Who Owns NYRA. Part II

[Dancer's Image]

g) The provision that upon termination of the existence or earlier
liquidation of such association all of its assets after payment of or
provision for its liabilities will be assigned, transferred and conveyed
and distributed by the governor then in office in accordance with
applicable provisions of law

That cleary gives the Governer authority over the disposition of assets. However, it does'nt preclude him from assigning those assets to NYRA, or another entity. Also, one could argue that equity built by NYRA is a liability the State is incumbent to recognize.


No, the governor must distribute the assets (the racetracks) in accordance with applicable provisions of the law. The racetracks belong to the people of the state of NY. Also the equity built by NYRA can not be recognized monetarily since they are a non-profit corporation, maybe NYRA will get a plaque of recognition at Belmont, or a mention in the NY legislative journal.

[PaceAdvantage]

If the racetracks belong to the people of the state of NY, how come NY State Park police don't patrol the grounds? How come NYRA has to pay for its own security force?

NYRA could be saving a ton of money here if they can get the state to pay for law enforcement at these "state parks"

This issue is obviously is full of shades of grey, despite what Dancer's Image thinks.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

If the racetracks belong to the people of the state of NY, how come NY State Park police don't patrol the grounds? How come NYRA has to pay for its own security force?

NYRA could be saving a ton of money here if they can get the state to pay for law enforcement at these "state parks"

This issue is obviously is full of shades of grey, despite what Dancer's Image thinks.

NYRA IS spending the state's money when they pay for their own security force.

This is a black and white issue; NYRA doesn't won the tracks because they didn't pay for the tracks with their own money. The state owns the tracks. Now that does not mean that some judge or even the governor couldn't give the tracks to NYRA....judges, courts, and governors make egregious errors in the name of politics and their own self-interest all the time.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dancer's Image

NYRA IS spending the state's money when they pay for their own security force.

This is a black and white issue; NYRA doesn't won the tracks because they didn't pay for the tracks with their own money.

You are totally off base. NYRA was given FRANCHISE rights to run racing in NY. NYRA is NOT a state agency. It was not created by the state.

It is LICENSED by the state to conduct racing in NY, just as a bar is LICENSED in the state to serve liquor. That does not mean that NY State owns the bar.

NY State does not own NYRA, and NYRA is not a state agency.

NYRA DID PAY for the tracks with their own money....that's a proven fact, just like any of us pay for a house with our own money. We go to a bank, take out a mortgage, make our payments, and we own the house.

You just latched onto a sentence or two and made your own judicial interpretation as to what the facts are and how they apply to this case. I'll wait for a real court of law to render a verdict before I become cocksure in my beliefs as to how this should play out.

Again, if this issue were as cut and dry as you are making it out, the state would have stepped in a long time ago, taken over NYRA, dolled out their own contracts for the slot machines, and things would have been over by now.

Riddle me this, Batman.....

Why are they making NYRA jump through all these hoops, with deferred prosecutions, court-appointed monitoring, etc. etc.? Why didn't they just roll right into town and take everything over at the first signs of trouble? After all, they own everything according to you, right? NYRA is at their mercy, 100%, based on your interpretations....

Why go through all this trouble?

[Dancer's Image]

PA,
This is the gist of the argument...

"NYRA DID PAY for the tracks with their own money....that's a proven fact, just like any of us pay for a house with our own money. We go to a bank, take out a mortgage, make our payments, and we own the house."

...NYRA did NOT pay for the tracks with their own money! Please prove otherwise, if as you say it is a proven fact, that should be quite easy for you to prove!

Your analogy of NYRA to my buying a house is flawed. I pay off my mortgage with money that I earned; NYRA can NOT earn any money; they are a non-profit corporation which acts as an agent of the State of NY; they paid off the mortgage with funds earned from the tracks, money which would have gone to the state if there was no mortgage to pay.

And yes, the State of NY could have come in at the first sign of trouble with NYRA and thrown them out on their arse. Perhaps in retrospect, they should have. But instead they honored their contract with NYRA. Hopefully the State of NY will rectify this mistake when the present franchise contract expires!

[Tom]

Paying off the mortgage is part of the expenses inccureed while running the franchise. Non profit doesn't mean operating at a loss. It is NOT state money until the bottom of the income statement.

NYS has/is making a ton of money off of NYRA.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dancer's Image

And yes, the State of NY could have come in at the first sign of trouble with NYRA and thrown them out on their arse.

If this is true, why didn't they? They could have saved taxpayers some money, no? Perhaps your theories are flawed?

[Achilles]

then I think those two extensions (of the franchise) that the state gave to NYRA, will hurt the state's position, the second one especially. If NYRA was doing a bad job, and NYS knew it, why grant another extension?

It will be interesting to see what the next installment of the series says about the legal reasoning that has gone into the positions staked out by the parties. I wonder how eminent domain might apply here, in light of the recent US Supreme Court decision. If ED is applicable, there would be compensation to NYRA, but the issue of ownership would be solved very quickly.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think eminent domain would come into play, since the property in question will continue to be used for racing.

However, I suppose there are enough lawyers out there to stretch the law in any direction they wish it to go, and since I'm not intimately familiar with eminent domain law and the recent SC rulings, I will shut my mouth now.

[Dancer's Image]

Originally Posted by Tom

Paying off the mortgage is part of the expenses inccureed while running the franchise. Non profit doesn't mean operating at a loss. It is NOT state money until the bottom of the income statement.

NYS has/is making a ton of money off of NYRA.

Thank you Tom, for proving my point. The money used to pay off the mortgage would have been the State's money had there been no mortgage to pay. The money used to pay off the mortgage did not belong to NYRA and therefore NYRA has no claim to ownership of the tracks.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Dancer's Image

The money used to pay off the mortgage would have been the State's money had there been no mortgage to pay. The money used to pay off the mortgage did not belong to NYRA and therefore NYRA has no claim to ownership of the tracks.

They're in the business of conducting racing. How were they supposed to conduct racing if they DIDN'T OWN ANY RACETRACKS?

How was NYRA supposed to obtain racetracks to conduct racing, without BUYING THEM? And how were they supposed to BUY THEM without taking out a loan?

Your argument is not grounded in the reality of doing business. There are costs of doing business. For a corporation that conducts racing, one of those costs is the OWNERSHIP of RACETRACK(s).....

If this mortage was used to purchase summer homes for company executives, then you'd have an argument. Since it was used to purchase the tracks over which they were to conduct racing, your argument really has no punch. In fact, it sounds kind of silly....

[Suff]

Backroom deals between devils. Both sides have the goods on the other. State appears to have a hand up on them. But either way, enough legalese in there to make a NYRA an expensive long haul proposition.

http://www.saratogian.com/site/news....d=349537&rfi=6

The new franchise law established a Capital Investment Fund (CIF), which allowed NYRA to borrow money for capital improvements at interest rates that were much more reasonable than the prevailing high rates of the mid-1980's.

An important, and controversial, aspect of the CIF was that it was funded by part of the revenue generated by NYRA simulcasts.

Simulcasting, authorized at that time by New York, is the television transmission of races to off-track betting sites.

Former NYRA president Kenny Noe Jr. often argued that the association was, in effect, being made to borrow from its own simulcast revenue that was being diverted to the CIF because of the new franchise agreement.

The 1983 renewal also said that if NYRA was dissolved, the New York Governor would take its assets, after liabilities were paid, and distribute them in accordance with applicable law.

Some analysts question whether the New York legislature actually had the power to enact the 1983 franchise law

COMING WEDNESDAY: A summary of legal statements supporting the arguments of both New York and NYRA on the claim of ownership