Indulto
02-04-2010, 07:53 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/article/110593.html (http://www.drf.com/news/article/110593.html)
New Kentucky bet tax proposed
By Matt Hegarty 2/4/2010 A Kentucky legislator has introduced a bill that would place a one-half percent tax on all wagers made by Kentucky residents through account-wagering operations, according to legislative records. ...
… The bill would require the tax to be split three ways, with one-third going to the Kentucky Racing Commission, the state's regulatory authority, another third going to the racetrack that is running a live race meet at the time, and the other third going to the purse account at the live racetrack.
The tax would be added to the takeout, so it is likely that account-wagering companies would pass that cost on to their customers.http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=110565 (http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=110565)
Cap on signal fee rife with conflicts
By Matt Hegarty2/4/2010… Led by TrackNet, many racetracks are aggressively attempting to push up host-track prices in order to squeeze out middlemen - the account-wagering companies - and reset a simulcast business model that has been criticized for awarding the lion's share of revenue to sites that are not hosting live races. But criticism of the rule is also coming from some unanticipated corners, revealing the complex web of incentives in the account-wagering market.
… TrackNet's primary goal is to push account-wagering host track fees well above the 5 percent cap, and because Churchill owns several tracks outside of Illinois, any effort to cap rates for its Internet platform could have dramatic effects on its national account-wagering business, while also providing a precedent for other states to attempt to place caps on host-track fees.
As if that conflict wasn't enough, Churchill has reached an agreement to buy Youbet.com, the second-largest account-wagering company by handle in the U.S. The transaction, expected to close later this year if it passes muster with government antitrust investigators, will make Churchill the market leader in account wagering and perhaps triple the number of customers using the company's account-wagering services.
"There's strange bedfellows in all these issues, all these mixed marriages," said John Johnston, the president of Balmoral Park, a harness track that supports the rule (the Illinois harness industry unanimously supports the cap). "Arlington Park would be in our position, but they're owned by Churchill, so they're serving a greater god."
Roy Arnold, the president of Arlington Park …
… echoed comments made by TrackNet officials that said the cap reverses years of work by racetracks to gain a greater share of the revenue from simulcasting.
"We support what most of the industry supports right now, and that's that we are no longer going to give our signal away so that other companies are making more on our product than we do," Arnold said.
Some horsemen's groups also have come out against the cap. Under the federal Interstate Horse Racing Act, horsemen must approve all simulcasting sites in a track's network, and several horsemen's groups said this week they would rescind their approvals for account-wagering distribution in Illinois if the cap is implemented.
… Legal experts said the constitutionality of such a cap is murky. Robert Penchina, an attorney who has represented account-wagering companies in the past (and who is currently representing Daily Racing Form in an unrelated matter), said the caps would be hard to justify in a court of law because they treat out-of-state racetracks differently than in-state tracks.
… Still, no one has lodged a legal challenge to the California cap in the eight years it has been in place. According to Scott Daruty, the president of TrackNet, that's because it hasn't been worth it, so far, to get in a legal fight in the state. That could change, however, if the cap is implemented in Illinois and other states jump on the bandwagon.
"California provides half of the account-wagering handle in this country," Daruty said. "You can't not play there, so you play by those rules."
New Kentucky bet tax proposed
By Matt Hegarty 2/4/2010 A Kentucky legislator has introduced a bill that would place a one-half percent tax on all wagers made by Kentucky residents through account-wagering operations, according to legislative records. ...
… The bill would require the tax to be split three ways, with one-third going to the Kentucky Racing Commission, the state's regulatory authority, another third going to the racetrack that is running a live race meet at the time, and the other third going to the purse account at the live racetrack.
The tax would be added to the takeout, so it is likely that account-wagering companies would pass that cost on to their customers.http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=110565 (http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=110565)
Cap on signal fee rife with conflicts
By Matt Hegarty2/4/2010… Led by TrackNet, many racetracks are aggressively attempting to push up host-track prices in order to squeeze out middlemen - the account-wagering companies - and reset a simulcast business model that has been criticized for awarding the lion's share of revenue to sites that are not hosting live races. But criticism of the rule is also coming from some unanticipated corners, revealing the complex web of incentives in the account-wagering market.
… TrackNet's primary goal is to push account-wagering host track fees well above the 5 percent cap, and because Churchill owns several tracks outside of Illinois, any effort to cap rates for its Internet platform could have dramatic effects on its national account-wagering business, while also providing a precedent for other states to attempt to place caps on host-track fees.
As if that conflict wasn't enough, Churchill has reached an agreement to buy Youbet.com, the second-largest account-wagering company by handle in the U.S. The transaction, expected to close later this year if it passes muster with government antitrust investigators, will make Churchill the market leader in account wagering and perhaps triple the number of customers using the company's account-wagering services.
"There's strange bedfellows in all these issues, all these mixed marriages," said John Johnston, the president of Balmoral Park, a harness track that supports the rule (the Illinois harness industry unanimously supports the cap). "Arlington Park would be in our position, but they're owned by Churchill, so they're serving a greater god."
Roy Arnold, the president of Arlington Park …
… echoed comments made by TrackNet officials that said the cap reverses years of work by racetracks to gain a greater share of the revenue from simulcasting.
"We support what most of the industry supports right now, and that's that we are no longer going to give our signal away so that other companies are making more on our product than we do," Arnold said.
Some horsemen's groups also have come out against the cap. Under the federal Interstate Horse Racing Act, horsemen must approve all simulcasting sites in a track's network, and several horsemen's groups said this week they would rescind their approvals for account-wagering distribution in Illinois if the cap is implemented.
… Legal experts said the constitutionality of such a cap is murky. Robert Penchina, an attorney who has represented account-wagering companies in the past (and who is currently representing Daily Racing Form in an unrelated matter), said the caps would be hard to justify in a court of law because they treat out-of-state racetracks differently than in-state tracks.
… Still, no one has lodged a legal challenge to the California cap in the eight years it has been in place. According to Scott Daruty, the president of TrackNet, that's because it hasn't been worth it, so far, to get in a legal fight in the state. That could change, however, if the cap is implemented in Illinois and other states jump on the bandwagon.
"California provides half of the account-wagering handle in this country," Daruty said. "You can't not play there, so you play by those rules."