1st Racing go F yourself

[bisket]

The response from 1st Racing was pretty over the top...? Maryland just essentially squeezed 1st Racing out of track ownership in favor of more state control. California could do the same thing. The other marquee track in the state, Delmar is part of the fair circuit. Does that mean the state has a lot of say on what happens there? If so, Delmar takes the winter, spring, and summer dates, and goes dark during the fall unless there's a Breeders Cup. The other state fair tracks up north take the other dates? Financially that would make morse sense. If it's a state run enterprise it would only need to support itself and cut out a profit structure. Which I think is where the game might be headed...? That could also return the purses to a level that supports the 1st class racing the state is accustomed to.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Some read…..

Incest is becoming more notable, how many of these powerful gamblers are in collusion behind the scenes.

NYRA being a minority owner somehow bothers me.

There is absolutely no place for the little guy anymore

The obvious answer to that is there aren't enough little guys on a daily basis. The only time wagering reaches a point to support the track is on big race days.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by bisket

The response from 1st Racing was pretty over the top...? Maryland just essentially squeezed 1st Racing out of track ownership in favor of more state control. California could do the same thing. The other marquee track in the state, Delmar is part of the fair circuit. Does that mean the state has a lot of say on what happens there? If so, Delmar takes the winter, spring, and summer dates, and goes dark during the fall unless there's a Breeders Cup. The other state fair tracks up north take the other dates? Financially that would make morse sense. If it's a state run enterprise it would only need to support itself and cut out a profit structure.

So yes, the Del Mar land that the racetrack sits on is owned by the group that puts on the San Diego County Fair. But the racetrack is not run by them. It's run by a private company, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (which I think is organized as a non-profit, or used to be, but I'm not 100% sure on that). Joe Harper is CEO of DMTC; he has no connection to the San Diego County Fair.

The state of California, writ large, has no interest in running or subsidizing horse racing. Just in general- and I apologize in advance for how nasty this may sound to our Maryland posters- we don't subsidize professional sports in California. We think it's stupid. We made the NFL wait for 20 years because we don't subsidize professional sports in California. The Giants had to pay for their own ballpark because we don't subsidize professional sports in California. The Rams had to shell out $5 billion and the LA Kings $400 million because we don't subsidize professional sports in California.

The basic attitude of Californians is this is a great place and if the NFL or MLB or whatever doesn't want to be there, it's their misfortune to miss out on paradise. We're that full of ourselves but it also means our taxpayers save lots of money not paying for niche activities that plenty of Californians don't care about.

The fairs work the way they do because they make money. If they didn't make money the state wouldn't subsidize the horse racing product (and indeed the trend has been for fairs to get OUT of the horse racing business-- Orange County, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, and Solano County have all ended their horse racing fair meets).

So no, we have zero interest in doing what Baltimore does. Honestly, if we had the Preakness and the owner was threatening to move it, we'd give them zero money. We're California and we are a great place and we don't need you. We even ran the 1984 Olympics without a public subsidy. We made a profit. That's how we roll.

That attitude may kill horse racing in California. I get that and I love horse racing and would be devastated to see it go. But I can't criticize the attitude-- billionaire sports owners get way too much money from governments throughout the country. This state gets this issue right.

[bisket]

The money for sports in MD doesn't necessarily come from tax payers. The money comes from taxing marijuana, gambling, and the events themselves. So essentially it's the choice of the people taking part in those activities to pay for them. MD is building the track, but afterwards they will collect taxes to pay for it. Racing will have to pay for itself as well. It sounds like the structure we're discussing is already in place at Delmar. So nothing will have to change, it'll just take a bigger role in racing.

[Arapola]

the Methane gases emitted from the Horses polluting the air!

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by bisket

The money for sports in MD doesn't necessarily come from tax payers. The money comes from taxing marijuana, gambling, and the events themselves. So essentially it's the choice of the people taking part in those activities to pay for them. MD is building the track, but afterwards they will collect taxes to pay for it. Racing will have to pay for itself as well. It sounds like the structure we're discussing is already in place at Delmar. So nothing will have to change, it'll just take a bigger role in racing.

