Texas horsemen and Lone Star/Tracknet

[JustRalph]

I can imagine a world where they no longer race in Texas, and about a half dozen other states and Keeneland has four meets a year instead of two.......

[trying2win]

In my opinion, horsemen have too much power, whether it's in Texas or any other state or province. I get the impression that they think they are the most important part of the horseracing business. I think the horsemen and their employees, the racetrack and their employees, the jockeys, drivers, trainers, the bettors, and the list goes on and on. They're all important to keep the show running. Think about that for moment. We all need each other. When you add the component of an ADW to the mix of the pari-mutuel scene, that's an extra beneficial ingredient to the revenue stream. Plus, being able to wager on the races through an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, is icing on the cake for bettors.

Why should horsemen have the main say in who gets a track signal? I think that model has to change for the long-term survival of horse racing in general. Let's get over this selfishness by horsemen and/or horsemen group executives, and find a solution to the financial division of revenue etc. Otherwise, wouldn't that dissension continue to antagonize horseplayers and drive more of them to bet offshore? My suggestion is a panel of horsemen, racetrack executives, horseplayers and ADW'S working together to get fair and equitable deals done. That's my two cents worth.

[boomman]

Originally Posted by trying2win

In my opinion, horsemen have too much power, whether it's in Texas or any other state or province. I get the impression that they think they are the most important part of the horseracing business. I think the horsemen and their employees, the racetrack and their employees, the jockeys, drivers, trainers, the bettors, and the list goes on and on. They're all important to keep the show running. Think about that for moment. We all need each other. When you add the component of an ADW to the mix of the pari-mutuel scene, that's an extra beneficial ingredient to the revenue stream. Plus, being able to wager on the races through an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, is icing on the cake for bettors.

Why should horsemen have the main say in who gets a track signal? I think that model has to change for the long-term survival of horse racing in general. Let's get over this selfishness by horsemen and/or horsemen group executives, and find a solution to the financial division of revenue etc. Otherwise, wouldn't that dissension continue to antagonize horseplayers and drive more of them to bet offshore? My suggestion is a panel of horsemen, racetrack executives, horseplayers and ADW'S working together to get fair and equitable deals done. That's my two cents worth.

Wow what a strange concept! Why don't we sit down together and hammer this thing out? What a model idea!

Boomer

[Hosshead]

The Texas horsemen act like all the money bet through ADW's would be bet at their track, .. if not for the ADW's standing in their way.
Don't they understand that ADW bets are "extra money" they would not normally have at all ?

[MikeDee]

Couldn't agree more Hosshead, if I didn't play from home I wouldn' play at all. Eliminating ADW's will not increase the on track attendance.

Horsemen need to stop acting like the rear end of the animals they train.

[alydar]

I don't have a problem with horsemen having the power that they do. What I do have a problem with is their proven inability to understand the overall industry. Time and time again horsemen's groups shoot themselves in the foot. The success fo the industry requires many participants. No one group can act only in their self interest, without understanding the industry as a whole.

[trigger]

Lone Star signal held from account-wagering sites
""If horsemen want 7 percent of account-wagering revenues, under this new model of theirs, that means we have to sell the signal for 17 or 18 percent," Daruty said. "We've got to be realistic. No one is going to buy a signal for 17 or 18 percent."

Simulcast signals are typically sold at rates ranging from 2 to 8 percent of handle. Receiving sites keep the difference between the rate and the takeout, which is typically 20 percent."
http://www.drf.com/news/article/93658.html


Florida HBPA Using THG in Negotiations
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44561

[NoCal Boy]

Daruty is full of crap. Do the math. If the blended takeout is 21%, 7% goes to purses, 7% to the host track and 7% to the ADW.

The horsemen want 1/3 to go to purses, 1/3 to the track and 1/3 to the ADW. If the takeout is only 15%, then each get 5%. If the takeout on a wager is 24%, each get 8%. Etc., etc.

Where the hell does he get off making a statement the signal needs to get sold for 18% if purses get 1/3?

Get rid of all source market fees and the model works just fine. 1/3 for purses, track and ADW.

Daruty fooled the horsemen in 2007, but it appears 2008 might be a different story.

How can Tracknet on one hand argue the 3% model does not work, but still aergue the purses shpould still get the same split as if the 3% model was in place?

[NoCal Boy]

Finally, Tracknet does not sell their signal to any other ADW's of significance. Who would they be selling it to for 18%?

What a hoot.

[Cangamble]

Where the hell does he get off making a statement the signal needs to get sold for 18% if purses get 1/3?
*************************
It is my understanding that the signal fee is what the horsemen and the track who sells the signal get. So the signal fee according to this premise would be sold for 2/3 of the takeout.

[Wickel]

Originally Posted by trigger

As usual the horse racing industry is a little different:

Interstate Horse Racing Act:
15 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.
§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—
(1) the host racing association, except that—
(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided

A belated thanks, Trigger.

[Kelso]

Originally Posted by alydar

I don't have a problem with horsemen having the power that they do.

I think the only power the horsemen should have is the power to decide whether and where to run their horses.

They have no legitimate claim ... no matter what the D.C. socialists decree ... to the power to control access to race pools at any track they do not, themselves, own.

[NoCal Boy]

I am not a horseman, and I agree there are limits to what the horsemen should get, but I have yet to see a race track generate revenues without the horsemen. Slots are at tracks because there are horsemen to run races at the track. Handle is produced by people wagering on horses owned and trained by horsemen. Some tracks have decent food offerings, but I doubt many people go to a track to buy the food and then drive home.

Don't fool yourselves. No horsemen, no racing. This does not mean they get anything they desire as they are a piece of what makes it work, but do not kid yourselves into believing the horsemen will ever lose any rights under the IHA.

[Kelso]

Originally Posted by NoCal Boy

I am not a horseman, and I agree there are limits to what the horsemen should get, but I have yet to see a race track generate revenues without the horsemen.

Horsemen do not generate revenues for tracks. Horsemen are an expense. Absent slots, only wagering generates meaningful revenue for tracks, and there is hardly any wagering without players.

Horsemen ignore that reality until their tracks close down, consequential to players deciding they are unwilling to continue being bled to cover the expense of tracks cow-towing to horsemen.

Originally Posted by NoCal Boy

Slots are at tracks because there are horsemen to run races at the track. Handle is produced by people wagering on horses owned and trained by horsemen.

The presence of slots/tables at tracks is strictly a matter of politics. They are not a racing-marketing consideration.

This has not, however, stopped the horsemen from benefitting to a grossly disproportionate degree from slot/table revenues ... at the direct expense of the players.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Kelso

This has not, however, stopped the horsemen from benefitting to a grossly disproportionate degree from slot/table revenues ... at the direct expense of the players.

In my opinion, players should get a share of slot revenue. If we bet X amount at a racino, then we should get Y percent of our handle back as a rebate as long as we hit a certain threshold. Obviously, there would be a limit on the slot rebate we could get. But why shouldn't we get something back? We help keep the track and horsemen in business. Where's our cut of the pie?

In fact, every place that I can. I've been switching to businesses that give me some kind of rebate for my business. I get frequent flyer miles with my credit card. Oil companies offer rebates on charges made on their charge cards.

Websites should pay us a royalty for viewing their content that is cluttered with advertisements. If we have to be subjected to their ads we should get paid for it. Think of it as reverse subscriptions.

Some of the video sharing websites now pay royalties to people who upload content.