|
|
06-21-2018, 01:53 PM
|
#76
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Asaro
|
For those wondering where the stream is, today's meeting is structured a little differently. It started at 10 PT, with a closed session that should last about an hour, and the open meeting (with webcast) starting somewhere between 11:15-11:30.
Typically the closed session takes place at the end of the meeting. But with everything going on in the past two weeks, I imagine there are a lot of back door discussions taking place right now before they go in front of the public.
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Board/board_m...un_agenda2.pdf
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 02:42 PM
|
#77
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,803
|
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 03:13 PM
|
#78
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
Seems that TSG only sent this one guy to defend their position and he's getting beat up pretty bad by the board, TOC, etc.
Seems likely that CHRB will deny GGF's application and wait for the courts to figure out what is legally required regarding the OTB network.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 03:19 PM
|
#79
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,803
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible
https://twitter.com/BH_JBalan/status...76115710619648
Seems that TSG only sent this one guy to defend their position and he's getting beat up pretty bad by the board, TOC, etc.
Seems likely that CHRB will deny GGF's application and wait for the courts to figure out what is legally required regarding the OTB network.
|
Very weak. Unbelievable.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 03:21 PM
|
#80
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
CHRB approves the GGF application, contingent on receipt of a simulcast agreement with each off-track facility, as required per law. They would also need an agreement with the TOC, which Avioli stated would be "impossible to envision" without GGF supporting the off-track network. Those agreements must be provided to the board by close of business on July 2nd.
TSG response is that they don't see a need to comply with that.
So, the can is kicked to next month. Who would have thought? Tune in next time (7/12, 9:30 PT) for the next episode.
Last edited by AlsoEligible; 06-21-2018 at 03:23 PM.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 03:40 PM
|
#81
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible
CHRB approves the GGF application, contingent on receipt of a simulcast agreement with each off-track facility, as required per law. They would also need an agreement with the TOC, which Avioli stated would be "impossible to envision" without GGF supporting the off-track network. Those agreements must be provided to the board by close of business on July 2nd.
TSG response is that they don't see a need to comply with that.
So, the can is kicked to next month. Who would have thought? Tune in next time (7/12, 9:30 PT) for the next episode.
|
Interesting. So if TSG doesn't comply, will the CHRB refuse to let them race? And if so, does GGF just close and get sold to developers?
This reminds me of when the baseball umpires went on strike. Never assume the other side will never dare exercise the nuclear option.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 04:02 PM
|
#82
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Interesting. So if TSG doesn't comply, will the CHRB refuse to let them race? And if so, does GGF just close and get sold to developers?
This reminds me of when the baseball umpires went on strike. Never assume the other side will never dare exercise the nuclear option.
|
My guess is that July 2nd will come and go, and TSG will provide no agreements. At the next CHRB meeting (7/12), the board will formally deny their application for failing to comply.
At that point both sides will wait to see what comes from the current lawsuit filed by Los Al, which will determine if there is actually a legal requirement for GGF to have a simulcast agreement with the OTBs. Greg Avioli made mention of knowing the answer to that within 30 days, so I assume the case is being expedited.
If the court rules in favor of Los Al (i.e. GGF must work with the OTBs), then either TSG caves, or they stop racing.
If the court rules against Los Al, then the only hurdle remaining is GGF getting a horseman's agreement with the TOC and CTT. Per Avioli, that will require a plan from TSG on how they're going to maintain current purse levels, and TSG had no answer to that today. Maybe TSG agrees to pay the difference out of pocket while they work on a new NorCal ADW model? Not sure.
If those agreements are made, then the CHRB has no grounds to deny the application, and GGF gets to run while the OTBs probably start shutting their doors.
I know that's a lot of "ifs", so I don't think this situation is much clearer after today than it was two weeks ago.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 06:38 PM
|
#83
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,803
|
“The goal of the Stronach Group has been to create chaos,” Avioli said. “They have created chaos.”
http://www.drf.com/news/chrb-orders-...ntracts-july-2
Excerpt:
Golden Gate Fields was ordered by the California Horse Racing Board on Thursday to reach contractual agreements with Northern California offtrack satellite locations, as well as horsemen’s organizations representing owners and trainers, by July 2 to be granted a license for a six-week race meeting from late August to early October.
|
|
|
06-22-2018, 01:28 AM
|
#84
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
TSG responds - https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...lcasting-issue
Quote:
Ritvo did not answer multiple requests for comment Thursday, but another executive with The Stronach Group, Scott Daruty, who was not at the CHRB meeting conducted at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, said the company will be "filing a court action to get a judge to interpret the law."
