Simulcasting
Betting Elsewhere
Not only was this past Saturday one of the first big days of Kentucky Derby preps, it was the first that local bettors couldn’t wager on several popular tracks through Suffolk Downs due to the dispute with the NEHBPA over the 2011 meet. Unsurprisingly, many opted to go elsewhere. “Not a lot of cars in the Suffolk Downs parking lot. Definite change from Saturday afternoons before the mess,” tweeted Jen Montfort, a CANTER New England volunteer.
A few of the missing cars were surely parked at Rockingham, less than 40 miles away in New Hampshire. Tom Gagney in the mutuels department didn’t have attendance numbers, but he did say that the former harness track turned simulcasting hall enjoyed a jump of approximately 30% in handle over the previous Saturday. “It went from $250,000 to $320,000,” said Gagney.
At Suffolk Downs, track officials indicated simulcasting handle on Saturday and Sunday was down about 50% from the equivalent weekend a year ago.
Officials at nearby Plainridge and Raynham simulcasting parlors, as well as Twin River Casino in Rhode Island, were unable or unavailable to comment.
At least one bettor went to Mohegan Sun* in Connecticut, where he reported being given a $50 voucher and a rebate on his wagers. “[T]he money that is leaving the state of Massachusetts during the days leading up to Triple Crown is huge,” warned Robert Antonelli in a post on Facebook.
The money leaving is also lost to the Suffolk purse account. So long as the dispute drags on, the less there will be this summer to fund purses, which are a point of contention along with days and the simulcasting split.
There’s little to suggest the impasse will end soon. The NEHBPA presented a counter-proposal to Suffolk’s January 26 offer last Thursday. The same day, Suffolk threatened to sue the group, NEHBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli told the Blood-Horse. As of early this afternoon, the horsemen had not received a response to their offer. “We’re still evaluating the proposal,” said Frisoli, is the last the group heard from track management, and that was on Friday.
Meanwhile, Suffolk has cut Wednesday from its simulcasting schedule because of revenue lost since the start of the dispute, when the NEHBPA pulled its permission for the NYRA feed. Horsemen’s groups in Florida, Maryland, Ohio, and Oregon later pulled feeds in solidarity, blocking six tracks. Suffolk is now open for simulcasting only Thursday to Monday.
8:45 PM Addendum: More from Lynne Snierson on the simulcasting cut: “A racetrack source said that staffing has also been cut back.”
*2/15/11 Update: The Mohegan Sun racebook did see a small spike in total handle on Saturday, said a casino spokeswoman, however, “[the racebook] can’t directly correlate the slight increase to that of the Suffolk Downs simulcast block in Massachusetts.”
Sharing the Risk
Following up on a question about the proposal made by the New England horsemen to Suffolk Downs on Wednesday and the potential risk of racing this year without purse guarantees, NEHBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli replied:
The proposal just advanced by the NEHBPA offers to fund purses for 2011 based upon the share of revenue generated for purses in accordance with the offer. In this manner any reduction in revenue because of this dispute would be shared by both Suffolk and the NEHBPA…. It certainly appears the economy is recovering so that we can reasonably anticipate business to be at least as good as the prior year. In any event if the revenue is shared as we propose (and as virtually every other venue shares it), and the risk of decreased revenue is likewise shared equitably.
Frisoli describes the offer, partly based on an increase in simulcasting revenue this winter (before signals were blocked), as “very generous.” I would say it’s very interesting, and reminiscent of aspects of Fred Pope’s recently published scheme for paying purses, in that horsemen would have a vested interest in increasing revenues for the purse account. The proposal relies, though, on a 50-50 simulcasting split, about which the NEHBPA is adamant.
Suffolk, which has not yet commented on the horsemen’s proposal, seems just as determined to split toward the lower end of the range allowed by state law (4-7.5% of gross simulcast handle, which equals 25-50% of available revenue). According to numbers provided by the NEHBPA and drawn from track financial documents, Suffolk has paid less each year since 2008, when the simulcasting split was 40.92% to purses, 59.08% to the track. In 2010, 34.49% went to purses, 65.51% to the track. “We have simply asked Suffolk to share the net profit from simulcasting in the same manner as it is shared in virtually every other racing jurisdiction in the United States,” said Frisoli.
