This is where you don't make any sense to me...

You think I'm "dead wrong" but I'm literally using a real time example of another track to forecast what happens to Monmouth. Basically Monmouth is early 2000's Suffolk. That the track is in a highly developed area with big land values. That as they race less and less and land prices increase eventually racing becomes unsustainable and the track is developed.

Meanwhile your theory is they finally get slots after literally trying to get them for 20-30 years and not only do they get them but they're successful even though a track with slots exists 90 miles away (Delaware Park) who is on the cusp of ending racing because the slot money isn't enough.

But I'm dead wrong?

You also kind of contradict yourself. Any race track executive will tell you horseman leaving is a canary in the coal mine. Horseman are creatures of habit. Changing your circuit is a big deal because you can't plug in horses into spots like they're objects. You've got to have the right stock to race places. The right type of horses who fit the right type of conditions. That's why its so rare for a guy to show up at a meet for the first time and win a lot. That's why even good trainers often struggle at new circuits. So these guys leaving is HUGE deal. It's not like if things get fixed they just show back up. They make significant investments to change circuits.

So while your top line fantasy is "everything will be ok" even when you explain the landscape there's cracks in your facade.

Before you post it is always easier to make yourself look like a new dill pickle and not a sour pickle by doing a little bit of research on what gaming types are controlled by the State Constitution and which aren't.. VLTs are not slots so lets get you straight on that item first, they are controlled by the State Lottery Commission. As far as comparing Suffolk to MP you are entitled to your opinion and if indeed it comes to fruition then I will be the first to tell you to buy a Toll Brothers home on that coveted site. Have a nice Easter!

I have 3 coming up from Tampa and GP. The purses will be low but I want to see mine run so I will partake in the festivities!

SCOTUS grants Certoriari to Jersey Horsemen.

Incredible turn of events.

Allan

I'd say a better guess would be 2018.

Allan

U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear N.J. sports betting case:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...ting_case.html


-jp

.

Well Exchange wagering is the law of the land in Jersey already.

Now it looks like sports betting will be taking its place beside it in 2018.

Just need a favorable opinion from SCOTUS and I would say thats a good bet.

Here is the pertinent question in front of SCOTUS


"Does a federal statute that prohibits adjustment
or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct
impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of
States in contravention of New York v. United States,
505 U.S. 144 (1992), and Printz v. United States, 521
U.S. 898 (1997)?'

Allan

not too likely.

from what i remember, NJ was at first claiming they were just looking at rescinding the state law prohibiting sports betting.

but once they realized that would mean Big Gene from the neighborhood could start advertising his small business venture without any possible legal repercussions, they decided to include controls as to where such betting could take place, as well as to remove NJ college teams from the betting menu.

so I guess now the state position is that we are simply rescinding the state law and please don't consider any regulations we attempt to put in place as regulating sports betting...which would be illegal under federal law.

good luck with that mental gymnastics.

The current federal anti wagering law appears to be in conflict with the 10th( State's rights clause) and the 14th ( Equal protection clause) amendments.
I state this because there are states exempt from the law.
Nevada, Delaware, Montana and one other I cannot recall.
My theory is that if SCOTUS rules against New Jersey then that ruling would have to apply to ALL 50 states. Again, as I theorize.
Therefore, unless SCOTUS wants to stir up a (poop) storm, their opinion may just well fall on the side of NJ and permit that state to set up sports wagering..
Stay tuned

Yup....then they will all fall in like dominoes.

All that doesn't matter.

SCOTUS took the case on one question and one question only.

Does jersey have the right via the 10th amendment to write laws that conflict with federal laws. It's a well known precedent. Starting with pennsy writing a law that conflicted with the federal fugitive slave act.

Has nothing to with regulating sports betting.

Allan

I'd say it will be 6-3 in favor of Jersey's case.

Gorsuch, breyer, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on Jersey's side.

Most of them bought Jersey's argument.

Allan

PS--Opinion might be in time for Monmouth and the Casinos to take March Madness bets.

Per Christie last week on the WFAN he said there are great arguments on both sides, and based on the lawyers representing both sides this will be a thrilla in manila...

I do hope you are right as the state needs this for both the tracks and the casinos.

Canarsie would sure want a link.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DY25O

Allan

Lets say for legal sports wagering at Monmouth in 2018. Another year or so for the legislature to write one legalizing on-line wagering (Betfair LOL)

its gonna be huge for Monmouth (and the casinos)

Hopefully they can hit the ground running once an opinion is reached.

Allan