really do not like where this is headed and IMO I do not see any winners coming from this battle.

DeanT
05-12-2008, 12:03 AM
How shortsighted can people in the industry be?
.

Every day more and more short sighted.

And now the horsemen want to kill the only growth segment of the industry.

If they succeed, in five years handle in real dollars will fall, and then you will see them at state houses asking for more subsidies through gaming, all the while saying "where have the gamblers gone?"

This is one screwed up business.

NoCal Boy
05-12-2008, 12:17 AM
You are confusing constitutional "rights" with "rights" granted under specific statutes. The IHA is a specific statute. Embodied within the statute are certain "rights," one of which is the right of horsemen to grant and/or withhold consent for distribution of signals. Of course this "right" can be talen away by Congress and the President upon appropriate legislative actions signed into law by the President, but at this time it is the law. Since we are a nation living by the Rule of Law, the rights granted the horsemen under the IHA must be respected.

Indulto
05-12-2008, 12:21 AM
So horse racing should be gambling for players, but guaranteed income for horsemen?!?:eek: 5x,
Are you rattling cages now just to get some posting action? ;)

You know very well that horsemen collectively still have to enter their horses, and individual owners must have their entrants finish in the money in order to cash; and no individual is certain to receive a portion of the purse.

Correct me if I am wrong. Tracks have to plan what monies are to be allocated to the series of races of varying type they expect to card; assuming specific levels of handle will be available to support those expectations. Adjustments are made downward or upward depending on how good business is, but there has to be a minimal level of funding to run races, pay employees, etc. that must be known in advance of each meet.

Speaking of action, players need to appreciate not only the expense involved and risks taken by horsemen, but also the patience and planning required along with residual effects imposed. They can't just forget the result of one race and go on to the next one 20 minutes later (or 5 if playing multiple tracks) as if nothing happened.

Just because horsemen play this role voluntarily doesn't lessen the value of the effort expended. You were right in pointing out that they aren't doing it for God and country, but they do make it posible for millions of people to be entertained. How many people did you provide enjoyment for today by placing a bet ... or submitting a post? :jump:

DeanT
05-12-2008, 12:38 AM
The problem with speaking of "rights" and the like in terms of these agreements is that they were written in a different time - when it was a monopoly. Now we have slot deals and the $90M three year deal in New Jersey and all the rest.

These conflicts have gone on in many ways, and all of them are anachronistic in a business that is trying to cling to the past. Last year up here a harness track went on strike for a bigger cut of on track handle. The horsemen were getting 45% in an original deal and wanted 50%. They went on strike. The strike lasted 2 and a half months. I lost about $10000 as a horseowner in bills, and not getting my horses raced. In all, a large portion of the province could not bet via teletheater or ADW. In all I would say this strike conservatively cost well over $1M.

The live handle in the track in question was $90,000 a night. At say 12% of it for revenue, that's $11,000 roughly, the difference between 45% and 50% of that is oh a whopping $500.

It cost $1M or more to get $500 a night in this fight.

This is how people in the industry think, and it is why with the largest growth mechanism for gambling in world history, real handles are down over 20% since 1990, instead of up 400% like other forms of gaming. It is a mess. And with the insanity that goes on we all deserve it.

If the horsemen are allowed to take and stall the largest and only growth segment of this business - the one that has grown because of customer service and rebating - it will be yet another nail in racings coffin.

DeanT
05-12-2008, 02:11 AM
One good thing, the topic got my juices rolling to write a post for my blog. Some of it is harness racing related, but maybe a couple bettors would enjoy it.

I got to catching up on a bit of reading tonight. We have spoken and discussed many times that racing is one bizarre business. Being fortunate enough to be able to work with many companies in many businesses I can't help but be amazed at the disconnect on our sport with virtually every business known to man.

So, thinking out loud, here goes some Monday thoughts on the bizarre and crazy in this business.

We go on strike for more racedates at places where no one watches us race.

In 2007 we made it a felony to bet a race over the Internet from Arizona.

We have home market areas that are 10 hour drives from a racetrack.

We expect customers to open seven different betting accounts to play our sport.

We get a report from a respected University telling us that an ideal takeout rate to maximize our revenue is 7%, but charge 20%.

We charge people for racing data and past performances. Like McDonald's charging $2 to look at their menu.

We settle a positive test that happened in 2006, in 2008, and expect no one to notice.

We can't decide if racetrack is one word or two.

When anyone mentions the thought of the sport hiring a commissioner it is met with unbridled laughter.

We watch some trainers drop 4 seconds off a horse in a week and expect the public to believe it is the shoeing.

We pay for a gambling expert to give us guidance, he writes a 100 page detailed report, and we ignore all his recommendations.

We see that advance deposit wagering is the only growth segment in racing and immediately try and take more of the revenue, which would result in destroying the only growth segment in racing.

We retire our sports stars at the age of 3 so they can have sex, and expect the sport's fan base to grow.

We think that lowering a price will result in less revenue.

We give slap on the wrist penalties to rule breakers, then wonder why good people don't want to invest in racing.

We do little to help retired racehorses, then get mad at the public when they don't want to support horseracing after they saw a news report on a former Kentucky Derby winner being slaughtered.

We have rules that say you can't kick a horse or whip him where the sun don't shine but we never enforce them.

We call our customers whiny.

And with all of the above, we go cap in hand to government when our business goes bad.

Only in racing. It is one bizarre business.

cj
05-12-2008, 06:57 AM
Good stuff. The sad thing is that you probably could have kept going. :(

rrbauer
05-12-2008, 08:42 AM
Good stuff Dean. Especially good coming from a horse owner!

DeanT
05-12-2008, 09:51 AM
Horse owners (I find) are underrepresented in this fight Rich. Most think like a bettor does, as they are businessmen in real life, and scratch their head at the nonsense that goes on. The organizations with the power are horseman groups, not owner groups.

In harness racing one of the loudest critics and supporters of racing is Andrew Cohen, legal analyst at CBS news. He writes a column for racing as an owner, and a lover of the sport. He has pushed for many reforms, like a commissioner, better prices, competing with offshores, uniform drug rules and on and on. Many things that bettors and many owners complain about. In fact, he linked to my post above calling it a "classic" on the state of the game, so he agrees with us "whiny bettors". So to me there are many people in the customer's corner.

But in racing, there is no voice for them, imo. None at all. I think it is a big reason you are seeing the Lone Star, Calder and Presque Isle messes in the first place. To many of us it is pure insanity.

startngate
05-12-2008, 10:20 AM
A few musings about this situation:

1. THG has stated they want 1/3 of the effective takeout (average takeout) and it seems this has morphed to the theory that it is 1/3 for horsemen. 1/3 for tracks and 1/3 for the ADW;

In reality the 1/3 model for each group came from YouBet's CEO putting it out in the marketplace. The horsmen morphed it from "net" takeout to "gross" takeout.

2. You may aske yourself why has this morphed to this belief because of TNM stating that if the THG gets 1/3 than the tracks get 1/3;

Simple ... read your horsemen's agreement with the tracks you are racing at. Would be willing to bet that the contract states that the track and horsemen split revenue from wagering 50-50. Therefore, if the horsemen get 1/3 then the track gets 1/3.