Track management has previously pointed to the loss of more than $40 million over the past four years and declining revenues as evidence that a more equitable split isn’t feasible without expanded gaming in Massachusetts.
“The issues are quite simple. Suffolk Downs controls its expenses,” said Frisoli, citing the track’s investment in the Wonderland dog track and expenses related to work on gaming legislation, passage of which would benefit the horsemen as well as the track. “We are not quarreling with Suffolk’s right to choose how to spend its money. But we are contesting its claim that it was ‘forced’ by declining revenue or other economic factors to act as it did.”
The horsemen’s desire for an even split is understandable, I said to Frisoli, but considering the declines since 2007 in total handle (down more than a third) and revenue, the NEHBPA seems to be seeking more of less. “The NEHBPA continues to seek only an equitable share of whatever revenue exists,” he replied, “and will work with Suffolk Downs to increase revenue.”
The Laurel simulcasting signal to Suffolk was cut beginning today, bringing to six the number of blocked tracks. “It is a long-standing practice of the MTHA and its predecessor organization, since the enactment of the Interstate Horse Racing Act, to withdraw the simulcasting signal of Maryland races if there is a contract dispute between a racetrack and its horsemen’s organization,” said Maryland Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association counsel Alan Foreman. “We don’t take sides. We don’t profess to know the details. It is automatic.” So, nothing personal, Massachusetts bettors! (Thanks to Thoroughbred Times correspondent John Scheinman in Maryland for the assist.)
Racing at Brockton if not at Suffolk? George Carney appears on the scene.
Suffolk Scene
Winter weekdays don’t draw crowds to Suffolk Downs. A stalwart gang of regulars mill around the first floor clubhouse. The solitary and serious settle upstairs where the air has the heavy, warm stillness of a reading room and conversations in the terrace dining room seem murmured, words swallowed by the emptiness of the open grandstand.
If the loss of popular simulcasting signals from New York and Florida dented attendance at the track this afternoon, it wasn’t immediately obvious. But there was something missing, a lack of energy, the usual rise and fall of excited chatter as races went off. “Why isn’t there racing from Gulfstream?” asked a frustrated fan, standing in front of TVs that showed Laurel, Freehold, and Monticello, the three tracks then available for betting.
A mutuel clerk leaned against a counter before which no customers were lined up. She said to no one, “Isn’t it going to get busy here?”
After the finish was made official in the third from Laurel, a man standing next to me said, “I had the tri!” He showed the ticket, the 4-5 favorite keyed on top, for a payoff of $51.20. “That’s the first time I played Laurel,” said the man, who told me his name was Danny. I asked him what he usually bet. “I like Aqueduct. I like Tampa. But I can’t play them today, can I?” I asked him what he knew of the dispute between Suffolk Downs and the horsemen. “Listen, I don’t pay any attention to that stuff. It takes two to fight, right?”
I asked the same question to another fellow, who declined to give his name, saying that he had owned horses in partnership at Suffolk and wanted to do so again. “It’s the HBPA, it’s part of negotiating,” he said. I asked if he agreed with the tactic of blocking signals. “No,” he replied angrily. “This leadership was never elected,” he said, referring to the NEHBPA board elections canceled last November. “They don’t speak for most of the owners and trainers.”
While watching a harness race from Monticello, I talked to a man named Bill. “I’m a thoroughbred guy,” he said. “But I’m here for half an hour, and this is what’s on, so I’m betting it.” The horses came in 3-2-4. Bill had lost the race. “I think I’ll go to Rockingham on Saturday,” he said.
