PDA

View Full Version : 1st at AQU cancelled today, sunday 3/21


jballscalls
03-21-2010, 09:35 AM
http://nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Mar21_R1_Cancel.shtml

never seen this before

BELMONT 6-6-09
03-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Just when you think that you've seen it all in this game.

aaron
03-21-2010, 10:09 AM
You can't make this stuff up.

DRIVEWAY
03-21-2010, 10:13 AM
Rules are rules. The integrity of racing makes a difference.

Figman
03-21-2010, 10:30 AM
The cancellation of race one has to do with the horsemen protest of nine years of ineptitude of the New York State legislators. Many horsemen will be at a two hour protest of this situation.

Ernie Dahlman
03-21-2010, 10:34 AM
What an amazing coincidence, all six horses don't show up on time. Two stabled at Aqueduct, one shipping in from Maryland, and the other three from Belmont.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 10:36 AM
Looks like NYRA has rules and those rules have been broken.


:ThmbUp: to NYRA in this instance.

the Bid
03-21-2010, 11:02 AM
DRF's Dave Grening reports that the move to keep horses out of the D-barn was an act of solidarity. They were not all just running a little late. It is intended to coordinate with the horsemans rally at Belmont today from noon to 2pm.

BombsAway Bob
03-21-2010, 11:41 AM
Quarrantine issue @ Calder, but it's still very odd to see races
from two "MAJOR" circuits cancelled for something other than weather!

Robert Goren
03-21-2010, 12:01 PM
As a gambler, I take this as direct insult to me. Horsemen, if you got a problem with the politicans, take it to them and leave me out of it. I never like the idea of slots at a track. Now I am mad. I hope they suspend and fine all the trainers involved in this.

JBmadera
03-21-2010, 01:05 PM
As a gambler, I take this as direct insult to me. Horsemen, if you got a problem with the politicans, take it to them and leave me out of it. I never like the idea of slots at a track. Now I am mad. I hope they suspend and fine all the trainers involved in this.

agree 100%, excellent point

TizTheOne
03-21-2010, 01:26 PM
It seems pretty obvious the politicians in NY want the hundreds of millions they would get from selling Aqueduct and then they will want the hundreds of millions from slots at Belmont.

I am not an Aqueduct fan, but the second NYRA gave up the land rights to it you knew that the state of NY was going to figure out how to sell it off.

Brogan
03-21-2010, 02:09 PM
DRF's Dave Grening reports that the move to keep horses out of the D-barn was an act of solidarity. They were not all just running a little late. It is intended to coordinate with the horsemans rally at Belmont today from noon to 2pm.
Why did the horsemen take this action against NYRA? Seems they are on the same side of this issue.

If they wanted to make a "statement" I think they were misguided in this move.

johnhannibalsmith
03-21-2010, 02:13 PM
Why did the horsemen take this action against NYRA? Seems they are on the same side of this issue.

If they wanted to make a "statement" I think they were misguided in this move.

I don't quite get it either. Solidarity is something that I can appreciate, but it seems there are some mixed messages being sent. If the goal was to give everyone a glimpse of what its like to not have racing in NY, they did it rather ineffectively in my opinion. If anything, people are likely to assume that mechanized lottery tickets are more important than racing to these folks.

Tom
03-21-2010, 02:30 PM
The appropriate response is the maximum allowable fine and suspension for each trainer and owner.

This is the mark of minor league racing and needs to be snuffed out harshly.

Does NYRA has the balls to stand up for it's CUSTOMERS?

I seriously doubt it.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 02:39 PM
Interesting views. There are many postings on this board encouraging horsemen to boycott the entry box or leave the track to show their displeasure for the powers that be and when they do the horseman are villified.

jballscalls
03-21-2010, 02:47 PM
As a gambler, I take this as direct insult to me. Horsemen, if you got a problem with the politicans, take it to them and leave me out of it. I never like the idea of slots at a track. Now I am mad. I hope they suspend and fine all the trainers involved in this.

As an OTB operator, i take this as a direct insult to me, our bettors, and our horseman. if you got a problem with the politicians, take it to them and leave us out of it. we lost business, horseman lost handle revenue, customers lost a race to bet on and the time they invested handicapping it, and we lost customers cause they were pissed. sucks all around

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 03:03 PM
The best way to send a message to the politicians is to cut off their revenue streams and how important you are in producing the desired tax revenue.

Tom
03-21-2010, 03:11 PM
Interesting views. There are many postings on this board encouraging horsemen to boycott the entry box or leave the track to show their displeasure for the powers that be and when they do the horseman are villified.

What they did was slap the customers in the face today. If you want to act like babies and take your ball and go home, you don't ambush paying customers who are coming to the track. All the trainers should be ruled off the grounds for conduct detrimental to horse racing, which is exactly what they did today. There is never an excuse to screw the paying customers.
What do you think a restaurant would do to a waiter who refused to serve the appetizer as a show of his unhappiness with his employer?

Hopefully, the state will step in with some serious reprecussions for stealing the tax money today.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 03:12 PM
What they did was slap the customers in the face today. If you want to act like babies and take your ball and go home, you don't ambush paying customers who are coming to the track. All the trainers should be ruled off the grounds for conduct detrimental to horse racing, which is exactly what they did today. There is never an excuse to screw the paying cutomers.
What do you think a restaurant would do to a waiter who refused to serve the appetizer as a show of his unhappiness with his employer?


:ThmbUp: Tom.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 03:21 PM
He would be fired, Tom. However, the restaurant only has one paying customer and one employee.

It is not so black and white in the racing industry. Many do not want to believe this but the trainers/owners are cutomers too, they are not employees of the track.. As customers the trainer/owners are exercising their right to withhold business.

Does their withholding of business effect other customers? Unfortunately yes it does. I agree is not a good situation when the customers are at odds.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 03:23 PM
Show

As Brogan ( i think) stated, this was misguided, just like cutting signals off are, as they pee off the customers and the customers are the most important factor in any business.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 03:26 PM
horsemen aren't customers -- they are vendors. The track is their customer.

jeebus1083
03-21-2010, 03:34 PM
The horsemen are protesting the failed socialism that is New York racing's business model. There's no incentive for the NYRA to make a profit, since all profits must be turned over to NYS anyway, and in turn, the corruption that litters Albany has led to constant broken promises and money continuing to bleed away. Albany has failed the horsemen and racing fans who have supported racing at the 3 major tracks over the years. It's a game of who can you really trust? Which other state legislature runs a racetrack or a series of racetracks?

The solution: since New York owns the racetracks, they should put them on the market, and sell to a for-profit company, who in turn, would be allowed to operate for-profit. A racetrack sale would be an instant cash infusion for New York, while at the same time, getting out of the racing business. Industry people should be in charge of all aspects of the tracks, without the government acting as a middleman.

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 03:36 PM
Lets get real for a moment--- if "the players" had the horsepower (pardon the pun) to protest one race in unison, by withholding their services in an attempt to drive home their collective dissatisfaction, then we/they would do it without regard for the impact on horsemen/race track bottom lines. The apparent fact of the matter is that the horsemen did have that power today in the first race.

Grumble all you want BUT I believe its factual that the bettors (or Players--- whatever we are calling ourselves these days) just don't have the required support/unison to pull-off such a protest.

Am I right, or am I right??

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 03:39 PM
Deepsix

You are right

Lets unify and show these people who REALLY keeps the SHOW on the road :D

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 03:41 PM
of course the horsemen have the right to not race if they want. (and of course the track has the right to consider them unreliable vendors, and decide what if any response they want to take)

It was a 6 horse field? I wish all 6 horse fields didn't show up to race. :sleeping:

cj
03-21-2010, 03:41 PM
This comes up all the time. Bettors are told they should care about horsemen and what is good for them is good for us. However, horsemen NEVER care about bettors. EVER. So really, they can pretty much stuff it.

Tom
03-21-2010, 03:43 PM
It is not so black and white in the racing industry. Many do not want to believe this but the trainers/owners are cutomers too, they are not employees of the track.. As customers the trainer/owners are exercising their right to withhold business.

Does their withholding of business effect other customers? Unfortunately yes it does. I agree is not a good situation when the customers are at odds.

No, it is black and white. They entered the horses in the first place, Then failed to live up to their commitment. They acted like spoiled children. If they had a set, they would have not entered. I still say rule them off the grounds - there is no place in racing for this nonsense. The horsemen today yelled out loud that they have no credibility.
When you pay your money and go through the turnstiles, you are a customer. When you show up with shit on your boots and come in the special entrence, you are not a customer.

Mineshaft
03-21-2010, 03:46 PM
No, it is black and white. They entered the horses in the first place, Then failed to live up to their commitment. They acted like spoiled children. If they had a set, they would have not entered. I still say rule them off the grounds - there is no place in racing for this nonsense. The horsemen today yelled out loud that they have no credibility.
When you pay your money and go through the turnstiles, you are a customer. When you show up with shit on your boots and come in the special entrence, you are not a customer.





Great post..

If im the NYRA or the stewards i fine them and dont let then enter any horses for 2 months.

johnhannibalsmith
03-21-2010, 03:49 PM
Horsemen have one effective tool to use as leverage when trying to fight for something: Refusal. Refusing to enter, refusing to run, refusing to disseminate the signal.

This is a tool that cuts both ways, however, and for that reason, using this tool must be done responsibly. I don't believe this action meets that criteria.

Not participating in the first race is not going to effectively change any policy regarding VLTs or expedite matters any. If the goal is to bring attention to the problem, then perhaps it succeeded, but as someone that has participated in and supported the act of "refusal" in the past - I don't believe that the realistically expected goal of such action in this case justifies the use of that leverage, nor was the tool used responsibly to further the goals, given the inherent downside to the use of the tool.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 03:54 PM
No, it is black and white. They entered the horses in the first place, Then failed to live up to their commitment. They acted like spoiled children. If they had a set, they would have not entered. I still say rule them off the grounds - there is no place in racing for this nonsense. The horsemen today yelled out loud that they have no credibility.
When you pay your money and go through the turnstiles, you are a customer. When you show up with shit on your boots and come in the special entrence, you are not a customer.