3. This could be resolved if the tracks were willing to accept less than the horsemen;

Why should the track accept less if the horsemen refuse to? Forgetting the contract between the parties, why are horsemen entitled to more? And more importantly, why are the customers entitled to nothing?

4. When was Murph elected leader of the horsemen. In the future please do not state that 'the horsemen........' as I am an owner of both thoroughbred and standardbred breeds and you do not speak for me and should not be speaking for other horsemen;

I don't believe he was. He's just been the most vocal about trying to support the horsemen's position, which nearly everyone here disagrees with. I use horsemen in the broadest sense of the word based on what I am hearing through published reports, friends and forum posts. I know not all horsemen agree with what he says, or with the position the THG has taken. Some do, some don't.

5. Kent Sterling has to be looking for a very tall building right about now..... he bought into the TNM charade a year ago and now all that has happened to him is the group he leads has experienced two major purse cuts (which he does not control) and is offering some of the lowest purses in the country (rivals Suffolk levels). Kent might go down and the best whipping post for 2008..... someone needs to take the please kick me sign off of his back. What the heck was he thinking;

Kent ABSOLUTELY controls the purse cuts. Or more accurately the Board he represents controls the purse cuts. The purse account gets funded by the contract between the horsemen and the track, or in some cases by law or commission rule. It's supposed to be a zero-sum game. Whatever money goes into the purse account is supposed to be paid out. No more and no less. So, if revenue to the purse account drops because the horsemen's group refuses to allow the track to market its races, then it's their fault that purses are cut. He (either himself, or under orders) has made a very bad decision for the rank-and-file horsemen at Calder. Oh, and by-the-way if the published reports from TrackNet are true that they have gotten higher host fees for their tracks, then "buying-in" actually raised purses. The purse cuts came from "buying-in" to the THG, not TrackNet.

6. I bet you will be able to privately purchase quite easily on the backstretch of Calder right about now;

I am sure you could, which just reinforces how bad this decision was for the rank-and-file horsemen. Owners are running for lower purses than they were expecting, and now their stock is worth less too.

7. Interesting that one of the main leaders of the THG is the head of the Philadelphia Park Horsemen Group which does not have to rely on the wagering dollar for purse monies since it has slot revenue. The other leader is from the Ohio Horsemens Group who basically had nothing to lose by going down this road. I guess we should all learn from this be careful who you chose to follow in life;

I agree. IMO the THG did not choose their leadership wisely, and the horsemen's groups that signed on with them also did not choose wisely.

8. Hypothetically assume that this civil war goes on into the fall..... Calder cuts purses another two or three times...... many horsemen go under at Calder....... the THG which has stated from the start it will accept nothing less than 7% (never a smart move to state it in a hard fashion) and eventually accepts something less than 7%....... I would love to be privy to the conversation between the THG and Kent Sterling.....

IMO, the more interesting conversations will be between the rank-and-file horsemen and the leaders of their organizations.

9. Does Churchill eventually shut down Calder and Gulfsteam assume the race dates?;

Doubtful because of the pending slots operation, and also because Magna isn't going to roll-over to the horsemen regarding this situation any more than CD is.

This is far from being over as both parties have chosen paths that they might not be able to retreat.

My thoughts are in red above. You are correct, this is a long way from being resolved. My guess is that it will take mini-revolts from the individual horsemen's groups to get the THG to soften its position before it has a chance.

Cangamble
05-12-2008, 10:40 AM
Startngate, could you explain what gross takeout is as opposed to net takeout.

DeanT
05-12-2008, 11:13 AM
That's a good post Startngate.

The 50/50 model is a reason we are in this mess in the first place, and the 1/3, 1/3 model is even worse. It chips away at the customers take, and ensures we get high takeout mandated for the next 100 years, peeling off more and more of our fan base.

If the people running these organizations were the least bit politically savvy, imo, they would come up with this:

"The ADW model is our growth model. Horseman and tracks receiving a small percentage of this is troubling. We propose that we follow a new revenue model where we share the growth, while keeping the delivery mechanism solid so that it can grow even further. We believe that we should split revenue on a 50/50 basis, but 20% each must go back to the ADW to be given back to price-sensitive players who have flocked to this platform because of ease of use and lower pricing"

If they said that I do not think anyone would be against them.

By asking for more of the share, and tracks asking for more of the share they are doing what we always do in racing, shooting ourselves in the foot. In a report on wagering in 2003 racing was told that this area is going to save the business and be the only growth area for us in 2000 and beyond (he was clearly correct). He told the business to encourage ADW and use it as a means to grow through economies of scale, rebating and reselling. He also warned racing not to mess with this mechanism, because if they do they will kill it.

What do we do? The opposite of what was recommended.

Shame on all of us.

startngate
05-12-2008, 11:35 AM
I'm still a little unclear myself as I've never seen the YouBet proposal in print.

From what I have picked up about the YouBet proposal, they had some things like exclusive fees to TVG and TrackNet's HRTV fee that they wanted deducted prior to the split. I would suspect pari-mutuel taxes were in there someplace too, and maybe the source market fees?

At any rate, the THG appears to want 1/3 of the gross takeout from reading their "proposed contract" that Pace posted here in the forums.

startngate
05-12-2008, 11:56 AM
Oh, and one more thing to remember, this fight is not just about the pricing model. I think many people are missing some of the other issues involved.

The current simulcast agreements are signed between outlet and track. The horsemen are nothing more than a third party beneficiary to the agreement. Yes, they do have the right to approve/disapprove of the agreement, but they are not directly part of the agreement.

If you read the proposed "THG Licensing Fee" contract (which Pace posted on the forum), you will find that the THG is trying to become a first party to a contract between themselves and the ADW's, and also the defacto third party beneficiary to the simulcast agreements in place of the local horsemen's group. There is a clause in the agreement that says the "fee" has to be paid directly to the THG, unless there is something else (contract, statute, reg) in place that prevents it.

IMO, and I preface this by stating IANAL, this seems to be a very dangerous and unwise thing for the tracks and/or ADW's to agree to.

DeanT
05-12-2008, 12:06 PM
IMO, and I preface this by stating IANAL, this seems to be a very dangerous and unwise thing for the tracks and/or ADW's to agree to.

That is not dissimilar to what we have in Canada with HPIbets.com. It is a disaster for the player, imo.

Case in point? Pick 4 revenues are split at 9% each to the track and the horseman via this type agreement. Ellis Park offers a 4% rake pick 4 as a benefit to the player. A friend of mine who is a huge bettor calls HPI to pop in 20K in his betting account to take advantage of it. He is told "of course we can not offer it, the ELP pick 4 will be charged at 25% because we already have 9% earmarked for purses"

Later that year at LRL when they offered the short meet with low rakes we both tried the same thing. The answer was "no we wont be carrying LRL this year"

If this is written like up here make no mistake, it is inflationary, it is a handle killer and terrible for the punter; and the business.

rrbauer
05-12-2008, 12:40 PM
Startngate, could you explain what gross takeout is as opposed to net takeout.


