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


November 23, 2014, 12:00:54 AM *
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 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Arlington Stakes  (Read 3759 times)
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914




Ignore
« on: December 09, 2008, 02:21:12 PM »

 Grin The 2009 stakes schedule is out, any comments ?     
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2008, 03:27:23 PM »

Grin The 2009 stakes schedule is out, any comments ?     

Yes, they have inconsiderately scheduled nearly all of them during the summer months, when I'll be out of state again.  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
our favorite omen
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1047




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2008, 05:07:43 PM »

Enjoying Big Sky Country, or wherever it is that you go out west, Clockerstinky?
OFO
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2008, 05:10:28 PM »

Enjoying Big Sky Country, or wherever it is that you go out west, Clockerstinky?

Exactly so, Omission.

Any exciting Tuesday afternoon action at Trackside recently?
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2008, 06:37:00 PM »

If you haven't done so please read Marcus story in the DRF--

If anyone really wants to know what's wrong with racing, start with the Illinois Thoroughbred Horseman's Association.  I had respect for that group and for Frank Kirby--but no more. He and his Exec Director, Greg Szymski, made the worse, most convuluted presentation I have every seen in all my years of attending meetings, either at work or in a Public setting such as this. He presented material with baseless assumptions and trumped up information. He wanted every stakes race cut to the Minimum amount to keep them graded--a strategy that would be doomed to failure. I was also surprised that while giving their presentation neither seemed to know anything about the rules and regulations of the Illinois Racing Board.  It would have been comical except that these individuals are responsible for a lot of owner investments and are clearly one of the problems with Illinois Racing. Commissioner Casiano really ripped into them after these jerks were finished.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2008, 10:52:24 PM »

The Chicago thoroughbred horsemen have given poor and disjointed presentations in front of the IRB every time I've ever attended an IRB meeting. It sounds as though little has changed. It's disheartening to learn our ED did much of his work the night before the meeting. He's paid a salary, and a nice one, and that's what we get in the way of preparation and representation.  thumbs down

We can only hope the AP overnight purses go up the way the stakes purses did. They should, after all the gifts the IRB gave AP in the way of dates for 2009.

2009: The best year of AP racing ever! Big purse increases!
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Guest

« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2008, 08:16:03 AM »

Cut all the stakes races, extend the race to season to 12 months and run bottom claimers with 5 and 6 horse fields from Dec to March
that is the ITHA mission
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2008, 08:51:25 AM »

Cut all the stakes races, extend the race to season to 12 months and run bottom claimers with 5 and 6 horse fields from Dec to March
that is the ITHA mission

Actually, if you read the story, it said they were concerned about the purse increases for the stakes in 2009, because in a poor economy they might cause existing overnight purses to decline. It's probably a well-founded concern.
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2008, 01:12:59 PM »

Clocker--Your opinion,but listening to those guys it came accross as follows---We are not good enough to race against open company, so screw the stakes and race the journeymen horses.

I was hoping Kirby would be willing to voluntarily accept smaller purses if he ends up in the money in 2009 stakes, but that was not forthcoming

BTW--Overnight stakes are planned to be run at 60K this year, an increase of 20% per race.
Report to moderator   Logged
Thomas Graham
Guest

« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2008, 04:36:36 PM »

Overnight stakes will be $60k because that is the new "black type" minimum for 2009
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2008, 09:54:20 PM »

Clocker--Your opinion,but listening to those guys it came accross as follows---We are not good enough to race against open company, so screw the stakes and race the journeymen horses.

I don't follow - Did they want more money dedicated to Illinois-bred races? Or, were they just griping about increases for stakes races, like Marcus wrote?

Track vs. local horsemen over the stakes issue is the same at every track. It's a legitimate concern.

Your journeymen horses make the bulk of the money (locally, and as a whole, because so much of our wagering is on other tracks' journeyman races). None of those stakes races ever draw enough wagering to pay for themselves, except a few really marquee ones like the Kentucky Derby, and the BC races. Go ahead and take a look back at last year's handle numbers on races like the AP Million. Not even close to paying for itself. Or, just imagine what kind of racing program you'd have if those stakes were the only races you ran after scaring off all those journeyman horses that are so despicable and insignificant. One race every two weeks wouldn't keep too many people employed, backside or front.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2008, 10:30:45 PM »

 Huh if overnight stakes are raised and some other stakes races are raised , where did the money come from? the 3% casino bill which wasn't' t signed yet. ( will it become a reality ?) or come after Million Day will AP say handle is bad and then cut purses across the board.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2008, 10:37:09 PM »

Huh if overnight stakes are raised and some other stakes races are raised , where did the money come from? the 3% casino bill which wasn't' t signed yet. ( will it become a reality ?) or come after Million Day will AP say handle is bad and then cut purses across the board.

Well, in this case, AP will be so awash in new revenue next year thanks to the IRB taking dates away from Hawthorne and giving them to AP, that everyone will be enjoying huge 20% purse increases, stakes horses and 5k claimers alike.

Mark my words. 2009 = Best Arlington purses ever!
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2008, 01:10:19 AM »

Well, in this case, AP will be so awash in new revenue next year thanks to the IRB taking dates away from Hawthorne and giving them to AP, that everyone will be enjoying huge 20% purse increases, stakes horses and 5k claimers alike.

