Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 06-18-2018, 02:02 PM   #46
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
WPS takeout = 16.77% as opposed to 15.43%

Exacta Takeout = 24.2% as opposed to 22.68%

Tri and Super Takeout = 25.02% as opposed to 23.68%

Daily Double Takeout = 24.02% as opposed to 20%

P3, P4, P5, and P6 takeout = 25.02% as opposed to 23.68%

Fairs are NOT NTRA accredited, have surfaces that are less safe for horses and jockeys, and charge abusively higher takeout rates.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 02:14 PM   #47
AlsoEligible
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
Isn't TSG's business model to eliminate the competition and consolidate operations.

See, SoCal, NoCal, SoFla, Md.
Sure, but what corporation's business model doesn't include consolidating operations and minimizing competition in order to maximize profit? That's capitalism 101.

The idea that GGF should continue operating at a loss to help subsidize the rest of Northern California is ridiculous. They've already been doing that for years, no one at the CHRB or any other acronym gave a shit about fixing the broken model, and now TSG is saying enough is enough.

Now guys like Avioli and Baedeker are saying "let's just keep going with the model we have, and then we'll figure out a way to make it work for everyone", but that's bullshit. People have been talking about this issue since at least 2010 (Source), and nothing has been done. These bureaucrats have, and will continue, to kick this can down the road for as long as they're able to.

Personally I applaud Ritvo for finally drawing a line in the sand. If the whole thing blows up and NorCal racing goes under, I'm blaming the entities that had decades to address this, and neglected their responsibilities....not the guy who's just trying to run a business.

EDIT: More from the article I linked (2010):

Quote:
Jack Liebau, president of Hollywood Park, said both SCOTWINC and the Northern California off-track wagering system, NCOTWINC, "have problems as far as solvency is concerned."

The situation in the north isn't much better. A NCOTWINC report estimated its deficit at $2.7 million from 2005 to 2009, an amount that has been carried so far by Golden Gate Fields.
That's the same Lieabau who is now spearheading a lawsuit against the CHRB, arguing that GGF shouldn't be allowed to race without utilizing an OTB network that he admitted is insolvent.

Last edited by AlsoEligible; 06-18-2018 at 02:19 PM.
AlsoEligible is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 02:16 PM   #48
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible View Post
Sure, but what corporation's business model doesn't include consolidating operations and minimizing competition in order to maximize profit? That's capitalism 101.

The idea that GGF should continue operating at a loss to help subsidize the rest of Northern California is ridiculous. They've already been doing that for years, no one at the CHRB or any other acronym gave a shit about fixing the broken model, and now TSG is saying enough is enough.

Now guys like Avioli and Baedeker are saying "let's just keep going with the model we have, and then we'll figure out a way to make it work for everyone", but that's bullshit. People have been talking about this issue since at least 2010 (Source), and nothing has been done. These bureaucrats have, and will continue, to kick this can down the road for as long as they're able to.

Personally I applaud Ritvo for finally drawing a line in the sand. If the whole thing blows up and NorCal racing goes under, I'm blaming the entities that had decades to address this, and neglected their responsibilities....not the guy who's just trying to run a business.
+1
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 02:22 PM   #49
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible View Post
Sure, but what corporation's business model doesn't include consolidating operations and minimizing competition in order to maximize profit? That's capitalism 101.

The idea that GGF should continue operating at a loss to help subsidize the rest of Northern California is ridiculous. They've already been doing that for years, no one at the CHRB or any other acronym gave a shit about fixing the broken model, and now TSG is saying enough is enough.

Now guys like Avioli and Baedeker are saying "let's just keep going with the model we have, and then we'll figure out a way to make it work for everyone", but that's bullshit. People have been talking about this issue since at least 2010 (Source), and nothing has been done. These bureaucrats have, and will continue, to kick this can down the road for as long as they're able to.

Personally I applaud Ritvo for finally drawing a line in the sand. If the whole thing blows up and NorCal racing goes under, I'm blaming the entities that had decades to address this, and neglected their responsibilities....not the guy who's just trying to run a business.

EDIT: More from the article I linked (2010):



That's the same Lieabau who is now spearheading a lawsuit against the CHRB, arguing that GGF shouldn't be allowed to race without utilizing an OTB network that he admitted is insolvent.
Liebau is a real piece of work. He's in his twilight years and still can't resist working against the best interest of California Racing to please his buddies.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 02:38 PM   #50
Denny
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 621
AE,

Granted I'm speaking as an outsider, an Easterner not very knowledgeable with how things work in California.

Sure it's Business 101 in capitalistic America. I'm not naive.

But, let me ask this?
Why does everyone think Stronach is such a fan of Thoroughbred racing, when really all he's interested in as a businessman is eliminating competition?
Why do people think he's good for the sport?