From my perspective, gross takeout includes the amount that will eventually be paid to some governmental agency as a license or operating fee. Usually this is a percentage of the betting.

What's left after that is net takeout and available for the splits being fought over.

Maybe startngate had something else in mind, I don't know.

startngate
05-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Yes rrbauer it would include pari-mutuel taxes according to the THG. From the proposed THG contract ...
1 1 "Gross Takeout" is defined as that portion of a wager which is deducted from or not included in the pari-mutuel pool, and which is distributed to persons other than those placing wagers. The proposed THG contract is Exhibit A of the CDI lawsuit that Pace posted here (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46467). It's located in item 01-4.pdf.

Burls
05-12-2008, 02:55 PM
We get a report from a respected University telling us that an ideal takeout rate to maximize our revenue is 7%, but charge 20%.This is something I have wondered about.
It's such a BASIC principle of business.
Sure, if you increase your profit margin, your net profit will rise.
But this only holds up to a point.
If you try to increase your profit margin by too much, you will acually LOWER your net profit by losing customers unwilling to pay the exhorbitant rate.
If you don't get this very SIMPLE principle of business, you will end up cutting your own throat.
What is wrong with these people?
Not only are they greedy and selfish; they're also just downright STUPID.
(With the exception of you, of course, Dean.)

DeanT
05-12-2008, 03:39 PM
Hey Burls,

I honestly think it is because there is no central leadership in racing. Let's say every track says 9% is optimum and that is what the takeout would be. Handle would go up with the churn, and all would be motoring along. But we have a beggar thy neighbor thing happening. What if So Cal said "I am not lowering rakes" and they charge 20%. Well they would get the benefit from the churn of the other tracks placing cash in peoples pockets to rebet. They would rebet some there at 25% takeout. It actually incentivizes people to cheat. Any takeout reduction to the proper levels would have to be mandated right across the board. We would have to turn racing into Hong Kong, where what they say goes.

It might not be bad, hell they booted Biancone :D

I dont know how else to explain that (in my opinion) any better. In around 1970 there was a study done that elasticity of wagering demand is 1.0 at around 14% overall rakes. Later on another study said 12% (around 1992 or so I think), now with simulcasting,economies of scale, the fact we are not a monopoly any longer and massive tough to hit exotics it is said to be 7-10%.

With all those studies, some done in the 1960's saying rakes are too high, we have completely ignored them for a generation. I cant explain it. I honestly cant. The fact is that rakes are over 20% weighted average, have been going higher, and will go higher. Even with the most conservative estimates tracks have priced their product upwards of 80% too high. That is like McDonald's charging $8 for a Big Mac. It makes no sense.

Cangamble
05-12-2008, 05:16 PM
With all those studies, some done in the 1960's saying rakes are too high, we have completely ignored them for a generation. I cant explain it. I honestly cant. The fact is that rakes are over 20% weighted average, have been going higher, and will go higher. Even with the most conservative estimates tracks have priced their product upwards of 80% too high. That is like McDonald's charging $8 for a Big Mac. It makes no sense.
You got me wondering how much a Big Mac was is Hong Kong, and it is cheaper there as well.
Figures (all prices in US Dollars) US BIG MAC=$2.50


Five most expensive


Iceland - US 7.44
Norway - US 6.63
Reunion Island 6.23
Switzerland - US 5.05
Denmark - US 4.84
Five most affordable


India - US 1.40
China - US 1.41
Hong Kong - US 1.54
Malaysia - US 1.57
Venezuela - US 1.58
Egypt - US 1.60
***************************
Of course, there is no guarantee that you get beef in Hong Kong:)

BombsAway Bob
05-12-2008, 06:44 PM
You got me wondering how much a Big Mac was is Hong Kong, and it is cheaper there as well.
Figures (all prices in US Dollars) US BIG MAC=$2.50


Five most expensive

Iceland - US 7.44
Norway - US 6.63
Reunion Island 6.23
Switzerland - US 5.05
Denmark - US 4.84
Five most affordable

India - US 1.40
China - US 1.41
Hong Kong - US 1.54
Malaysia - US 1.57
Venezuela - US 1.58
Egypt - US 1.60
***************************
Of course, there is no guarantee that you get beef in Hong Kong:)
Uh,Oh...Mayor McCheese will be demanding an apology!

Pace Cap'n
05-12-2008, 06:56 PM
Could someone tell me what is a "horseman" as pertains to this discussioN?

Cangamble
05-12-2008, 07:01 PM
Could someone tell me what is a "horseman" as pertains to this discussioN?
Horseman is a trainer, or a trainer who owns, or an owner who trains:)

cj
05-12-2008, 07:16 PM
Aren't owners considered horsemen as well, not only ones that train?

Cangamble
05-12-2008, 07:33 PM
Aren't owners considered horsemen as well, not only ones that train?
There is a strong feeling that owners don't have much to do with the dispute.

cj
05-12-2008, 07:34 PM
I've never understood why they would be together anyway on many issues, including this one.

Premier Turf Club
05-12-2008, 08:23 PM
Aren't owners considered horsemen as well, not only ones that train?

Yes. Joe Santanna, head of the PA HBPA is an owner and so is Bob Reeves from THG. Neither trained to the best of my knowledge.

Indulto
05-12-2008, 08:56 PM
In perusing what I can find on-line regarding this THG/DragNet stalemate, it is becoming increasingly clear that this board is the one of the best, if not THE best, source of insight on the matter for non-insiders like myself.

Contributions from – and interactions between – posters such as NoCal Boy, Northern Dancer, PTC, and Startngate, go far beyond the B-H, TT, and DRF, although I personally believe the reporters and columnists from those publications have to leave a lot out to keep their sources.

My point is that, if it’s not already the case, this board could become a communication center for organizing horseplayers. I don’t know why trackthieves.com hasn’t attracted more support (maybe it needs additional charismatic leaders to make the Kool-Aid ;)).

I sometimes wish PTC wasn’t an ADW CEO, because his infectious horseplayer enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity -- combined with his inside knowledge and contacts -- would seemingly make him an ideal recruiter and negotiator for a horseplayers’ benevolent association.

To me it seems that most posters here (myself included), simply add to the usual whining, wishful thinking, and wimpishness that allows track and ALMOST ALL ADW management to stick it to horseplayers. The first step IMO is to get their attention by NOT BETTING for JUST ONE SINGLE day.

cj has suggested making it one of the biggest days, but I don’t think trying to harness non-dedicated players will work. Maybe it has to be restricted to a single major track to really have an impact.


http://www.last.fm/music/Doris+Troy/_/Just+One+Look (http://www.last.fm/music/Doris+Troy/_/Just+One+Look)

With apologies to G Carroll and D Payne


Just one day
Can we be so a-a-all
In control
Of our wallets?
Oh, Oh
We’ll find out
How good it fee-ee-eels
To send a message
They can’t ignore
Oh, Oh

Say you will
Will join toge-e-ther
For as long
as it takes
Oh, oh
Just one track
And they’ll know-ow-ow
That we can truly
Act as wo-o-o-o-o-one.