Respectfully, would those funds not be available for other things if not for sports funding or was the original intention to provide for sports?

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by bisket

The response from 1st Racing was pretty over the top...? Maryland just essentially squeezed 1st Racing out of track ownership in favor of more state control. California could do the same thing. The other marquee track in the state, Delmar is part of the fair circuit. Does that mean the state has a lot of say on what happens there? If so, Delmar takes the winter, spring, and summer dates, and goes dark during the fall unless there's a Breeders Cup. The other state fair tracks up north take the other dates? Financially that would make morse sense. If it's a state run enterprise it would only need to support itself and cut out a profit structure. Which I think is where the game might be headed...? That could also return the purses to a level that supports the 1st class racing the state is accustomed to.

The state has already hired somebody to consult on the future use of the Del Mar property....safe to say its probably not going to be the only horse racing track left if the rest of the circuit collapses. As somebody who has been visiting the local Socal tracks since the 80's the answer is pretty simple. People stopped going to the tracks and betting. With far less income the track doesn't have the money for purses and they cannot get the quality and number of horses they used to. The races become terrible and people don't want to bet on a bad product. Its a vicious cycle that eventually leads to the tracks closure no matter who runs it. You look at the tracks closed or maybe in the process of closing they are different owners. Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park (CDI). Pomona Fairplex (State of California). Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita (Stronach Group).

[bisket]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Respectfully, would those funds not be available for other things if not for sports funding or was the original intention to provide for sports?

The slots referendum was passed with the public knowing the taxes would increase racing purses, and help fund construction to update schools. LOL the marijuana referendum passed for 2 reasons. Enough people wanted to smoke it, and the others were tired of paying for 2 hots and cot while they were in jail. The stadiums were built with money coming out of ticket prices to pay for the loans and maintain the stadiums. The Orioles were for sale recently and there wasn't much of a chance they would move. The Angelos family ran the team into the ground, but Camden Yards was recently voted the best stadium in the country. So responsibility to maintain the stadiums and the track falls to Maryland Stadium Authority. If the Oriole ownership owned and maintained Camden Yards, it would probably look like Pimlico right now...

https://www.southbmore.com/2024/03/2...XiyF4IMdl8n13M

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

The state has already hired somebody to consult on the future use of the Del Mar property....safe to say its probably not going to be the only horse racing track left if the rest of the circuit collapses. As somebody who has been visiting the local Socal tracks since the 80's the answer is pretty simple. People stopped going to the tracks and betting.

This. But also, the game nationalized and even globalized.

In the old days, our good weather and rich economy meant that we offered big purses and drew big crowds, which then drew top stables and jockeys and owners to California to participate. It was a virtuous cycle. When I first started going to the races as a kid, Santa Anita averaged 27,000 people on track racing 5 days a week, and Hollywood Park was similar (and was down a bit from averaging 30,000 people in the 1950's and 1960's). Think about those numbers. Typical weekend crowds were over 40,000; big races drew 50,000, 60,000, even 80,000 on occasion! When Seattle Slew came to Hollywood Park on July 3, 1977 you couldn't even move around the grandstand it was so crowded.

And a major point here-- we sustained this even for years after other markets declined. I remember the first time I went to see a race in New York, the 1986 Marlboro Cup. And I was shocked at the tiny crowd at Belmont Park-- because that sort of race would easily draw 50,000 at Santa Anita. NYRA's attendance for everything but the Belmont and Travers was terrible at that point (and even their Belmont crowds were much lower than what they draw now). California was flying high.

What happened? Simulcasting and Dubai happened. Simulcasting completely changed the economics of the game. Since bettors could bet on any race they wanted to, they no longer were wedded to whatever the local track offered. And that also meant that tracks that drew nobody on track but had lower labor costs, lower takeouts, and slot or casino or state subsidy money could out-compete California for handle. And our attendance collapsed and we were never able to compete in the new completely handle-driven marketplace, because our costs were high and we didn't have any subsidies.

