Goodbye Meadowlands! Gural? Luchento? NJSEA? Who is the moron?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Meadowlands just raised their host fee 40% for the 2011 season.

Whoever approved the raise is a moron.

If Gural did, he's a moron.....if he didn't he's a moron because he will be taking over a track in which somebody ran it's biggest bettors off before he took charge.

How can a track that is losing customers, has a horrendous product and is in trouble think that raising it's prices on it's best customers is a good business decision? Oh wait.....I understand.....they are trying to out-moron the morons in CA.

I bet the Meadowlands with both hands the last couple months during their fall meet to support NJ racing even though their product was crap and I knew that I probably wouldn't do any good. Now as a return gift, they kick you in the balls and raise their prices by 40% on the people that supported them.

Fvck them!

I have to go take a long shower.....I feel dirty from being violated.

[woodtoo]

That's robbery,someone call the cops.

[The Bit]

Is a link available for this? I'm assuming you are talking about take out?

[wilderness]

Originally Posted by The Bit

Is a link available for this? I'm assuming you are talking about take out?

NO.
He's referring to the simulcast signal fee paid by those tracks that import the Meadowlands signal.

I'm really not sure how that effects wagering, with the exception that tracks with borderline profits on their local wagers that are exported to the Meadowlands, may drop the simulcast.

I've NEVER seen an industry chart published of what all the North American tracks are charging for the signal. I'm sure it would be an interesting thing to compare.

[lamboguy]

i have to agree with him. these guys running racing anywhere are BRAIN DEAD.

they all have managed to blow up a great business by being stupid. i see so more and more of this stuff, it makes my head spin.

[wilderness]

Perhaps somebody might be realistic and provide what the old and new hosting fees are for the Meadowlands.

5k a night per track?
10k
20k?

How much is WEG charging?

How much is Northfield Charging?

What's that average complete day hosting fees for a track that simulcasts 20-tracks?

Add the later up and then add the exported local dollars to imported signals and you'll see why so many smaller tracks are failing. And, why horsemen are abandoning the smaller markets.
Why every track is seeking subsidy in one form or another.

Bottom line is that there are simply too many hands in the pie!

As previously offered, hosting fees CANNOT be added on to a wagered dollar.

[The Bit]

How does this effect the wagering public? Other than the possibility of the signal being dropped from certain outlets.

I never even considered this being what itp was talking about.

[Robert Goren]

I am assuming that it will effect the size of rebates that ADWs will be able to give.

[wilderness]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I am assuming that it will effect the size of rebates that ADWs will be able to give.

Does your reference to "ADW's" imply non-NJ ADW's?

Than personally, I'm all for it.

Why should the tracks incur all the expenses, while not having the capability to offer rebates and allow a non-NJ entity with less or no-overhead to take away their customers?

It's my understanding that one of laws submitted by NJ legislators was to allow ADW accounts within NJ, by non-NJ residents (which does not exist currently).

The next step should be, for the resident state of non-NJ ADW account holder to impose a higher take-out on dollars wagered with NJ (or any other state/province that account is not a resident of) ADW's WHEN a LOCAL PRODUCT offers live racing.
Simultaneously, when a resident wagers on a local product the take-out should be reduced.

We've all enjoyed the benefits of simulcasting/OTB (IMO there's no difference), whilst our local products deteriorate. Yet nobody is imposing national actions to revive these smaller local tracks that have been in dire need far longer (and deeper) than the Meadowlands.
The time has come for all us to "pay the fiddler".

"Comp" the resident for wagering on their local product.
"Penalize" the resident for wagering on a non-local product.

[Charles54]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I am assuming that it will effect the size of rebates that ADWs will be able to give.

Exactly. This seems like an excellent business strategy that should help both "regular" bettors and the industry as a whole.

Allowing "preferred" customers to obtain rebates is extremely bad for everyone else. For racing has compete with on-line poker and sports betting in the "skill" wagering arena; it has to do everything possible to get rid of the whales and the bots. They are destroying the underlying game.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

When host fees go up (especially 40%).....

It eliminates any chance of future takeout reductions.

It reduces or eliminates any rebates, incentives, free stuff, etc. that ADW's offer to their customers.

It squeezes the lemon dry for smaller simulcasting venues that are showing their product...example....Meadowlands tells small track that they want 2x for every $ wagered on their product but only want to pay 1x for every $ wagered on the small track (or don't even take their signal at all)....basically it gouges the smaller tracks.

[wilderness]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

When host fees go up (especially 40%).....

It eliminates any chance of future takeout reductions.

It reduces or eliminates any rebates, incentives, free stuff, etc. that ADW's offer to their customers.

It squeezes the lemon dry for smaller simulcasting venues that are showing their product...example....Meadowlands tells small track that they want 2x for every $ wagered on their product but only want to pay 1x for every $ wagered on the small track (or don't even take their signal at all)....basically it gouges the smaller tracks.

Still say that unless your able to provide the numbers I previously mentioned that you offer no solid evidence that a 40% increase for the Meadowlands host fee is not within comparison of what other tracks are charging.

In effect, unless you provide the numbers, your just "crying wolf"!

[The Bit]

Why does it eliminate future take out reductions?

And what is the actual increase? Is it 10% to 50%? Or is it 10% to 14%? Big difference.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by wilderness

Still say that unless your able to provide the numbers I previously mentioned that you offer no solid evidence that a 40% increase for the Meadowlands host fee is not within comparison of what other tracks are charging.

In effect, unless you provide the numbers, your just "crying wolf"!

You are asking him to compare the M to other "harness tracks" like it is some sort of panacea?

All tracks are in the toilet. Following other tracks host fees who are in the toilet only makes the toilet more crowded.

[JustRalph]

This thread is a great example of why we need HANA