JC / Railbird

#suffolkdispute2011

Horsemen, Suffolk Talk

The NEHBPA and Suffolk Downs resumed negotiations this afternoon, one week after the horsemen offered the track a proposal for the 2011 meet, and almost four weeks after talks over purses, days, and the simulcasting revenue split initially broke down. No details of the discussion were divulged. Frank Frisoli, the horsemen’s lawyer, sent the following statement:

The NEHBPA conferenced with representatives of Suffolk Downs this afternoon. It anticipates receiving a proposal in the very near future from Suffolk Downs which will be presented to the Board of Directors of the NEHBPA.

The NEHBPA will have no further comments on this matter pending receipt of a proposal.

Track officials have not yet commented.

Hopefully, that the horsemen expect a proposal soon from Suffolk is a sign some progress was made today in finding a resolution to the bitter dispute.

2/18/11 Addendum: Lynne Snierson reports on the Thursday conversation:

“We had a good dialogue today and some of it is encouraging,” said Chip Tuttle, chief executive officer of the East Boston, Mass., track. “There are some places where we still have additional work to do to reach a consensus. We will keep the process moving forward.”

In light of the past few weeks, that’s a promising statement.

9:00 PM Update: “Constructive” talks continued on Friday …

Posted in Industry on February 17, 2011 / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Horsemen, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Suffolk Downs / Comments Off on Horsemen, Suffolk Talk

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 …“

Posted in Industry on February 17, 2011 / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Horseplayers, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Suffolk Downs / 2 comments

100 Days or No Days

A view from Michigan on the news from Massachusetts and Maryland:

Now it is the Track Management’s that are finally coming under fire from the years and decades of rage that’s been building up from taking all this crud. And the Horsemen & Women have finally said ENOUGH.

We may die, but with us SO WILL YOU….

Now you know what they’ve felt like all those years of your threats. For once some are telling you what will be. For they will decide their future, not you.

Fiery.

I haven’t talked to anyone, on either side, in the dispute over the 2011 meet between Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA who has framed negotiations as such an existential struggle, but there is an undeniable touch of the apocalyptic in the New England horsemen’s bargaining stance. What’s being fought over isn’t just the terms for one summer, it’s the very survival of Massachusetts racing.

When the horsemen charged in a fact-sheet posted to the NEHBPA website last week that Suffolk wasn’t negotiating with the intention of running a live meet this year, they made it clear they believed there was nothing less at stake.

From Suffolk’s perspective, the horsemen have also made it “clear that the HBPA’s position on the 2011 season is 100 days or no days at all,” wrote the track’s COO in a letter to the NEHBPA yesterday, in which he reaffirmed that Suffolk plans to race in 2011. “[W]e have been consistent about our intention to run a live meet in 2011 and still hope to do so.”

Days could be the sticking point. “From a breeding standpoint, we need a long meet,” New England Stallion Station owner Ken Posco told me yesterday. “I’m with the 100 days minimum.” I asked him why a shorter meet wouldn’t work for the local breeding program. “It will in time,” he replied, “if we get legislation for gaming.” Until then, it’s essential to protect racing as it exists.

That’s the horsemen’s position on days, and they want — not unreasonably — average daily purses at a level that will allow people to care for themselves and their horses. In 2010, horsemen raced without a contract; purse cuts last August left many feeling betrayed and vulnerable. A justifiable determination to avoid the same exposure this year suffuses their statements.

The problem is, as the handle and revenue numbers for the past four years released by Suffolk show, that there isn’t much of a market for 100 days of Massachusetts racing. Since 2007, total handle has dropped more than a third.

In my exchanges with NEHBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli, he’s expressed optimism that the recovering economy will keep 2011 numbers consistent with 2010, and been insistent on the horsemen’s demand for an equal simulcasting split, which would fund purses at the level (approximately $95,000 per day) horsemen seek in the proposal the group submitted to Suffolk last week.

But an equal split would mean less revenue for Suffolk, a tough sell to any business, and certainly so to a track that’s lost $40 million in four years. When I asked Frisoli about this, he replied, “Suffolk Downs controls its expenses.”

