Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShadowRoll
There's a few things I hope you will clarify from your post, because I am very interested in your point of view.
First of all, do you feel the state of racing, in terms of the number of people who are fans, is better or worse than it was 10 years ago? If it's worse, then the addition of slots (and, inevitably, table games) is just a stopgap that will at some point fail to justify the continued support of a failing industry. The warning I take from the article is that there should be a refocusing on racing, as opposed to just slots, in the advertising and marketing of racinos, so that the fan base of racing increases along with overall revenues.
Secondly, there's no doubt that slots saved Delaware and Charlestown. But I wonder how long it will be until the owners of these establishments come to believe (if they don't already) that their floor space would be better used only for slots (and, inevitably, table games) rather than for a racebook or even for a racetrack. Just imagine how many machines you could fit in the space that the track at Delaware, for example, currently takes up. Although I believe that such thinking is fallacious because there must be a saturation point (i.e., just because you add more machines doesn't mean you will make more money), I nevertheless don't trust racetrack managements to take the long view on things instead of trying to cash in on what at least appears to an instant and guaranteed source of revenue. Plus, let me point out that Penn National (which also owns Charlestown) will likely go private in a year or so, and I trust private entities (such as Greenwood Racing, the owners of Philly Park) even less than publicly traded companies. Slots has become the tail that wags the dog, and I'm afraid that eventually the tail will come to believe that it doesn't need the dog.
Third, I'm not sure who you think are the politicians behind the story (and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking a fight here, 'cause I'm not). Are you saying that you believe that there's an anti-racing contingent out there, because it appears that the story isn't anti-slots (it seems to acknowledge that slots have made a lot of money), it's essentially anti-racing with slots.
|
SR
I have no idea if racing has expanded or shrunk its fanbase over the last 10 years or so. I'm not sure how to even measure it. As I have stated before, racing "fans" have a much different relationship to our sport than other fans have with mainstream sports. Being that we our main (only?) stream of revenue comes through wagering, it makes more of a gambling hybrid than a traditional sport. The fact that less people are coming out to the races is not a new or surprising trend. But handle nationwide has been pretty consistent over that time. Obviously many people have moved to betting using account style, offtrack betting. I recall a poll done by ESPN a year or so ago that said that 25% of the population had at least some interest in horseracing which I thought was high and think they quoted it as being up from like 11%. Of course they were starting to do more horseracing so maybe they doctored the numbers? I think just the fact that ESPN wants the Breeders Cup and more big races leading up to it is a positive sign, but thats another topic.
Of course I as a horseman I am concerned that the racino tracks will/are focusing much of their marketing efforts on the slots. But I also recognize that because of the tremendous competition for the gambling dollar, that I would rather deal with greedy racetracks focusing on making money from slots than a closed track with zero dollars for purses. Of course if the slots tracks in conjunction with the states would make a concession and lower the takeout to a reasonable rate, I believe that handle on the races would surge, not in a small part due to the fact that the players simply would have more money in their pockets. I would trade all the marketing in the world for a 50% reduction in takeout.
The possibility that racinos will move to eliminate racing altogether is a possibility but unlikely for the reason that it would bring them a lot of grief and lawsuits. It is simply easier to subsidize racing than eliminate it.
I believe that Penn National going private after the takeover especially in light of the possibility of a PE Blackstone tax increase and all the fallout over it, may take a while before things are different.
I am always skeptical of stories like this that seem to have no general public interest other than to try to sway opinion by trying to paint a picture using half the canvas.