His vision of the sport is entirely about himself controlling a good portion of it.

I'm no fan of Bay Meadows closing, Hollywood Park closing, Calder selling out to Stronach and only racing for one month to give GP a break, Pimlico down to a few weeks with it's future existence in question.

There's a recurring pattern evident, and Stronach is why IMO.
Denny is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 02:40 PM   #51
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Arizona horsemen have lower costs. So do New Mexico.

And the assumption is that fewer races = bigger fields.
So it sounds like you think that all of California should end racing and relocate to AZ or NM. The field sizes would be enormous.

In the good ole days No. Cal was essentially the minor leagues and So Cal the majors. Now So Cal has taken a deep dive into the minor leagues creating a high demand for cheap horses that doesn't help either circuit. While consolidation can be good for many businesses I can't see horse quality or quantity being increased as a result.

Last edited by AndyC; 06-18-2018 at 02:42 PM.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 03:27 PM   #52
AlsoEligible
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
AE,

Granted I'm speaking as an outsider, an Easterner not very knowledgeable with how things work in California.

Sure it's Business 101 in capitalistic America. I'm not naive.

But, let me ask this?
Why does everyone think Stronach is such a fan of Thoroughbred racing, when really all he's interested in as a businessman is eliminating competition?
Why do people think he's good for the sport?

His vision of the sport is entirely about himself controlling a good portion of it.

I'm no fan of Bay Meadows closing, Hollywood Park closing, Calder selling out to Stronach and only racing for one month to give GP a break, Pimlico down to a few weeks with it's future existence in question.

There's a recurring pattern evident, and Stronach is why IMO.
I won't argue that Stronach is ego-driven, and at the end of the day he is running a business, not a charity. But I'll take him over a group like Churchill, who (aside from one weekend a year) just want to turn their tracks into casinos. There's a reason why Calder gave their dates to TSG/Gulfstream so willingly....because CDI has zero interest in running races there, even for a month.

Pimlico/Laurel is a whole different issue, and basically boils down to Pimlico being a crumbling track in a long-ago crumbled neighborhood. On its biggest day of the year, the roof was literally falling apart with water leaks throughout the track. They only run 1-2 weeks now because no one, patrons and employees alike, want to be caught dead in that area outside of Preakness weekend. I used to work night shifts there, and I don't blame them.

It would take an estimated $300-$500m to renovate and/or rebuild Pimlico, and it makes no business sense for TSG to spend that money when they already have a nicer facility 20 miles down the road (where they've already spent $30m and counting on renovations).

As for NorCal specifically, I would argue that year-round racing at GGF would be better for the sport. A number of the horsemen who have spoken up on this have stated that they would rather stay at one location than have to move around the state all summer; so it's better for them. GGF is a safer racing surface, so it's better for horses and jockeys. And GGF has lower takeouts than the fairs, so it's better for players.
AlsoEligible is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 03:44 PM   #53
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyC View Post
So it sounds like you think that all of California should end racing and relocate to AZ or NM. The field sizes would be enormous.

In the good ole days No. Cal was essentially the minor leagues and So Cal the majors. Now So Cal has taken a deep dive into the minor leagues creating a high demand for cheap horses that doesn't help either circuit. While consolidation can be good for many businesses I can't see horse quality or quantity being increased as a result.
The only reason we shouldn't end racing in California is because Del Mar is still reasonably profitable and Santa Anita is marginally profitable. I.e., we still have enough fans to occasionally fill up our tracks and produce revenue, and we can still draw handle.

But understand, our costs for horsemen and tracks are very high (especially our labor and tax environments), and we definitely can't compete very well for cheap horses with localities that have lower costs and lower taxes.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 04:02 PM   #54
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny View Post
AE,

Granted I'm speaking as an outsider, an Easterner not very knowledgeable with how things work in California.

Sure it's Business 101 in capitalistic America. I'm not naive.

But, let me ask this?
Why does everyone think Stronach is such a fan of Thoroughbred racing, when really all he's interested in as a businessman is eliminating competition?
Why do people think he's good for the sport?

His vision of the sport is entirely about himself controlling a good portion of it.

I'm no fan of Bay Meadows closing, Hollywood Park closing, Calder selling out to Stronach and only racing for one month to give GP a break, Pimlico down to a few weeks with it's future existence in question.

There's a recurring pattern evident, and Stronach is why IMO.
Here's the problem. In economics there's something called a "natural monopoly". This happens when it doesn't make any economic sense given the conditions of the market for there to be a second supplier.

A classic example is an electrical utility. Many municipalities have public utilities. But even if the electricity system is set up and run by a private company, it makes no sense to have a competitor. You only want one set of power lines running everywhere, you want a single company to be held accountable and who can be called on to fix outages, etc. So instead of encouraging competition, you just accept there's going to be a monopoly and regulate it.