I agree they entered the horses and they should have honored their commitment. It was executed in the wrong manner.

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 03:54 PM
Great post..

If im the NYRA or the stewards i fine them and dont let then enter any horses for 2 months.


I could not agree more....this is an incredibly complicated issue, but on the surface, it seems what happened today wasnt the best way to handle the issue.


I will say this, though......I would hope that any of the people coming down hard on this arent the same people who supported the pool riots and such things suggested on here before......

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 03:56 PM
Horsemen's leaders should be spending thier time sat round a table with people like Jeff Platt and putting together a new business model instead of spending time on these misguided events.

andymays
03-21-2010, 04:02 PM
I could not agree more....this is an incredibly complicated issue, but on the surface, it seems what happened today wasnt the best way to handle the issue.


I will say this, though......I would hope that any of the people coming down hard on this arent the same people who supported the pool riots and such things suggested on here before......


Are you referring to the majority of people who voted in that thread?

What are you saying exactly?

What are your solutions to racings problems? You like to comment on everyones elses solutions but have none of your own.

Why is that? :rolleyes: :eek:

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 04:17 PM
No, it is black and white. They entered the horses in the first place, Then failed to live up to their commitment. They acted like spoiled children. If they had a set, they would have not entered. I still say rule them off the grounds - there is no place in racing for this nonsense. The horsemen today yelled out loud that they have no credibility.
When you pay your money and go through the turnstiles, you are a customer. When you show up with shit on your boots and come in the special entrence, you are not a customer.


I agreed with the first part, now let's discuss part 2 the paying of the money part.

I've read many times on this board, you treat your good customers better.
The trainers/owners are good customers. They paid their price of admission, by buying the horse. Since they paid more than the usual general admission, they get a special entrance.

The trainers/owners are not vendors as they do not exchange their property with the track for value. The trainers/owners are customers of the tracks.

Bottom line today's action was poorly planned and a public relations gaffe.

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 04:18 PM
As I read it I think the point is.... don't use this ol' argument about how unfair it is to impact others (horsemen being so uncaring as to impact the bettors/track) when impacting "others" (pool parties, or pool riots) do impact others.

Sometimes you must impact others to get a fair shake. In the case of NY it appears that there was 'NY legislative action' that should have been followed BUT it wasn't-- thus the horseman's action today. Somewhat different than a "wildcat action".................

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 04:22 PM
We here on the list mentioned Steve Zorn a few days ago.... here's some of his views:

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com/2010/03/rally-to-save-ny-racing-sunday-march-21.html

andymays
03-21-2010, 04:24 PM
People are desperate and racing will continue to downsize.

It may shake out that places like Santa Anita and Belmont or Saratoga aren't in the final solution.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 04:27 PM
I've read many times on this board, you treat your good customers better.
The trainers/owners are good customers.

The trainers/owners are not vendors as they do not exchange their property with the track for value. The trainers/owners are customers of the tracks.

This is just silly, they provide a service. Actors are vendors to the movie producer, the service they provide is "acting". They are not customers. The cleaning crew at my office are vendors, the service they provide is emptying the garbage cans. The cleaning crew are not our customers.

The horsemen are vendors to the tracks, they provide the horses that run around the track. They do this for prize money, that is their payment.

It's real easy to tell who is a customer and who is a supplier in a relationship -- you pay attention to who pays who. Customers pay, vendors collect.

We pay the tracks, we are their customers. The tracks pay the horsemen, they are their customers. A vendor can refuse service to a customer, just like a customer can refuse to partake of a service. It's not all that complicated.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 04:28 PM
We here on the list mentioned Steve Zorn a few days ago.... here's some of his views:

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com/2010/03/rally-to-save-ny-racing-sunday-march-21.html

Something everyone (except the breeders) should agree on, from that article, is less state-bred foals and state-bred restricted races in every racing jurisdiction.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 04:30 PM
http://businessofracing.blogspot.com/2010/03/rally-to-save-ny-racing-sunday-march-21.html


New York City OTB is in bankruptcy, owes NYRA and horse owners some $14 million



Not our fault guv, so please don't use us, the customers, in this dispute.

Thanks in advance.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 04:41 PM
This is just silly, they provide a service. Actors are vendors to the movie producer, the service they provide is "acting". They are not customers. The cleaning crew at my office are vendors, the service they provide is emptying the garbage cans. The cleaning crew are not our customers.

The horsemen are vendors to the tracks, they provide the horses that run around the track. They do this for prize money, that is their payment.

It's real easy to tell who is a customer and who is a supplier -- you pay attention to who pays who. Customers pay, vendors collect.

We pay the tracks, we are their customers. The tracks pay the horsemen, they are their customers. A vendor can refuse service to a customer, just like a customer can refuse to partake of a service. It's not all that complicated.

Actors are compensated for their parts. Owners are not generally, gauranteed any compensation for participating in a track sponsored race, and the trainers provde a service to prviate individuals.

The track does not pay trainers to solicit business for them or any type of service. The trainers solicit business for themslves and their own benefit.

A vendor is a person that exchanges a service or product for value. Owners nor trainers exchange any tangible produst or service to the track for money.

Another way to look at it is vendors compete for outlets to market their product. In racing it is the oppistie, tracks compete for trainers and owners and how track's compete is through purse structure.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 04:53 PM
Actors are compensated for their parts. Owners are not generally, gauranteed any compensation for participating in a track sponsored race

It's called being paid on the back-end, on results. Plenty of actors forego fixed compensation for a percentage of gross. Which is, well, EXACTLY the same structure we are talking about.


The track does not pay trainers to solicit business for them or any type of service. The trainers solicit business for themslves and their own benefit.

And I don't pay to solicit business for my cleaning company. They solicit their own business. Why the hell wouldn't they, that's how things work.


A vendor is a person that exchanges a service or product for value. Owners nor trainers exchange any tangible produst or service to the track for money.

the track doesnt give them money for no reason, of course they are providing a service. A service without which there is no race.


Another way to look at it is vendors compete for outlets to market their product. In racing it is the oppistie, tracks compete for trainers and owners and how track's compete is through purse structure.

Ask a trainer who can't get enough stalls whether he is competing with other vendors for an outlet for his wares. And ask a trainer who just lost a race whether he is competing with other vendors to make money in his market.

That said, of course people woo their vendors. Our company needs parts that are in short supply, often, be they Flash memory chips, or Tantalum capacitors, or whatever else. And we have to cajole, charm, buy-off, bribe, or do whatever else is needed to get them. This is where the phrase "buyers market" or "sellers market" comes from. When we don't need to do that, we cajole, harass, and generally do whatever possible to pay them as little as possible. None of it changes who is a vendor and who is a customer.

Anyway, let's no beleaguer the point any more -- but it's not complicated.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-21-2010, 05:05 PM
This comes up all the time. Bettors are told they should care about horsemen and what is good for them is good for us. However, horsemen NEVER care about bettors. EVER. So really, they can pretty much stuff it.

C'mon cj.......There were a bunch of signs at the horsemen's protest today saying......"Stop robbing our valued customers with 26% takeout"

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 05:09 PM
Are you referring to the majority of people who voted in that thread?

What are you saying exactly?

What are your solutions to racings problems? You like to comment on everyones elses solutions but have none of your own.

Why is that? :rolleyes: :eek:

The pool riot concept would have been much more detrimental to an unsuspecting bettor than horsemen boycotting one race. Do you disagree with that?

andymays
03-21-2010, 05:15 PM
The pool riot concept would have been much more detrimental to an unsuspecting bettor than horsemen boycotting one race. Do you disagree with that?


I offered the idea as one idea. What did you or the "board cop" offer as a solution.?

As far as the unsuspecting bettor B.S. goes what are you thinking?

God forbib players at Los Alamitos should know what's going on. ;)

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 05:20 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/article/111603.html


The decision to boycott the races was not met kindly by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, which fined the six trainers involved in the boycotted race $500.

InsideThePylons-MW
03-21-2010, 05:29 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/article/111603.html

The decision to boycott the races was not met kindly by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, which fined the six trainers involved in the boycotted race $500.

That's actually pretty funny.

Mayhem, disruption and unmeasurable negative goodwill = $500 fine

Amazing stuff in NY

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 05:31 PM
How many folks were betting the 1st at AQU, anyway?

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 05:35 PM
I offered the idea as one idea. What did you or the "board cop" offer as a solution.?

As far as the unsuspecting bettor B.S. goes what are you thinking?

God forbib players at Los Alamitos should know what's going on. ;)

If I was betting on Los Alamitos and wasn't aware of a pending pool riot, I would be betting into a racing where the odds could change radically from what I expected when I bet. To me, that isn't helpful to the bettor. That's just my opinion. I don't think there's any reason to be caustic about it. Perhaps I misconstrued the "pool riot" concept. If so, please correct me.

If I were the racing czar with dictatorial powers I would do the following:

1) Reduce takeout rates by 2 to 3 percentage points at every track in the country, perhaps more at tracks with very high takeouts. If the experiment was successful, I would cut the takeout again. I would repeat this process until we hit optimal pricing (many claim that level is 12% to 13%, but that's theory - I want to see reality and I would do it in increments).

2) Horsemen at tracks with slots would be forced to dedicate 5% to 10% of the slots-related purse funding to marketing the racing product. I'm not sure why the horsemen haven't pushed for this in the past. Oh they're too short-sighted and believe the track owners would also benefit from such a move. Tough. The track owners will prosper in the long run with or without racing. The horsemen will not. So they should invest in their product - racing.

3) Tougher medication rules. Example: I would ban clenbuterol. It's a waste of $200/month. And most owners/trainers use it b/c they'd be at a disadvantage if they didn't. Tougher penalties. Example: Patrick Binancone would not have a license.