(chorus)
They thought they were winnen’
But they were wrong
Oh, yeah, yeah
Cause we’re gonna keep on growin’
'Til their takeout makes it on down.

So, you see
We really ca-a-are
Without us, they’re nothin'
Oh, oh
Just one track
And I kno-o-ow
We’ll get it someday
Oh, oh

Just one track
That’s all it took

Just one track
They had to look

Just one track
It got them shook

Just one track
Rewrite the book

Just one track
Pawn takes rook

Just one track
Get off the hook

Premier Turf Club
05-12-2008, 09:07 PM
In perusing what I can find on-line regarding this THG/DragNet stalemate, it is becoming increasingly clear that this board is the one of the best, if not THE best, source of insight on the matter for non-insiders like myself.

Contributions from – and interactions between – posters such as NoCal Boy, Northern Dancer, PTC, and Startngate, go far beyond the B-H, TT, and DRF, although I personally believe the reporters and columnists from those publications have to leave a lot out to keep their sources.

I learn more from this board than I contribute. I like hearing what other horseplayers are thinking.

My point is that, if it’s not already the case, this board could become a communication center for organizing horseplayers. I don’t know why trackthieves.com hasn’t attracted more support (maybe it needs additional charismatic leaders to make the Kool-Aid ;)).

I sometimes wish PTC wasn’t an ADW CEO, because his infectious horseplayer enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity -- combined with his inside knowledge and contacts -- would seemingly make him an ideal recruiter and negotiator for a horseplayers’ benevolent association.


Sometimes I feel like Victor Kiam from the old Remington Shavers commercial ("I liked them so much I bought the company"). To paraphrase, "I love playing horses so much I decided to start an ADW so all my friends and I can bet."

To me it seems that most posters here (myself included), simply add to the usual whining, wishful thinking, and wimpishness that allows track and ALMOST ALL ADW management to stick it to horseplayers. The first step IMO is to get their attention by NOT BETTING for JUST ONE SINGLE day.

cj has suggested making it one of the biggest days, but I don’t think trying to harness non-dedicated players will work. Maybe it has to be restricted to a single major track to really have an impact.


Just tell me when it is. I can use a day off. ;)

ponypro
05-12-2008, 10:10 PM
Some time back I used the term "Scorched Earth" to predict Bob Evans behavior and unfortunately it has played out. This is a military strategy that seeks to destroy anything useful while advancing or withdrawing from an military engagement. The racing fans ability to remotely enjoy the sport is being decimated.

HERES MY PLAN

I attended a good part of the Keeneland live meet. Its a slice of heaven and they get it right from a-z.

PTC covers Keeneland and provides great handicapping help.

I am going to play only the Keenland meet either on vacation or thru PTC
F**K EVERYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im out for a long time

Kelso
05-13-2008, 12:12 AM
Since we are a nation living by the Rule of Law, the rights granted the horsemen under the IHA must be respected.Since we are a nation living by the rule of law ... and since the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" ... rights remain irrevokable because they emminate from only the Constitution.

Priviledges, in contrast and regardless of guise or misnomer, remain little more than tentative, legislative gifts ... and that remains all that the horsemen have under the IHRA.

northerndancer
05-13-2008, 12:57 AM
Oh, and one more thing to remember, this fight is not just about the pricing model. I think many people are missing some of the other issues involved.

The current simulcast agreements are signed between outlet and track. The horsemen are nothing more than a third party beneficiary to the agreement. Yes, they do have the right to approve/disapprove of the agreement, but they are not directly part of the agreement.

If you read the proposed "THG Licensing Fee" contract (which Pace posted on the forum), you will find that the THG is trying to become a first party to a contract between themselves and the ADW's, and also the defacto third party beneficiary to the simulcast agreements in place of the local horsemen's group. There is a clause in the agreement that says the "fee" has to be paid directly to the THG, unless there is something else (contract, statute, reg) in place that prevents it.

IMO, and I preface this by stating IANAL, this seems to be a very dangerous and unwise thing for the tracks and/or ADW's to agree to.

This is an interesting post and it got me thinking about alterior motives in this civil war....... the fact is the THG can not negotiate contracts and they have to avoid this act as if they do negotiate on the behalf of a particular group of horsemen IMO they may in fact violate the Interstate Horse Racing Wire Act.

I actually think that if an ADW said yes we will increase the horsemen's share to purses to 7% and the track fee to 7% that the THG would not agree to it...... the fact that they are so steadfast about digging their heels in and demanding a kings ransom that they now will not be agreed to allows them to not divulge their true objective.

You may ask then what is their true motive in this situation (I have asked myself this many times and really until tonight did not have an answer..... wife, kids and dogs looked at me funny why I was talking to myself)...... the horsemen's main goal is to become party and be a required signator on all content related agreements. Startngate not sure how or where you came up with your statement but I think you are right on the money with that contention.

If this is an accurate assessment then we are in for a long drawn out fight between these parties and the players will be left holding the bag.

Kelso
05-13-2008, 01:30 AM
Are you rattling cages now just to get some posting action? ;) Naw ... don't really need it. Would rather read and learn than post. (Shy, ultra-sensitive types, such as myself, are like that. :D )


You know very well that horsemen collectively still have to enter their horses, and individual owners must have their entrants finish in the money in order to cash; and no individual is certain to receive a portion of the purse.Indeed, I do ... which is why I was perplexed by such comments as "minimum purse levels should be guaranteed" and "operating expenses need to be funded." While I understood that you wrote of purses, "minimums" can still be sufficiently large to pay off the owner of every tail in a race. And it wasn't clear, to me at any rate, exactly whose expenses you were concerned about funding. Hence, my question.

Mention of economic "guarantees" and attending to "needs" rings, to me and in the context of this thread, of reducing (perhaps en route to eliminating?) economic risk from the business of owning race horses ... sorta like those California "appearance fees" of which a PA member recently posted.

If you meant otherwise, then I am pleased to know that my perplexity was without basis.

(And, as an aside ... I think tracks should have no "guarantees" that their "needs" will be met, either.)


Speaking of action, players need to appreciate not only the expense involved and risks taken by horsemen, but also the patience and planning required along with residual effects imposed.Whatever for? How much appreciation do the horsemen demonstrate for MY expenses, risks and challenges? (I refer you to recent posts by Murph for the most accurate assesment of that degree.)


How many people did you provide enjoyment for today by placing a betHowever many people make their livings at or from the tracks, ADWs and OTBs I patronize with my wagers. I have it on reliable authority that every one of them ... and particularly the greedy bastards ... greatly enjoys getting paid.


or submitting a post?Oh, I like to think that Murph, Lamboguy, NoCal and a few others have enjoyed a laugh or three on me. (No charge.)

Indulto
05-13-2008, 01:48 AM
This is an interesting post and it got me thinking about alterior motives in this civil war....... the fact is the THG can not negotiate contracts and they have to avoid this act as if they do negotiate on the behalf of a particular group of horsemen IMO they may in fact violate the Interstate Horse Racing Wire Act.

I actually think that if an ADW said yes we will increase the horsemen's share to purses to 7% and the track fee to 7% that the THG would not agree to it...... the fact that they are so steadfast about digging their heels in and demanding a kings ransom that they now will not be agreed to allows them to not divulge their true objective.

