Magna, Churchill Downs at odds on content

[Southieboy]

A strained relationship between leading track and advance-deposit wagering platform owners MI Developments Inc. and Churchill Downs Inc. could threaten content availability of racing signals at their respective ADWs as racing enters the important spring season.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/03/02/mi-developments-churchill-downs-at-odds.aspx

[andicap]

A couple of things.
First, HANA's Jeff Platt is quoted in this story, a really good sign that the group is achieving mainstream acceptance among the racing media.
Great job, HANA!! :)

Now the bad news: Looks like Churchill is ratcheting up the competition with Magna by refusing to provide its tracks to the new DRF.com platform that Magna co-owns. This could threaten the truce between the two ADWs that has provided players with access with a broad array of signals across many platforms. Magna is sure to retaliate by holding back CD-owned signals from Xpressbet which will lead to Twinspires.com doing the same to Magna tracks.

CD president Bob Evans reportedly guilty of hypocrisy for advocating open access but not backing up his statements.

What's behind this? Let's see: DRF.com offers PPs on its wagering platform. CD owns BRIS which also offers PPs at Twinspires. CD has a vested interest in seeing that DRF.com's betting platform doesn't work because it could hurt BRIS' business.

This has anti-trust written all over it. That's what happens when you allow what's called "horizantal integration." Same companies own the distribution and the content. Technically, it might be legal but it's unsavory and anti-consumer.(That's us.)

Gives track conglomerates like CDI and Magna way too much leverage and reason to withhold content. (their tracks). Add in a third wrinkle -- the PP business -- and all hell breaks loose.

Better fix it before the feds intervene.

--------
Digression ==
(Here's a parallel: On television, up until about 15 years ago, the broadcast networks could not also own the content that they aired. That is, they could not produce their own shows.
Reason is obvious: Networks would favor their own content -- even if it were substandard -- compared to other studios' output. They would control lucrative syndication rights.
With cable competition crimping networks, government relaxed that regulation and now the networks' line-ups are littered with shows from their own studios. Great for the networks, not so great for independent studios. Also killed the independent distributors who sold shows in syndication.
It's like the Mob: Want a piece of the action? Gotta get in bed with us. What's more, the broadcast networks now own most of the major cable networks too so this so-called "competition" was really with themselves.)

[DeanT]

Everyone fighting over the shrinking customer base seems to be racings business model.

It's like 1960 in football when some teams wanted to hold out being on television and protecting their slices. It only took them a few years to come to their senses and they built a league where teams worth $500k forty years ago are worth a billion. For us it has been two decades, and it is worse than ever, with racetracks worth more for their real estate value rather than value as a business.

[Tom]

Better fix it before the feds intervene.

This game deserves to have itself fall under federal regulation, as bad as that usually is. Morons bickering with morons. Might as well bring the idiots into it.
If nothing else, maybe federal regs will drive a lot of the chest-beating, knuckle-draggers out and force half the tracks to close up.

[andicap]

This game deserves to have itself fall under federal regulation, as bad as that usually is. Morons bickering with morons. Might as well bring the idiots into it.
If nothing else, maybe federal regs will drive a lot of the chest-beating, knuckle-draggers out and force half the tracks to close up.

That is quite a statement from you!:eek:

Generally you would invite Al Qaeda in before the feds.