Digging In
New England HBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli told Paul Daley on Thursday that other horsemen’s groups might pull simulcasting signals from Suffolk Downs “out of solidarity” with the Massachusetts group, which is negotiating with the track over 2011 race dates, purses, and the simulcasting revenue split. Lynne Snierson reports that the Ohio and Florida horsemen have now done so:
On Jan. 29, the New England horsemen withdrew their consent for races from the New York Racing Association to be simulcast in Massachusetts and now races from Beulah Park are no longer available. As of tomorrow (Sunday, Feb. 6), races from Tampa Bay Downs will not be available and Gulfstream Park must stop sending its signal on Monday. Under Massachusetts statute, Advance Deposit Wagering account holders in the state are also prohibited from betting those tracks through TVG, Twin Spires, XpressBet …
Unbelievable. Unsurprisingly, there’s not a word in Snierson’s piece from the NEHBPA acknowledging, much less apologizing for, the affect blocking the feeds has on Massachusetts horseplayers. I would complain about how bettors — the people who fund much of the purse account at the center of this fight — are the only ones getting hurt at this point, but Suffolk kicked the backstretch assistance center, the Eighth Pole, off its grounds, and not being able to play the Whirlaway at Aqueduct this afternoon really pales in comparison to being shuttled to a homeless shelter for medical treatment and social services.
So, the situation is ugly, and complicated, and seems likely to become more so before anything is settled. I heard a few days ago that there were horsemen unhappy with the NEHBPA’s handling of the negotiations, none willing to talk even anonymously, which Snierson confirms, and a group calling itself the Thoroughbred Horsemen of Massachusetts Association appeared on Facebook at this URL before disappearing early Saturday. [2/6/11, 4:00 PM Update: The group’s page has returned. “We are a newly formed organization reaching out to the horsemen of Massachusetts who race regularly at Suffolk Downs,” reads its description. “If you feel that the New England HBPA is misrepresenting Massachusetts horsemen in their quest to sign a purse agreement for the Suffolk Downs 2011 race meet, then we want to hear from you!”]
Meanwhile, the track is apparently planning for a meet beginning in May. “I hope there is room for an agreement [with the NEHBPA],” Suffolk COO Chip Tuttle told Snierson. “But if not, we intend to run a race meet in 2011 regardless.” This makes about as much sense as the NEHBPA’s earlier claims of seeking an alternate venue for live racing. There’s nowhere else to race in Massachusetts, and there’s no one else who wants to race in Massachusetts.
(And if there is? Are these horsemen wanted at Suffolk? There have been years, not recent, in which stalls have been given to unsavory trainers banned from other jurisdictions for the purpose of bolstering the local horse population. Even at the higher purse structure under discussion, the average daily purses will still be lower than any other track on the East Coast. Rogues will apply.)
But I also hope agreement is possible. This just isn’t the way for racing at the last thoroughbred racetrack in New England to end. Suffolk posted on its website this morning a dispute fact sheet (PDF), and a copy of the track’s response letter to the NEHBPA when negotiations initially broke down last month (PDF). A few things jumped out on reading, not least:
The letter also omits other elements of the proposal that further demonstrate SRR’s good faith negotiations. These include a willingness to spread the racing days over a 23- to 26-week meet and to keep the barn area open from late April until at least early November, which you have conveyed is important to your members but creates considerable extra expense for SSR. The SSR proposal also would have committed SSR to adding racing days to the season in the event that the handle generated at Suffolk Downs approaches the level it was at last year.
Suffolk is proposing a shortened meet, and is offering to spread out race dates and keep the barn area open for almost seven months. That doesn’t just sound like good faith, it sounds like a perfectly viable solution, considering the current state of the racing industry and the never-ending, ever-surprising expanded gaming maneuvering on Beacon Hill. The NEHBPA wants the state-mandated minimum 100 days and total purses of $10.6 million, but there’s just no market for that much Massachusetts racing, and there’s no money to support that much Massachusetts racing without slots.
“Even running for a little bit of money is better than no racing and no money,” horseman Charlie Assimakopolous told Snierson. That’s the bottom line.
About
Jessica Chapel writes and edits in Massachusetts. Railbird is a Thoroughbred horse racing blog published from June 2004 to July 2019. More / Contact
Elsewhere
Find Jessica on Pinboard and Instagram, Railbird on LibraryThing and Twitter.
Etc.
Links
Search
Boston Racing
Spreadsheets/Data
← Home
Copyright © 2000-2023 by Jessica Chapel. All rights reserved.