Racing now known as a burn pit.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I believe they are focused on revenue to the state period.

I believe this sentence here is the general gist of their point.

Today, the industry is a shell of its former self, kept afloat by enormous state subsidies. Attendance is down to roughly 2 million, and New York barely gets $10 million a year from taxes on betting — a sliver of the nearly $200 million in public money the state showers on the industry annually.

If anyone has a counter, they can start with that sentence there.

New York State was harvesting $9,000,000 per year on parimutuel taxes from Saratoga alone through 2021. Recent figures based on 2022's record handle was higher. Measuring the current game through attendance is akin to measuring the value of sports-book action through attendance at the individual games.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I personally have no idea what the state subsidies are that he is speaking of and honestly am not that interested. Politicians do what politicians do.

The state subsidy argument is garbage. The argument goes that the casino payments are a "state subsidy"; however, one has to be sufficiently intelligent to research how the racinos got started in the first place. The racinos were not subsidy payments however got tagged with that label as it was convenient and expeditious for those seeking New York's version of decoupling.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

But as I have said before, if you don't fix the game the subsidies will eventually run dry and when they do what the does the game have?

Record handle at Saratoga should be indicative to the wider audience of what the future could be. Using the term "subsidy" underscores the established neanderthal thinking.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

This article is perhaps a sign that these days are maybe approaching and that over time politicians will not be as free to help the racing industry as they have been. But time will tell. I am just looking for an intelligent counter.

Counter points include the following.

[1] Measuring individuals betting per day, the "attendance" is well over 11,000,000 per year which was the 1979 metric.

[2] Again, the state subsidy word is thrown around, but the racino/casino agreements are not subsidies, but business agreements.

[3] If the contract between NYRA and NYS is extended to 2043, what is the impact over that contract being through 2033? Remember, you lose NYRA, you lose Saratoga and all else including the breeding industry in New York.

[4] Schoolkid's Money? At ~$15,000+ per pupil spending, does another $100 per student matter? That does not excuse the investment per se, but be honest about "stealing from children".

[5] Paid attendance at Saratoga alone in 2022 was quoted at 1,075,586. Revenue per attendee to the state is one metric which was distorted in the article.

[6] New York Focus was launched in October 2020.

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I think addressing the points of this article are pretty vital to the survival of this game. No?

The New York Focus article covers the politics of New York that, if you read their about page, is a "focus" of the site. Donate as you will.

[Suff]

$450 million in NYC is downsizing and modernizing the facility. It's not enough to "rebuild" Belmont park. 450 million is not enough tbh.

[Poindexter]

By the way here is an other article I found from Times Union from a year ago

https://www.timesunion.com/projects/...ing-subsidies/


Then of course there was this:

Testimony regarding New York State budget allocations for the regulation of horse racing and the lack of tax revenue generated by pari-mutuel betting on horse racing.

just copy and past the link into your browser

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nyassembly.gov/write/upload/publichearing/001278/004092.pdf

IMO, it is very important to be very cognizant of opposing viewpoints. I don't believe for a second that the pricing issue in racing will ever be fixed, so I don't expect much in the way of growth in this sport (despite the record year at Saratoga). So ultimately we do have to look at how people that do not find racing of any importance feel about the industry. Even if it is Peta. Because you lose a lot of power over your business when you become dependent on Government to survive.

Anyhow, I am not looking to dispute this issue. Just interested in what you people think about the issue. My only side on this issue is that I wish the game was priced to succeed and not fail. Thank you to Scott J, for being first to step up to the plate. I think everyone in the industry (the racing executives) should be well versed on what the opposition is saying and be very well prepared to defend their industry. Because one day, I suspect they will have to vigorously.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

By the way here is an other article I found from Times Union from a year ago

https://www.timesunion.com/projects/...ing-subsidies/


Then of course there was this:

Testimony regarding New York State budget allocations for the regulation of horse racing and the lack of tax revenue generated by pari-mutuel betting on horse racing.

just copy and past the link into your browser

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nyassembly.gov/write/upload/publichearing/001278/004092.pdf

IMO, it is very important to be very cognizant of opposing viewpoints. I don't believe for a second that the pricing issue in racing will ever be fixed, so I don't expect much in the way of growth in this sport (despite the record year at Saratoga). So ultimately we do have to look at how people that do not find racing of any importance feel about the industry. Even if it is Peta. Because you lose a lot of power over your business when you become dependent on Government to survive.

Anyhow, I am not looking to dispute this issue. Just interested in what you people think about the issue. My only side on this issue is that I wish the game was priced to succeed and not fail. Thank you to Scott J, for being first to step up to the plate. I think everyone in the industry (the racing executives) should be well versed on what the opposition is saying and be very well prepared to defend their industry. Because one day, I suspect they will have to vigorously.

This sort of academic analysis is probably useful to cite

Economic impact, jobs created by the industry, etc.

https://extension.umn.edu/horse-owne...horse-industry

[classhandicapper]

The state subsidy argument is garbage. The argument goes that the casino payments are a "state subsidy"; however, one has to be sufficiently intelligent to research how the racinos got started in the first place. The racinos were not subsidy payments however got tagged with that label as it was convenient and expeditious for those seeking New York's version of decoupling.