Mark my words. 2009 = Best Arlington purses ever!

Keep drinking the Koolaid. Arlington got one more week over 2008, and Hawthorne lost a week. That isn't earth shattering from a bottom line perspective. The fact of the matter is that racing at AP generates more for the Illinois horsemen in purse revenue than racing at Hawthorne (because of larger handle), so the addition of dates is some what substantiated. Furthermore, Hawthorne's dates since the breakdown of the NJCC have increased substantially so they are in a better position in 2009 than they were in 2006 when they split dates with the NJCC.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2008, 09:20:31 AM »

The fact of the matter is that racing at AP generates more for the Illinois horsemen in purse revenue than racing at Hawthorne (because of larger handle)

We agree, then. There should be a substantial increase in purses at AP next season.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2008, 10:58:02 AM »

 Grin Only time will tell.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2008, 02:17:11 PM »

We agree, then. There should be a substantial increase in purses at AP next season.

There will be more purse money generated than if that day was held a Hawthorne. But we don't agree, because no-one ever said it would equate to substantial increases. The substantial claim is your editorial. A few extra days of racing, won't cause that jump, and no one has claimed it would. You are the only one claiming there should be a large increase to try and set false expectations so that when there isn't "substantial increases" you can carry the flag of Hawthorne martyrdom. And what you always fail to address is how Hawthorne has actually had a greater increase in race dates and host time than AP since 2006 and the folding of the NJCC.
Report to moderator   Logged
NIATROSS
Guest

« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2008, 02:23:05 PM »




« Last Edit: December 11, 2008, 02:35:29 PM by NIATROSS » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2008, 02:27:52 PM »

There will be more purse money generated than if that day was held a Hawthorne. But we don't agree, because no-one ever said it would equate to substantial increases.

So, what you're saying is, it really makes little difference at all which track has the dates, as far as purses? That it's only some small nominal amount more for a few days? That admission kind of cuts the rug out from under your argument that the dates are better off at Arlington from a purse standpoint, doesn't it?

Quote
And what you always fail to address is how Hawthorne has actually had a greater increase in race dates and host time than AP since 2006 and the folding of the NJCC.

On the contrary, that's what you always address, no matter what the subject, as if it has any bearing on anything. They had the crappy Fall dates, then they shared the crappy Spring dates, and now they've got both the crappy Fall dates and crappy Spring dates, and lost their lucrative winter harness meet in the process of covering for Arlington's two year snit fit. Those are all facts that have been known for several years, yet you keep bringing it up. There's no reason for me to address that - there's no argument. Taking away dates from one track, particularly the winter dark dates when there's no racing expense, and giving them to another track, is a transfer of wealth, no matter how many dates one track had to begin with. That's the issue now. The track that's getting the extra dates had better do something special with them to justify it. That's why I'm looking forward to that big purse increase for local horsemen as a result of this dates switch, not just Dick's out of town stakes friends. I feel confident it will happen. Let the good times roll! 
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2008, 02:53:59 PM »

So, what you're saying is, it really makes little difference at all which track has the dates, as far as purses? That it's only some small nominal amount more for a few days? That admission kind of cuts the rug out from under your argument that the dates are better off at Arlington from a purse standpoint, doesn't it?

On the contrary, that's what you always address, no matter what the subject, as if it has any bearing on anything. They had the crappy Fall dates, then they shared the crappy Spring dates, and now they've got both the crappy Fall dates and crappy Spring dates, and lost their lucrative winter harness meet in the process of covering for Arlington's two year snit fit. Those are all facts that have been known for several years, yet you keep bringing it up. There's no reason for me to address that - there's no argument. Taking away dates from one track, particularly the winter dark dates when there's no racing expense, and giving them to another track, is a transfer of wealth, no matter how many dates one track had to begin with. That's the issue now. The track that's getting the extra dates had better do something special with them to justify it. That's why I'm looking forward to that big purse increase for local horsemen as a result of this dates switch, not just Dick's out of town stakes friends. I feel confident it will happen. Let the good times roll! 

It is amazing how you twist one small piece of the facts and turn it into something very much different. The increase in AP race dates and presumed resulting increase in revenue for the purse account (who knows, but the downturn in the economy is probably just balancing out the addition of days) does not necessarily mean an increase in purses for races. You neglect to take into account that there could be large purse over-payments that are being made up, you neglect to consider the number of races ran per day. Therefore these posts of yours are incredibly misleading, and you use them to support the martyrdom of Hawthorne. And even through all that, it has already been established on here that overnights are increasing 10K, with just seven or so more days.


Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2008, 03:09:59 PM »

It is amazing how you twist one small piece of the facts and turn it into something very much different. The increase in AP race dates and presumed resulting increase in revenue for the purse account (who knows, but the downturn in the economy is probably just balancing out the addition of days) does not necessarily mean an increase in purses for races.

So, what does it mean? More money for Arlington?

Quote
You neglect to take into account that there could be large purse over-payments that are being made up

Is there? Or, are you just making that up?

Quote
you neglect to consider the number of races ran per day.