Horse racing, because it has declined and is no longer a sport that a lot of people care about, has become closer and closer to a natural monopoly. When it was a healthy sport bringing in tons of money, sure, nothing wrong with having several track owners competing with each other. When I was a kid, the management teams of Santa Anita and Hollywood Park hated each other and almost never cooperated on anything. But they were both very profitable tracks. That competition was healthy for racing and arguably brought out a lot of innovations such as swag giveaways, exotic wagers, etc.

But nowadays, the most likely result of separate ownership is to increase the probability that the remaining tracks fail. I am not convinced there's any economic viability in running horse races in Northern California year round at all, but if there is, Stronach-- a person who is actually committed to trying to get racing to work-- will find it. You are far less likely to find it with separate owners.

Understand, as well, that because the general public doesn't care about our sport very much anymore, and because of the economics of simulcasting, contraction is inevitable. Closing Pimlico, to choose sort of the obvious example, is probably necessary for the long-term health of the sport. Pimlico sits on very valuable land, makes money only two race days a year, has great difficulty competing with other east coast racetracks some of which get slot revenues, and would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate. It's a lost cause. So if you like having racing in Maryland, consolidation at Laurel is a no-brainer. Stronach has a better chance of making it work if he only has to maintain and improve one track rather than two.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 06:55 PM   #55
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Here's the problem. In economics there's something called a "natural monopoly". This happens when it doesn't make any economic sense given the conditions of the market for there to be a second supplier.

A classic example is an electrical utility. Many municipalities have public utilities. But even if the electricity system is set up and run by a private company, it makes no sense to have a competitor. You only want one set of power lines running everywhere, you want a single company to be held accountable and who can be called on to fix outages, etc. So instead of encouraging competition, you just accept there's going to be a monopoly and regulate it.

Horse racing, because it has declined and is no longer a sport that a lot of people care about, has become closer and closer to a natural monopoly. When it was a healthy sport bringing in tons of money, sure, nothing wrong with having several track owners competing with each other. When I was a kid, the management teams of Santa Anita and Hollywood Park hated each other and almost never cooperated on anything. But they were both very profitable tracks. That competition was healthy for racing and arguably brought out a lot of innovations such as swag giveaways, exotic wagers, etc.

But nowadays, the most likely result of separate ownership is to increase the probability that the remaining tracks fail. I am not convinced there's any economic viability in running horse races in Northern California year round at all, but if there is, Stronach-- a person who is actually committed to trying to get racing to work-- will find it. You are far less likely to find it with separate owners.

Understand, as well, that because the general public doesn't care about our sport very much anymore, and because of the economics of simulcasting, contraction is inevitable. Closing Pimlico, to choose sort of the obvious example, is probably necessary for the long-term health of the sport. Pimlico sits on very valuable land, makes money only two race days a year, has great difficulty competing with other east coast racetracks some of which get slot revenues, and would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to renovate. It's a lost cause. So if you like having racing in Maryland, consolidation at Laurel is a no-brainer. Stronach has a better chance of making it work if he only has to maintain and improve one track rather than two.
Pimlico is in a ghetto-doubt the land is very valuable
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 07:30 PM   #56
GaryG
Unreconstructed
 
GaryG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Appalachia
Posts: 6,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afleet View Post
Pimlico is in a ghetto-doubt the land is very valuable
So is Inglewood....that land was valuable and they are building a football stadium there. Pimlico neighborhood is worse though IMO.
__________________
Deo Vindice
GaryG is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 07:50 PM   #57
gheuks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 193
The only value in the Pimlico land would be the fact that it’s close to Sinai hospital. Pretty sure they sold them a piece of land last year that they use for parking.
gheuks is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 08:28 PM   #58
Denny
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 621
I'd like to hear an African-American point of view on the neighborhood around Pimlico.

Unless you've lived or worked, as I have, in poorer neighborhoods most whites are afraid to be in predominant ly black neighborhoods.

I went to that track only once, was in Baltimore to see Camden Yards when it was first built. I thought the track was pretty much what I'd call a dump.
But, it looked like a lack of upkeep more than anything else was the reason.

I had no problem with the neighbourhood, either before or after the races.
And I'm a Caucasian - and was by myself. I've seen far worst in my travels in and out of just about every neighborhood in NYC.

I think lily white Frank Stronach and others in control are using the neighborhood as an excuse to shut down the track instead of spending some money on it.

That's my opinion on it.
Denny is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-18-2018, 11:16 PM   #59
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,789
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 06-19-2018, 12:30 AM   #60
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,873
Andy, unless DMR and SA have rolled back, they've been 16.43% for years.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.