Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
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.
|
A few things: you make some very good points, especially regarding takeout reduction. It would be an interesting experiment but I doubt anyone has the balls to implement it. As a fan and a gambler, primarily, and not so much as someone involved in the business (except, of course, with SWLY), I am very concerned with fan base rather than just total handle. Fewer gamblers with the same overall handle probably means better informed gamblers, which of course means tougher competition during my occasional weekend at the park, as well as less people to commiserate with when I lose.
As for Penn National, we'll have to see. I've been buying shares for years but I think that gravy train has reached the end of the line for small-time investors like me. I'll vote in favor of the takeover and then whatever happens happens.
You seem very skeptical of the media in general (re your comments about ESPN as well as the Sun). As someone with an undergraduate degree in journalism, i have to say that...I agree with that sentiment completely. I assume you exclude from your skepticism people like Byk, who has proven himself to be a paragon of integrity. (I know it's a heavy responsibility, but remember, Steve, that when I hear news on your show, I assume that it's from God's mouth to your ear).
Finally, let me say that when I first read your reply above, I thought you began it with the word "SIR", before realizing that you wrote "SR", and I nearly spit my drink out my nose.