JC / Railbird

Later Today

Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA will resume talks, reports Lynne Snierson:

Frisoli said on Feb. 16 that a conference call among the negotiating teams for both sides has been scheduled for late afternoon on Thursday (Feb. 17)….

“We want to race this year and we want to have a good relationship with them,” said Frisoli. “We have been flexible and they have been rigid. But now they want to talk to us, and that is a good sign.”

Regarding revenue lost to simulcasting signals blocked as part of the dispute, NEHBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli told the Blood-Horse: “Although we believe that Suffolk caused this dispute and should therefore equitably be held accountable for the loss, we are still agreeing to share the loss.” That’s magnanimous.

Elsewhere: A Saturday Afternoon Horse praises the NEHBPA, chastises Suffolk:

Isn’t it the responsibility of the business owner to keep his customers happy? And with that in mind, didn’t management know that the simulcast signal would be pulled if they weren’t serious and sensitive to the horsemen’s interests and concerns? Of course the fans are unhappy, but that’s managements’ problem to resolve.

No, it’s not. We’ve heard several times during this dispute that the track should treat the horsemen as equal partners. If equal applies to revenue, then it applies to taking care of customers. Bettors fund purses — in slots-less Massachusetts, it’s as simple as that — and each time a simulcasting signal is cavalierly cut, or a bet is blocked on an ADW because of a squabble, revenue is lost not only at that moment, but later, because fans leave the game. The more customers alienated, the smaller purses paid — making unhappy horseplayers a problem for the horsemen as much as for the racetrack.

More on Tuttle’s Tuesday letter: “… little to endorse and much to dispute …


2 Comments

Jessica,
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I don’t think the signal was cut in a cavalier manner. Not after what happen last summer when the meet started with no contract and with a “good will handshake”. That the purses were cut, ( 30+%) shortly after everyone moved in and was settled, was not the way for management to show good will. That hurt, and the horsemen did not want to be in that position yet again this year. And Suffolk knew full well, what the consequences would be (no signal) and that directly hurts the fans. It hurts the horsemen too.
IMO, To let everything get to this point, is a direct result of the insincerity of management to not take negotiations seriously.
Many of those fans you are concerned about are also horseowners who do not want to walk away from Suffolk but at the same time, cannot continue owning horses if things do not improve.
Let’s hope that today’s negotiations will be successful. Thank you again for covering this.

Posted by Susan on February 17, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

Susan, we’re more in agreement than we are disagreement. When Suffolk cut the purses by 26% last August, mid-meet, it was devastating, and the horsemen are right to insist this year on a contract that will provide purses at a level that will support the backstretch.

We do differ in our opinions on management’s sincerity.

As for the signal, Frisoli told me that the horsemen pulled NYRA because they felt all options had been exhausted. That may be. Pulling signals is often the most significant leverage horsemen (everywhere, not only in Massachusetts) have in a dispute and they use it. Which is what you’re saying, re: “the consequences.” But I think your argument itself proves how abused is the power — in your view, management should know that horsemen are at the ready to block, and so should tread carefully in any negotiations. My point is that horsemen should take that action with more awareness of the impact on their customers (and racing fans are horsemen’s customers).

Something else we agree on — here’s hoping today’s talks go well.

Posted by Jessica on February 17, 2011 @ 3:25 pm