4) Offer a decent simulcast environment at the track - see Delaware Park for how to do it right.

Those are starters. In reality, I think US racing is in secular decline and I'm not sure that decline can be reversed. I hope I'm wrong. What's a board cop?

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 05:35 PM
chickenhead:

Competition among peers does not make one a vendor. Using your economic logic, individual participation in the Olympics make the athletes and coaches (trainers) based on peer competition for a prize.

The simple economic truth is the track has two sets of customers, the trainers/owners and the wagering public. And incidently both sets of cutomers compete for money. The trainer/owner against other trainers/owners and the bettor against other bettors.

The track provides a neutral location and escrow services for both sets of customers. A race track operation is an escrow operation, that promotes its own product for use by its customers.

Robert Goren
03-21-2010, 05:37 PM
If the horsemen don't like the way things are in NY, they can vote with their feet. Move your horses instead of screwing me. I am still mad and could care less if a bunch of horsemen held up signs about the 26% takeout of the pick six. They could care less about the takeout. They just want the slot money. You better believe there are not going to be any boycotts demanding that some of the slot money go to lower takeout rather than purses. At least when some union goes out strike, they are up front on why they are striking. It is about money in their pockets. They don't go around claiming it is for good of the customer.JMO

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 05:39 PM
If the horsemen don't like the way things are in NY, they can vote with their feet. Move your horses instead of screwing me. I am still mad and could care less if a bunch of horsemen held up signs about the 26% takeout of the pick six. They could care less about the takeout. They just want the slot money. You better believe there are not going to be any boycotts demanding that some of the slot money go to lower takeout rather than purses. At least when some union goes out strike, they are up front on why they are striking. It is about money in their pockets. They don't go around claiming it is for good of the customer.JMO

Take your own advice - stop betting on NYRA racing if you feel so strongly about one race being canceled.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 05:46 PM
They just want the slot money



Maybe the schools, hospitals in US should organise a rally or two for some of this money.

Robert Goren
03-21-2010, 05:46 PM
chickenhead:

Competition among peers does not make one a vendor. Using your economic logic, individual participation in the Olympics make the athletes and coaches (trainers) based on peer competition for a prize.

The simple economic truth is the track has two sets of customers, the trainers/owners and the wagering public. And incidently both sets of cutomers compete for money. The trainer/owner against other trainers/owners and the bettor against other bettors.

The track provides a neutral location and escrow services for both sets of customers. A race track operation is an escrow operation, that promotes its own product for use by its customers.The problem with that logic is that money for the purses comes from the betters, not the horsemen. When horsemen start paying the betters for betting on their horses, then they can call themselves customers.

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 05:52 PM
If the race was cancelled I suppose you got your bet refunded????

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 05:52 PM
Are you referring to the majority of people who voted in that thread?

What are you saying exactly?

What are your solutions to racings problems? You like to comment on everyones elses solutions but have none of your own.

Why is that? :rolleyes: :eek:



I was commenting on the hypocrisy that some people show as they jump on the horsemen for today's actions while supporting irrational, zealot like actions such as the pool riot you supported.

I dont have solutions to racing's problems. I think I know the game and its problems well enough to realize that the problems are complicated and that no one solution exists. However, I have the right to comment on what DOESNT work.....you support borderline illegal ideas(the pool riot) that ironically would have ended up screwing BETTORS unaware of what was going on.....you and the rest of your "bombthrowing" friends seem to think that actions like that with obvious collateral daamge are the way to go......even worse, you think that calling those in charge names will somehow cause change when all it does it worsen your cause and ends up forcing others to lose respect for you,,,,horse racing is a business and I know of no other business where strategies like yours works....you seem to have had an effect on indivdual instances and I respect that. However, when trying and force overall change, the "bombthrowing" mentality isnt one that I feel works.


Since you seem so displeased with my lack of a solution, I imagine that you think your strategy is one that has or will work,,,,,how has it gone in the last few years out in California??????

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 05:56 PM
If the race was cancelled I suppose you got your bet refunded????

The track kept the money. No refunds. It's that special rule that allows NYRA to keep bettors' money when the horsemen boycott a race.

Robert Goren
03-21-2010, 05:57 PM
Take your own advice - stop betting on NYRA racing if you feel so strongly about one race being canceled. I don't have any more of a problem with the NYRA management than any other track management. Compared to places like Pha they are pretty good, which isn't saying much. It seems to me that what the horsemen want is to turn NY racing into Pha. I don't bet Pha. or Penn or CT.

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 05:59 PM
Ahhh, that special rule, eh?? Right-o.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 06:00 PM
Ahhh, that special rule, eh?? Right-o.

Sarcasm....obviously, I think.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 06:01 PM
I don't have any more of a problem with the NYRA management than any other track management. Compared to places like Pha they are pretty good, which isn't saying much. It seems to me that what the horsemen want is to turn NY racing into Pha. I don't bet Pha. or Penn or CT.

That's reasonable except you should give CT a try - great betting, imo.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 06:10 PM
I did not say that competition made them vendors. I just said they did compete with one another for distribution, which is both true and the opposite of what you said.

The vendor pay schedule for racing is necessarily incentive based -- and this changes absolutely nothing. If the track instead offered a flat appearance fee of $10,000 for every horse -- they'd still be vendors. If the track didn't pay them at all, and horse owners just showed up and ran horses for free, they'd really still be vendors, they'd just be really stupid vendors.

The only thing that would change the relationship would be if the track just owned the horses themselves, and raced them. This would only mean that they are no longer outsourcing that part of their supply chain to an outside vendor.

This would be called "Vertical Integration". A track owning the horses would be called "Backwards Vertical Integration". A track owning things like an ADW would be called "Forward Vertical Integration". A track owning everything from a breeding farm all the way through an ADW would be called "Fully Integrated".

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 06:27 PM
chickenhead:

Per your definitions who is the customer of Mayden is Dubai?

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 06:31 PM
chickenhead:

Per your definitions who is the customer of Mayden is Dubai?

whoever pays for them. The Maktoums, mainly.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 06:32 PM
whoever pays for them.

Oh, the sponsor of the race? A sponsor is a sponsor not a customer.

The trainer/owners are the customers Mayden wants to attract to ists facility and it does this through lucrative purses.

The owners do not care where purse money comes from. The owners really do not care where or how the tracks fund purses, because the trainer/owners are customers.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 06:39 PM
Pays for what? What is them?

The track and the races. It's an advertising tool for Dubai paid for by the people that own Dubai. It's not a business that has customers. Like any advertising, its essentially commissioned.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 06:45 PM
The track and the races. It's an advertising tool for Dubai paid for by the people that own Dubai. It's not a business that has customers. Like any advertising, its essentially commissioned.

Or at least, that is my understanding.

It works that way, becasue the bettor is not a needed customer. The customer that is needed is the owner/trainer.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 06:48 PM
Go to the seedy part of town SMTW and pay a hooker to come to your room. Then ask her which one of you is the john. Maybe she'll explain it to you better than I can.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 06:53 PM
Your proof that Mayden is the vendor because they want the horsemen to do something and they pay them to do it? Jesus Christ.

Go to the seedy part of town SMTW and pay a hooker to come to your room. Then ask her who is the john. Maybe she'll explain it to you better than I can.


No my proof is which party is necessary for the operation of the track and the owners don't care where purses come from. Your definition of vendor doesn't work, but the definition of customer works in the Mayden example.

Your hooker example would work, only if an independant agent sought out the hooker and then sought me out and I only gave money to the independent agent. Then the hooker would be a customer and I would be a customer of the independent agent. You need a threesome to relate to track structure.

My direct payment to the hooker for personal services, besides being illegal, fits the defintion of vendor services. I don't need that explained to me.

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 06:55 PM
I offered the idea as one idea. What did you or the "board cop" offer as a solution.?

As far as the unsuspecting bettor B.S. goes what are you thinking?

God forbib players at Los Alamitos should know what's going on. ;)


I am right here so you can post responses to me and dont have to worry about sending me jabs through other posts...I responded directly to you and your response came through a reference in another....hmmmm

A board cop? I disagree with you and your tactics and that makes me a board cop? All I did was comment on the hypocrisy, as people support ideas like pool riots and then lay into horsemen for doing a similar thing? Please explain how that turns into being a board cop.....


I will now let you get back to starting productive Stronach "knows what he is doing" or "Stronach is a wackadoo" threads.....I would love to hear how taking the time to start a thread like that helps at all.....


As far as solutions go, I think I would agree with Saratoga Mike in post number 51......again, I dont have a singular precise solution but know that your strategy is extremely flawed in my opinion and will never result in any sustainable change....well, unless a guy likes Stronach who is in power says "Oh my gosh, that guy who called me a Wackaddo on a horse message board is right! I think I will change now......"

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 06:59 PM
Show


The clowns provide entertainment and recieve remuneration for doing so, the tent or felid they perform in is the venue that also recieves remuneration for staging the event

The customers recieve nothing for turning up to the show. They are in fact charged by the above for the product or entertainment provided.


Horsemen = clowns
Meydan = tent
Customers = bettors and fans.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 07:05 PM
Show


The clowns provide entertainment and recieve remuneration for doing so, the tent or felid they perform in is the venue that also recieves renumeration for staging the event

The customers recieve nothing for turning up to the show. They are in fact charged by the above for the product provided.


Horsemen = clowns
Meydan = tent
Customers = bettors and fans.

I agree the horsemen are clowns, becasue the pay to entertain, and remuneration is not always received.

NY BRED
03-21-2010, 07:06 PM
I recently recommended the easy solution to this mess, namely
have a Casino operator run the Entire SHOW rather than the VLTS.

While Casinos are hurting, running a racino and improving the
plants at AQU and BEL would draw income from the locals who aren't
running to AC but very well might spend an afternnon at
AQU(or Bel).

Were a racino approved, a strike would not have occured.The
trainers, as indicated in Thoroughbred Times are simply frustrated by the
political shennanigans, and, even worse watching purses increase at
PHA, CT, MNR, while purses decrease in NY, as do the # of fans
and owners.

