Golden Gate Close

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. BM, the dirt track up there, didn't even manage to last as long as GGF. Tapeta has probably helped save the NCal circuit.

2. The main problem is a shortage of horses, resulting in small unbettable fields. The size of the Bay area market has nothing to do with that.

3. SA now has MCL16000 and CLM6250 races,and they draw 6 horse fields. We are ready to absorb GGF's cheaper horses.

The Bay Area circuit is 400-500 miles away from So Cal. Why not absorb AZ cheaper horses? or OK, or NM? The shortage of horses is not a geographical problem, it's a horse problem.

There is this ridiculous assumption that fewer tracks would result in more horses. It will actually lead to a lower demand for horses resulting in a much lower foal crop. Not to mention fewer owners, trainers, grooms jockeys, etc.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

But Ritvo appears keen to institute change as quickly as possible, and if the matter heads to court, “we hope the judge will review it quickly, and see which side is right and which side is wrong,” he said.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The Bay Area circuit is 400-500 miles away from So Cal. Why not absorb AZ cheaper horses? or OK, or NM? The shortage of horses is not a geographical problem, it's a horse problem.

There is this ridiculous assumption that fewer tracks would result in more horses. It will actually lead to a lower demand for horses resulting in a much lower foal crop. Not to mention fewer owners, trainers, grooms jockeys, etc.

Arizona horsemen have lower costs. So do New Mexico.

And the assumption is that fewer races = bigger fields.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The land Golden Gate is sitting on is worth ALOT...and it is a very large parcel in a prime location in the most expensive real estate market in the USA...who knows maybe skyscrapers could be built there with awesome views of the bay and nearby San Francisco...I wonder if that option was Plan B in the original calculations and now that real estate has soared, deemed advisable by financial gurus...?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/BH_JBalan/status...74983166656512

Permit my ignorance, but what is NOTWINC?

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Permit my ignorance, but what is NOTWINC?

Northern Ca. off track betting locations. Many of which are on fairgrounds.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Arizona horsemen have lower costs. So do New Mexico.

And the assumption is that fewer races = bigger fields.

Im going to politely disagree with that assertion.
There have been many track closings as well as shortened meets. Fields are not getting larger. In fact it seems the breeding industry reaction has been to produce fewer , far fewer foals.
In this chart.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2
the stats are daunting.
1990 . Number of lives foals dropped was over 44,000
In 2018 the live foal estimate is 21,500.
In 29 seasons ( inclusive) that is a whopping 52.3% fewer foals.
For California breds, the news is equally as alarming.
In 2002 there were 3800 live foals dropped. The last total available is 2016. Live foals, 1700.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Im going to politely disagree with that assertion.
There have been many track closings as well as shortened meets. Fields are not getting larger. In fact it seems the breeding industry reaction has been to produce fewer , far fewer foals.
In this chart.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2
the stats are daunting.
1990 . Number of lives foals dropped was over 44,000
In 2018 the live foal estimate is 21,500.
In 29 seasons ( inclusive) that is a whopping 52.3% fewer foals.
For California breds, the news is equally as alarming.
In 2002 there were 3800 live foals dropped. The last total available is 2016. Live foals, 1700.

The sport is contracting.

What your analysis overlooks is how much money would be being lost if all those tracks stayed open.

The simulcasting model concentrates handle in a few tracks. Unless you can solve that problem, the sport will continue to shrink.

[Thomas Roulston]

After losing Bay Meadows, no way can NoCal afford to lose Golden Gate Fields.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

After losing Bay Meadows, no way can NoCal afford to lose Golden Gate Fields.

I think Northern California, with Silicon Valley and San Francisco, would do just fine without us

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

After losing Bay Meadows, no way can NoCal afford to lose Golden Gate Fields.

Now that’s funny!

[Appy]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The Bay Area circuit is 400-500 miles away from So Cal. Why not absorb AZ cheaper horses? or OK, or NM? The shortage of horses is not a geographical problem, it's a horse problem.

There is this ridiculous assumption that fewer tracks would result in more horses. It will actually lead to a lower demand for horses resulting in a much lower foal crop. Not to mention fewer owners, trainers, grooms jockeys, etc.

I agree with Andy C. Costs are the same for horses that win as for horses than can't. Horses that can't won't pay the bills won't be around the racing barn long.
Hate to hear about prospect of losing GG. I've only recently taken an interest in it as a year round option.

[Denny]

Isn't TSG's business model to eliminate the competition and consolidate operations.

See, SoCal, NoCal, SoFla, Md.

[Thomas Roulston]

It looks as if certain unnamed people at Golden Gate Fields are wielding the same "nuclear option" as certain unnamed people at Colonial Downs did - and we all saw how that turned out: A beautiful, unique track, with no horses at all now running there.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Appy

I agree with Andy C. Costs are the same for horses that win as for horses than can't. Horses that can't won't pay the bills won't be around the racing barn long.
Hate to hear about prospect of losing GG. I've only recently taken an interest in it as a year round option.

If this is true, the sport is basically dead with the only three exceptions being perhaps an elite circuit of TC/BC style racing, a few "vacation" tracks, and slot-supported tracks.

Because when the sport has worked economically, there were ALWAYS big fields. Which means that most horses didn't win their races. That's how it works in Europe. That's how it works in Hong Kong. That's how it works in Australia. And that's how it worked at successful tracks in the US back in the day.

The reason it can't work with smaller fields is smaller fields crush betting handle. Indeed, for all that people say about takeout on this board (some of which is certainly true), the biggest, most handle destroying factor in all of racing is a card full of short fields. Bettors see a bunch of 5 and 6 horse fields, they figure there's no value, and they look at a different track. Especially the exotic bettors who bet far more money than the win/place/show bettors at this point. Most bettors will prefer a card full of 12 horse fields with a 19 percent takeout to a card full of 6 horse fields with a 15 percent takeout.

So somehow, where the sport has been successful, owners figure out a way to pay bills even though most of their horses are losing. And I suspect the answer to that is that when the sport is successful, and the racetracks are teeming with people, the experience of owning horses is more fun and it historically attracted more rich folks with disposable income.