You may ask then what is their true motive in this situation (I have asked myself this many times and really until tonight did not have an answer..... wife, kids and dogs looked at me funny why I was talking to myself)...... the horsemen's main goal is to become party and be a required signator on all content related agreements. Startngate not sure how or where you came up with your statement but I think you are right on the money with that contention.

If this is an accurate assessment then we are in for a long drawn out fight between these parties and the players will be left holding the bag.Isn't DragNet's involvement similar as a recent addition to negotiations between tracks and ADWs? Wasn't the formation of THG a response to DragNet's insertion into the proceedings? Is there any authority other than the Federal Government that could intervene here? Could anyone else sue on behalf of the public to end the stalemate?

Indulto
05-13-2008, 04:16 AM
… Mention of economic "guarantees" and attending to "needs" rings, to me and in the context of this thread, of reducing (perhaps en route to eliminating?) economic risk from the business of owning race horses ... sorta like those California "appearance fees" of which a PA member recently posted.

If you meant otherwise, then I am pleased to know that my perplexity was without basis.

(And, as an aside ... I think tracks should have no "guarantees" that their "needs" will be met, either.)I guess you’d better not cross the GW Bridge.;) Whatever for? How much appreciation do the horsemen demonstrate for MY expenses, risks and challenges? (I refer you to recent posts by Murph for the most accurate assesment of that degree.)Murph already clarified his earlier remarks.However many people make their livings at or from the tracks, ADWs and OTBs I patronize with my wagers. I have it on reliable authority that every one of them ... and particularly the greedy bastards ... greatly enjoys getting paid.Me too, but they'e getting entertained a lot less by me lately.:D Oh, I like to think that Murph, Lamboguy, NoCal and a few others have enjoyed a laugh or three on me. (No charge.)Me three.

ezrabrooks
05-13-2008, 07:30 AM
Sometimes I feel like Victor Kiam from the old Remington Shavers commercial ("I liked them so much I bought the company"). To paraphrase, "I love playing horses so much I decided to start an ADW so all my friends and I can bet."
My BS meter just maxed out..

Javagold
05-13-2008, 09:09 AM
Sometimes I feel like Victor Kiam from the old Remington Shavers commercial ("I liked them so much I bought the company"). To paraphrase, "I love playing horses so much I decided to start an ADW so all my friends and I can bet."
My BS meter just maxed out..



:D :D :D

startngate
05-13-2008, 09:35 AM
This is an interesting post and it got me thinking about alterior motives in this civil war....... the fact is the THG can not negotiate contracts and they have to avoid this act as if they do negotiate on the behalf of a particular group of horsemen IMO they may in fact violate the Interstate Horse Racing Wire Act.
.....
You may ask then what is their true motive in this situation (I have asked myself this many times and really until tonight did not have an answer..... wife, kids and dogs looked at me funny why I was talking to myself)...... the horsemen's main goal is to become party and be a required signator on all content related agreements. Startngate not sure how or where you came up with your statement but I think you are right on the money with that contention.Actually, they (THG) are specifically trying to negotiate a contract. I didn't "come up with it." I just read the THG's proposed contract.

It's not really "violating" the IHA but it doesn't seem to be a requirement either (see below).§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—
(1) the host racing association, except that—(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto;
.....
(2) the host racing commission;
(3) the off-track racing commission.IANAL, but from reading the IHA, it seems pretty clear to me that the off-track betting system (ADW) is only allowed to conduct wagering when the host racing association (track), host racing commission, and the racing commission where they are licensed grant permission (bold and black text above).

Nowhere does it state that the horsemen must grant permission directly to the off-track betting system. However, it does say (italic red text) that as a condition of the host racing association granting its permission, the horsemen must have a contract with the host racing association saying it's OK to grant the permission. The IHA appears to directly indicate that this "consent" relationship is to be between the horsemen and the host track, not between the horsemen and the ADW.

This is why IMO it's a bigger issue than just price of the signal to the ADW. As you suggest, the tracks more than likely do not want the horsemen to become a first party to the contract, because the IHA does not give them that "right" (privledge, ability, whatever you want to call it).

I'm not sure why the THG has taken the approach of trying to negotiate with the ADW's directly. It seems from the IHA they should be negotiating with the tracks. Again, IANAL, but I would have to believe that if they were operating in this manner instead of how they are there would be a lot less legal wrangling going on. Maybe they thought the ADW's would all just easily sign off?

Isn't DragNet's involvement similar as a recent addition to negotiations between tracks and ADWs?Not really, for as you mention, the simulcast contract is negotiated between the track and the ADW, as opposed to with the THG, which is only representing a third party beneficiary to that contract. IMO, the IHA only allows the horsemen to give consent (approve/disapprove) off-track wagering, it does not allow them to be a party to that contract, or sell the rights to the races themselves.

According to the proposed THG contract, they are trying to negotiate directly with the ADW's, not the tracks. In the case of the negotiations with TrackNet, I'm assuming it's because TrackNet represents the TwinSpires and XpressBet ADW's, not because they (also) represent racetracks for the sale of simulcast signals.

If the THG was representing each local horsemen's group in it's negotiations with the tracks, then it would be functioning in a similar fashion to TrackNet. As it is now, IMO they are not acting the same in this particular situation.

Cangamble
05-13-2008, 09:48 AM
Yes. Joe Santanna, head of the PA HBPA is an owner and so is Bob Reeves from THG. Neither trained to the best of my knowledge.
Do you think that the majority of horse owners support the dispute? Or do you think it is the majority of top trainers supporting this dispute? Or is this just a few people assuming they have owners and trainers support?

trigger
05-13-2008, 10:47 AM
Isn't DragNet's involvement similar as a recent addition to negotiations between tracks and ADWs? Wasn't the formation of THG a response to DragNet's insertion into the proceedings? Is there any authority other than the Federal Government that could intervene here? Could anyone else sue on behalf of the public to end the stalemate?

Organizing horseplayers is like herding cats.
Accordingly, IMHO, the only way the horseplayers are going to be heard is to convince one of the legals firms specializing in class action suits to bring an action(s) against all or some of the various parties (tracks, owners, trainers, tote systems, ADWs, OTBs, racing commissions, vets, etc) in the horseracing industry on the basis of that the wagering public has gotten screwed out of millions of dollars over the years because of actions by these parties.
Examples of screw-ups adversely affecting bettors that come immediately to mind include (1) mismanagement of the tote system that allows: past posting, possible exclusive access, ineffective monitoring of betting action to insure a level playing field, etc, and (2) haphazard monitoring of drug use.
If this kind of suit is successful, a negotiated settlement could involve lowering takeout.

northerndancer
05-13-2008, 11:36 AM
Do you think that the majority of horse owners support the dispute? Or do you think it is the majority of top trainers supporting this dispute? Or is this just a few people assuming they have owners and trainers support?