What is that supposed to mean? Arlington says they run just as many per week at 4 says as Haw does at 5. What is it I'm supposed to consider?

Quote
Therefore these posts of yours are incredibly misleading, and you use them to support the martyrdom of Hawthorne.

Did or did not the IRB take dates from Haw and give then to AP? Fact. Did or did not you say the transferred dates would lead to greater purses earned at AP? Fact. Therefore, thanks to posters like you and your claims, the reader is entitled to believe there will be purse increases, is he not? I can't wait! What's truly misleading is you trying to spin the transfer of dates first as though as though it means something, but then as meaning nothing, just to support your brown nosing of AP. 

Quote
And even through all that, it has already been established on here that overnights are increasing 10K, with just seven or so more days.

When was that established? I missed that news. Was it an AP press release? Is the first book out? We can count on it, for sure? I can't wait!
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2008, 03:36:07 PM »

So, what does it mean? More money for Arlington?

Nope, more money for the purse account....

Is there? Or, are you just making that up?

This has been discussed on here before and you know that. Don't all of sudden try and decredit me, when you know full well that this is an issue that has been discussed here before. There was a post recently specifically about this. Plus I didn't state there is, I said there could be and that a purse over-payment would factor into the ability to pay purses on a daily basis.

What is that supposed to mean? Arlington says they run just as many per week at 4 says as Haw does at 5. What is it I'm supposed to consider?

I'm stating that the number of races run directly impacts the level of purse money offered. The point simply is you are taking a small portion of the facts and providing it in a light to make it sound like it is the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of other factors in the purse distribution equation that mean more race/host time does not necessarily equal an increase in individual purses. E

Did or did not the IRB take dates from Haw and give then to AP? Fact.

They awarded dates in a manner that they thought would benefit Illinois racing the most as a whole. One track got more than the other, and the ITHA supported it.

Did or did not you say the transferred dates would lead to greater purses earned at AP? Fact.

Again you're twisting the facts. I said that it would lead to greater money generated for the purse account, but there are many factors that impact the distribution of money from the purse account. I never said anything about the level of purses horsemen would earn at the track.

Therefore, thanks to posters like you and your claims, the reader is entitled to believe there will be purse increases, is he not? I can't wait! What's truly misleading is you trying to spin the transfer of dates first as though as though it means something, but then as meaning nothing, just to support your brown nosing of AP. 

You've done nothing to substantiate your claim. I've made a fairly clear and reasoned presentation of other factors you've neglected to present. I'll let the readers of this forum make their own judgements. And again, I'm not saying there will or will not be a purse increase, just that I wouldn't expect a "substantial" increase from 7 additional days as you seem so compelled to keep claiming.

When was that established? I missed that news. Was it an AP press release? Is the first book out? We can count on it, for sure? I can't wait!

Two posters addressed this, and the Graham fellow said it was a new minimum for 2009.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2008, 04:17:25 PM »

This has been discussed on here before and you know that. Don't all of sudden try and decredit me, when you know full well that this is an issue that has been discussed here before. There was a post recently specifically about this. Plus I didn't state there is, I said there could be and that a purse over-payment would factor into the ability to pay purses on a daily basis.

Yeah, there could be one in theory. If there isn't though, it's no excuse. So, is there one, or is there not? If there's not, then you're just intentionally misleading readers to confuse things.

Quote
I'm stating that the number of races run directly impacts the level of purse money offered. The point simply is you are taking a small portion of the facts and providing it in a light to make it sound like it is the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that there are lots of other factors in the purse distribution equation that mean more race/host time does not necessarily equal an increase in individual purses.

Yes, the number of races affects purses. However, if the number of races run is the same (like AP says), and the available money is more, like you claim, there should be a purse increase. If you know something about the number of races next year that no one else does, spit it out, or quit misleading the readers with red herrings.

Quote
Again you're twisting the facts. I said that it would lead to greater money generated for the purse account, but there are many factors that impact the distribution of money from the purse account. I never said anything about the level of purses horsemen would earn at the track.

So, where else does the purse account go besides "earned at the track"? (Besides recapture, and the usual small nicks.)

Quote
You've done nothing to substantiate your claim.

Arlington got more days. That's all I need. More days = more revenue = higher purses. It's why they asked for the extra days, to "improve Illinois racing", and now it will be up to them to deliver. No excuses can be accepted when the IRB is giving them everything they want.

Quote
I've made a fairly clear and reasoned presentation of other factors you've neglected to present.

Things that might be, but aren't, because you just made them up. I could say Hawthorne's woes might be due to space aliens.

Quote
And again, I'm not saying there will or will not be a purse increase, just that I wouldn't expect a "substantial" increase from 7 additional days as you seem so compelled to keep claiming.

Two posters addressed this ($10,000 extra per day), and the Graham fellow said it was a new minimum for 2009.

Well, let's just think about that for a minute. What you're apparently claiming is that by giving the dates to AP, the local/overnight horsemen will be seeing an extra $10k per day across the whole live AP meet. The 2009 dates, as compared to the 2008 dates, give Arlington a grand total of two (2) more live racing days. The other eight (8) days they picked up are simulcast host days. Now then, I think we can pretty much agree it doesn't matter who is simulcast host, bettors are going to bet their simulcasts no matter who gets the dough, and the horsemen will get that purse money no matter who is running the meet. That's a wash. So, this entire claim must boil down to generating an extra $10,000 per day of purse money across the whole 98 days of live racing, just based on two extra live days. In other words, each of those extra live days will generate $490,000 above and beyond the normal amount earned per day, $280,000 or whatever it is. Wow! Why didn't the 96 days AP ran this year generate anything like $770,000 per day of purses? Those two days next year are going to be "do not miss" for sure! I wonder if they will advertise them ahead of time so we'll know them when we see them. 

Now then, if the claim is that those two extra racing days next year will have a total outlay $10k more than if they had been run at Haw, well, maybe I could believe that. But that's not what you said at all, was it? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Thomas Graham
Guest

« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2008, 04:37:24 PM »

Hang on - I'm being taken out of context ---

I said that $60,000 is the new minimum overnight stakes purse to  be considered to get black type.  That doesn't equate to $10k per day more in purse money - it means that if either track wants the overnight stakes race to have ANY meaning for breeders (and that all that black type matters to) then it has to have a minimum purse of $60k.

Since neither AP nor HAW offer overnight stakes daily, this by no means means that they are paying $10k more PER DAY - just $10k more per overnight stakes race when offered.

HAW's stakes schedule release said any Saturday that there is no regular stakes race there will be a $60k o/n stakes.  I would assume that AP will offer o/n stakes most weekends when they don't have a major stakes as well.

But if total outlay is $200k per day on average, paying $60k for an o/n stakes means some other race(s) will have to have a lower purse since the total is the same - unless as Terry likes to say "gold dubloons come falling from the sky" or something to that effect.

Signed,
That Graham guy (Tom or Thomas would be just fine)
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2008, 04:42:34 PM »

Hang on - I'm being taken out of context ---

I said that $60,000 is the new minimum overnight stakes purse to  be considered to get black type.  That doesn't equate to $10k per day more in purse money - it means that if either track wants the overnight stakes race to have ANY meaning for breeders (and that all that black type matters to) then it has to have a minimum purse of $60k.

Since neither AP nor HAW offer overnight stakes daily, this by no means means that they are paying $10k more PER DAY - just $10k more per overnight stakes race when offered.

HAW's stakes schedule release said any Saturday that there is no regular stakes race there will be a $60k o/n stakes.  I would assume that AP will offer o/n stakes most weekends when they don't have a major stakes as well.

But if total outlay is $200k per day on average, paying $60k for an o/n stakes means some other race(s) will have to have a lower purse since the total is the same - unless as Terry likes to say "gold dubloons come falling from the sky" or something to that effect.

Signed,
That Graham guy (Tom or Thomas would be just fine)

I meant overnight stakes and misspoke. Both you and General referred to the 10K overnight increase as I did in an earlier post in this thread. It was just an mistake that Terry tried to jump all over. The fact of the matter is, the extra days don't necessarily equate to an substantial increase in daily purses like Terry is trying to claim. There is nothing misleading in what I am saying. I'm just saying there is more to it than just adding or subtracting days. For god sake, he doesn't even account for the fact that by the nature of adding more days they have to incur an increased outlay in purse money paid out in order to run races those extra days.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2008, 04:55:45 PM »

Yeah, there could be one in theory. If there isn't though, it's no excuse. So, is there one, or is there not? If there's not, then you're just intentionally misleading readers to confuse things.

That is a lie. I'm not intentionally doing anything other than present a more complete picture than what you are claiming. The only misleading thing here is your claim that by adding a few extra days there should be a "substantial" purse increase.


Yes, the number of races affects purses. However, if the number of races run is the same (like AP says), and the available money is more, like you claim, there should be a purse increase. If you know something about the number of races next year that no one else does, spit it out, or quit misleading the readers with red herrings.

Again, I never claimed that I know how many races will be run, so stop trying to misrepresent and mislead. Again, and how many more times do I have to repeat this, I'm presenting the fact that simply adding days doesn't equal substantially increased purses as you have claimed.

So, where else does the purse account go besides "earned at the track"? (Besides recapture, and the usual small nicks.)

We've addresses this already with the overpayment issue (if there is one). Without knowing if there is or isn't one you can't go claiming that purses will be substantially increased.

Arlington got more days. That's all I need. More days = more revenue = higher purses. It's why they asked for the extra days, to "improve Illinois racing", and now it will be up to them to deliver. No excuses can be accepted when the IRB is giving them everything they want.

Well they do have higher daily purses than Hawthorne already.... the issue is more your over exaggeration and setting of false expectations by claiming the minimal increase of days from 2008 to 2009 should lead to substantially higher purses. This is blatantly misleading.

Things that might be, but aren't, because you just made them up. I could say Hawthorne's woes might be due to space aliens.

I have not made anything up, unlike you and your substantially increasing purses claim. I have simply mentioned factors that may impact purse distribution and complicate your over simplification of the issue. I never said those factors specifically exist, and thus did not make anything up.

Well, let's just think about that for a minute. What you're apparently claiming is that by giving the dates to AP, the local/overnight horsemen will be seeing an extra $10k per day across the whole live AP meet. The 2009 dates, as compared to the 2008 dates, give Arlington a grand total of two (2) more live racing days. The other eight (8) days they picked up are simulcast host days. Now then, I think we can pretty much agree it doesn't matter who is simulcast host, bettors are going to bet their simulcasts no matter who gets the dough, and the horsemen will get that purse money no matter who is running the meet. That's a wash. So, this entire claim must boil down to generating an extra $10,000 per day of purse money across the whole 98 days of live racing, just based on two extra live days. In other words, each of those extra live days will generate $490,000 above and beyond the normal amount earned per day, $280,000 or whatever it is. Wow! Why didn't the 96 days AP ran this year generate anything like $770,000 per day of purses? Those two days next year are going to be "do not miss" for sure! I wonder if they will advertise them ahead of time so we'll know them when we see them. 

Now then, if the claim is that those two extra racing days next year will have a total outlay $10k more than if they had been run at Haw, well, maybe I could believe that. But that's not what you said at all, was it? 

This was a simple typo, I meant overnight stakes as I mention in my post at 2:53. And as Graham since pointed out that is what he meant too.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2008, 05:02:36 PM »

I meant overnight stakes and misspoke. Both you and General referred to the 10K overnight increase as I did in an earlier post in this thread. It was just an mistake that Terry tried to jump all over.

You wrote there was going to be a $10k increase in overnight purses. I did not equate that to the stakes, because I had not discussed those overnight stakes at all, and this discussion has been about overnight purses for every day horsemen! If you don't want confusion, don't confuse people with bad information!

Quote
The fact of the matter is, the extra days don't necessarily equate to an substantial increase in daily purses like Terry is trying to claim. There is nothing misleading in what I am saying. I'm just saying there is more to it than just adding or subtracting days. For god sake, he doesn't even account for the fact that by the nature of adding more days they have to incur an increased outlay in purse money paid out in order to run races those extra days.

For God's sake, here you are again saying it's not going to result in a meaningful purse increase!

So, since that's your position, lose your weak cover argument that it's going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. You can't argue that in one breath when you're trying to justify the transfer of days, and then turn around and say it's not going to be the case when people expect that means higher purses. Just be honest and admit the real truth, that's it's a bald revenue transfer from Hawthorne to Arlington, and you're happy about that.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2008, 05:20:02 PM »

That is a lie. I'm not intentionally doing anything other than present a more complete picture than what you are claiming.

You're inventing factors that may or may not exist. Do they exist, or not? If they don't, they're meaningless to the discussion, and you should not have brought them in to intentionally confuse the issue.

Quote
Again, I never claimed that I know how many races will be run, so stop trying to misrepresent and mislead. Again, and how many more times do I have to repeat this, I'm presenting the fact that simply adding days doesn't equal substantially increased purses as you have claimed.

Well, maybe you could explain what your comment "you neglect to consider the number of races ran per day" really means. Not in the context of some imaginary track like Calder and its 12 races per day, but in the context of what actually takes place in Illinois.

Quote
We've addresses this already with the overpayment issue (if there is one). Without knowing if there is or isn't one you can't go claiming that purses will be substantially increased.

And, without knowing if there was one, you can't use that as an excuse. Was there one, or not?

Quote
Well they do have higher daily purses than Hawthorne already.... the issue is more your over exaggeration and setting of false expectations by claiming the minimal increase of days from 2008 to 2009 should lead to substantially higher purses. This is blatantly misleading.

If the move isn't going to lead to higher purses, what does it accomplish? (Besides making Churchill richer.)

Quote
I have not made anything up, unlike you and your substantially increasing purses claim.

It's not a claim, it's a reasonable expectation based on what you and others have written about the reasons for transferring dates. Are you saying now no one should have any expectations that this will accomplish anything positive at all for overnight purses? (Though, if we go back to the start of this thread, it seems to have done wonders for stakes purses.)

Quote
I have simply mentioned factors that may impact purse distribution and complicate your over simplification of the issue. I never said those factors specifically exist, and thus did not make anything up.

Right. And the Sheikh might buy AP and hand out $billions in free money. It's a factor that "may" impact purse distribution, but I'm not saying that factor specifically exists.

Quote
This was a simple typo, I meant overnight stakes as I mention in my post at 2:53. And as Graham since pointed out that is what he meant too.

Well, we got that straightened out, thank God - it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but was just there as extraneous noise to further confuse the issue.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2008, 05:54:16 PM »

Just read where Santa Anita cut purses 10% and they haven't even starting running yet . In Arlington's case ,I think we are looking through rose-colored glasses.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2008, 06:01:20 PM »

Just read where Santa Anita cut purses 10% and they haven't even starting running yet . In Arlington's case ,I think we are looking through rose-colored glasses.

Yes, but did Santa Anita get a bunch of extra dates (especially simulcast dates = no racing expense) that were taken away from another track? I think not! No excuses for AP in 2009.
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2008, 06:53:10 PM »

Regarding overpayment of purses, the following came up at the IRB meeting. AP has no Overpayment going into 2009. Jim Miller reported that Haw does have an overpayment but that it is being steadily reduced. This was one meeting where AP and Hawthorne literally were in complete agreement on most issues that came up.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2008, 06:59:02 PM »

Regarding overpayment of purses, the following came up at the IRB meeting. AP has no Overpayment going into 2009.

Thank you, kind General. furlong was intentionally confusing the issue with irrelevant noise and apologia, just as I suspected.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2008, 10:20:50 PM »

You wrote there was going to be a $10k increase in overnight purses. I did not equate that to the stakes, because I had not discussed those overnight stakes at all, and this discussion has been about overnight purses for every day horsemen! If you don't want confusion, don't confuse people with bad information!

For God's sake, here you are again saying it's not going to result in a meaningful purse increase!

So, since that's your position, lose your weak cover argument that it's going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. You can't argue that in one breath when you're trying to justify the transfer of days, and then turn around and say it's not going to be the case when people expect that means higher purses. Just be honest and admit the real truth, that's it's a bald revenue transfer from Hawthorne to Arlington, and you're happy about that.

Where have I argued that it is going to be a big purse help to the horsemen. I've never said that. I said that running live racing at AP earns more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne. What is incorrect about that?
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2008, 10:30:44 PM »

Thank you, kind General. furlong was intentionally confusing the issue with irrelevant noise and apologia, just as I suspected.

Not confusing the issues. At the time of this discussion none of this had been established and you're intentionally confusing the issue by stating a few extra days should result in a substantial purse increase. That is not true, you know it, but your making such bold lies in order to bear the flag of your Hawthorne homerism. Overpayment, amount of races run, number of days run, are all part of the purse distribution equation irregardless of what track. The overpayment issues at Hawthorne was discussed when they cut purses earlier this year. It hadn't been brought up in regard to AP until General kindly informed us, but without knowing that situation your misleading statements are just that. And AP does have higher purses that Hawthorne, and it is due in part because of their host and live time. Adding a few extra days isn't going to substantially increase that. Please inform us how it is possible for a substantial purse increase to occur from 2 extra days of live racing?

I'm not going to explain this again, because you'll try and twist it into more of your lies.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2008, 10:49:52 PM »

Adding a few extra days isn't going to substantially increase that. Please inform us how it is possible for a substantial purse increase to occur from 2 extra days of live racing?

Well then, we agree, moving those dates to Arlington isn't really going to accomplish much at all for the local horsemen. All the cover stories people like you told and tell about how this is a great thing for the horsemen are just that, cover stories to gloss over the real fact, that the IRB engineered a simple track's cut  revenue transfer from Hawthorne to AP. That's been my point all along, but we had to work through the "better purses" smokescreen. Now that we're in agreement, I can quit baiting you (and others) with the huge purse increase nonsense. Thanks for finally coming around to my way of thinking. Of course there will be no huge purse increase. There will be lucky to be any purse increase at all. It won't make a difference. Are you at all familiar with the concept of "sarcasm", furlong?

And now, thanks to the loyal ITHA's support in moving those dates, it looks as though all the new purse money that might be generated from the new dates at AP will be handed over to the stakes program and the inevitable out of town winners. Bwah hah hah! Illinois horsemen suckered again.

You never know, though, maybe next summer will be more fun than we can imagine at this time, since the ITHA joined the THG group that's demanding 7% of ADW fees. No slots revenues in Illinois to buy off the horsemen like happened in Louisiana.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2008, 11:12:51 PM »

Well then, we agree, moving those dates to Arlington isn't really going to accomplish much at all for the local horsemen. All the cover stories people like you told and tell about how this is a great thing for the horsemen are just that, cover stories to gloss over the real fact, that the IRB engineered a simple track's cut  revenue transfer from Hawthorne to AP.

What cover stories? Where did I say that? Typical Terry lies.

That's been my point all along, but we had to work through the "better purses" smokescreen. Now that we're in agreement, I can quit baiting you (and others) with the huge purse increase nonsense. Thanks for finally coming around to my way of thinking. Of course there will be no huge purse increase. There will be lucky to be any purse increase at all. It won't make a difference. Are you at all familiar with the concept of "sarcasm", furlong?

No one ever claimed that there would be. Simple fact is that running live at AP produces more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne. The net effect is a larger purse for the horsemen to run for at AP than Hawthorne. Therefore, it is better for the horsemen to run at Hawthorne. No one ever claimed there would be "huge" or "substantial" purses increases. Again you're making stuff up.

And now, thanks to the loyal ITHA's support in moving those dates, it looks as though all the new purse money that might be generated from the new dates at AP will be handed over to the stakes program and the inevitable out of town winners. Bwah hah hah! Illinois horsemen suckered again.

Don't stakes purses have to be a certain percentage of overall purses? If that is the case then, the fact AP's stakes purses increased means that there had to be an increase in the overall purse account, thus meaning the Illinois horsemen are gaining too.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2008, 11:19:51 PM »

What cover stories? Where did I say that? Typical Terry lies.

When you tried to justify it based on how it was going to help the horsemen.

Quote
No one ever claimed that there would be. Simple fact is that running live at AP produces more for the purse account than running live at Hawthorne.

That's true. Two whole days. However, plain old dark simulcast host days generate pretty much the same no matter who is the host. Those are the ones the IRB took 8 away from Hawthorne this year, and 12 or something last year. Those days are pure gravy as far as track commission. A bald revenue transfer from Haw to AP.

Quote
The net effect is a larger purse for the horsemen to run for at AP than Hawthorne.

Two whole days, in return for three lost live days at Haw. That's the huge "net increase" we've been discussing. It will be SO AWESOME! Just like I've been saying all along!

Quote
Don't stakes purses have to be a certain percentage of overall purses?

No.
Report to moderator   Logged
zimms1948
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 51




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2008, 10:31:43 AM »

Frank and Greg, like the Breeder's Cup, are trying to plan for a down economy. We shouldn't be spending money we don't have.

Due to Blago, when are we getting any extra money?
The racehorse industry is not healthy. Ask the vendors at the track how much is owed to them. How many people who don't normally owe money know owe?
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2008, 10:20:46 PM »

Simple fact of the matter is that additional days of racing do not guarantee increase of purse money. If handle declines during the meet and creates a purse overpayment the track has every right to cut purses. If APs current purse account is balanced, but the economy dessimates AP handle in 09, there very well could be a purse decrease by the end of the meet, similar to Hawthorne's cut this Fall meet. Until Hawthorne starts handling more than AP, it will always be more lucrative for the horsemen to run at AP. Though I'm not advocating that all race days should be run at AP.

And I'm almost 100% certain that there is a stipulation in the ITHA contract that stakes purses must be a certain percentage of the purse account. I'm pretty sure from last year it was a discussion point at the IRB meeting discussing the stakes schedules. I wasn't there this year, but maybe General would remember if it was mentioned or not this time round.
Report to moderator   Logged
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 914




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2008, 09:17:29 AM »

 light bulb Doesn't a lot of the stakes purse money come from nominating , entry, and starting fees???
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2008, 10:23:32 AM »

And I'm almost 100% certain that there is a stipulation in the ITHA contract that stakes purses must be a certain percentage of the purse account.

If that was the case, there would have been no discussion about the increases at this year's IRB meeting that we're talking about - it would be a done deal based on a strict %. OR it signals a big purse increase for next year, because the stakes purses went up. Take your choice.

Quote
I'm pretty sure from last year it was a discussion point at the IRB meeting discussing the stakes schedules.

There might be something that says it cannot be higher than a certain percentage.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2008, 10:24:24 AM »

light bulb Doesn't a lot of the stakes purse money come from nominating , entry, and starting fees???

In harness racing and quarter horse racing yes. Not so much in most thoroughbred stakes.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2008, 10:29:00 AM »

Due to Blago, when are we getting any extra money?

The Blago situation could kill the current bill that's in front of him, and could further endanger the money that's already sitting in escrow.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2008, 01:13:39 PM »

If that was the case, there would have been no discussion about the increases at this year's IRB meeting that we're talking about - it would be a done deal based on a strict %. OR it signals a big purse increase for next year, because the stakes purses went up. Take your choice.

There might be something that says it cannot be higher than a certain percentage.

If there's something that stakes purses cannot be higher than a certain percentage, and AP is below that percentage, then there really is nothing to argue about as the Illinois Horsemen agreed to that contract.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2008, 01:31:15 PM »

If there's something that stakes purses cannot be higher than a certain percentage, and AP is below that percentage, then there really is nothing to argue about as the Illinois Horsemen agreed to that contract.

IF. So far all we have is your recollection of last year.

But, it depends. Does a track want to maintain good relations with its local horsemen, or just run roughshod over them giving away an inordinate amount of purse money to stakes, when all economic indications point to a bad 2009? Does the IRB think that's a good idea for the health of the local industry? Just because there's an upper or lower limit written to anything doesn't mean anyone has to actually approach it.
Report to moderator   Logged
fnlfurlong
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 485




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2008, 02:55:15 PM »

IF. So far all we have is your recollection of last year.

But, it depends. Does a track want to maintain good relations with its local horsemen, or just run roughshod over them giving away an inordinate amount of purse money to stakes, when all economic indications point to a bad 2009? Does the IRB think that's a good idea for the health of the local industry? Just because there's an upper or lower limit written to anything doesn't mean anyone has to actually approach it.

Well the fact that AP has agreed to up their number of Illinois races would suggest that they have a good relationship with their horsemen.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2008, 05:21:05 PM »

Well the fact that AP has agreed to up their number of Illinois races would suggest that they have a good relationship with their horsemen.

It suggests nothing but that was part of the deal for the horsemen to support moving dates from Haw to AP.

Here's the entire passage from Greg Szymski:

"We discussed [with Roy Arnold] that there is a perception that Arlington isn't concerned with Illinois racing. As part of the ITHA's agreement to support additional race dates for Arlington Park, it was agreed that Arlington will offer [those IL bred numbers]."