Add the inflated purse structure at MTH which WILL affect SAR and you can at least understand their concerns and frustration even if you disagree with this strike. I was at the Big A today, and yes,people were pissed off, much
in the same manner when the MTA and Sanitation unions pull or
threaten a strike.


Here's the article :




By Blood-Horse Staff (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/author/blood-horse-staff)
Updated: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:12 PM
Posted: Sunday, March 21, 2010 10:41 AM
Email (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0);) Print (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/56005/protest-cancels-first-race-at-aqueduct/print) RSS (http://www.bloodhorse.com/rss) ShareThis (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0))
Email A Friend Close Window (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void(0);)



$('#mpw23712500').jqm({ modal: true, toTop: true, trigger: '#emailAFriend', onHide: function(h) { h.o.fadeOut(500); h.w.fadeOut(500); } }); $('#emailAFriend').click(function() { $get('jqmContent').src = '/horse-racing/Article/Email?articleId=56005'; }); The first race at Aqueduct was canceled March 21 when horses entered in the race did not arrive at the security barn by 8 a.m. EDT, the designated deadline.

Associated Press reported that the action is part of a horsemen's protest over the state of New York's failure to select an operator for the track's video lottery terminals. Trainers refused to bring the opening-race horses to the security barn on time, AP reported.

Horses for the remaining races have been arriving on schedule. Aqueduct resumed the remainder of the card, starting with the second race at 1:29 p.m. There is a Pick 6 carryover of $134,894, scheduled to begin with race 4 at 2:27 p.m.

Horsemen also have scheduled a rally for the afternoon March 21 at Belmont Park.

Last month, the Aqueduct Entertainment Group was chosen to run slots operation at that track. The deal quickly fell apart in a storm of political controversy. Legislators in Albany have yet to decide whether to select a replacement operator from the other bidders or to start

Tom
03-21-2010, 07:11 PM
Take your own advice - stop betting on NYRA racing if you feel so strongly about one race being canceled.

Been there ,done that.
NYRA is not remotely of interest to me.
I'm just waiting for them to realize my two bucks is missing and change their ways!

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 07:12 PM
I agree the horsemen are clowns, becasue the pay to entertain, and remuneration is not always received.


What!!! i wish someone would offer me 750,000 for betting on Flad instead of charging me an arm and leg for for doing it.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 07:17 PM
I don't understand why people dismiss the large amounts of money owners' pay to purchase horses and maintain them. Owners pay to be part of the entertainment.

Without owners there would be no need for operations like Chuchill Downs, Magna, or Keeneland and all the sales events. Bettors don't drive the industry.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 07:21 PM
Go buy a tv, truck, car, keep it few years and see if you can get price you paid for it on e-bay.


Go ask those who make tv, trucks, cars who drive thier industry

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 07:27 PM
No customers = no revenue from slots
No customers = no revenue from bettors


Are the clowns going to turn up if there is no remuneration involved. Nope!!, that's why they're off to Monmouth, Meydan etc, etc instead of running in field somewhere for a hotdog or just fun.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 07:33 PM
I don't understand why people dismiss the large amounts of money owners' pay to purchase horses and maintain them. Owners pay to be part of the entertainment.

Without owners there would be no need for operations like Chuchill Downs, Magna, or Keeneland and all the sales events. Bettors don't drive the industry.

I'm not dismissing it, but again, it's not anything different from any other business. Intel pays billions to open a chip mfg plant. Dell pays them a lot for those chips to put them into computers. The end customers pay Dell a lot of money for those computers.

No one forced Intel to invest money to open a chip mfg plant. No one forced Dell to design computers. And no one forces customers to buy those computers.

Never once have I ever heard anyone say "poor intel, they invested so much in that chip plant, therefore I hope Dell pays them more, to help them out" or "Poor Dell, they spent so much time designing that computer, people should just pay them, even if they don't like the computers".

It all comes up from the bottom -- if the customers don't like and purchase the product, the people involved in production of that product, all the way up the line, and each step up that line, are gonna take it in the shorts. The Intels and the Dells, the horse production and ownership complex, and the tracks.

Such is business.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 07:34 PM
Go buy a tv, truck, car, keep it few years and see if you can get price you paid for it on e-bay.


Go ask those who make tv, trucks, cars who drive thier industry

What does past prices have anything to do with the conversation? Nothing.

When you buy your truck, do you buy it with the thought of entertaining other people? Do most people buy it as a clown vehicle?

To answer the relevant part of your question it is the customer, for his own personal end use.

Who buys the horses, the customer (owner), to be part of the "entertainment" (your nomenclature). Who does the track need to fill races? Owners.

Ask the Keeneland sales and other sales who drives their business?

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 07:41 PM
What does past prices have anything to do with the conversation? Nothing.





Your right, same as past price of horse has nothing to do with the conversation.

Deepsix
03-21-2010, 07:45 PM
Conversation. What conversation? lol

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm not dismissing it, but again, it's not anything different from any other business. Intel pays billions to open a chip mfg plant. Dell pays them a lot for those chips to put them into computers. The end customers pay Dell a lot of money for those computers.

No one forced Intel to invest money to open a chip mfg plant. No one forced Dell to design computers. And no one forces customers to buy those computers.

Never once have I ever heard anyone say "poor intel, they invested so much in that chip plant, therefore I hope Dell pays them more, to help them out" or "Poor Dell, they spent so much time designing that computer, people should just pay them, even if they don't like the computers".

It all comes up from the bottom -- if the customers don't like and purchase the product, the people involved in production of that product, all the way up the line, and each step up that line, are gonna take it in the shorts. The Intels and the Dells, the horse production and ownership complex, and the tracks.

Such is business.

I am not disagreeing with you how intel works, but race tracks are an unique business. Mayden is an example of the uniqueness. No one forces anyone to wager on a race, in fact you can't.

I am highlighting there are competing interests, which are absent in your intel and Dell example.

The real product of horse racing is the horse. The horse is the commodity. wagering is tangental, albeit lucrative.

The owners buy the horses ,the owners drive the industry, for the breeding and sales industry to thrive, they need to entice people to buy horses, (computers) and that is accomplished through purses and selling breeding rights. The breeders or owners don't care where or how purse money is raised. That is why the industry is perfectly fine, with the concept of funding purse money from alternative forms of gambling. The industry wants to entice the customer to keep buying horses, just like dell wants you to keep buying computers.

The difference is you aren't using your personal computer so an independent third party is continually making money off your use of it, i.e. selling other people the right to watch you use it every time you use the computer.

I am not saying it is in their best interests to do this. Only keep in mind the owner is a customer too.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 08:12 PM
The owners are only customers of breeders and trainers and the money they spend goes into those businesses revenue streams

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 08:15 PM
I like to clarify a bit more. The mechanism chosen to entice buyers in the U.S. is the pari-mutuel wagering system. which uses betting to fund the purse structure.

In Mayden, the major sponsor, that funds the purses, is also a major breeder. Ponder this question, do you think the sponsor will make more money off his breeding operation if he can sell more horses to cutomers? Customers of his Mayden operation?

I am skeptical that the sheik is giving out large purses purely for altruistic purposes.

The sheik understands the clowns are the real customers.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 08:21 PM
no, that is actually not how things work, but I'll give you that this is the company line so far as how some people wished they worked. Which is exactly why things are not working.

Wagering is not tangential, wagering is the product. Curlin is a plow horse if not for wagering, worth exactly the same as any other plow horse. OK, a pretty plow horses, so worth a few extra bucks.

The entirety of the value of these horses, as a group, this giant pyramid that is the horse industrial complex -- must at some point relate back to the value of purses, which must at some point relate back to the amount of money produced due to wagering. I don't have to draw a picture to prove it is so, and connect all the dots, it is simply what makes one horse a Curlin and another a plow horse.

Otherwise, they are all plow horses, except to an extremely small group of, essentially, exotic horse collectors. Some people collect miniature donkeys, too. It doesn't an industry make, because their is no money in miniature donkeys. And there isn't any money in Thoroughbred ownership if it weren't for races. They would just be really big, unfriendly miniature donkeys that like to bite. It drives nothing.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 08:23 PM
His breeding business recognises who his customers are - the owners, just like tyre, steel manufacturers recognise the car producers are ther customers

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
There are multiple "customers" the track must serve. It's like an investment bank - who is the customer? The retail client? The hedge fund? The corporate client paying the big banking fee? They are all customers to someone within the investment bank. Racing is no different. Owners and trainers are customers to the racing secretary. And bettors are customers to the track itself.

toussaud
03-21-2010, 09:04 PM
I could not agree more....this is an incredibly complicated issue, but on the surface, it seems what happened today wasn't the best way to handle the issue.


I will say this, though......I would hope that any of the people coming down hard on this arent the same people who supported the pool riots and such things suggested on here before......
this sounds good in theory, but let's look at the actual practice of it.

in that race, was McLaughlin who today at gulfstream, ran a 3YO that looks like a freak of nature in trappe shot. I doubt NYRA has the balls to tell McLaughlin to take a hike.

Bruce Levine, also in that race, trains none other than Buddy's Saint.


this happened to be a pretty salty race they boycotted. some non graded / grade 3 caliber allowence horses were in this race. peace town can run.


however if NYRA did tell them to take a hike they would earn my respect for having a pair


Also, you are using the wrong model for Medyan, as the purpose of the racecourse is not to make money directly but to be the center or part of this great, tourist city. they dont' give a flying you know what about making money at Medyan. what they care bout, is making ti the most spectacular race course in the world, that holds the most spectacular events, in one of the most spectacular cities on earth therefore making you want to visit it (and spend money) therefore making it a huge tourist attraction. They are trying to make dubai the business/turioust hub of the middle east. everything they do is geared towards tourism

SMTW you are clueless

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 09:11 PM
this sounds good in theory, but let's look at the actual practice of it.

in that race, was McLaughlin who today at gulfstream, ran a 3YO that looks like a freak of nature in trappe shot. I doubt NYRA has the balls to tell McLaughlin to take a hike.