IMO most horsemen care only about when their own horses are racing..... they do not pay that much attention to the grand scheme of things. As long as they can run for the purses they have become accustomed to then they are content. Touch their purse account now you get their attention. Therefore to answer your question this is a group of horsemen who really do not need the wagering dollar to supplement their purse structure (Santana) or have no other choice because of their mismanagement of their own racing product (Reeves). They sold the Florida and Texas horsemen down the river assuring them both that the main objective will be met in a short period of time with minimal negative consequence. There is no way that the Texas and Florida horsemen would have gone down this path of being the whipping post if they knew there was the possibility of this turning this ugly. The agenda of a few at the sacrifice of many.......... greed and ego.

northerndancer
05-13-2008, 11:38 AM
Organizing horseplayers is like herding cats.

Now that is really funny...... :lol:

I would of said pushing string.

Kelso
05-13-2008, 02:10 PM
Do you think that the majority of horse owners support the dispute? Or do you think it is the majority of top trainers supporting this dispute? Or is this just a few people assuming they have owners and trainers support?CG,
Although I can't point directly to the sources right now, my impression since this began is that it is being driven much more by owners than by trainers. I think most, if not all, of the state horsemen groups supporting THG have the word "owner" in their names.

As well, all the whining has been about how expensive it is to maintain a race horse. Although some trainers, as I've read, might run at only break-even or so with the day rate and look to purses for their profits, it seems the heavier costs are still on the owners.

Interesting question. Would like to be more certain of the answer.

DeanT
05-13-2008, 02:15 PM
All I have to go on up here is the recent strikes at Ontario tracks. The one last year one of the industry websites ran a poll asking about support for the stoppage. I think it ran 75% or 80% against.

On the chat board there was about one favorable post for the action for every ten against from horseowners.

But, when votes were taken (at a closed meeting) it was always reported to the media that things were "unanimous".

I tend to agree with Northern and others. I think this is a tight group who have convinced a few reps to go with them, while the rank and file is wondering what the hell they are doing.

Just my opinion based on living through a few of these struggles as an owner.

rrbauer
05-13-2008, 03:12 PM
Organizing horseplayers is like herding cats.
Accordingly, IMHO, the only way the horseplayers are going to be heard is to convince one of the legals firms specializing in class action suits to bring an action(s) against all or some of the various parties (tracks, owners, trainers, tote systems, ADWs, OTBs, racing commissions, vets, etc) in the horseracing industry on the basis of that the wagering public has gotten screwed out of millions of dollars over the years because of actions by these parties.
Examples of screw-ups adversely affecting bettors that come immediately to mind include (1) mismanagement of the tote system that allows: past posting, possible exclusive access, ineffective monitoring of betting action to insure a level playing field, etc, and (2) haphazard monitoring of drug use.
If this kind of suit is successful, a negotiated settlement could involve lowering takeout.

Legal firms don't take lawsuits (of any kind) that they don't think they can win unless it's a deep-pockets client who is paying lots of T&M charges and who can afford the outlay. Certainly not the case with horseplayers!

Everybody wants a quick fix. Horseplayers are no different. There is no quick fix to the problems in this game from any perspective. I agree with your "herding cats" analogy, but the ultimate remedy comes when we, as individuals, are willing to zip-up our money belts and tell the industry to piss-off. We don't need to organize to do that. We do need to recognize that until we pull out the rug, nothing of substance is going to change.

We only need to organize when the turmoil in the industry from our departure has reached the point where they're on their knees.....then we can organize to see who will lead the negotiations on our behalf during the makeover.

Indulto
05-13-2008, 04:19 PM
There is a precedent for mutual horseplayer-horseman understanding here:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/40798.htm (http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/40798.htm)
Leader of Horsemen's Group Impatient With ADW Situation
by Ryan Conley September 14, 2007The president of a Louisiana horsemen’s group has vowed legal and legislative action if a solution isn’t soon realized in the fractured advance deposit wagering industry.

Sean Alfortish, president of the Louisiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, said during a Sept. 13 conference call on the status of ADWs that certain business models must be altered to bring uniformity to signal distribution.

Alfortish made the bold statements during a call organized by bettors’ advocate Richard Young that also included TrackNet Media Group president Scott Daruty. TrackNet’s arch-rival, TVG, was invited to participate in the call but declined, while Ellis Park owner Ron Geary agreed to participate, but missed the discussion due to what his assistant said were sudden outside business matters.

… Alfortish made the statements in response to Young’s pleas for resolution in an ADW scene where bettors wanting to bet a wide variety of tracks are forced to use multiple accounts. Young, a Chicago-area bettor, in August launched a petition of protest on the PaceAdvantage.com forum, and part of the document was read into record Aug. 19 by The Jockey Club president Alan Marzelli at the group’s annual Round Table Conference in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.

“What we are concerned with as fans is being able to bet with our ADW of choice,” Young told Daruty and Alfortish. “Who is responsible? Who is the bad guy? I don’t care. We just want it over.”

… Alfortish told Young he could sympathize with bettors, noting his longtime ADW account with Louisiana-based FGNetBet didn’t handle such TVG exclusive meets as those from New York Racing Association tracks and Keeneland. And Alfortish believes the splintering of ADW signals hurts racetrack handle totals.

“Rather than wager in a place where it would have washed through and split between the tracks and the horsemen by going through our (Louisiana) system, I just didn’t bet at all,” he said.

Alfortish told Young he appreciated what the advocate was trying to accomplish.

“I applaud you the bettor for doing what you are doing and trying to continue to get everyone to the table to make this happen,” he said. “We will … mediate, arbitrate, dictate, legislate or anything else we have to do. It is the number-one priority that horsemen have in Louisiana and the nation. And it will be done soon.”We haven’t heard from our once “fearless leader,” BONC since late January. Anybody know what he’s doing lately? How about Mr. Alfortish … what’s his take on the current stalemate? He was mentioned in a news article as recently as late April, but the link has since expired.

Premier Turf Club
05-13-2008, 04:38 PM
How about Mr. Alfortish … what’s his take on the current stalemate? He was mentioned in a news article as recently as late April, but the link has since expired.

In response to a number of PM's and e-mails I have gotten, I will tell you what I know.

As of today at 4PM, we have a signed contract from Louisiana Downs but do not have horsemen's approval. My understanding is that horsemen have not signed off on any ADW contracts as of this time.

I look forward to the LaD meet as much as any player we've got and hope that we are not at an impasse here too.

DeanT
05-13-2008, 05:26 PM
Is Alfortish still with the horseman's group at LA Downs?

I would hope not, as he says one thing in 2007 and then does the opposite in 2008? Hold it, maybe he is, we seem to do that in racing alot.

Anyone know?

Premier Turf Club
05-13-2008, 05:28 PM
Yes.

http://www.lahbpa.org/

Hopefully there won't be an impasse. Next best scenario is a brief one. None of us benefits from a stoppage. Not the ADW owners, not the tracks and not the horsemen. Certainly not the customer.

NoCal Boy
05-13-2008, 05:43 PM
Alfortish boldly proclaimed last summer that he was going to do something with Youbet at Fair Grounds for their last meet. Of course, Fair grounds stayed exclusive to Tracknet and neither Youbet nor TVG had it at all.

