Golden Gate to close?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am not going to make predictions on who ships and who doesn't, but in general it's mistaken to say they can't compete down here. What would happen if they all did ship is that SoCal tracks would start carding races attractive to the shippers. So you'd see Maiden 16 races and $4k claimers and stuff. Indeed, you'd probably see races mostly filled with NorCal horses along with some people moving up from Los Al short track thoroughbred races......

I can't imagine that shipping cheap horses is very cost effective.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I can't imagine that shipping cheap horses is very cost effective.

A lot would just move

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

A lot would just move

Most owners of cheap horses would be owners of higher quality horses if they could afford to do so. Moving a stable of cheap horses is really not much of a solution.

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

A lot would just move

Or they could call their bluff and send their horses to another state where they have a better chance of being competitive. I could see many Norcal horse owners deciding not to do business with the Stronach group because of their decision to close GGF which caused them hardship and decide to hold a grudge and do their business elsewhere.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Most owners of cheap horses would be owners of higher quality horses if they could afford to do so. Moving a stable of cheap horses is really not much of a solution.

They are likely to move somewhere anyway, as others have pointed out.

My guess is Socal gets a good portion of those horses

[classhandicapper]

Some of the horses from GG will be competitive. If they try to attract the cheaper horses also by promising to card cheaper maiden and claiming races, that may get even more horses to ship south, but I wonder what all that cheaper racing does for the brand and handle per race.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Some of the horses from GG will be competitive. If they try to attract the cheaper horses also by promising to card cheaper maiden and claiming races, that may get even more horses to ship south, but I wonder what all that cheaper racing does for the brand and handle per race.

I don't think bettors care about how cheap the claiming races are as compared to how bettable they are.

[Maximillion]

I would push hard to attract these horses....all the other major tracks have races for this type.The few races a week they have like this now have horses that have been running in QH races outrunning their odds and being very competitive.

[craigbraddick]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am not going to make predictions on who ships and who doesn't, but in general it's mistaken to say they can't compete down here. What would happen if they all did ship is that SoCal tracks would start carding races attractive to the shippers. So you'd see Maiden 16 races and $4k claimers and stuff. Indeed, you'd probably see races mostly filled with NorCal horses along with some people moving up from Los Al short track thoroughbred races.

If they came, some of those horses would win some races down here.

(On another note, I am highly skeptical of the expansion of the fairs to create a full NorCal circuit for another reason-- these fair meets will lose a lot of money, and the fairs are publicly owned and accountable to taxpayers. Frank Stronach could, of course, subsidize Northern California racing because owning racetracks is his hobby. But I assume people would start getting voted out of office if money intended to support agriculture in California- which is what the fairs are supposed to be about- gets incinerated on horse racing instead.)

The fair meets would continue as they are as part of the circuit.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't think bettors care about how cheap the claiming races are as compared to how bettable they are.

tend to agree with this, obviously its best of both worlds if they are full non cheap fields.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by craigbraddick

The fair meets would continue as they are as part of the circuit.

The fair meets aren't the issue. I am talking about the proposals to create a new NorCal circuit using, e.g., the Cal Expo track at Sacramento and/or some of the other fair tracks.

These are public facilities. Which means either (1) the government (the fairgrounds authorities) needs to break even, or (2) a private operator needs to be able to make a profit so it can pay the fairgrounds authorities to lease the tracks. Nobody's going to allow government agencies that have important purposes promoting agriculture in California to lose a bunch of money hosting horse races that nobody wants to attend or bet on. And there's no evidence that NorCal thoroughbred racing can be profitable.

If NorCal racing were profitable, I doubt the Stronach people would be seeking to close GGF in the first place. The reality is the only reason LosAl came in and prevented the unifying of the 2 circuits after Hollywood Park closed is because LosAl's ownership was so keen to present "major league" racing that they took on significant losses to do it. You can't have that scenario with Sacramento- Sacramento is a public facility and can't subsidize thoroughbred racing.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The fair meets aren't the issue. I am talking about the proposals to create a new NorCal circuit using, e.g., the Cal Expo track at Sacramento and/or some of the other fair tracks.

These are public facilities. Which means either (1) the government (the fairgrounds authorities) needs to break even, or (2) a private operator needs to be able to make a profit so it can pay the fairgrounds authorities to lease the tracks. Nobody's going to allow government agencies that have important purposes promoting agriculture in California to lose a bunch of money hosting horse races that nobody wants to attend or bet on. And there's no evidence that NorCal thoroughbred racing can be profitable.

If NorCal racing were profitable, I doubt the Stronach people would be seeking to close GGF in the first place. The reality is the only reason LosAl came in and prevented the unifying of the 2 circuits after Hollywood Park closed is because LosAl's ownership was so keen to present "major league" racing that they took on significant losses to do it. You can't have that scenario with Sacramento- Sacramento is a public facility and can't subsidize thoroughbred racing.

How much revenue are the fair tracks bringing in when no racing is going on? I get that the should not be subsidizing unless the amount of the subsidies are less than the costs of upkeep for a track that is not running a meet.

[SandyW]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday called on the Stronach Group to clarify its plan to close Golden Gate Fields racetrack in Berkeley, California.

“As you have noted, your decision will have profound impacts on the livelihoods of the permanent and race-day employees at Golden Gate Fields as well as regional horse owners, trainers, jockeys, and stable personnel that consider it their home track,” Feinstein wrote.

“I appreciate the steps the Stronach Group has taken in recent years to address equine safety and welfare concerns at your tracks and for your ongoing operation of Santa Anita Park. Nevertheless, your decision to close Golden Gate Fields will affect many California residents and merits further explanation.”


Full text of the letter follows:

July 26, 2023

Ms. Belinda Stronach
Chairman and President
The Stronach Group

Dear Ms. Stronach,

Following the announcement last week that you will close the Golden Gate Fields racetrack, I write seeking clarification of your transition plans, including disposition of the land and stadium.

Golden Gate Fields has hosted horse racing since 1941 and is the last remaining full-time horse racing track in Northern California. As you have noted, your decision will have profound impacts on the livelihoods of the permanent and race-day employees at Golden Gate Fields as well as regional horse owners, trainers, jockeys, and stable personnel that consider it their home track. The impending closure has prompted many questions that I request your help in answering:

What is your rationale for closing Golden Gate Fields and why did you choose December 2023 as the closure date?
Will you help employees of Golden Gate Fields find other work in the horseracing industry or elsewhere? If so, which employees and how? Will you offer them positions at the other racetracks you operate?
What are the plans for the land?
How will the closure impact the other track you operate at Santa Anita Park?
I appreciate the steps the Stronach Group has taken in recent years to address equine safety and welfare concerns at your tracks and for your ongoing operation of Santa Anita Park. Nevertheless, your decision to close Golden Gate Fields will affect many California residents and merits further explanation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

[ranchwest]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are some fire sale claiming races coming up.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't think bettors care about how cheap the claiming races are as compared to how bettable they are.

Bettors want fairly large competitive fields, but quality is also obviously part of the thinking. If quality wasn't a major factor the handle figures around the country would look a LOT different than they do.