Bruce Levine, also in that race, trains none other than Buddy's Saint.


this happened to be a pretty salty race they boycotted. some non graded / grade 3 caliber allowence horses were in this race. peace town can run.


however if NYRA did tell them to take a hike they would earn my respect for having a pair


Also, you are using the wrong model for Medyan, as the purpose of the racecourse is not to make money directly but to be the center or part of this great, tourist city. they dont' give a flying you know what about making money at Medyan. what they care bout, is making ti the most spectacular race course in the world, that holds the most spectacular events, in one of the most spectacular cities on earth therefore making you want to visit it (and spend money) therefore making it a huge tourist attraction. They are trying to make dubai the business/turioust hub of the middle east. everything they do is geared towards tourism



Hey Toussaud,

I dont really get your reply....the first part didnt seem to reply to my post and I have never mentioned Medyan as a model....maybe you meant to respond to another one?

toussaud
03-21-2010, 09:13 PM
Hey Toussaud,

I dont really get your reply....the first part didnt seem to reply to my post and I have never mentioned Medyan as a model....maybe you meant to respond to another one?
I wasn't replying to your post, I was replying to multiple post at once. I think.
[
All i'm saying is I agree with tome 100000%. They should ban the trainers that pulled this stunt. You dont' go to a movie, pay 10 bucks, get your popcorn, and sit there and then find out all the..movie player people..whatever the hell their names are, are on strike, but you can sit here and play movie triva for 2 and a half hours.

when i walk through the gate, and buy my form, i expect to see, unless for unforseen circumstances, the entire card.

what about the guy that spent 3 hours handicapping the first race? What about the guy that came to the track (instead of sitting at home) JUST to bet the first race. You just told both of them to go play in a volcano


But, NYRA would not have the balls to tell the trainers of Buddy's Saint and Trappe Shot to take a hike.

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 09:15 PM
I wasn't replying to your post, I was replying to multiple post at once. I think.


Got it....it looks like you were replying to mine so I was confused

Mineshaft
03-21-2010, 09:16 PM
this sounds good in theory, but let's look at the actual practice of it.

in that race, was McLaughlin who today at gulfstream, ran a 3YO that looks like a freak of nature in trappe shot. I doubt NYRA has the balls to tell McLaughlin to take a hike.

Bruce Levine, also in that race, trains none other than Buddy's Saint.


this happened to be a pretty salty race they boycotted. some non graded / grade 3 caliber allowence horses were in this race. peace town can run.


however if NYRA did tell them to take a hike they would earn my respect for having a pair


Also, you are using the wrong model for Medyan, as the purpose of the racecourse is not to make money directly but to be the center or part of this great, tourist city. they dont' give a flying you know what about making money at Medyan. what they care bout, is making ti the most spectacular race course in the world, that holds the most spectacular events, in one of the most spectacular cities on earth therefore making you want to visit it (and spend money) therefore making it a huge tourist attraction. They are trying to make dubai the business/turioust hub of the middle east. everything they do is geared towards tourism

SMTW you are clueless






Does McLaughlin run that many horses at Aqueduct/Belmont? I still would tell them to go get fawked. Who is running this game the trainers or the NYRA?

toussaud
03-21-2010, 09:18 PM
Does McLaughlin run that many horses at Aqueduct/Belmont? I still would tell them to go get fawked. Who is running this game the trainers or the NYRA?
McLaughlin if I am not mistaken (could very well be) is pretty much all Belmont and toga after the Gulfstream meet.

This is why I respect Del Mar. you might not like the decision they make, but there is no confusion about who runs the show at del mar.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
-- must at some point relate back to the value of purses, which must at some point relate back to the amount of money produced due to wagering. I don't have to draw a picture to prove it is so, and connect all the dots, it is simply what makes one horse a Curlin and another a plow horse.
.


You pointed out the succint point, the purse. It doesn't make a difference where it comes from, Mayden is the example, you don't need wagering.

Pari-mutuel wagering is one platform to fund purses, it is not the only way, and it is not mutually exclusive either.

Tom
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
There are multiple "customers" the track must serve. It's like an investment bank - who is the customer? The retail client? The hedge fund? The corporate client paying the big banking fee? They are all customers to someone within the investment bank. Racing is no different. Owners and trainers are customers to the racing secretary. And bettors are customers to the track itself.

Who paid to get in?
That is your customer.
Who gets rakes over the coals on every dollar bet?
That is your customer.
Who can walk away from the game and never come back?
That is your customer.

Tom
03-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Mayden is a perfect example of what we don't need.
90%of the horses, tracks jockeys, trainers, owners.......run a really small scale game in the middle of a frigging desert and you can get by.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:30 PM
Also, you are using the wrong model for Medyan, as the purpose of the racecourse is not to make money directly but to be the center or part of this great, tourist city. they dont' give a flying you know what about making money at Medyan. what they care bout, is making ti the most spectacular race course in the world, that holds the most spectacular events, in one of the most spectacular cities on earth therefore making you want to visit it (and spend money) therefore making it a huge tourist attraction. They are trying to make dubai the business/turioust hub of the middle east. everything they do is geared towards tourism

SMTW you are clueless

Yes non-wagering horse racing is such a tourist attraction.

If you really read my post, it had nothing to do with Mayden race course making money. In my business model it is a loss leader for another business.

It has to do with whom the real customers of Mayden race course.

You believe want you want to believe, but the sheik is in the breeding business.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 09:30 PM
You pointed out the succint point, the purse. It doesn't make a difference where it comes from, Mayden is the example, you don't need wagering.

Pari-mutuel wagering is one platform to fund purses, it is not the only way, and it is not mutually exclusive either.

Of course not, I'm just describing what is, not an alternate reality. If you know where to get several billion per year in revenue not based on wagering you should buy a track, you'd make a fortune. I think the sheiks already have their playground, so you'll have to figure something else out. Maybe ask Fred Pope, like you he suggests we transition to a model not based on wagering, with no clue as to what that model would be. Because like you, he believes that breeding drives racing, and not the other way around.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 09:32 PM
"Yes non-wagering horse racing is such a tourist attraction."

That reads like a sarcastic statement (perhaps I'm mistaken), but I don't understand why. I know they draw a huge crowd for World Cup Day. Are you saying the rest of the meet is not well attended?

Relwob Owner
03-21-2010, 09:34 PM
Who paid to get in?
That is your customer.
Who gets rakes over the coals on every dollar bet?
That is your customer.
Who can walk away from the game and never come back?
That is your customer.


Tom,

You seem to have some pretty strong feelings on this and pretty negative feelings towards horsemen as well. I think Saratoga Mike hit it right on the head and that ultimately, horsemen and bettors need each other.....I would say that the your questions above could also be adjusted a little with a different answer.....

Who paid to get in? The Owner
Who often gets raked over the coals on every dollar spent on their horse? The Owner
Who can walk away from the game and never come back? The Owner


I know a lot of owners and almost all of them acknowledge how hard it is to win and some even think there is almost no chance....that being said, the bettor is in a better position because at least they have a CHANCE of winning...


Just a thought and congrats on the Fla Derby pick yesterday

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:39 PM
Mayden is a perfect example of what we don't need.
90%of the horses, tracks jockeys, trainers, owners.......run a really small scale game in the middle of a frigging desert and you can get by.

I am not advocating the Mayden platform, as it only benefits the sheik, especially when they start carding races restricted to horses bought from certain sales.

Only as I stated before it is not as black and white about who are the customers. There are two separate and distinct groups in the pari-mutuel purse funding platform. One group is the bettors and the other group is the owners and both are customers of the system. One customer is enticed to do business through gambling opportunities and the other enticed through purses.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 09:40 PM
I am not advocating the Mayden platform, as it only benefits the sheik, especially when they start carding races restricted to horses bought from certain sales.

Only as I stated before it is not as black and white about who are the customers. There are two separate and distinct groups in the pari-mutuel purse funding platform. One group is the bettors and the other group is the owners and both are customers of the system. One customer is enticed to do business through gambling opportunities and the other enticed through purses.

Well said SMTW.

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 09:41 PM
If you really read my post, it had nothing to do with Mayden race course making money. In my business model it is a loss leader for another business.

Using a loss leader to fund another loss leader doesn't sound like a great idea. The Sheiks don't make money on anything -- Dubai is a loss leader for their egos. So long as the can dig oil out for $5 a barrel or so, it'll keep working.

I guess that can be the suggested business model for all race tracks -- Hope to strike oil under the quarter pole.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:43 PM
"Yes non-wagering horse racing is such a tourist attraction."

That reads like a sarcastic statement (perhaps I'm mistaken), but I don't understand why. I know they draw a huge crowd for World Cup Day. Are you saying the rest of the meet is not well attended?


No to the question about the meet.

It was sarcastic in response to the clueless comment about me, especially since the poster did not understand what I said about Mayden being a loss leader.

It is about time you guys jumped in the discussion.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 09:45 PM
One Group will not survive on just the Dubai Carnival evey year, so unless you can find more rich people to put on that kind of show you'd better wake up to who the REAL customers are imo.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 09:46 PM
No to the question about the meet.

It was sarcastic in response to the clueless comment about me, especially since the poster did not understand what I said about Mayden being a loss leader.

It is about time you guys jumped in the discussion.

I'm not even sure I know what you're arguing about at this pt. But here's how I see it: You're right on the customer issue. The Chicken is right on Dubai being a loss leader for a loss leader issue. And I'm right on just about everything I post! :)

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:46 PM
Using a loss leader to fund another loss leader doesn't sound like a great idea. The Sheiks don't make money on anything -- Dubai is a loss leader for their egos. So long as the can dig oil out for $5 a barrel or so, it'll keep working.

I guess that can be the suggested business model for all race tracks -- Hope to strike oil under the quarter pole.


