Chicago Barn to Wire Breeders' Cup Handicapping Tournaments
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 25, 2014, 07:29:47 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 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court denies case  (Read 6352 times)
jrstark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6179



« on: June 08, 2009, 09:31:34 AM »

From the IHHA website:

6-08-09

GREAT NEWS, Today the Federal Supreme Court announced that they will not take up the riverboat appeal (3% money) from HB 1918. What that means is there will be money coming our way for purses within the next 30 days.  Updates will be following stay tuned, but we should all breath a sigh of relief.

http://www.harnessillinois.com/
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2009, 09:47:21 AM »

From the IHHA website:

6-08-09

GREAT NEWS, Today the Federal Supreme Court announced that they will not take up the riverboat appeal (3% money) from HB 1918. What that means is there will be money coming our way for purses within the next 30 days.  Updates will be following stay tuned, but we should all breath a sigh of relief.

http://www.harnessillinois.com/


I'm glad I was wrong.

So, now how long does everyone think it will be held up by our own people with another lawsuit seeking retroactive payment?  thumbs down

Janine you need a shooting yourself in the foot icon for the forum.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2009, 09:57:36 AM »

Here's my free idea for the ITHA and the scads of horsemen who feel they're owed extra money for races already run even though that money was not in the advertised purse they willingly entered for:

Arrange a big open ITHA membership meeting, and get a couple of the legislative sponsors of that bill to come and speak to the assembled horsemen, and explain what the clearly spelled out legislative intent of that bill was - to attract MORE horses to Illinois to run in the races with the higher purses and thus stimulate more betting. Have the legislators explain to the horsemen how they might feel about future legislation to help horsemen if they take this money for past races having never actually attracted any additional horses or betting.
Report to moderator   Logged
Old and Slow
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2766




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2009, 10:07:56 AM »

Here's my free idea for the ITHA and the scads of horsemen who feel they're owed extra money for races already run even though that money was not in the advertised purse they willingly entered for:

Arrange a big open ITHA membership meeting, and get a couple of the legislative sponsors of that bill to come and speak to the assembled horsemen, and explain what the clearly spelled out legislative intent of that bill was - to attract MORE horses to Illinois to run in the races with the higher purses and thus stimulate more betting. Have the legislators explain to the horsemen how they might feel about future legislation to help horsemen if they take this money for past races having never actually attracted any additional horses or betting.

Good idea, Terry. 

What's up with this? A loon and a cretin in complete agreement? Grin
Report to moderator   Logged

I know one thing for sure.  Indecision may or may not be my problem.
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2009, 10:39:29 AM »

What's up with this? A loon and a cretin in complete agreement? Grin

Amazing.

Oddly enough, I never seemed to have any differences at all with anyone from the harness side before politics reared its ugly head.  Undecided

Well, despite what the horsemen might do to muck up their share, the tracks will get theirs. So, figure maybe a nice $8 million or so infusion of cash to Hawthorne to keep it going, maybe fix up the backside a little or put in new ceiling tiles, and irritate the huggers who keep hoping it will go out of business, as well as a bigger chunk to Arlington, who can maybe share the wealth with their valued customers and reinstate that back-breaking 25% concession discount for club members. After all, the tracks' share is earmarked for things like marketing and capital improvements to try and improve the business of racing. We know AP wouldn't ignore the spirit of the law and simply substitute this money for money they're already spending and send off the windfall to Churchill as corporate profit.

I'm sure you have ideas how the harness tracks could use their share.
Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2009, 10:53:57 AM »

Right or wrong, this is a huge win for all Illinois Horseman, Tracks and fans..We have suffered a lot of losses in the legislature over the years and if it takes this to level the playing field a bit, well..so be it.

Does anyone have the allocation direction of how this money has to be spent? I believe 60% of each track's take must go to capital and backstretch improvements and 40% to purses. Of course, as Clocker brought up again, there is still the matter of making sure this is not applied retroactively to purses, but does what it is supposed to do...stimulate the future of Illinois racing and get more horses to race here and improve the handle.

I'm sure the white paint salesman in the NW suburbs are very happy now Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2009, 11:00:51 AM »

Right or wrong, this is a huge win for all Illinois Horseman, Tracks and fans..We have suffered a lot of losses in the legislature over the years and if it takes this to level the playing field a bit, well..so be it.

Does anyone have the allocation direction of how this money has to be spent? I believe 60% of each track's take must go to capital and backstretch improvements and 40% to purses. Of course, as Clocker brought up again, there is still the matter of making sure this is not applied retroactively to purses, but does what it is supposed to do...stimulate the future of Illinois racing and get more horses to race here and improve the handle.

I'm sure the white paint salesman in the NW suburbs are very happy now Wink

There is something about a 52%-48% split between thoroughbreds and harness, but I don't remember if that's before or after a 60%-40% split in favor of purses. I think the harness horsemen and tracks negotiated a 50-50 split of their share (the 48%?) in exchange for some relief on recapture.

Somewhere in the archives all the gory details are spelled out. Maybe Marcus will refresh us when he writes his DRF piece.
Report to moderator   Logged
Marcus Hersh
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1103




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2009, 11:33:36 AM »

There is something about a 52%-48% split between thoroughbreds and harness, but I don't remember if that's before or after a 60%-40% split in favor of purses.

57 T'bred
43 Harness
is what i have

story should be posting any minute now
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2009, 11:38:41 AM »

57 T'bred
43 Harness
is what i have

story should be posting any minute now

Thanks, I remembered wrong.

Marcus' story: http://www.drf.com/news/article/104471.html
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2009, 12:01:56 PM »

I hate to ask this, but ...

Does anybody know if the money is actually in that escrow account? After all, Blago raided every other special account in the State to pay bills and try to cover the Assembly's deficits.
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2009, 12:25:52 PM »

Unless this gets totally screwed by by the IRB and some members of ITHA, Maidens should be going at around 34 to 35K, with first level allowances somewhere around 37 to 38K. Will place us very comfortably with all surrounding states. Plus money will allow all tracks to improve their facilities -- Earl Sande--Great news for you and Fairmount.
Report to moderator   Logged
Earl Sande
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2144




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2009, 12:35:57 PM »

You are right, General.
Maybe not the tourniquet we need, but at least a band-aid!
Maybe FP management will now be able to paint the paddock and euthanize the Jumbotron.
 beer
Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2009, 12:39:18 PM »

Unless this gets totally screwed by by the IRB and some members of ITHA, Maidens should be going at around 34 to 35K, with first level allowances somewhere around 37 to 38K. Will place us very comfortably with all surrounding states. Plus money will allow all tracks to improve their facilities -- Earl Sande--Great news for you and Fairmount.

Does your figure include the Illinois added money? I know Arlington is just doing what other tracks do by including that, but I'm wondering if the Illinois added will go up proportionately to the base purse or if the casino money would just impact the purse and not the Illinois dollars...if that makes sense Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2009, 12:42:47 PM »

No-- Right now Straight MSW is 28K-- State restricted 29K-- Straight first level allowance is 30.5 K Ill restricted 31.5K-------Adding in the Ill Breeders funds should make all proportionately higher
Report to moderator   Logged
nmslim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 895




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2009, 12:52:48 PM »

I would venture to guess that the split between thoroughbred and harness is going to be a bone of contention,as the thoroughbred tracks,I believe,produce about two-thirds of the revenue,both live and simulcast,yet the split is now not far from 50-50.Also,lurking in the background is Blago,Lon Monk and the rest,and the U.S. Attorneys case.The chances are pretty good that the casinos will be able to find a judge to grant an injunction because of the link between this bill and the corruption cases.Just because SCOTUS let it go does not mean that it is a done deal.Even if the dough is meted out for purses and the like,where are these horses going to come from?These are all questions that must be dealt with before the accounts are opened.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 12:54:28 PM by nmslim » Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2009, 01:04:26 PM »

I would venture to guess that the split between thoroughbred and harness is going to be a bone of contention,as the thoroughbred tracks,I believe,produce about two-thirds of the revenue,both live and simulcast,yet the split is now not far from 50-50.Also,lurking in the background is Blago,Lon Monk and the rest,and the U.S. Attorneys case.The chances are pretty good that the casinos will be able to find a judge to grant an injunction because of the link between this bill and the corruption cases.Just because SCOTUS let it go does not mean that it is a done deal.Even if the dough is meted out for purses and the like,where are these horses going to come from?These are all questions that must be dealt with before the accounts are opened.

The split seems to me at least, to be non-negotiable and part of the wording of the original piece of legislation. And it's something that I haven't heard the T-Bred side disputing at all so I hope that doesn't become a bone of contention.

Regarding Blago, etc..the three year period that the Supreme Court ruled on was done in an open and non "Blagojevich" manner and should be untouchable. The 25th hour extension he signed in November and that is mentioned in Peter Fitzgerald's indictment is another situation all together and is far from a done deal.

Pletcher pulled his entire string and went to Delaware this year, supposedly for "geographical diversity" reasons. Now, because Delaware has a casino fueled purse structure and if Arlington was on a level playing field, I think he might have stayed. Ironically, the track that this will hurt the most is CDI's very own CD. They can't fill races now and are losing horses to Indiana and to PID left and right. With a five month meet and larger purses, who would choose to run at CD in the Spring instead of setting up shop at Arlington for the summer?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 01:13:16 PM by Klink » Report to moderator   Logged
Old and Slow
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2766




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2009, 01:43:19 PM »

I would venture to guess that the split between thoroughbred and harness is going to be a bone of contention,as the thoroughbred tracks,I believe,produce about two-thirds of the revenue,both live and simulcast,yet the split is now not far from 50-50.

