Penn National chairman Peter Carlino and CHRB vice chairman David Israel don’t agree on the value of supplementing purses, but they do on racing’s demographic. “There aren’t sufficient numbers of racing customers in the world anymore because they died,” Carlino said today in an investors and analysts conference call. “The average age of our ontrack customer is deceased, and the average age of our satellite customer is decomposed,” Israel told attendees of the UA-RTIP symposium last December. At least Israel went on to talk about reaching out to potential un-dead fans.
HANA president Jeff Platt, a racing customer very much alive, talks to Jack Shinar about the month-long players’ boycott of California. “Right now I believe there are a number of people in track management that are considering going to the CHRB to ask that it rescind the takeout increase,” said Platt, who took part in recent meetings with track executives. “The TOC is being very tight-lipped about this. This was a horsemen’s idea, after all, not a track idea.” No comment on the boycott from the TOC to Shinar. (Are they just considering, or have they already had discussions about rescinding the takeout increase? That’s an interesting question, considering the depressed handle and what must be growing concern re: the purse account.)
The equine California makes his debut in race eight at Gulfstream on Saturday in the first race at Gulfstream on Sunday. Trainer Todd Pletcher scratched the Madcap Escapade colt from a race that included barnmate Cal Nation, a half-brother to graded stakes winner Bluegrass Cat, and re-entered him in a race that came up a little less contentious. John Velazquez is named to ride on Sunday, instead of Ramon Dominguez, who had the mount in Saturday’s race.
2/7/11 Addendum: California finished third in his first start.
Posted by JC in Industry on 02/03/2011 @ 10:02 pm / Tagged Boycott, California, California (Horse), HANA, Horseplayers, Marketing, Penn National / Follow @railbird on Twitter
Yesterday’s post may have been intemperate. Via Twitter, I heard from a New England horseman that the dispute with Suffolk Downs is one of fairness. “[W]e … just want what every other racing jurisdiction gets, a 50/50 split on simo revenues, not 75/25 split for suf.” For another, who prefers anonymity, it’s about protecting the state-mandated days the horsemen have now and the Massachusetts breeding program, which registered two foals in 2010. “If the Downs runs less days this year, it won’t run more next year,” he said. “We’ll never see those days again.” Underlying the fight over purses and dates is also the memory of purse reductions last August following the failure of expanded gaming legislation, cuts that left many on the backstretch feeling demoralized.
That the horsemen have legitimate concerns isn’t in question. They’re fighting for their livelihoods, and they’re in a desperate spot. And, of course, there’s the possibility of slots. Everyone wants to hang on, in case …
And yet, Lynne Snierson’s Blood-Horse report on Suffolk’s “militant” horsemen was a stunning read. The NEHBPA’s stance belies broader trends in racing; there are reasons contraction is a hot topic across the industry. The tactic was tried at Rockingham; there is no thoroughbred racing at Rockingham anymore. Suffolk, legislatively freed to run shorter meets, may not run 100-plus day meets again, but horses won’t race at all in East Boston if the track is closed, and very few outside Massachusetts would notice. “If [horsemen] continue to thumb their noses at Suffolk Downs in hopes for a currently non-existent alterative venue in Massachusetts in which to conduct thoroughbred racing,” writes Foolish Pleasure, “do they seriously believe anyone outside of their little circle will care when the lights go out for good there?” A Paulick Report commenter certainly doesn’t: “Good luck running those horses anywhere else.”
Posted by JC in Industry on 02/03/2011 @ 1:29 pm / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Horsemen, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Suffolk Downs / Follow @railbird on Twitter
Frustrated by a breakdown in negotiations with Suffolk Downs over 2011 purses and race dates, the lawyer representing the New England horsemen’s group is considering alternate venues for live racing, reports the Blood-Horse:
“If Suffolk Downs doesn’t want to work with us, we’ll find someone else that does. There is no reason we have to have live racing at Suffolk Downs.â€
The New England horsemen are good people, but this is mad, as is their lawyer Frank Frisoli’s assertion that, “Suffolk [management] can recognize that we’re a partnership, or they can continue to stick their head in the sand.”
It’s not management that’s playing ostrich. Over the past four years, Suffolk has restored parts of the cut stakes schedule, fixed up bits of the grandstand and backstretch, celebrated a 75th anniversary — and lost $40 million keeping racing going. That’s not because Suffolk management is filled with altruists — if expanded gaming ever comes to Massachusetts, the track expects returns on that money many times over — but it has gallantly sustained the unsustainable. The message being sent this winter, and which the horsemen can’t seem to hear for the sand in their ears, is blunt — no more.
Posted by JC in Industry on 02/02/2011 @ 10:16 am / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Horsemen, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Suffolk Downs / Follow @railbird on Twitter