In abstract, 50-50 sounds fair. In reality, the horsemen are asking the track to cut back or operate at more of a loss this year for their benefit (a proposition that must seem less attractive to management each day simulcasting revenue is lost to blocked signals and nearby simulcasting parlors).

In our conversation, Posco summed up the situation, the issue at the root of the rest: “Without slots, there’ll be no racing or breeding in Massachusetts.”

It always comes back to slots. Without the prospect of expanded gaming, racing would have ended at Suffolk years ago. With it, though, perspectives skew toward an imagined slots-rich future. Instead of looking for ways to make racing better now, for all involved, the focus is on getting through another year, squeezing what there is from dwindling revenues for 100 days, hoping for a jackpot. The existence of Massachusetts racing depends on it.

Posted in Industry on February 16, 2011 / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Slots Legislation, Suffolk Downs / 11 comments

Suffolk Responds

It’s not a break in the lengthy impasse, but it is communication between Suffolk Downs and the horsemen — in a letter sent today to the NEHBPA (PDF), the track requests that the blocked NYRA simulcasting signal be restored (and that the NEHBPA ask other horsemen’s groups to restore their signals), and attempts to clarify several issues in the dispute with the horsemen over the 2011 meet. The letter is not a formal response to the proposal submitted by the NEHBPA to the track last week, which management is still considering.

A few points from the letter of particular interest to Massachusetts racing fans:

1) Regarding the blocked signals, which have sent local bettors to nearby simulcasting parlors with all tracks available, costing the track simulcasting revenue (and horsemen the portion that would have gone to purses), Suffolk Downs COO Chip Tuttle notes, “… the most troubling aspect of the conduct of the NEHBPA and other HBPA chapters is the complete lack of respect it shows to our customers…. In all the back and forth of the last month, the HBPA’s disregard for bettors has been most stunning.” Again, track management shows that it’s keenly attuned to how the impasse looks to horseplayers — in a way that the horsemen have not so far — and to the very real risk that some bettors won’t come back when the dispute is resolved. That’s money and support the Massachusetts racing industry can ill afford to lose.

2) The horsemen are arguing for an equal simulcasting split. “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,” NEHBPA lawyer Frank Frisoli said last week, pointing to a split over the last three years that has declined from 60-40 to 65-35 according to the horsemen’s numbers. Tuttle puts the split at 62-38 and questions the prevalence of 50-50 simulcasting splits in the industry:

We have anecdotal evidence from other jurisdictions that contradicts your claim and indicates many jurisdictions use similar percentages as we have in our most recent contracts (e.g., Penn National 33% to purse from simulcast revenue; Parx Casino 31% to purse from simulcast revenue; Lone Star Park 40% to purse from simulcast revenue).

It seems noteworthy that the two tracks with slots have a less equitable split. And if the sample splits are representative, it’s another indication that Suffolk has acted in good faith since 2007, despite a significant drop in total handle.

3) Raynham/Taunton owner George Carney has said that he’s interested in picking up racing days for his Brockton Fair track (closed since 2001) if fewer than 100 days were run at Suffolk this year. Noting concerns about purse inequities and safety, Tuttle suggests the track could work with that:

We remain open to any discussions that would give your members additional opportunities to race locally, especially if such opportunities could offset our current schedule and reduce the duration of keeping our barn area and training facilities open.

A two-track Massachusetts racing circuit in 2011? That would be a twist in this drama, and one that would suit Suffolk, which has proposed a shorter meet of 67-76 days. A reduced calendar would better fit the current market, but the horsemen are reluctant to agree to anything less than the state-mandated minimum of 100 days, fearful the cut would become permanent.

10:00 PM Addendum: More from Lynne Snierson in the Blood-Horse:

Frank Frisoli, the attorney for the NEHBPA, said that he had received the letter Feb. 15 and sent a reply to Tuttle the same afternoon. He did not discuss the details of the horsemen’s response but did say, “This appears to be heating up. I don’t know if we’re headed to court or to a resolution.”

Let’s hope things are moving toward resolution.

Posted in Industry on February 15, 2011 / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011, Massachusetts, Negotiations, NEHBPA, New England, Simulcasting, Suffolk Downs / 1 comment