Record Revenues for Churchill Downs in 2014 but... - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Augenj · 02-26-2015, 05:50 AM

Also on the racing side, CDI said Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots revenues declined $2.1 million for the year, Churchill Downs racetrack had losses outside of Oaks-Derby week, and Arlington Park revenues declined. CDI blamed the Fair Grounds losses on a decreased number of turf races, the Arlington decline on increased simulcast competition, and the Churchill decline on smaller field sizes.

Smaller field sizes or a boycott?

Record Revenues for Churchill Downs in 2014

OTM Al · 02-26-2015, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

Also on the racing side, CDI said Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots revenues declined $2.1 million for the year, Churchill Downs racetrack had losses outside of Oaks-Derby week, and Arlington Park revenues declined. CDI blamed the Fair Grounds losses on a decreased number of turf races, the Arlington decline on increased simulcast competition, and the Churchill decline on smaller field sizes.

Smaller field sizes or a boycott?

Record Revenues for Churchill Downs in 2014

Doesn't really matter. Record Revenues for the company. You think the "boycott" is bothering them one bit?

Augenj · 02-26-2015, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTM Al

Doesn't really matter. Record Revenues for the company. You think the "boycott" is bothering them one bit?

Knowing bean counters as I do..... yes.

acorn54 · 02-26-2015, 09:32 AM

i think the boys at woodbine racetrack did some intelligent research on the correlation of field size of horseraces and pool volume and saw a direct correlation.
of course a business only cares about its net profit and right now it seems churchill has a hodgepodge of things going on bringing in revenue and causing losses. we will have to see how things pan out for the future when the dust clears. i am sure horserace betting activities would be phased out if they conclusively showed a consistent loss for the churchill operations. after all they are not a charitable operation.

AndyC · 02-26-2015, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

Also on the racing side, CDI said Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots revenues declined $2.1 million for the year, Churchill Downs racetrack had losses outside of Oaks-Derby week, and Arlington Park revenues declined. CDI blamed the Fair Grounds losses on a decreased number of turf races, the Arlington decline on increased simulcast competition, and the Churchill decline on smaller field sizes.

Smaller field sizes or a boycott?

Record Revenues for Churchill Downs in 2014

Are you giddy because CDI is reporting increased profits? If the boycott continues I may have to buy some stock.

duncan04 · 02-26-2015, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

Knowing bean counters as I do..... yes.

No it doesn't bother them at all. Racing is secondary to them. They are making profits and that is all that matters to them. If you think any boycott is bothering them, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to see you.

AndyC · 02-26-2015, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

Knowing bean counters as I do..... yes.

At the end of the day CDI has more beans then they started with and isn't that the object of being in business?

duncan04 · 02-26-2015, 10:16 AM

Revenues for CDI were $812.9M in 2014, up four percent over 2013; racing rev down 5%; casino rev up 11%; twinspires rev up 3%.

Revenue at Churchill Downs racetrack was up 8% vs. 2013; while rev was down 6% at AP, down 47% at CRC, and down 5% at FG.

From @drfhegarty on twitter earlier

Augenj · 02-26-2015, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

At the end of the day CDI has more beans then they started with and isn't that the object of being in business?

I worked in large corporations and sat in many meetings over the years. Every facet of the business is looked at for improvement. The "small field sizes" at Churchill is nothing but a red herring. Somebody there is evaluating the decrease, even if it means they want to shed this part of their business so the fat cats can get even fatter.

AndyC · 02-26-2015, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

I worked in large corporations and sat in many meetings over the years. Every facet of the business is looked at for improvement. The "small field sizes" at Churchill is nothing but a red herring. Somebody there is evaluating the decrease, even if it means they want to shed this part of their business so the fat cats can get even fatter.

I am missing your point. Do you think that CDI hasn't looked at the issue of take-out percentages and there overall affect on business?

The way fat cats get fatter is by having a profitable business. Having a profitable business means having customers that want to buy your product. Is there a reason someone would want to carry on an unprofitable business that really doesn't look like it has a future?

Augenj · 02-26-2015, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am missing your point. Do you think that CDI hasn't looked at the issue of take-out percentages and there overall affect on business?

The way fat cats get fatter is by having a profitable business. Having a profitable business means having customers that want to buy your product. Is there a reason someone would want to carry on an unprofitable business that really doesn't look like it has a future?

My guess is that the CEO thought raising the takeout would mean more revenue/profit. That turns out to not be the case as we all know. Now he has a choice to keep things as they are and continue a revenue/profit decline or reduce the takeout and possibly make more revenue/profit. My guess is he's unwilling to admit his mistake because of ego and revenue/profit will continue to decline. Some on this board have said that this has been his intention all along in order to be able to reduce racing at CD except for the Derby weekend. All he has left then is high margin divisions of his business, assuming this is his "grand scheme".

Fingal · 02-26-2015, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan04

No it doesn't bother them at all. Racing is secondary to them. They are making profits and that is all that matters to them. If you think any boycott is bothering them, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.

Churchill is Churchill in name only, might as well change their name to the Kentucky Casino Corp.

Why did they tell Stronach he could have Calder but they got to keep the casino revenue ?

Why did Churchill buy Hollywood Park ? It was in the hope California racetracks would get slots but when the Indian Lobby defeated that ballot initiative couldn't wait to get rid of HP to anyone making an offer.

Why did Churchill let the Fairgrounds become a dump before they were forced to make some improvements ?

Churchill would LOVE to get rid of Arlington but when CDI bought it they gave Duchossois so much stock it'd be virtually impossible to buy him out.

Other than the brand recognition they get from Derby & Oaks week, Churchill could give a rat's patootie about racing.

duncan04 · 02-26-2015, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingal

Churchill is Churchill in name only, might as well change their name to the Kentucky Casino Corp.

Why did they tell Stronach he could have Calder but they got to keep the casino revenue ?

Why did Churchill buy Hollywood Park ? It was in the hope California racetracks would get slots but when the Indian Lobby defeated that ballot initiative couldn't wait to get rid of HP to anyone making an offer.

Why did Churchill let the Fairgrounds become a dump before they were forced to make some improvements ?

Churchill would LOVE to get rid of Arlington but when CDI bought it they gave Duchossois so much stock it'd be virtually impossible to buy him out.

Other than the brand recognition they get from Derby & Oaks week, Churchill could give a rat's patootie about racing.

Does this surprise anyone? Everyone is claiming racing is dying. Casino gambling is doing well. Don't have to pay anything out of pocket before hand to play any casino game like you do with racing. CDI is all about their shareholders now and raking in the money from the casinos

AndyC · 02-26-2015, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augenj

My guess is that the CEO thought raising the takeout would mean more revenue/profit. That turns out to not be the case as we all know. Now he has a choice to keep things as they are and continue a revenue/profit decline or reduce the takeout and possibly make more revenue/profit. My guess is he's unwilling to admit his mistake because of ego and revenue/profit will continue to decline. Some on this board have said that this has been his intention all along in order to be able to reduce racing at CD except for the Derby weekend. All he has left then is high margin divisions of his business, assuming this is his "grand scheme".

If lowering the takeout was the panacea for all of racings problems every track would immediately reduce the rates. Can you name a US track that has increased their bottom line do to a rate reduction? Just increasing handle doesn't mean an increase in profit.

AndyC · 02-26-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan04

Does this surprise anyone? Everyone is claiming racing is dying. Casino gambling is doing well. Don't have to pay anything out of pocket before hand to play any casino game like you do with racing. CDI is all about their shareholders now and raking in the money from the casinos

What should CDI be about if not their shareholders?