Chicago Barn to Wire
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


December 22, 2014, 11:14:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ITHA What a JOKE  (Read 4083 times)
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2006, 01:39:19 PM »

What I would suggest to you is that the opposition had no respect for the bargaining position and ability of the horsemans union or trade association or whatever it technically is - if they did there is no way you spring a last minute - too bad if you don't like it deal on someone. If someone was negotiating a union contract and one side pulled that - the other side would stand up and walk out of the negotiations,, even if the settllement was otherwise favorable.

It was a new law being crafted for the governor, not a labor negotiation. The law was going to happen whether or not the horsemen agreed, if what Jim C. says is correct.

I'll also add that no horsemen, except maybe a few, expected total wagering to remain the same, for 85% to shift over to simulcast, for recapture to ever kick in, and for the tracks to actually take it - then Dick D. proved them wrong immediately after the artificially short 1995 season. You can go back and read the July (?) 1995 Illinois Racing News with all the stories about what they thought was going to happen. Would "professional negotiators" without any racing background have known better about what was going to happen? There weren't that many models at the time, and states like Ohio had experienced a lot of positive success.

If the horsemen decide they need to pay some other professional, they will. They already have an executive director who is supposed to take care of this stuff. He was at the full card law negotiations.   
Report to moderator   Logged
IL#1 Race Fan
Newbie
*
Posts: 20




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2006, 03:13:55 PM »

Terry:

If everyone had listened and acted upon what that small group of harness horsemen
was predicting about the recapture portion of the bill, perhaps the horsemen could have
united and made some noise. Would it have done any good? probably not, but who knows.
When Rep. Lou Lang started asking questions about it at the Ag Committee Meeting, which
he was a member of, the bill was mysteriously moved to the Executive Committee where it
was quickly hustled to the House and Senate for approval. As it was explained to me, the
thoroughbred horsemen were 100 % behind the bill, while the harness horsemen were 97 %
behind it, save for that small group of harness wackos, who as we all know, were right all along.
Report to moderator   Logged
David
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2006, 04:31:23 PM »

I was using the labor negotiation as an analogy to make some sense of it, in politics there generally isn't a table to negotiate at - it is in side and backroom meetings and negotiations - and  in this case it was a 3 way negotiation - mgt.(track owners)/rank and file(horseman)/politicians.

You say the horseman didn't see this coming, there was nothing to base it on etc. etc. which is probably valid, hindsight 20/20 thing again but then again obviously somebody saw it coming, and that someone was smarter than the horsemans or thier paid negotiators/lobbyists - I think that was the point I was trying to make (or actually just import from a thread on the harness side that I agreed with) was that thier was smarter people at that "table" than the horseman (or the horseman negotiators) that time and if you get back to the table I would suggest having the smartest people on your side - no matter what it cost.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2006, 12:30:13 AM »

Terry:

If everyone had listened and acted upon what that small group of harness horsemen
was predicting about the recapture portion of the bill, perhaps the horsemen could have
united and made some noise. Would it have done any good? probably not, but who knows.
When Rep. Lou Lang started asking questions about it at the Ag Committee Meeting, which
he was a member of, the bill was mysteriously moved to the Executive Committee where it
was quickly hustled to the House and Senate for approval. As it was explained to me, the
thoroughbred horsemen were 100 % behind the bill, while the harness horsemen were 97 %
behind it, save for that small group of harness wackos, who as we all know, were right all along.

If it really happened that way. Everyone has all sorts of 2nd and 3rd hand stories about what happened during the Task Force meetings, usually to the effect of making their sources look "right" while others were "wrong". The only person I see posting on this forum who might have been there in person is Jim C., and even then I think he came in to the process quite late.

Everyone talks like recapture is the great bugaboo ruining Illinois purses. It isn't. Total purses in 2004 were almost $10 million highr than they were in 1994. On the thoroughbred side, if you go back and look at old programsfrom 1994, you see that individidual race purses are noticeably higher, espcially at Hawthorne. Some of that was due to dropping from 6 days to 5, of course. But the 1995 law and then the 1999 law did what they were supposed to do, redistribute some of the money from racetracks and taxpayers to purses.