I think they are planning on making money in their breeding operations. The tourist attraction loss leader is another poster's comment.

You are right though about them having more opportunity to satisfy their egos.

toussaud
03-21-2010, 09:47 PM
Yes non-wagering horse racing is such a tourist attraction.

If you really read my post, it had nothing to do with Mayden race course making money. In my business model it is a loss leader for another business.

It has to do with whom the real customers of Mayden race course.

You believe want you want to believe, but the sheik is in the breeding business.
the shieh is worth 12 billion dollars lol. DUDE breeding is nothing more than an expesnive hobby

I am not trying to be rude or whatever when I say this but you really do not know what you are talking about.

when I say, toruism, i'm not talking about people with cameras.. i'm talking about big business. they dont' care about attendance numbers. they care about who is attending. that's why they have a Bentley giveaway (yes you heard me) on DWC day. they are trying to attract big business to Dubai.

I suggest you pick up a book or two that is not written by Andy Beyer.



Shiekh Mo's vision is for the city of Dubai to be the grandest city on earth. The problem is, they don't produce anything. Even though they are in the middle east, they really don't produce oil. they live around sand, it's not like they can grow anything. Their industry is tourism, similar to las vegas, without the smut and gambling of course.

While he does have a god's honest passion for horse raving, it is also part of it's plan, to money and interest into horse racing.


Relwob Owner,

you bring up some very good points, points I won't get into becuase it's late and I would like to eat. The reality is that, the business world is not that much different than the horse racing industry that, about 9 out of 10 compaines/horseman aren't going to make money. the cream always raises to the top. rather it be the owner who can spot talented horses better, the owner who can read a condition book the best (maggi moss), or whatever the case may be


like betting, ownership their only so much pie. everyone cant' get full. the ones that do get full are the ones that come to the table with he best sharpened knifes.

Jake Welch once said, if you don't have a competitive advantage, don't compete. Alot of owners are just throwing money out there, finding an owner, not knowing anything about the game, how it really works and cry because they aren't' making money.

you can't have it both ways, meaning, if you want to say "oh this is just a fun outing we aren't doing this for the money" and you aren't going to invest time into learning how to bet he best owner you can be, dont' cry when you are in the red every year.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:48 PM
I'm not even sure I know what you're arguing about at this pt. But here's how I see it: You're right on the customer issue. The Chicken is right on Dubai being a loss leader for a loss leader issue. And I'm right on just about everything I post! :)

:ThmbUp:

johnhannibalsmith
03-21-2010, 09:50 PM
Since this conversation has taken a bit of a detour, here's another example of a non pari-mutuel racing endeavor.

http://www.purgatorycup.com/history.html

I'm not advocating anything by virtue of that link - I like the pari-mutuel model just fine - but in the total polar opposite extreme to the rich, wealthy oil Sheikh of Dubai, it has worked for a ragtag bunch of good old boys that run for little more than atta-boys at the local diner over coffee and a pastry.

Just for fun reading, not a statement...

...for those that wonder about those horses with "works" at Beaver, Dixie Downs, etc. - this is kind of an entertaining glimpse of how they did it for years out there in Utah without pari-mutuels. Obviously not a strategy that can work on a broad scale, in fact, I think the Cup is now defunct, but it is another example that it is possible to have horse races using a non-betting model.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 09:54 PM
toussaud:

You are in your own little world aren't you. The whole discussion is about owners being customers of the track, it is not about profiencey or effeciency, it is about who the track and the industry views as a customer.

Nobody is talking about Dubai for Dubai's sake or its tourist industry, except you.

Saratoga_Mike
03-21-2010, 09:55 PM
And it's JACK Welch, not Jake!

chickenhead
03-21-2010, 10:02 PM
Since this conversation has taken a bit of a detour, here's another example of a non pari-mutuel racing endeavor.

http://www.purgatorycup.com/history.html

I'm not advocating anything by virtue of that link - I like the pari-mutuel model just fine - but in the total polar opposite extreme to the rich, wealthy oil Sheikh of Dubai, it has worked for a ragtag bunch of good old boys that run for little more than atta-boys at the local diner over coffee and a pastry.

Just for fun reading, not a statement...

...for those that wonder about those horses with "works" at Beaver, Dixie Downs, etc. - this is kind of an entertaining glimpse of how they did it for years out there in Utah without pari-mutuels. Obviously not a strategy that can work on a broad scale, in fact, I think the Cup is now defunct, but it is another example that it is possible to have horse races using a non-betting model.


I agree, and those are the roots of horse racing -- good ol boys racing their steeds for bragging rights. It's a great example, without 3rd party funded purses, (and without a logical alternative to it being mutual funded) mutual funded purses -- THAT is what horseracing is.

Hell, some tracks aren't so far from this now. Ferndale, my own dearly beloved, for one.

Show Me the Wire
03-21-2010, 10:03 PM
Charlie D:

A question. How does the event host, track, make money on the other side of the pond?

DeanT
03-21-2010, 10:06 PM
I agree, and those are the roots of horse racing -- good ol boys racing their steeds for bragging rights. It's a great example, without 3rd party funded purses, (and without a logical alternative to it being mutual funded) mutual funded purses -- THAT is what horseracing is.

Hell, some tracks aren't so far from this now. Ferndale, my own dearly beloved, for one.
We are seeing now who is funding the biz - handle is down, so purses are down, and the breeding farms are finally complaining. When there is less money to race for, your commodity prices go down and you have less demand by the rank and file horse owners. Everything stems from handle and filters down from there.

Mineshaft
03-21-2010, 10:07 PM
McLaughlin if I am not mistaken (could very well be) is pretty much all Belmont and toga after the Gulfstream meet.

This is why I respect Del Mar. you might not like the decision they make, but there is no confusion about who runs the show at del mar.




so true.

Charlie D
03-21-2010, 10:19 PM
Charlie D:

A question. How does the event host, track, make money on the other side of the pond?

I'm not quite sure to be honest Show as it's not something i've really took interest in, but most do charge a fair lump (£20 GBP at my local track i think) to get in and the food and drink is expensive.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-22-2010, 09:34 AM
There is no way, no matter how you slice it that the horsemen are customers of the track.
They are vendors/suppliers.

They get paid by the track. The track is their customer. Even in Dubai.

How the track gets money for to pay horsemen is usually from betting. The bettors pay the track.

In Dubai's case, I look at how the track gets money to pay horsemen, much like how an NFL team gets the money to pay the players, and that would be advertising.
Dubai gets advertisement dollars, and the track advertises Dubai. The owners of the track make money from tourism and investment dollars that go into Dubai (so it is a bit different than North American racing). But the horsemen still are there to try to get paid by the track. THEY ARE NOT CUSTOMERS.

Incidentally, gambling, though Dubai or the NFL does not directly get money from it, is a big reason why they both profit from advertising.

That being said, we are all customers/consumers in different circumstances. The horseman is a customer of the breeders. But they are not a customer of the track in almost every instance.

I can think of an instance when they are customers of the track and that is by paying stall rental (which gives them the ability to earn a money and train at the track). But it is my understanding that the rental goes towards hay and straw and/or litter pickup in many cases, so horsemen are the customers of the hay companies or track sanitation in this instance. It is also my understanding that some tracks don't even charge stall rentals.

Charlie D
03-22-2010, 09:47 AM
Comparing Dubai to other racing around the world is like comparing an apple to an orange.


The majority of countries racing i have bet on rely heavily on betting revenue for survival and in my country and US the providers of this revenue seem to get treated like "addicts and idiots" (Mullins) by racing insiders in my humble opinion.

Result, gamblers are off to play poker, slots, bet on other sports while these racing insiders do nothing or very little to fix this migration of revenue.


Slots are not the savior of US racing, the HPB's , Tom's , CJ's etc out there are and if you give them a fair crack, level playing feild, they will repay that via increased amounts bet.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-22-2010, 04:22 PM
I thought of something. The horsemen actually did bettors a good thing. They saved horseplayers whatever the would have been lost due to takeout.

GARY Z
03-23-2010, 02:38 AM
ABC in NY pulled their feed to Cablevision recently
and eliminated approximetely 15 minutes of the Oscars show , then
turned the transmission back on as Cablevision negotiated
increased fees demaned by ABC.

The action of the trainers on Sunday symbolizes their frustrations,
but note their actions inolved once race, not the entire card, almost identical
to the ABC scenario.

Cancellation of more than one race or the entire cards may happen
if the insane politics continue. These trainers certainly don't need to lose income and owners, and the downstate tracks shouldn't be alienating
fans to this insane delay caused by politicians etc.

Maybe racing fans should simply stop betting races to drive this
point home .

Tom
03-23-2010, 07:25 AM
Why stop betting races?
When they decide to screw the customer again, just bet another track. Simple. NYRA is not the only tack running, and it sure as hell isn't, day in day out the best racing around.

No NYRA, no problem. Lots of races out there.

Robert Goren
03-23-2010, 09:26 AM
They are dealing with politicians here , for God's sake. Striking (or whatever you want to call it) is not the way you deal with them. There is one tried and true way to get a politician to do what you want.(and we all know what that is). It is apparent to this guy on the outside looking in that horsemen are really either very, very stupid or just plain to cheap to do what they have to. JMO

TizTheOne
03-23-2010, 05:45 PM
NYRA needs to stop crying about slots and survive with just the racing. Excellent Joe Drape article in NY Time today. Monmouth is trying to survive with horses, not slots. Maybe NYRA and Churchill should learn people want better racing, not slots. If you want slots go to Vegas or Atlantic City.

If you can't survive the horse business without slots you should go out of business.

"It is a bold move that New Jersey needed to make if horse racing is going to survive in the state. It puts the future of the sport on the backs of the horses — theoretically, the fast, high-quality ones — instead of on the slot machines most of the East Coast has turned to for the sport’s salvation."

"We do not need more racing. We need better racing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/sports/23racing.html

Saratoga_Mike
03-23-2010, 06:59 PM
NYRA needs to stop crying about slots and survive with just the racing. Excellent Joe Drape article in NY Time today. Monmouth is trying to survive with horses, not slots. Maybe NYRA and Churchill should learn people want better racing, not slots. If you want slots go to Vegas or Atlantic City.

If you can't survive the horse business without slots you should go out of business.

"It is a bold move that New Jersey needed to make if horse racing is going to survive in the state. It puts the future of the sport on the backs of the horses — theoretically, the fast, high-quality ones — instead of on the slot machines most of the East Coast has turned to for the sport’s salvation."

"We do not need more racing. We need better racing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/sports/23racing.html

To state the obvious, it's very difficult for NYRA to compete when surrounding tracks are all receiving huge slots subsidies. It just isn't a level playing field. In any case, I appreciate your sentiment. And in the long term, I think slots will prove damaging to racing, perhaps they already have.

If the NYRA horsemen were smart, when they do get slots, they would cut a deal where 5% to 10% of their purse subsidy is used to market the racing product.

slewis
03-24-2010, 05:52 AM
I don't understand why people dismiss the large amounts of money owners' pay to purchase horses and maintain them. Owners pay to be part of the entertainment.

Without owners there would be no need for operations like Chuchill Downs, Magna, or Keeneland and all the sales events. Bettors don't drive the industry.


From someone who is on both sides of this sport.....

If everyone who owns and races Thoroughbreds died tomorrow, there would be drastic sales of horses, new owners and the game would survive on a small(er) level.

If all the bettors died tomorrow...(like many are, in what remains of this sport) ..the game would end within 30 days...

Case closed.

Super Dimes
03-24-2010, 06:08 AM
From someone who is on both sides of this sport.....

If everyone who owns and races Thoroughbreds died tomorrow, there would be drastic sales of horses, new owners and the game would survive on a small(er) level.

If all the bettors died tomorrow...(like many are, in what remains of this sport) ..the game would end within 30 days...

Case closed.


Too true... Without betting there is no racing...

slewis
03-24-2010, 06:09 AM
To state the obvious, it's very difficult for NYRA to compete when surrounding tracks are all receiving huge slots subsidies. It just isn't a level playing field. In any case, I appreciate your sentiment. And in the long term, I think slots will prove damaging to racing, perhaps they already have.

If the NYRA horsemen were smart, when they do get slots, they would cut a deal where 5% to 10% of their purse subsidy is used to market the racing product.

Mike,

It was very difficult for tracks like Philly pk to compete with NYRA when the demographics of their bettors are 20% those of the NY metro area.

For years NY racing had it easy. They had the NY population to fuel huge handle. They offered the biggest most prestigeous racing. All of a sudden, someone else figures a way to level the playing field and NYRA execs have NO solution, except to have slots to negate the slots.
Next, simulcasting has offered the product of smaller tracks to bettors not living in those juristictions.... See how suddenly things went from being very easy for NYRA to very difficult.
Good. I've always said their executives couldn't run a ferris wheel at a carnival....and now they seek FLAT OUT WELFARE as a solution to NY racings inability to cultivate new business.
Year's ago I suggested to Barry Schwartz and Terry Meyocks to consider night racing a few days a week at Aqueduct in an effort to attract younger working people into the game. His response: "we would never do anything to hurt the Rooney's (Yonkers owners)" Guess what... Slewis says F the Rooneys.... Look where we are today.

After putting the gun to the heads of NY politicians over this ALLEGED land deal...they are getting everything back they deserve..and more.
Next, I dont really believe NYRA is in as bad shape as they say. They are no longer responsible for property taxes on the land (not that they were paying them anyway) and those at Belmont alone are (were) astronomical.

NYRA should shut up and figure ways to cultivate new bettors of THEIR game and NOT depend on the Welfare of slot revenue, welfare that everyone will see start to curtail at other tracks that are currently reaping those benefits.

The Monmouth purse bonanza is a ONE YEAR DEAL. Everyone needs to understand this. After this year, no more Casino subsidies for $80,000 Maiden races....Philly has already cut the tracks alotment and others will to after Politicians realize that it's nothing more than WELFARE for Horse owners and Trainers.

slewis
03-24-2010, 06:15 AM
I want to make it clear that I was told about the Horsemen's boycott earlier in the week and it originally was discussed to actually boycott the entire race card.

You can bet the ranch that if I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON..NYRA executives knew it as well... and since it suited THEIR AGENDA...it was just fine to do it at the expense of their loyal customers.

If it hadn't (suited their agenda), you can bet the ranch that those trainers involved in the boycott would not be offered stalls on the NYRA grounds.

Just so everyone knows how the game is really played.

Spendabuck85
03-24-2010, 08:48 AM
From Crist blog at drf.com
http://cristblog.drf.com/crist/
Track officials knew for several days of the anticipated action but couldn't say anything about it until it became official Sunday morning when the horses did not arrive at the detention barn. At that point Aqueduct put out a terse statement reporting that with no mention of the horsemen's action, leading at least one racing channel reporting the story as if a van had mysteriously gotten lost on the Belt Parkway.

There had to be better ways for the horsemen to publicize their rally in the Belmont Park parking lot later that day. Instead, they annoyed their customers and left the impression that Aqueduct was doing something worthy of protest. While virtually everyone agrees with their stance that the state has been shockingly neglectful of racing, it might be more effective in the future to make clear that it is the state, not the fans or the track, that is causing the problem.

aaron
03-24-2010, 08:49 AM
Slewis,
You are right on target. NYRA has been an inept organization for over 30 years. I really don't know what current management can do. They seemed to try,but never come up with any new or fresh ideas. I realize they are somewhat held back by our corrupt government in NY.,but even in light of that,they have managed to drive away players who attended their tracks for over 20 years. They have ruined Aqueduct and seem to be on their way to doing the same at Belmont.
The grandstand at Belmont has been cut back,even though it is the best place to actually watch the races. It seems like the people at NYRA really don't want anyone on track.
About 2 years ago,I attended a seminar where NYRA asked players for opinions on what could be done. We were told they would take our suggestions and keep us informed about what was happening. I have not seen any change for the better or been informed.
In the last 5 or 6 years while other tracks are trying different things,NYRA's big innovation has been the "Grand Slam" bet. How about trying a .50 pick 5 like Monmouth or a place parlay pick all. How about being an innovator instead of a follower in the racing world.

Show Me the Wire
03-24-2010, 01:55 PM
From someone who is on both sides of this sport.....

If everyone who owns and races Thoroughbreds died tomorrow, there would be drastic sales of horses, new owners and the game would survive on a small(er) level.

If all the bettors died tomorrow...(like many are, in what remains of this sport) ..the game would end within 30 days...

Case closed.

Case not closed. If all the owners and breeders died tomorrow the game would end too. The bettors are needed for the game to continue in its current form. Racing existed before pari-mutuel pools and will exist in some form, without pari-mutuel pools.

If the non-breeder owners all left, the sport would go on, maybe not in the pari-mutel form, but the breeders will be racing thier stock, without the third party owner.

I agree without the bettor the pari-mutel system will cease, but racing itself will continue in some form. Keeneland is another example, actually sort of the business model I suggested Mayden, is based on. Keeneland funds purses from its sales, sponsors and pari-mutel pools. Pari-mutuel wagering is only one piece of the puzzle.

Without the bettor horses can still race. Without horses there is no racing period.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-24-2010, 02:04 PM
If there was no betting in North America, the price of a race horse would only be worth what someone overseas would be willing to pay for it.

Horses would be selling for riding horse prices. And if racing were to exist, they'd be running for purses of no greater than a couple of thousand dollars, if they can find some company nuts enough to sponsor the event.

Take horse away from North America and there would still bet plenty to be on. Overseas races, football, poker, etc.

Racing existed before parimutuel betting because there were bookies on the ground and there were very few options for entertainment. Crowds were abundant.
Take betting out of North American racing, and instead of a thousand people showing up like today, you might get a hundred.

Show Me the Wire
03-24-2010, 02:40 PM
If there was no betting in North America, the price of a race horse would only be worth what someone overseas would be willing to pay for it.

Horses would be selling for riding horse prices. And if racing were to exist, they'd be running for purses of no greater than a couple of thousand dollars, if they can find some company nuts enough to sponsor the event.

Take horse away from North America and there would still bet plenty to be on. Overseas races, football, poker, etc.

Racing existed before parimutuel betting because there were bookies on the ground and there were very few options for entertainment. Crowds were abundant.
Take betting out of North American racing, and instead of a thousand people showing up like today, you might get a hundred.

The pusre itself is not the big issue, except if you want to entice non-breeder owners. A factor you are leaving out is the owners of the particapant horse were very big bettors among themselves, fast horses will always be worth more than riding horse prices.

The market that will fail, is exactly what you pointed out the customer/owner. The breeders will have no third party owners to sell their horses to.

The simple fact is without horses no racing, without bettors racing can continue.

Unless anyone can demonstrate horse racing, in the pari-mutel form, can continue without horses, the only common sense conclusion is the owner, in whatever form, is the priority.

I agree if you just like to gamble, there are plenty of other opportunities. That is a major part of the problem, because people don't want to take the time to learn how to gamble on horse racing. This highlights the fact that all gambling is not fungible, if it were horse racing would not have lost potential customers to casinos and poker.

Charlie D
03-24-2010, 02:47 PM
Unless anyone can demonstrate horse racing, in the pari-mutel form, can continue without horses,the only common sense conclusion is the owner, in whatever form, is the priority.




The customers are the priority in any business and the customers are in my opinion, the people paying track entrance fees , TO etc.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-24-2010, 02:53 PM
Gamblers will bet on Instant racing (past races on tape). I'll bet anything that people would bet on computer generated horse racing simulations as well if they felt they could trust the computer program.

Charlie D
03-24-2010, 03:02 PM
Gamblers will bet on Instant racing (past races on tape). I'll bet anything that people would bet on computer generated horse racing simulations as well if they felt they could trust the computer program.