Dubai is the other thing. It's a subtle point. But Santa Anita's "big race" attendance held on a lot longer than its average attendance. Santa Anita still staged the Santa Anita Handicap as an "event" and had prep races feeding it. And people still came. But Dubai absolutely destroyed the Santa Anita Handicap with its gigantic purses which Santa Anita cannot compete with. Indeed, the Santa Anita Handicap's purse has been DECLINING, despite inflation, from $1 million in 1986 to $400,000 this year. And it draws nobody special and nobody in LA pays attention to it anymore. We lucked out in 2014 when Baffert, Lukas, and Ritvo didn't want to ship their horses to Dubai and we got one more great Santa Anita Handicap (which drew a small but enthusiastic crowd but produced the second fastest 1 1/4 miles on dirt of all time), but the race is dead and the notion of Santa Anita as the "Great Race Place" is also dead.

Santa Anita was an attendance- and star-driven track. It can't compete in the new world where all that matters is handle, nobody cares about stars (and indeed, horse racing doesn't even really produce them anymore because any male horse that does anything impressive immediately goes to stud), and the top horses are all lured to the Middle East in the winter to run. It's really over and it's just a matter of when.

[horsefan2019]

Exactly, it was a track whose glory and time was another era. The world moved onto satellite wagering and now betting on your cell phone and computer. Other tracks offer bigger purses, bigger fields and better cards. Hard to see how the track survives considering its been losing millions of dollars according to the articles I've been reading.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

Exactly, it was a track whose glory and time was another era. The world moved onto satellite wagering and now betting on your cell phone and computer. Other tracks offer bigger purses, bigger fields and better cards. Hard to see how the track survives considering its been losing millions of dollars according to the articles I've been reading.

I look forward to the Big cap every year. I understand where you're coming from because race fans everywhere are going through the same thing. Racing is just gonna get smaller, and it will survive where people want it too. I think there's plenty of people that want racing to survive in California, but it's gonna be tough to sustain every day all year.

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by bisket

I look forward to the Big cap every year. I understand where you're coming from because race fans everywhere are going through the same thing. Racing is just gonna get smaller, and it will survive where people want it too. I think there's plenty of people that want racing to survive in California, but it's gonna be tough to sustain every day all year.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think the Big Cap is still a big deal, but its probably in my mind and how I remember what the race used to be. It used to be one of their big attendance days, now not so much. The Santa Anita Derby which used to share the same purse now has the sole glory of being the track's richest race and it being on the Road to the Kentucky Derby has surpassed it.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This. But also, the game nationalized and even globalized.

In the old days, our good weather and rich economy meant that we offered big purses and drew big crowds, which then drew top stables and jockeys and owners to California to participate. It was a virtuous cycle. When I first started going to the races as a kid, Santa Anita averaged 27,000 people on track racing 5 days a week, and Hollywood Park was similar (and was down a bit from averaging 30,000 people in the 1950's and 1960's). Think about those numbers. Typical weekend crowds were over 40,000; big races drew 50,000, 60,000, even 80,000 on occasion! When Seattle Slew came to Hollywood Park on July 3, 1977 you couldn't even move around the grandstand it was so crowded.

And a major point here-- we sustained this even for years after other markets declined. I remember the first time I went to see a race in New York, the 1986 Marlboro Cup. And I was shocked at the tiny crowd at Belmont Park-- because that sort of race would easily draw 50,000 at Santa Anita. NYRA's attendance for everything but the Belmont and Travers was terrible at that point (and even their Belmont crowds were much lower than what they draw now). California was flying high.

What happened? Simulcasting and Dubai happened. Simulcasting completely changed the economics of the game. Since bettors could bet on any race they wanted to, they no longer were wedded to whatever the local track offered. And that also meant that tracks that drew nobody on track but had lower labor costs, lower takeouts, and slot or casino or state subsidy money could out-compete California for handle. And our attendance collapsed and we were never able to compete in the new completely handle-driven marketplace, because our costs were high and we didn't have any subsidies.

