NYRA to Vegas: Pay us double

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Let's say NYRA agreed with you and cut the signal price to 2.5% to Vegas casinos. What would the casinos do for their horse book customers?

Completely different subject. Not relevent to this discussion.

Of course they would do nothing

But that's a different issue. When you are losing revenue, and your product is in decline, raising prices is a sure way to the poor house.

But........

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Why is it greed? They want a decent return on their employed capital. I say the casinos are greedy - they should pay more for the signal. You, the player, should not be impacted by the casinos' higher costs. For the past 25 years, the signal buyers have earned the fattest part of the margin in the value chain. It doesn't make sense.

Vegas gives comps on horse bets, the player would be impacted.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Are ADWs legal in Nevada?

NO !!

[Rex Phinney]

I spend a lot of time in Vegas. I assure you the only sport they give two craps about is football. It makes them all their money.

If you are selling anything but football and asking for more $$$ out of the casino pocket you better be prepared for the casino to cut the cord.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Are you talking about LV's greed wanting NYRA's signal for only 5-6%, or NYRA's greed wanting 10-12%

Personally, I think 10-12% is about right for a bet taker that is not using simulcast revenue to subsidize live racing purses.

Give me a break! 10-12% is too high for even the suckers who bet at the track with no rebate of any kind. 5-6% may be the optimal takeout rate to generate the most revenue. But, alas, we will never know, because the tracks and the horsemen will never ever try it. They would rather go out of business than try attract gamblers to the game. The only thing keeping racing alive is online betting and the OTBs/simulcast centers and now they seem intent on killing them off. Horse racing seems intent on committing suicide and this move is yet another sleeping pill mixed with gin.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Where do you find all these perfectly run businesses outside of racing? I'm serious - you're always referencing businesses outside of racing, and you always intimate that you get exactly what you want. Maybe you could make a Tom's Preferred List - start with airlines, hotels and restaurants.

Your post makes no sense, other than being a A****** reply.
I made no references to any perfect businesses - I used a diner as an example of having the same expectations I do of a race track.

Try to work on your reading comprehension before you work on being clever.

[JustRalph]

There are no perfect businesses. but there are some that run very very well and are famous for taking care of their customers and providing a great product

[grimm7]

Any successful business wants their product to reach as many customers as possible. Withholding signals doesn't accomplish this. Racing would rather have nothing instead of something.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

Your post makes no sense, other than being a A****** reply.
I made no references to any perfect businesses - I used a diner as an example of having the same expectations I do of a race track.

Try to work on your reading comprehension before you work on being clever.

You really are a petulant child at times; it's a shame b/c you're obviously a very smart guy. Someone disagrees with you, though, and you go off on emotional and/or ad hominem rants. No offense, but I think know as much or more about running a business than you. And I said you "intimate" other businesses are run perfectly. Re-read my post. In any case, I enjoy your knee-jerk/visceral reactions - very entertaining.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Completely different subject. Not relevent to this discussion.

Of course they would do nothing

But that's a different issue. When you are losing revenue, and your product is in decline, raising prices is a sure way to the poor house.

But........

Depends on the lifecycle of the business. The vast, vast majority of the time I agree with your statement, of course.

My point is relevant, though, imo. I want the OEM (producer of the product) to capture the most value. I want the distributor to capture the least value. I'm not making radical suggestions or anything that is inconsistent with classic micro-economic analysis. No one on this board is allowed to side with the tracks, it seems (postings are allowed of course; that isn't the point). Tracks are viewed as inherently bad, and ADWs/other distributors are viewed as inherently good. To me, those views are incorrect.

In the mid to late 80s as simulcast started to take hold, the tracks underpriced their product. I think most agree with that statement. Many posters say, "tough, they were stupid." No, they didn't correctly see into the future. Honestly in 1985, who would have predicted many tracks would produce 90% of their revenue off-track? Not many. Many want the tracks to live with this incorrect prediction forever. I say no. I say the ADWs/simulcast outlets extract too much value. They should absorb higher fees; they should not pass along the higher fees to customers.

[Tom]

And I said you "intimate" other businesses are run perfectly.

No I did not say this. Learn to read.
I compare two situations, not businesses.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Tom

No I did not say this. Learn to read.
I compare two situations, not businesses.

Intimate - implied. Anyway, let's not argue over that point. If it makes you happy, I'll say you didn't imply anything and I'm an idiot.

I just think the tracks underpriced their signal about 30 yrs ago (see my response to Ralph). Should the tracks have to live with that bad decision forever? Other businesses misprice their goods and services and make adjustments.

[classhandicapper]

It sounds like a lot of this is just posturing.

Without seeing everyone's books, it's hard to know the price where both sides can make an adequate and fair return on their investment (assuming there is one).

Generally though, I don't see how it can be a good idea to ask for more from anyone when your product is losing market share to other forms of gambling. It's kind of like when politicians raise taxes to balance the budget when the economy is in the crapper. That's a bad idea. You ask for more when you are in a position of strength and can easily absorb any potential downside from taking more. I think racing needs to focus on expanding the pie, not figuring out how to get a bigger piece of a shrinking one.

[Dave Schwartz]

Are ADWs legal in Nevada?

There are two that will take NV residents that I am aware of.

Anyone interested in knowing which two should email (not message) me privately.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Depends on the lifecycle of the business. The vast, vast majority of the time I agree with your statement, of course.

My point is relevant, though, imo. I want the OEM (producer of the product) to capture the most value. I want the distributor to capture the least value. I'm not making radical suggestions or anything that is inconsistent with classic micro-economic analysis. No one on this board is allowed to side with the tracks, it seems (postings are allowed of course; that isn't the point). Tracks are viewed as inherently bad, and ADWs/other distributors are viewed as inherently good. To me, those views are incorrect.

In the mid to late 80s as simulcast started to take hold, the tracks underpriced their product. I think most agree with that statement. Many posters say, "tough, they were stupid." No, they didn't correctly see into the future. Honestly in 1985, who would have predicted many tracks would produce 90% of their revenue off-track? Not many. Many want the tracks to live with this incorrect prediction forever. I say no. I say the ADWs/simulcast outlets extract too much value. They should absorb higher fees; they should not pass along the higher fees to customers.

The ADW issue and the Las Vegas issue are two separate things, Mike. The tracks are right when they go after the ADWs for their fair share...because the ADWs are taking money out of the track's pocket. If I choose to wager with an ADW instead of heading out to the track...then the track is LOSING MONEY. But Las Vegas is catering to a group of bettors who wouldn't otherwise bet a NICKEL if racing ceased to exist there. There in no "negative" side to selling the track signal to Nevada...because the track only GAINS by doing so. If you don't sell the signal there, then you just lose the customers...plain and simple. Withholding your signal will not entice anyone in Las Vegas to wager on your races in any other way.

Raise your price slightly if you feel that you are undercharging...but don't get ridiculous and end up shooting yourself in the foot.