That being said and there might have been various reasons for Fair Grounds, I do believe Alfortish is one of the guys that get it so I still have hope LA Downs will be available on reasonable terms.

DeanT
05-13-2008, 05:56 PM
The only person I have met or read in the business that I think truly gets the game is Rose Mary Williams; but she is the antithesis to most.

And no doubt out of all the signals that will not be turned on for a long while will be Presque Isle. I don't think her business model for growth can stand the percentages horsemen seem to be asking for.

JMO.

Pace Cap'n
05-13-2008, 06:33 PM
Who in the wide world of sports ever let TRAINERS have any say-so in this ADW fiasco?

trigger
05-14-2008, 10:48 AM
Legal firms don't take lawsuits (of any kind) that they don't think they can win unless it's a deep-pockets client who is paying lots of T&M charges and who can afford the outlay. Certainly not the case with horseplayers!

Everybody wants a quick fix. Horseplayers are no different. There is no quick fix to the problems in this game from any perspective. I agree with your "herding cats" analogy, but the ultimate remedy comes when we, as individuals, are willing to zip-up our money belts and tell the industry to piss-off. We don't need to organize to do that. We do need to recognize that until we pull out the rug, nothing of substance is going to change.

We only need to organize when the turmoil in the industry from our departure has reached the point where they're on their knees.....then we can organize to see who will lead the negotiations on our behalf during the makeover.

It's my understanding that the class action specialist legal firms normally take on class action suits on a contingency basis with no up front "client" fees required if the firms believe that the suit has a strong chance of succeeding. Therefore, the horseplayers (or ,for that matter, one horseplayer) just have to convince these types of firms on the merits of our case.....no up front money needed. From there, these firms do all the work.

Indulto
05-16-2008, 12:30 AM
https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ResponseLetterREV6.pdf (https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ResponseLetterREV6.pdf)
KTA response to letter from Steve Sexton:
… The only national account wagering sights that were affected are the two ADW companies owned by Magna and CDI (XpressBet and Twinsires.com) and two very small operators. CDI is withholding signals from the two largest ADW companies, TVG and YouBet.Who are those operators?


https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ADWRevDistUnderCDITrackNet.pdf (https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ADWRevDistUnderCDITrackNet.pdf)
Revenue projections by KTA
ADW Revenue Distributions Under the CDI/Tracknet Model ...

… Combined Annual ADW revenue to Tracks, Purses, ADW Companies, under CDI/Tracknet Model …There appear to be some pretty optimistic handle projections here. Are they realistic assuming both TVG and Youbet have access as well as Twinspires and XpressBet?

chickenhead
05-16-2008, 01:24 AM
caring about this game.....it's like having a criminally insane half rotten zombie for a best friend.

JustRalph
05-16-2008, 01:34 AM
caring about this game.....it's like having a criminally insane half rotten zombie for a best friend.

:lol: :lol: and he lives in your basement

happy1
05-16-2008, 06:37 PM
https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ResponseLetterREV6.pdf (https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ResponseLetterREV6.pdf)
KTA response to letter from Steve Sexton:
Who are those operators?


https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ADWRevDistUnderCDITrackNet.pdf (https://www.kta-ktob.com/UserFiles/File/80618.KTA.ADWRevDistUnderCDITrackNet.pdf)
Revenue projections by KTA
There appear to be some pretty optimistic handle projections here. Are they realistic assuming both TVG and Youbet have access as well as Twinspires and XpressBet?

this is sweet, but everyone knows that its was 3% to 4% when the simulcast was at an OTB. then they had to split those percents with the tracks. So it looks like the horsemen with this response are showing. "sure we get more via an ADW now then we ever got from and OTB but we want even more, more, more!!! now with ADW we can get 7% vs our old 1.5 to 2%"

I can't believe the horsemen are actually showing how greedy they are, you would think they would keep this behind closed doors. who is running thier negotations??

startngate
05-17-2008, 11:13 AM
There appear to be some pretty optimistic handle projections here. Are they realistic assuming both TVG and Youbet have access as well as Twinspires and XpressBet?It's clear from reading the projections that the person(s) preparing this document have no clue. A prime example of this is that they are projecting that for 2008 handle on the TwinSpires platform will increase by $72 million from 2007. TwinSpires' Q1 handle in 2008 was DOWN by about $3 million from 2007. While it's possible they could rebound, in light of the fact that the horsemen are holding signals hostage now, and the rest of 2008 has most of the noteworthy tracks on the TVG side of the content war, it's highly unlikely this will happen.

They are also comparing (the former) AmericaTab handle growth from 2002 to 2007 to make their forward looking estimates, and to start with they didn't even add 2007 up correctly, the number should be $218 million since BetPad is servicing the AmericaTab customers that were in States Churchill dropped when they acquired the company. Just another example of not knowing the business.

2002 was the first full year AmericaTab was in Oregon. New businesses tend to grow rapidly and then level off into slower growth patterns. Let's see if it really happened ...

If you do the math, here are AmericaTab/TwinSpires growth rates:

Year-Handle (reported by ORC web site)
2002-$60,293,973
2003-$102,474,547 up $42,180,574 (+41.16%)
2004-$126,702,563 up $24,228,016 (+19.12%)
2005-$194,179,240 up $67,476,677 (+34.74%)
2006-$234,688,141 up $40,508,901 (+17.26%)
2007-$218,000,792 down $16,687,349 (-7.65%)

AmericaTab's growth rates are a little all over the map because of content issues (lost Magna in 04, got it back in 05), but if you look at 2006, a year where the content issues didn't change for them, their growth rate was only 17.26% over 2005. Then look at 2003 (the previous non content issue year) where the growth rate was was 41.16%. Clearly it's slowing down as one should expect.

For the overall period (using the above numbers):
2002-2007- up $157,706,819 (+72.34% over 5 years or +14.46% per year)

Yet in the projections for 2008-2012 the document factors a 25% growth year over year for TwinSpires, which is 10.54% higher than the actual overall current rate. If that miscalulation wasn't bad enough, for some reason, in the combined table for all ADW's below, they are only using 21% for year over year growth. While I'm sure TwinSpires will be happy the document's author has more faith in them than the overall market, this prediction is also flawed because of it.

I'm sure if I had nothing better to do this afternoon there are plenty of other holes in the document to be found, but my head hurts already, and this was enough to confirm to me what I already suspected.

It's no wonder the horsemen keep asking for the huge increase. Someone put together farcical projections for them, and therefore I repeat, it's clear they don't really understand the business.

DeanT
05-17-2008, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the informative post, Start.

trigger
05-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Organizing horseplayers is like herding cats.
Accordingly, IMHO, the only way the horseplayers are going to be heard is to convince one of the legals firms specializing in class action suits to bring an action(s) against all or some of the various parties (tracks, owners, trainers, tote systems, ADWs, OTBs, racing commissions, vets, etc) in the horseracing industry on the basis of that the wagering public has gotten screwed out of millions of dollars over the years because of actions by these parties.
Examples of screw-ups adversely affecting bettors that come immediately to mind include (1) mismanagement of the tote system that allows: past posting, possible exclusive access, ineffective monitoring of betting action to insure a level playing field, etc, and (2) haphazard monitoring of drug use.
If this kind of suit is successful, a negotiated settlement could involve lowering takeout.