Dubai is the other thing. It's a subtle point. But Santa Anita's "big race" attendance held on a lot longer than its average attendance. Santa Anita still staged the Santa Anita Handicap as an "event" and had prep races feeding it. And people still came. But Dubai absolutely destroyed the Santa Anita Handicap with its gigantic purses which Santa Anita cannot compete with. Indeed, the Santa Anita Handicap's purse has been DECLINING, despite inflation, from $1 million in 1986 to $400,000 this year. And it draws nobody special and nobody in LA pays attention to it anymore. We lucked out in 2014 when Baffert, Lukas, and Ritvo didn't want to ship their horses to Dubai and we got one more great Santa Anita Handicap (which drew a small but enthusiastic crowd but produced the second fastest 1 1/4 miles on dirt of all time), but the race is dead and the notion of Santa Anita as the "Great Race Place" is also dead.

Santa Anita was an attendance- and star-driven track. It can't compete in the new world where all that matters is handle, nobody cares about stars (and indeed, horse racing doesn't even really produce them anymore because any male horse that does anything impressive immediately goes to stud), and the top horses are all lured to the Middle East in the winter to run. It's really over and it's just a matter of when.

Some of my favorite racing memories are from Santa Anita. When Maryland barns had a top runner they always spent the winter at Santa Anita. Broad Broad Brush nipping Ferdinand at the wire. The bald eagle ate those words lol

YouTube

Spectacular Bid setting a new record in the Malibu and Strub Stakes

YouTube

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

The argument, of course, completely falls apart when you bring NY into the equation.

Stop bringing your political crap into the racing rooms.

First, NY and CA politics are not the same on all issues.

Second, if you are going to tell me the local politics don't matter to racing, that's nonsensical.

NY state has traditionally been fairly kind to the racing industry in general. A loan with attractive terms to rebuild Belmont, casino money being part of the overall business model of racing, and a very strong breeding program are all part of that. None of that "had" to happen, but it did because racing has a strong lobby, friends in Albany, there wasn't strong resistance from the public and the state sees some benefit.

CA is in an entirely different area of the political spectrum. If the state was really interested in saving CA racing, the jobs, etc... they'd do something about it that would at least hold off the demise for awhile. IMO, it won't because the politics won't allow for it. It's a smaller part of a bigger pie and the overall population has a different set of priorities. So, IMO CA racing is on a slow path to doom. And like other industries in the state that face similar challenges, there will be a flight out of owners, trainers, breeders etc.. or they'll simply leave the business. Friendlier places like Oaklawn stand to benefit from the flight out.

[bisket]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

First, NY and CA politics are not the same on all issues.

Second, if you are going to tell me the local politics don't matter to racing, that's nonsensical.

NY state has traditionally been fairly kind to the racing industry in general. A loan with attractive terms to rebuild Belmont, casino money being part of the overall business model of racing, and a very strong breeding program are all part of that. None of that "had" to happen, but it did because racing has a strong lobby, friends in Albany, there wasn't strong resistance from the public and the state sees some benefit.

CA is in an entirely different area of the political spectrum. If the state was really interested in saving CA racing, the jobs, etc... they'd do something about it that would at least hold off the demise for awhile. IMO, it won't because the politics won't allow for it. It's a smaller part of a bigger pie and the overall population has a different set of priorities. So, IMO CA racing is on a slow path to doom. And like other industries in the state that face similar challenges, there will be a flight out of owners, trainers, breeders etc.. or they'll simply leave the business. Friendlier places like Oaklawn stand to benefit from the flight out.

In all fairness 1st racing hasn’t put pressure on anyone in state politics in California to help racing. In MD1st Racing didn’t want anything to do with it until the breeders got the purse enhancements. At the same time they realized their financial model wasn’t working. They actively worked against the casino money mixing with racing. Their plan was to decrease racing dates and make purses larger to compete with New York and Kentucky. Maryland was never on that level financially. Maryland was about supporting their farms and racing in general. The farms and politicians educated voters about what was needed to help racing. None of that ever took place in California. Horse racing is very popular in California and I’d venture to say maybe voters would support racing if given the chance. Racing is local issue and it doesn’t register with the national back and forth circus in national politics today. I’d agree with Pace and little guy’s posts on that.