Daruty objected to the notion that NOTWINC was profitable, and pointed to the same "statutory distribution" Morey [Elizabeth Morey, TOC] referenced.
"Everybody at the meeting today was quoting California law and telling us that we are wrong in our interpretation," said Daruty, who listened to the meeting through streaming audio on the CHRB website. "We happen to think we're right, but we'll let a judge decide. While they're telling us we're wrong, they're ignoring the law in saying NOTWINC is profitable. NOTWINC cannot be funded by anything over and above the percentage (written in) the statute. What they're saying is we should voluntarily contribute over and above the statute to keep NOTWINC going."
Daruty responded to the criticism with an assurance that The Stronach Group is taking these measures to better the industry.
"For all the criticism that we're taking, the main point that I think everybody is missing is we're doing what we're doing to try to strengthen the industry," he said. "I haven't had a single person say to me the Northern California (simulcast) network is good, or it makes sense, or we should keep it the same way. Everybody I talk to acknowledges the problem and that it needs to be fixed, but nobody has any ideas or has made any effort to fix it."
|
We can debate TSG's intentions, but it's tough to argue with that last part. This can has been kicked down the road by these people for over a decade, and there's nothing to suggest it won't stop even if TSG gives in.
Even today, no one made any serious attempts to try and discuss a long term solution...or even to propose a subcommittee or "working group" (which the board hands out like candy) to start talking about it. Everyone just wanted to take the mic and slam TSG as "unconscionable" and "life threatening". Not surprising that they didn't bother showing up, aside from a single spokesperson.
Last edited by AlsoEligible; 06-22-2018 at 01:34 AM.
|
|
|
06-22-2018, 02:12 AM
|
#85
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prioress Ply
Look at the cars these clowns roll up to the track in the morning in. Real eye opener.
|
Could you post dumber shit? Please?
|
|
|
06-22-2018, 02:17 AM
|
#86
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible
TOne can argue whether this is the best use of the land, but Frank's definitely not using the neighborhood as an excuse to shut down the track.
|
Shush! Denny loves to think that he knows what he's talking about. Don't mess up the dream with facts.
|
|
|
06-22-2018, 02:18 AM
|
#87
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,642
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
AE,
if Franz
|
Tee hee hee! He called him Franz. Tee hee!!
|
|
|
06-24-2018, 09:52 AM
|
#88
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 166
|
Anyone who has been to the GGF simulcast since racing moved to the Fair Circuit can see that they are making some significant capital improvements to the paddock and part of the grandstand area.
I doubt it would be in the TSG DNA to spend money if they planned on seriously closing down GGF. But they do like to use lawyers and bully tactics to get what they want.
|
|
|
07-03-2018, 02:08 PM
|
#89
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,803
|
|
|
|
07-06-2018, 05:14 PM
|
#90
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
...the parties have advised the CHRB of significant progress towards that goal.
|
Or not.
Quote:
The Pacific Racing Association, which operates Golden Gate Fields in Albany, Calif., for The Stronach Group, has filed a lawsuit against the California Horse Racing Board in an effort to negate a law the CHRB says requires racetracks to contract with OTB facilities for simulcasting.
“We are seeking a court ruling invalidating that condition and give us the license without the requirement,” said Scott Daruty, a Stronach Group executive who serves as senior vice president or the Pacific Racing Association.
“We think the OTB network in Northern California is outdated, inefficient and ineffective. We have ideas how it can be better structured, but the CHRB has mandated that we have to do everything the old way. The purpose of the lawsuit is to get a court to interpret how the law works.”
|
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...ing-condition/
Apparently the crux of the issue is the text of the law that says an OTB network "may" be operated by an organization like NOTWINC. TSG sees "may" meaning optional, while the CHRB sees it as a mandate. Not a lawyer, but seems pretty clear that "may" is not the same as "shall" or "must", so I would think that TSG will prevail.
Last edited by AlsoEligible; 07-06-2018 at 05:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|