I do believe the UK bookmakers reported decent revenue from thier Virtual racing when UK racing was mainly abandoned due to weather condtions.

Show Me the Wire
03-24-2010, 03:26 PM
Gamblers will bet on Instant racing (past races on tape). I'll bet anything that people would bet on computer generated horse racing simulations as well if they felt they could trust the computer program.


Instant racing is pari-mutuel wagering on a video game, based on horse racing.

Playing any simulated game is not horse racing and you only need a casino. I too believe people that play video slots would also play a video horse racing simulation game. However, that doesn't mean that people willing to play video slots will particiapte in live horse racing wagers. I think that fact is pretty obvious, given the effect slots have had on the racing industry.

Charlie D
03-24-2010, 03:30 PM
One of the reasons people are probably more willing to put money in a racing machine or slot than bet on live racing could be that they percieve one corrupt and the other honest.

You don't hear of many slots machines being done for drug violations.

46zilzal
03-24-2010, 03:32 PM
I do believe the UK bookmakers reported decent revenue from their Virtual racing when UK racing was mainly abandoned due to weather conditions.
When I was in Ladbrokes I wondered where that virtual race track was until someone clued me in that it was, in fact, virtual.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-24-2010, 03:37 PM
Instant racing is pari-mutuel wagering on a video game, based on horse racing.

Playing any simulated game is not horse racing and you only need a casino. I too believe people that play video slots would also play a video horse racing simulation game. However, that doesn't mean that people willing to play video slots will particiapte in live horse racing wagers. I think that fact is pretty obvious, given the effect slots have had on the racing industry.
Bottom line is no matter how many ways you want to spin it or slice it, owners are not even needed for bettors to get their fix on betting horses.

You don't even need horse owners to have a live event for bettors to bet on. Tracks could theoretically own all the horses and divide those horses up to trainers, and run live races, and the betting public would be all over it.

Show Me the Wire
03-24-2010, 04:23 PM
Bottom line is no matter how many ways you want to spin it or slice it, owners are not even needed for bettors to get their fix on betting horses.

You don't even need horse owners to have a live event for bettors to bet on. Tracks could theoretically own all the horses and divide those horses up to trainers, and run live races, and the betting public would be all over it.


The track owns the horses. That will not never happen, the inventory is too pricey, unless you want all 5K races :bang:

The trainers would love that idea though, being an employee of the track and not worrying about developing clients :cool:

This is starting to go in circles. I am getting off the merry-go-round.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-24-2010, 04:35 PM
The track owns the horses. That will not never happen, the inventory is too pricey, unless you want all 5K races :bang:

The trainers would love that idea though, being an employee of the track and not worrying about developing clients :cool:

This is starting to go in circles. I am getting off the merry-go-round.
You are making it go around in circles because the bottom line is that owners are not important in the scheme of things, and you can't accept that fact.

You want to accept only your what ifs, but you can't accept counter what ifs that destroy your premise.

Show Me the Wire
03-24-2010, 05:28 PM
You are making it go around in circles because the bottom line is that owners are not important in the scheme of things, and you can't accept that fact.

You want to accept only your what ifs, but you can't accept counter what ifs that destroy your premise.

The above is very good summation of your position. I've given examples of how live racing can continue without pari-mutuel wagering, and you have given zero samples of how live racing can continue without any form of onwership and yet you believe I am the one that is in denial.

Now I am really leaving the merry-go-round.

Another item, a little off topic but related. People complain about racings' short fields. You think that problem might be better resolved by more owners or larger wagers into the pair-mutuel pool of the track?

Horseplayersbet.com
03-24-2010, 05:49 PM
Larger wagers in the mutuel pools would cause purses to go up so that more owners would be attracted to owning horses.

This would only happen with lower takeouts.

Owners would be the beneficiary of them.

You didn't show how racing would be viable without bettors, nor could you prove that it would even exist without bettors.

But bettors will exist without horse racing and horse owners.

slewis
03-24-2010, 05:52 PM
Case not closed. If all the owners and breeders died tomorrow the game would end too. The bettors are needed for the game to continue in its current form. Racing existed before pari-mutuel pools and will exist in some form, without pari-mutuel pools.

If the non-breeder owners all left, the sport would go on, maybe not in the pari-mutel form, but the breeders will be racing thier stock, without the third party owner.

I agree without the bettor the pari-mutel system will cease, but racing itself will continue in some form. Keeneland is another example, actually sort of the business model I suggested Mayden, is based on. Keeneland funds purses from its sales, sponsors and pari-mutel pools. Pari-mutuel wagering is only one piece of the puzzle.

Without the bettor horses can still race. Without horses there is no racing period.

Please dont take this personally:

Case closed.

In the example you state above..instead of 25-30,000 foals born per year, you'd have under 1000, maybe 500.

If you are NOT VERY familiar with the costs associated with running a major breeding/racing operation then I'll yell you that without pari-mutuel wagering racing would be limited to a few wealthy guys getting together a few weekends per year for bragging rights.
That's not racing as we know it.

If you ARE aware (I mean really aware) of the costs associated with a major breeding/racing operation and you think the show would go on without parimutuel racing
in some way shape or form, then you simply dont know what you are talking about.

rastajenk
03-25-2010, 08:13 AM
Racing would assume a position in the sports world akin to polo. It's out there, but who cares?

Show Me the Wire
03-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Please dont take this personally:

Case closed.

In the example you state above..instead of 25-30,000 foals born per year, you'd have under 1000, maybe 500.

If you are NOT VERY familiar with the costs associated with running a major breeding/racing operation then I'll yell you that without pari-mutuel wagering racing would be limited to a few wealthy guys getting together a few weekends per year for bragging rights.
That's not racing as we know it.

If you ARE aware (I mean really aware) of the costs associated with a major breeding/racing operation and you think the show would go on without parimutuel racing
in some way shape or form, then you simply dont know what you are talking about.

Please don't take this personal either. The discussion I am putting forth in no way states racing would continue as we know it. I have stressed that very point.

I said without horses there is no live racing of any kind. To have racing horses you need breeder/owners. What you don't need is bettors. You need bettors to keep the current form, and the breeding operations that sell to the third party owners, but that is not point of the discussion.

It already has been discussed that the large breeding operations would cease to exist, if their customer, owners, stopped buying horses for whatever reasons.

Common sense states it is impossible to have any type of live racing without horses, the same can't be said about bettors.

My point is racing would continue in some form or shape as long as their are breeders and owners. It may be restricrted to the wealthy, but it will continue, in some shape or from.

You previously stated if all the bettors died tomorrow that racing would die, I fixed your statement to show that if all owners, in whatever form, died tomorrow racing would die too.

If you qualify your previous statement to mean the current structure will die, if the bettor's leave the sport, I am forced to agree with that conclusion. As you would be forced to agree the current structure would cease to exist if breeders and owners leave the sport. Both groups are needed to sustain the current structure, and that is not in dispute.

BUt the thought that horse racing, itself, will not continue in any shape or form, without the bettor is not an absolute truth.

Show Me the Wire
03-25-2010, 02:09 PM
slewis:

FYI, besides understanding how large commercial breeding operations work, I am also familiar with the economic impact horse racing has on agriculture and other tangental business.

The racing industry, in its current form, has a large economic impact on the economy.

I pointed out in a prior post, one of the problems facing racing is short fields. The sure fire way to cure this malady, without decreasing racing dates or races, is too increase ownership. More owners will create larger fields.

Increasing wager amounts or attracting whales will not remedy the short field problem or cure most of racings' current problems as some would have you believe.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-25-2010, 02:38 PM
Without bettors, you can't increase owners. You want more owners, you need more bettors who collectively lose more money so that purses will increase.

Owners don't just own thoroughbred horses for the sake of owning a horse in most cases.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-25-2010, 02:42 PM
Woodbine harness just announced a 15% reduction in purses yesterday due to softer handles and probably less slot dollars recently.

What does that do? It inevitably means less owners.

If handle was up, purses would rise, and you'd have more owners.

Field size and horse ownership is completely dependent on bettors.

Show Me the Wire
03-25-2010, 05:04 PM
Without bettors, you can't increase owners. You want more owners, you need more bettors who collectively lose more money so that purses will increase.

Owners don't just own thoroughbred horses for the sake of owning a horse in most cases.

You are correct if racing wants more owners you have to increase purses and pass favorable tax laws.

I previously stated purses are the incentive for owners, and my position has not changed.

However, purses can be funded with slot money, and other revenue sources too along with the pari-mutuel pool.

It is no secret, the tracks want alternative funding from slots or vlts, that is what started this whole thread anyway. It is much easier to get bailed out to keep business as usual, than to increase the business' base of owners and bettors.

So we are clear I don't think slots are the panacea for racings' ills either.

Horseplayersbet.com
03-25-2010, 05:42 PM
You are correct if racing wants more owners you have to increase purses and pass favorable tax laws.

I previously stated purses are the incentive for owners, and my position has not changed.

However, purses can be funded with slot money, and other revenue sources too along with the pari-mutuel pool.

It is no secret, the tracks want alternative funding from slots or vlts, that is what started this whole thread anyway. It is much easier to get bailed out to keep business as usual, than to increase the business' base of owners and bettors.

So we are clear I don't think slots are the panacea for racings' ills either.
Slot money is still money from betting. In other words, owners need gambling losses in order to fill bigger fields.

Show Me the Wire
03-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Slot money is still money from betting. In other words, owners need gambling losses in order to fill bigger fields.

Very true about slot money coming from gambling. Tracks need indirect gambling loses from other sources to raise purses to attract more owners.

Is that a good business plan, having other unrelated gambling businesses fund you, to attract new participants of any kind?

Tom
03-27-2010, 01:03 PM
Back to the baby-cott by horsemen.
I read elsewhere that NYRA was told this was going down.
Can anyone here verify that?

Is it possible they KNEW and did not tell the CUSTOMERS?