JC / Railbird

Industry Archive

The Disconnect

From Matt Hegarty’s must-read on the state of the racing business:

But continuing to fatten purses is a solution that directly serves horsemen, not bettors. In a macroeconomic sense, it’s hard to argue that the $318 million in subsidies distributed to purses in 2009 made the game better. The U.S. foal crop cratered, the bloodstock market remained in its doldrums, and handle continued to decline at unprecedented rates.

Slots are the subject above, but unleavened takeout increases are similarly flawed. We’re seeing the results of a horsemen-first view in California now.

Posted in Industry on January 28, 2011 / Tagged Business of Racing, California, Economics, Handle, Horseplayers, Purses, Slots, Takeout

2011 Suffolk-NEHBPA Dispute Timeline

January 26, 2011: In negotiations for the 2011 live racing season, Suffolk Downs offers the New England HBPA $7.5 million in total purses for a 100-day meet, or higher purses for a reduced meet, which would require a change in the state legislation regulating racing days.

See: Suffolk Blues.

January 29, 2011: The New England HBPA, rejecting Suffolk Downs offered terms for a 2011 meet, blocks the Aqueduct simulcasting signal. The NEHBPA demands $10.6 million in total purses, no reduction in the legally mandated number of race days, and a 50-50 simulcasting revenue split.

See: Wild Talk in NE; The Other Side; Stalemate Update.

February 5, 2011: Negotiations at a standstill, the Ohio and Florida horsemens’ groups pull the Beulah, Tampa Bay, and Gulfstream simulcasting signals from Suffolk Downs in solidarity with the NEHBPA.

See: Digging In; “A Slap in the Face.”

February 9, 2011: Oregon horsemen pull the Portland Meadows signal.

See: The Impasse, Continued; Suffolk Scene; Negotiations to Resume?

February 10, 2011: The NEHBPA presents Suffolk Downs with a counter-offer for the upcoming meet. Horsemen hold firm on their earlier demands for purses, days, and the simulcasting split, but do concede purse guarantees. Maryland horsemen pull the Laurel simulcasting signal from the track. Suffolk Downs threatens legal action against the NEHBPA.

See: Point by Point; New Proposal, Laurel Cut; Sharing the Risk.

February 14, 2011: On the first Saturday that many Massachusetts bettors are unable to wager on Gulfstream, Aqueduct, and several other signals, Rockingham Park, in New Hampshire, and other nearby facilities report an increase in attendance and handle.

See: Betting Elsewhere.

February 15, 2011: Suffolk Downs replies by letter to the NEHBPA proposal. The communication is not a formal response, but a request to restore simulcasting signals, and a counter-argument to assertions made by the horsemen’s group in support of their demands.

See: Suffolk Responds; 100 Days or No Days.

February 17, 2011: Negotiations resume.

See: Later Today; Horsemen, Suffolk Talk.

February 21, 2011: There are indications of a breakthrough in talks.

See: No Consensus (Yet); NEHBPA Discussions Continue; It’s Not Critical; Proposal Revised, Talks Continue.

February 25, 2011: After several days of discussion, the NEHBPA rejects the latest offer from Suffolk Downs, which raised total purses to $8.4 million for 75-85 days of racing and provided for an equitable simulcasting split. The track also asked that the horsemen agree to not oppose legislation reducing race days. In a late-night development, however, the NEHBPA announces it will accept a modified offer, one that provides $8.25 million for 100 days.

See: What’s Next?; Unaminously Accepted.

February 27, 2011: Suffolk Downs officials state the NEHBPA accepted an offer that was never made and reject the proposal.

See: The Offer That Isn’t; “Sink or Swim.”

March 1, 2011: Following additional talks, Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA agree in principle to terms for the upcoming meet.

See: Almost There.

March 4, 2011: An agreement is announced. Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA agree to a two-year contract that provides $8.25 million in total purses for 80 days and a 50-50 simulcasting split. The agreement also stipulates that the backstretch will be open from April to November and that the NEHBPA will remain neutral on race-day legislation.

See: Suffolk Deal Struck; The 80-Day Compromise.

Timeline originally published on 2/8/2011 and updated through 3/5/2011.

Posted in Industry on January 26, 2011 / Tagged #suffolkdispute2011

Expert Opinion

John Pricci on the DRF bloc voting Blame as Horse of the Year:

The shocking portion, however, was Daily Racing Form’s tally, a margin that looked very much like a third judge at a heavyweight title fight who was looking the other way while a battle was joined.

Joe Drape on the same subject:

Not surprising, but how un-expert. (via @raypaulick) DRF block went for Blame 38-21. How can DRF say it’s the authority on horse racing?

The argument could be made that the DRF bloc made the least shocking, most expert pick, going for a male winner of multiple Grade 1s over main track dirt with a narrow edge in speed figures (five triple digits to Zenyatta’s four) — a horse who beat the other the one time they met in the race that everyone said would decide the title (before the race was even run). They voted the dogma, which, most years, nicely aligns with what happens on track. That it didn’t this year says much more about how ultimately unsatisfying both leading HOTY contenders’ 2010 campaigns were than it does about DRF voters’ judgment.

Based on the rancorous debates of the past couple years surrounding the HOTY title, Todd Lieber argues in the Thoroughbred Times that Eclipse voters should have set criteria to guide their votes:

It would be up to others with far more knowledge and greater standing in the industry than this correspondent to determine what those criteria should be, but since I’ve raised the issue I will at least hazard a suggestion. The honor should go to the horse with the most consistent record of achievement at the highest level of racing during the year. To be sure, this will not stifle debate, but it would at least focus the questions.

Well, that’s awfully vague. How about a points system for HOTY?

Posted in Industry on January 19, 2011 / Tagged Blame, DRF, Eclipse Awards, Eclipse Voters, Horse of the Year, Voting Blocs, Zenyatta