Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph
I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?
Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?
You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.
|
'Signal fee' overhauls end up taking more money out of the pockets of the players, Santa Anita 'charges' a lot for their signal, and right now, their signal isn't worth what it used to be. It's easy for gamblers to just say no at those prices.