This is the same Greg Szymski who appeared in front of the IRB the other day, asking that they NOT approve the AP stakes purse increases because it might negatively impact the overnight purses, which would include those IL bred races.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2008, 11:22:19 PM »

Well we already know the purses for some of the stakes races at BOTH tracks will be lower just from the Breeders Cup removing their funds. But since Blogo signed that bill today we are in line to get some money sometime to be added to the purses. The idea of taking money from the stakes program and adding it to the overnights in the long run is counterproductive. If someone owns a few good stakes horses and some mid allowance/claimers they are going to look at the place where they can run most of their stock for the best purse structure. If you cut the stakes program you risk losing all of that stable. If you keep the stakes program as is or even improve it a bit then you have a much better shot at getting the entire stable running here. Plus the local horsremen have been doing pretty well here the last few years at winning and placing in stakes races at both tracks. So I take issue with Terry a bit on the "Dick's out of town friends" coming here to win stakes races statement.

Terry if those bad spring and fall dates are really so bad....why have any stakes races at that time of year at all? Why not just put all that money into the overnight purses? The fact is those dates for the most part are not so bad and they can attract some very good horses to run here. The real problem Hawthorne has is that they RUN TOO MUCH! Running that extra time in January is rediculouse. They should only be running 3 or 4 days a week in December too. Then collect dark time money to add to the purses at Hawthorne to go into the overnights that would benefit the locals far more than adding to the overnights at AP. (You seem to assume that the locals have a better shot at winning non stakes races at AP in the summer I am not sure I would agree with that assumption.) In any case where do you think the locals WOULD have a better shot at winning those races AP or Hawthorne? If the answer is Hawthorne then they should be doing all they can to maximize their purses by any means within their control. Racing less days in Dec and no days in Jan would go a long way to help achieve those higher purses.

Secondly at this point it really doesnt matter much who got what extra days from who, its what they do with them and what money they generate from them. One thing seems to be clear, there are more people at AP watching races then there are at Hawthorne, even in Sept.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2008, 01:09:58 AM »

The idea of taking money from the stakes program and adding it to the overnights in the long run is counterproductive.

That isn't the issue. The issue in this thread has been INCREASING stakes purses at AP next year in light of what is likely to be a poor year economically. All the arguments against "gutting the stakes program" are people talking to themselves.

Quote
Terry if those bad spring and fall dates are really so bad....why have any stakes races at that time of year at all?

The two issues of bad dates and stakes are totally unrelated.

Quote
Secondly at this point it really doesnt matter much who got what extra days from who, its what they do with them and what money they generate from them.

That's true. And, if the track that got the dates simply turns around and applies all the extra purse money it was just given to stakes, it really didn't do the day to day guys much good.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 01:21:40 AM by CLOCKERTERRY » Report to moderator   Logged
Jim C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1403




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2008, 11:58:42 PM »

You need to tell me your idea of what "bad dates" means. I do not think the issue of dates and stakes races are "totally" unrelated. In any case fair enough Terry, but just a few questions.

Who exactly are these "day to day" guys anyway? Once again I point out that the locals have done very well in the stakes program. Are you saying that those who run in the stakes program do not run in any other races? Are you saying that more of the money should not go towards those who have better horses and have put more money into racing but rather go towards those who have less quality horses? Don't you think that MAYBE if the purses for stakes races were to go up would that not make people aim towards getting more quality horses to race? What is the incentive to improve the quality of their horses if they can run the same type horses they have now but for higher purses?  Those who have stakes caliber horses will need to win money to cover costs just as much as anyone else, after all the costs are the same no matter how good the horse so why penalize the stakes horses? Huh

Isn't the point of all this added purse money supposed to be for improving the QUALITY of racing in Illinois? If that is in fact the objective then the money should be added to the stakes program and the higher allowance races. If not then don't we just get exactly what you have complained about in the past? The same horses running here that we have always had just for higher purses.

At some point we need to decide just what exactly we are trying to do here. Are we just trying to keep the status quo and add enough money to the pot to help people to merely survive from meet to meet? Or are we trying to improve the product to the point where hopefully it can grow and compete once again while also becoming self-sufficient and not require "handouts" to survive?
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2008, 09:57:23 AM »

You need to tell me your idea of what "bad dates" means.

It means, when you keep taking the few warm weather dates a track has a give them to another track, and take away its big race dates and give them to another track, you're creating a self-fulling situation of making the victim track unsuccessful. In recent years, the IRB has stripped the Stickney meets of the Kentucky Derby, some of the few nice weather Spring dates they had (up until Mother's Day) which included many of their turf days, and now they're working on taking away the few warm Fall days they have including more turf days.

Quote
I do not think the issue of dates and stakes races are "totally" unrelated.

Yes, they are unrelated.

Quote
Who exactly are these "day to day" guys anyway?

Quite obviously, the ones represented by the ITHA who

a) had to cut a deal with AP for more IL bred races because there was a perception amone horsemen that AP didn't support the IL program, and more importantly,
b) went and asked the IRB not to let AP increase its stakes purses.  doh

Quote
Once again I point out that the locals have done very well in the stakes program.

No doubt,agreement with your take is why our ITHA President and ED were in front of the IRB asking them not to raise those purses.

Quote
Are you saying that those who run in the stakes program do not run in any other races? Are you saying that more of the money should not go towards those who have better horses and have put more money into racing but rather go towards those who have less quality horses?

HEY JIM!! THE ISSUE IS WHAT THE ITHA SAID!
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 10:17:06 AM by CLOCKERTERRY » Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [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 0.27 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