Subsidy is the wrong word and the payments exist as part of the original deal, but the reality is that any politician or non racing fan that hears that the casinos are making payments to the track is going to question the arrangement.

It's not a debate about the correct word or the terms or the deal.

It's a debate about logic.

If I have a very profitable retail business and a money losing restaurant next door, maybe I should close the restaurant and look to expand the retail?

The arrangement makes no sense to people, especially if they think the state is somehow entitled to the money.

These problems are way over my pay grade, but from the very moment the industry started taking casino money I was yelling that short term thinking was ultimately going to create bigger problems for the industry down the line. And imo it has. We have zombie tracks competing with what could be healthier ones for horses and handle, politicians questioning the arrangements, and if the plug ever gets pulled on some or all of that money all hell is going to break loose when purses gets slashed and everyone is losing even more money.

[$w1fT]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Subsidy is the wrong word and the payments exist as part of the original deal, but the reality is that any politician or non racing fan that hears that the casinos are making payments to the track is going to question the arrangement.

It's not a debate about the correct word or the terms or the deal.

It's a debate about logic.

If I have a very profitable retail business and a money losing restaurant next door, maybe I should close the restaurant and look to expand the retail?

The arrangement makes no sense to people, especially if they think the state is somehow entitled to the money.

These problems are way over my pay grade, but from the very moment the industry started taking casino money I was yelling that short term thinking was ultimately going to create bigger problems for the industry down the line. And imo it has. We have zombie tracks competing with what could be healthier ones for horses and handle, politicians questioning the arrangements, and if the plug ever gets pulled on some or all of that money all hell is going to break loose when purses gets slashed and everyone is losing even more money.

Great point, why am I going to use public funds to keep a track afloat when I can bulldoze the area, put up condos, town homes and retail shops and make so much more money that way?

[the little guy]

Politicians should know better, and they do, but they prey on the public's ( understandable ) ignorance. It's a societal problem and hardly specific to this instance. I'm not taking a political stance here, as both sides do it.

[Bustin Stones]

My understanding is that the subsidy was the result of maintaining the value of gambling licenses and protecting the racing industry from the added allowed forms of gambling. But, it makes sense that this protection should have only been meant to provide a smooth transition for racing and that racing would need to become more self sufficient given time.
A governing body should step in and propose a schedule that diminishes the subsidies over a number of years gradually so that racing can adjust to it.
It's unfair to the taxpaying public to pay for any one type of gambling vs any other. We don't propose subsidizing dog racing, jai a lai.
It's bad enough the public pays for NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB facilities. But those attract assets to businesses in their cities. I don't see anyone moving to Cleveland because we have Thistledown here. And if the day arrives that any casino cannot justify its business and needs to close, I don't see taxpayers bailing that out either.

[the little guy]

In NYRA case it is in NO way a subsidy. Not sure why this is continually confusing to some. Land deeds were traded for annual payments.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by the little guy

In NYRA case it is in NO way a subsidy. Not sure why this is continually confusing to some. Land deeds were traded for annual payments.

Not sure which deeds you are citing, but the sales of land surrounding Aqueduct resulted in only enough funds to pay tax debts owed.
The casinos in NY do subsidize the racetracks. And let's not make this sound disparaging. This was all done with the best of intentions at that time.
If the racetracks were subsidizing the slots I'm sure we'd all be up in arms about how racing is being held back unfairly.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

Not sure which deeds you are citing, but the sales of land surrounding Aqueduct resulted in only enough funds to pay tax debts owed.
The casinos in NY do subsidize the racetracks. And let's not make this sound disparaging. This was all done with the best of intentions at that time.
If the racetracks were subsidizing the slots I'm sure we'd all be up in arms about how racing is being held back unfairly.

He's talking about the deeds to the land that all three NYRA tracks rest upon...I think...lol

[Suff]

For every $100 put into a slot machine , NYRA receives $7.50.

In exchange the State owns the land now, whereas prior to the agreement, NYRA owned the land.

[Suff]

I believe nyra received ~$150 million in 2021from it's 7.5% share.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

Not sure which deeds you are citing, but the sales of land surrounding Aqueduct resulted in only enough funds to pay tax debts owed.
The casinos in NY do subsidize the racetracks. And let's not make this sound disparaging. This was all done with the best of intentions at that time.
If the racetracks were subsidizing the slots I'm sure we'd all be up in arms about how racing is being held back unfairly.

hard to know what's true when you get the accountants involved

https://www.timesunion.com/news/arti...1-17195831.php

I like the reference to "lavish spending"

I've seen Tom Dinapoli at Saratoga, so he's no anti-racing guy and he knows how to run a budget it is safe to say

[Bustin Stones]

https://saratogainstitute.wordpress....983-in-review/

This is a decent article detailing the rewritten history of the relationship between the NYRA and NY state. Other articles detailed how the NYRA has failed to repay large obligations granted by NY state legislatures. The taxpayers of NY have been subsidizing the tracks since the 50's through state loans that have gone unpaid.