You want to know the real problem, it is that neither law did a thing to increase betting in the state. No law can force people to bet horses or Illinois racing when they have options. Only the horsemen can improve their product as a wagering option, and we have talked about that endlessly here. They don't want to think about that. They just want a handout from the State to keep doing business as usual, putting on a show that less and less people want to buy, running for free money, or squeezing more of the existing money out of the racetracks.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2006, 12:44:35 AM »

You say the horseman didn't see this coming, there was nothing to base it on etc. etc. which is probably valid, hindsight 20/20 thing again but then again obviously somebody saw it coming, and that someone was smarter than the horsemans or thier paid negotiators/lobbyists - I think that was the point I was trying to make (or actually just import from a thread on the harness side that I agreed with) was that thier was smarter people at that "table" than the horseman (or the horseman negotiators) that time and if you get back to the table I would suggest having the smartest people on your side - no matter what it cost.

That's what the ED's are supposed to be for - the paid "pro". Yes, some track owners or owner definitely saw the scenario as a possibility. I suspect Dick D., as he was complaining about that law and the revenue shifts all through the negotiations, and immediately pounced on it after running a 50 day meet in 1995 to compare to the 130+ baseline days of 1994, with a comment along the line of "tough". I'm less inclined to believe the Sportsman's involvement, because they didn't even take out the recapture they were entitled to get for several years, until it grew very large. The horsemen were blinded by the promise of free money from extra simulcasting, and didn't think it would come to that. Except of course for an alleged handful of harness horsemen (and a few other people I've read later who claimed they said it was bad all along, but who somehow I don't remember reading in 1994 or 1995) who, if they were so prescient to know Illinois bettors were going to abandon live Illinois races to the point where recapture would hurt, should have been fighting full card or the model that was adopted from the get go, in its entirety.

In any case, if any of the horsemen read this, or the companion thread you say is on harness side, and agree, maybe they will hire better experts. If they don't agree, that's their business.
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 261




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2006, 10:31:03 AM »

The point of this sums up to this.  The ITHA is in need of stronger, more professional leadership. And as I pointed out initially, eliminating the present leadership in lieu of the past leadership doesn't make any sense at all. Either administrations proved to be effective when it came to dealing with the legislative issues that really matter to the horsemen. The ITHA needs to move forward, but instead, they are in a holding pattern. The only ones benefiting now are the legal beagles.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2006, 04:32:51 PM »

The point of this sums up to this.  The ITHA is in need of stronger, more professional leadership.

That's certainly your opinion.

Do you have anyone in mind?

And, for the record, what you pointed out initially was that the past leadership was not ineffective but  corrupt, a claim for which you have still provided zero proof.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2006, 04:40:42 PM by CLOCKERTERRY » Report to moderator   Logged
Addatude
Newbie
*
Posts: 6




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2006, 06:17:13 PM »

Yes Clockerterry.. perhaps you are up for the job? 
Report to moderator   Logged
APCD Dan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3873




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2006, 09:08:42 PM »

Yes Clockerterry.. perhaps you are up for the job? 

Two of the strongest industry thinkers are on this board in Terry and Jim C.  If both of them were involved, there would be arguments, but racing would move forward in Illinois at last.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2006, 12:34:00 AM »

Yes Clockerterry.. perhaps you are up for the job? 

LOL!

No, I flunked cat herding. Miserably.

Hey, you want to know what real corruption is ... $7 beers at the United Center for the Rolling Stones concert, as opposed to the usual $5.25 at Blackhawk games. Yeeesh!
Report to moderator   Logged
Ed
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1025




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2006, 08:29:42 AM »

APCDDan - Has'nt Jim C. already (still) been involved? It's time for some NEW leadership.

Ed
Report to moderator   Logged
User1015
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 261




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2006, 08:53:47 AM »

I agree, Clockerterry would probably be good for the job.  New leadership is a must  and he seems well informed. Jim C was one of the EDs of the last administration I believe.      horse
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy