No deal between Suffolk, horsemen

[lamboguy]

the big purses attract the horses. takeout is what is mandated by the individual state just like social security and tax rates nationally.

everyone tries to compare takeout in horse racing to casino gambling. horse racing runs about 1 race every half hour with an approximate hold of about 18%. in that same half hour, the house will deal about 20 hands of blackjack at a takeout of minimum 1 1/2% per hand that amounts to 30% in that very same time frame. go to a slot machine and its about 10 times more







5

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the big purses attract the horses. takeout is what is mandated by the individual state just like social security and tax rates nationally.

everyone tries to compare takeout in horse racing to casino gambling. horse racing runs about 1 race every half hour with an approximate hold of about 18%. in that same half hour, the house will deal about 20 hands of blackjack at a takeout of minimum 1 1/2% per hand that amounts to 30% in that very same time frame. go to a slot machine and its about 10 times more

We heard that out of race track in the country who wanted slot money. They got the big purses, but we are still waiting for the horses to show up. Every year it is the same story. Purses up, starters per race the same or down, handle down.
The takeout rate is a state law and the horsemen have been lobbying the states legislatures to raise it ever since the pari-mutuel was run. The cry is always the same, if we don't get it, we will go out business and workers will be laid off. In California a few years ago and with Churchill Downs they increase the takeout to provide more money to the horsemen. Do you really expect us to believe that they came up with idea without any input from the horsemen.
As for your stats, Where ever they are given a choice, large numbers of gamblers give up betting on the ponies and sit down in front of a slot machine or at a blackjack table. Why do you suppose that is?

[lamboguy]

no question the game is charging the player's through the nose and giving them back what comes out of the rear. if this continues much longer there will be no game here.

the Brockton Fair can only hold 8 horses a race. their meet will consist of all bottom rung horses that will be awarded big purses. if the place opens it will have the same high takeout as Sufolk did. but they have different plans that player's might like. they plan on running a meet where the trainer's have to be 100% transparent with a website full of information regarding day to day training and medication's. there are going to be player's that will welcome those things. they have other idea's that they are kicking around as well now.

it won't be perfect, but it will be a start. if it works other place's might pick up on it too.

[Milkshaker]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

Their meet will consist of all bottom rung horses that will be awarded big purses....they plan on running a meet where the trainer's have to be 100% transparent with a website full of information regarding day to day training and medication's.

Kindly state your source for this fanciful plan about one of the lowest-level bullrings in the country attempting to be the most transparent. I have not seen his reported anywhere, and the plan strains credulity.

The Brockton owners have repeatedly said they can only make the race meet a go if the state pays purses from the gaming surcharges and if they get extensive simulcasting rights. How in the world are they going to pay for state-of-te-art, never-tried-before horseplayers' transparency technology on top of that?

You would think that if this bold new idea was true, the track operators would want to be publicizing it far in advance to demonstrate their commitment to the sport and to help secure their racing license.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Milkshaker

Kindly state your source for this fanciful plan about one of the lowest-level bullrings in the country attempting to be the most transparent. I have not seen his reported anywhere, and the plan strains credulity.

The Brockton owners have repeatedly said they can only make the race meet a go if the state pays purses from the gaming surcharges and if they get extensive simulcasting rights. How in the world are they going to pay for state-of-te-art, never-tried-before horseplayers' transparency technology on top of that?

You would think that if this bold new idea was true, the track operators would want to be publicizing it far in advance to demonstrate their commitment to the sport and to help secure their racing license.

whoever has the horse racing meet will get the casino subsidy that goes directly to purses.
the hang up on this deal so far is that Sufolk now wants to remain in the simulcast business and remain classified as a throroughbred meet without running the horses therefore not allowing Brockton to benefit from full simulcast proceeds.

the family that owns Raynham and also Brockton are long time friends of mine. whatever their plans for the specific running of the meet will be made public if and when they get and accept the dates from the state.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

whoever has the horse racing meet will get the casino subsidy that goes directly to purses.
the hang up on this deal so far is that Sufolk now wants to remain in the simulcast business and remain classified as a throroughbred meet without running the horses therefore not allowing Brockton to benefit from full simulcast proceeds.

the family that owns Raynham and also Brockton are long time friends of mine. whatever their plans for the specific running of the meet will be made public if and when they get and accept the dates from the state.

What you says Suffolk wants do makes sense to this bettor. It mean more horses for other meets and larger fields while still give the bettors in the area access to wagering. That means more money to the tracks they simulcast and the horsemen at those tracks. Unless they start producing more horses, some tracks going to have close. I know horsemen don't like it, but we have too many tracks right now and not enough horses.
All squabbling by the horsemen with tracks over a few dollars here and there is not helping their cause. The causing more gamblers to get fed up the sport and move to other places to bet.

[Milkshaker]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the family that owns Raynham and also Brockton are long time friends of mine. whatever their plans for the specific running of the meet will be made public if and when they get and accept the dates from the state.

Not trying to be disrespectful to you and your friends, but when you say "if and when" you are making it sound like the Bockton folks are waiting for the state to act.

Isn't it true that Brockton currently has a 1-day "placeholder" application filed and the state is awaiting plans for a proposed meet from them before deciding on awarding a license?

Brockton is already several months behind in making a proper dates application. And to my knoweldge, "plans for the specific running of the meet" have to be disclosed publicly BEFORE, not after, a track is awarded dates.

[lamboguy]

both Sulfolk and Brockton have 1 day meets so far. Sufolk has now applied to just simulcast races and keep their thoroughbred status. if they keep the thoroughbred status, Brockton will not open. Brockton can't even break even without the thoroughbred simulcast revenue. the key is that ALL casino money goes for purses not to run the track.

[Milkshaker]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

both Sulfolk and Brockton have 1 day meets so far.

To clarify, "Suffolk" has not made any such live racing dates application.

The New England HBPA has a placeholder application pending the LEASE of Suffolk to them.

Every single news report I have read on this indicates the HBPA (expect for a few fragmented low-end horsemen who have trouble competing even at Suffolk) does not support racing on a substandard bullring track in Brockton.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Milkshaker

To clarify, "Suffolk" has not made any such live racing dates application.

The New England HBPA has a placeholder application pending the LEASE of Suffolk to them.

Every single news report I have read on this indicates the HBPA (expect for a few fragmented low-end horsemen who have trouble competing even at Suffolk) does not support racing on a substandard bullring track in Brockton.

100% correct. my guess is that its very unlikely that the HBPA can consummate a deal with the owner's of Sufolk.

everything in Mass. is always a mess. Wynn won the casino deal, but i haven't heard of anything going on in the Everett location so far or for that matter if Wynn has put up the money to have the license.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

100% correct. my guess is that its very unlikely that the HBPA can consummate a deal with the owner's of Sufolk.

everything in Mass. is always a mess. Wynn won the casino deal, but i haven't heard of anything going on in the Everett location so far or for that matter if Wynn has put up the money to have the license.

I am still trying to wrap my brain around the choice by the MA govt to go with Wynn and not Suffolk Downs?
My cynical side wants to believe there are purely political motivations here. Like someone or a group of someones had a big bug up their ass toward Suffolk's owners. Or there were powerful political concerns representing those in the area near the track who were opposed to a casino at Suffolk.
Either way, the decision to not build the casino there escapes me.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by thespaah

I am still trying to wrap my brain around the choice by the MA govt to go with Wynn and not Suffolk Downs?
My cynical side wants to believe there are purely political motivations here. Like someone or a group of someones had a big bug up their ass toward Suffolk's owners. Or there were powerful political concerns representing those in the area near the track who were opposed to a casino at Suffolk.
Either way, the decision to not build the casino there escapes me.

i agree with the assumption that they don't like the owner's of Sufolk.

the guy that owns Sufolk worked for WYNN when they were trying to get the NYRA deal and it was supposedly in the bag, WYNN never got it and Fields was let go.

i have no idea why WYNN would ever want to spend billions to put up a resort casino on a dump in Everett with a narrow road. Sufolk is 2 minutes away from the airport and that property always made 10 times more sense than Everett does.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

100% correct. my guess is that its very unlikely that the HBPA can consummate a deal with the owner's of Suffolk.

Not being awarded a casino license was a huge blow to Suffolk. Even with the casino they only saw horseracing as a means to an end.

Time is running out for the lease deal to get done, as horsemen will need at least 3-4 months in advance to make and execute their plans (training schedule, when and where to run, etc.). The owners of Suffolk could simply be trying to squeeze the horsemen to get the best possible lease deal, or, perhaps the "new" post-casino plan is to have the property re-developed for multi-purpose use and they don't want to be stuck with tenants. While the average person tends to not believe it, maybe the true operating costs (even with casino-enhanced purses) is too high for Suffolk, and not made doable even with a fair lease agreement. It certainly comes down to what can the horsemen do cheaper than Suffolk to make a leased meet work.

Looks like the key ingredient will be who is awarded the simulcast rights. Again, my head says it will be Suffolk.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

the big purses attract the horses. takeout is what is mandated by the individual state just like social security and tax rates nationally.

everyone tries to compare takeout in horse racing to casino gambling. horse racing runs about 1 race every half hour with an approximate hold of about 18%. in that same half hour, the house will deal about 20 hands of blackjack at a takeout of minimum 1 1/2% per hand that amounts to 30% in that very same time frame. go to a slot machine and its about 10 times more

Your wording of mandated implies the horsemen or tracks had no input on takeout %. Is the takeout decision process different in that state? If it is, does anyone know which other state racing commission(s) initially comes up with the takeout % based on their own research and evaluation before approval is granted?

Thanks.

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by Track Collector

Looks like the key ingredient will be who is awarded the simulcast rights. Again, my head says it will be Suffolk.

SB 2421

Not good news for Brockton. Subject bill now only needs to be passed by the MA House of Representatives.

Does the Carney family have a plan if this comes to pass?