Another example of Track/Tote ineptitude...call the lawyers now !!!!!
"CHRB Probes Derby Quick Pick Superfecta
The bettor discovered that he did not have the number "20" once among the 5,200 possibilities. The race, of course, was won by Big Brown, who was the number 20."
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/45290.htm

trigger
05-21-2008, 10:46 AM
Organizing horseplayers is like herding cats.
Accordingly, IMHO, the only way the horseplayers are going to be heard is to convince one of the legals firms specializing in class action suits to bring an action(s) against all or some of the various parties (tracks, owners, trainers, tote systems, ADWs, OTBs, racing commissions, vets, etc) in the horseracing industry on the basis of that the wagering public has gotten screwed out of millions of dollars over the years because of actions by these parties.
Examples of screw-ups adversely affecting bettors that come immediately to mind include (1) mismanagement of the tote system that allows: past posting, possible exclusive access, ineffective monitoring of betting action to insure a level playing field, etc, and (2) haphazard monitoring of drug use.
If this kind of suit is successful, a negotiated settlement could involve lowering takeout.

"Betting system inquiry expands
A review found the malfunction wasn't limited to the Derby. Officials said the last number in any race was dropped on Quick Pick tickets, which were offered on any wager. The sale of Quick Picks has been suspended at California tracks.
The CHRB also alerted national authorities to the problem."
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/955077.html

"Betting glitch spurs reform calls
The incident came to the attention of the California Horse Racing Board on May 7. It contacted the betting machine vendor, Scientific Games, which reported it had a "software glitch'' that was dropping the last horse in the field from quick pick tickets on all 7,000 of its BetJet machines nationwide
Regardless, the fact that 7,000 machines across the country had been malfunctioning indefinitely without anyone noticing is cause for concern, said Ed Martin, chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International.
"We spend a lot of time and focus policing the medication issue, but there is a collective need to focus on parimutuel wagering,'' Martin said. "It's the only form of legal gambling in the U.S. that has been allowed to operate absent a requirement for real-time monitoring.''
Mike Maloney, a big-time Kentucky horseplayer and bettors'-rights advocate, said that would be a step in the right direction.
"What disturbs me is that there's a continual, industry-wide lack of concern about protecting bettors' interests,'' he said. "When I trade stocks, I have the (U.S.) Securities and Exchange Commission to look out for my interests. In racing, there's no organization like that.''
For that reason, Maloney said, incidents like the quick-pick malfunction often get swept under the rug."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_9328859

From LATimes:
"Here's the release from the California Horse Racing Board, explaining what happens next. Though the California ban on Quick-Pick started on May 5, it wasn't until Blood Horse published its story two days ago that the racing industry learned of the investigation, according the the San Jose Mercury News."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/05/all-quick-pick.html

NO MORE EXCUSES!!!!!!!!
Somebody has got to step in and put a stop this continuous willful mismanagement of the horse racing wagering system

matthewsiv
05-21-2008, 11:22 AM
Don't you understand that the fight is between the horsemen and the tracks ... and that neither of those groups can dictate terms to the ADWs? The horsemen are trying to reserve an enormous chunk of TRACK REVENUE for themselves. This has nothing at all to do with how much the ADWs PAY for signals.

All it will take to protect ALL of their revenue streams is for the tracks to hang together. Failing that, they will surely hang individually.

Try your feeble divide and conquer game elsewhere. Few will be fooled by it here.



Yes, they have convinced me well beyond a reasonable doubt.


The horseman control the signal.

matthewsiv
05-21-2008, 11:35 AM
Hello Kelso,
I like your ardor in support of the players but your enthusiasm may have clouded your vision of the bigger picture. You can't seem to find the forest due to all of the trees.

How many times have you seen my name listed as owner or trainer in the entries?

Horsemen DO in fact OWN their share of the racing signal. (By law of the Interstate horseracing act) They are allowed to sell or NOT sell the signal as they see fit.

No, ADW's are not asking for additional revenue beyond the scope of current agreements. The horsemen realize that tracks allowing them to sell their signal to ALL, can only benefit them (and players) in the long run. They are asking for their same share of all ADW wagering revenue as they recieve from on track wagers, nothng more.

I agree with you totally that any rebate action should be reflected instead in lower takeout percentages for ALL bettors. I say that horsmen are not interested in rebating anyone and they would rather support a lower takeout. They seem to understand that allowing the track owned ADW's to keep more than they do from the on track pools will only hurt them long term. Once given to magna and CDI et al, the profits vanish into the botom line of those corporations. Much better for everyone to OPEN the sale of the signal to all ADW's and then let them compete for online wagering dollars.

Horsemen do not care where the bet originates as long as they get he same cut into the pusre account for all wagers. Not 7% of on track, 5.5% of OTB and then only 3.3% of ADW. Hosremen do not care what the takeout percentages are as long as that does not decrease the overall contribution to their purse fund.

ADW's will be free to compete with rebates or what ever schemes they can dream up once the racing signals are not monopolized by any exclusive rights deals made in the past. Forgive horsmen their past mistakes and allow them to proceed in their best interest for the good of everyone.

So many long time experienced handicappers should really have a greater understanding of what is happening now and in how it can relate to better times for all in the industry who are willing to compete on a level that will allow service and satisfaction - for players to decide where to put their wagering dollars.

I'll shop at a Kroger type of ADW as soon as I can get the loss leader ad for the best deal. If CD is allowed to let Twin Spires monopolize the ADW market through exclusive rights to online wagering and services for their network of tracks it is bad for everyone - except the track operators. Let the track execs earn their keep by makng players happy and competing (with ALL allowed to purchase the signal/wagering rights) for our business.

Allowing the horsemen to keep their current share will make the game stronger. This is only a single part of the equation to begin returning our sport to the players. I think we are in basic agreement on several points here but this is a very complex issue. I am on the players side and I believe that the current horseman action on the ADW signal front is proper and good for players as well.

All of the tracks in Kentucky put together cannot come close to the economic impact to the state and country that the horsemen bring to the table. If CD and Magna shutter all of their tracks because of this ADW standoff, I say that is a very good start to getting our game back in order.

Murph
Murph

You are 100% correct.

Premier Turf Club
05-21-2008, 11:47 AM
The horseman control the signal.

That's not correct. You jointly control the signal.

The tracks cannot simulcast without your approval, but you have no control over who the tracks do and don't offer their signals to. Therein, the problem and the reason industry the circles the drain.

In this slow dance of death the customers lose. Every time.

Kelso
05-21-2008, 04:34 PM
The horseman control the signal.Don't get used to sleeping with it; it's gonna leave you cold.

Since you don't own the signals, you will soon lose control of them. The horsemen's recent manifestations of greed have hastened the process. The courts will put an end to your priviledged and indefensible restraint of trade. And your unequal treatment of domestic players ... the ones who are actually allowed to VOTE for Congress creatures ... in favor of foreign whales will cost you in Congress, as well. Way ta go, Mattie! :cool: