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


November 28, 2014, 05:02:21 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]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: another State's opinion about state bailing out horse racing  (Read 2568 times)
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2006, 03:39:14 PM »

The point I am making is that slots are not helping LAD horse race attendance and on-track handle. I dint know when the slots actually came in but it is clear there has not been much improvement in on-track figures down there. Mel said it did.

Wally,

Look at the year before the slots arrived. The people I know at LAD tell me there is a larger handle now with the slots than the year before. I'll  make a wager with you that the handle was larger the year they had slots than the year before they had them. Deal? You can't pull out any year in the past and compare it. You can look at a 5 year trend or the year before and after.
Report to moderator   Logged
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2006, 04:13:54 PM »

Right. I was helping you out. You said you used 2002 numbers, but then said you didn't know what the numbers were pre-slots. I was pointing out that the numbers you used WERE pre-slots.

Yes and if you go back farther to the 70's and 80's you will find that they set all their handle and attendance records. Since then it has been a steady slide and the gaming bailed them out.
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Guest

« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2006, 06:48:09 PM »

Wally,

Look at the year before the slots arrived. The people I know at LAD tell me there is a larger handle now with the slots than the year before. I'll make a wager with you that the handle was larger the year they had slots than the year before they had them. Deal? You can't pull out any year in the past and compare it. You can look at a 5 year trend or the year before and after.

Mel, slots came in 2004 here is article saying daily handle dropped 19%.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=50403&subsec=1
Report to moderator   Logged
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2006, 02:47:12 PM »

Mel, slots came in 2004 here is article saying daily handle dropped 19%.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=50403&subsec=1

I believe they came in full operation in 2005, not sure, I will check it and get some current handle figures.
Also you figures are for on and off track handle.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2006, 03:21:38 PM by mel4600 » Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2006, 03:00:25 PM »

ClockerTerry,

That's exactly the point I made on here several months ago when we all started talking about the 3% "relief" money from the river boats, and the huge amount that was being delegated to the tracks owners.
Until about 7 years ago the "splits" money was held in excrow by the state. Each track had to "prove" that they had used their own money for capitol improvements in order to get that "splits" money that was in their held account. Further, they had to submit a three year plan to the racing board before the dates hearing every year on their projected capitol improvements projects which the racing board reviewed and approved or dis-approved.
Each track had to also prove that they had at least 3 qualified bids for all projects along with anti-collusion statements signed by all bidders before any work was started, and then after completion they had to supply completed waivers of lien from all contractors involved in the projects stating that all monies were paid to them 100% before the tracks could submit for re-payment from the "splits" account.
That was one of my primary responsibilities at Hawthorne.
If the racing board insists on a similar structure for payment if the 3% ever kicks in, I would feel a bit easier about it. However, I don't know why the tracks would need so much of the cut of the pie as it is now. Higher purses, better conditions, and more marketing/advertising should drive the product up which would mean more money for the track owners in the cut they take.

So, is the big question, "who will be cut and who will lose their job?" I don't think the tracks are interested now much in marketing, by the way. I don't know much what to think except that big cuts are coming. Y'all been stone-walled until that day, my opinion.

It's like prohibition and then, after, all the small operators fell out, shaken-out, and the big liquor-pie was left on the table for the biggest to cut into, all legal-like. I think there exists a plan, a state-by state plan, sitting somewhere in somebody's desk-drawer. But it might still be iffy because the economy might still suck, I mean, big-time. Anyway, that's when it will happen.
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 0.067 seconds with 14 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