There has never been contention about the split to my knowledge. The law says 57% Tbred and 43% Harness. The time to contest that if anyone had objections would have been when the bill was written. I don't think there is a problem here.

Also,lurking in the background is Blago,Lon Monk and the rest,and the U.S. Attorneys case.The chances are pretty good that the casinos will be able to find a judge to grant an injunction because of the link between this bill and the corruption cases.Just because SCOTUS let it go does not mean that it is a done deal.

Case law will be on our side. Why would they run up legal fees when they've already been beaten?

Even if the dough is meted out for purses and the like,where are these horses going to come from?These are all questions that must be dealt with before the accounts are opened.

Horses will follow the money, not vice versa.
Report to moderator   Logged

I know one thing for sure.  Indecision may or may not be my problem.
orioles
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 913




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2009, 01:52:06 PM »

 thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up thumbs up  YAHOOOOOOOO
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2009, 02:47:07 PM »

This is great news!!
I as an owner of horses that raced from 2005 through 2008 voted for the money to be from now and into the future, but many horsemen that I've talked to think they should get the retroactive money!! I could name some names, but will refrain. However, there are also far more horsemen that wanted this money to be applied as I wanted.
Another good thing about this is the bill that was passed regarding extending the 3% through at least 2011. That all was hinging on this lawsuit - so I'm prety sure that that bill will now be officially active. If I'm wrong - please correct me.
Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 02:53:45 PM »

This is great news!!
I as an owner of horses that raced from 2005 through 2008 voted for the money to be from now and into the future, but many horsemen that I've talked to think they should get the retroactive money!! I could name some names, but will refrain. However, there are also far more horsemen that wanted this money to be applied as I wanted.
Another good thing about this is the bill that was passed regarding extending the 3% through at least 2011. That all was hinging on this lawsuit - so I'm prety sure that that bill will now be officially active. If I'm wrong - please correct me.

Forget for a moment that what is best for racing is to put the money forward, but IF it was applied retroactively, it would be an accounting nightmare. Every jock, trainer, Owner, Partnership would have to be tracked down and checks cut for minute shares. Then there would be all the tax liabilities that would have to be dealt with as everyone would have to file revised tax returns for each of the three year period...crazy stuff.
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 695




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2009, 06:01:05 PM »

Forget for a moment that what is best for racing is to put the money forward, but IF it was applied retroactively, it would be an accounting nightmare. Every jock, trainer, Owner, Partnership would have to be tracked down and checks cut for minute shares. Then there would be all the tax liabilities that would have to be dealt with as everyone would have to file revised tax returns for each of the three year period...crazy stuff.

Anyone on the Cash Basis picks it up as income in the current year and even if you are on the accrual basis I doubt this is an issue(not 100% SURE) but doubt it
Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2009, 07:24:20 PM »

Anyone on the Cash Basis picks it up as income in the current year and even if you are on the accrual basis I doubt this is an issue(not 100% SURE) but doubt it

You are correct..my bad...but still..

July 14th is the meeting to determine retro or not..I will be busy soliciting owners and trainers to make this trip.
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 695




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2009, 09:25:46 PM »

Get Ready for Year Round Racing

Haw Jan-Apr/Nov-Dec
AP-Oaks Day thru the Breeders CUP
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2009, 09:47:43 PM »

This whole deal is about instant gratification versus the long term picture. If the trainers and owners that want the money to be applied to the past would just look at the "whole" picture - they would see that it would benefit them much more for the money to be applied to the future. Reason being - it would help to produce more owners and more horses on the grounds for the next several years because there would be much larger purses going foreward. This would benefit both owners, new owners and trainers into the future.
If the money were to be applied to the past - it won't help ANYONE to make more money regarding purses later.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2009, 09:53:36 PM »

This whole deal is about instant gratification versus the long term picture. If the trainers and owners that want the money to be applied to the past would just look at the "whole" picture - they would see that it would benefit them much more for the money to be applied to the future. Reason being - it would help to produce more owners and more horses on the grounds for the next several years because there would be much larger purses going foreward. This would benefit both owners, new owners and trainers into the future.
If the money were to be applied to the past - it won't help ANYONE to make more money regarding purses later.

The ones calling for retroactive payment don't care about the future of the industry. They do care about the sure thing that's best for themselves. They don't want to have to actually compete for that money against extra/better horses it might attract. They want it handed to them for the six horse race they won two years ago.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   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 0.17 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
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

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