Yet another track that is dead to me

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Maybe I am missing something here, but the argument long advanced by Churchill, Keeneland, KEEP and other racing-related groups is that they need slots in Kentucky in order to save/preserve what is one of Kentucky's signature industries. By taking this action, Churchill transparently shows that it cares little about horse racing. If I were a Kentucky legislator in light of that fact, I would view Churchill as little more than a gaming company whose headquarters just happen to be in Louisville. Why should they be entitled to have slots any more than a company like Penn National, or even one of the Las Vegas-based casino companies? For that reason, I'm not sure it is a sound business/lobbying decision.

Churchill has very few friends in the KY legislature. They are perceived (rightly) as arrogant and have made a series of moves and proclamations that have managed to piss off both parties. A few years back they threatened to move the corporate headquarters out of Louisville to Chicago over some issue they had with lawmakers. Tom Meeker made a lot of enemies in the legislature and Evans hasnt exactly endeared himself. There has been a lot of sentiment that because of CDI slots will never come to KY and while it is impossible to know for sure because the out of state casinos companies have spent a lot of lobbying money in KY, they arent any closer than they were 12 years ago.

[JJP]

Funny how 20 years ago, the horsemen were (logically so) opposed to slots. Then they did a 180, and wanted to hook their ship to slots, completely ignoring the longer term problems. Slots are nothing but a band aid solution.

What will be interesting? Eventually we will see expanded sports betting. And when THAT happens, it will be a sledge hammer to the industry.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by JJP

Funny how 20 years ago, the horsemen were (logically so) opposed to slots. Then they did a 180, and wanted to hook their ship to slots, completely ignoring the longer term problems. Slots are nothing but a band aid solution.

What will be interesting? Eventually we will see expanded sports betting. And when THAT happens, it will be a sledge hammer to the industry.

The longer terms problems would have been short term problems w/o them.

How do you think racing would fare if they built a casinos right down the road from the tracks and we got nothing but competition? While the tracks seem a bit like traitors now that they have morphed into gaming companies a whole lot of them would have surely went under especially when the economy went south. We may not like the direction that many have gone in but we cant race without them either.

I think that it is naive to believe that racing could have figured out some sort effective national strategy that would have stemmed the tide against casino's. Sports betting isnt that close especially if the Supreme Court declines to hear NJ's case. Not to mention that it is already easy to set up an online sports wagering account currently. Anyone who wants to make a wager on a sporting event in this country shouldnt have any problem doing so.

While there is no doubt that the money hasnt exactly been well spent, it is difficult to make a case that w/o slots revenue we would be in a better place.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The longer terms problems would have been short term problems w/o them.

How do you think racing would fare if they built a casinos right down the road from the tracks and we got nothing but competition? While the tracks seem a bit like traitors now that they have morphed into gaming companies a whole lot of them would have surely went under especially when the economy went south. We may not like the direction that many have gone in but we cant race without them either.

I think that it is naive to believe that racing could have figured out some sort effective national strategy that would have stemmed the tide against casino's. Sports betting isnt that close especially if the Supreme Court declines to hear NJ's case. Not to mention that it is already easy to set up an online sports wagering account currently. Anyone who wants to make a wager on a sporting event in this country shouldnt have any problem doing so.

While there is no doubt that the money hasnt exactly been well spent, it is difficult to make a case that w/o slots revenue we would be in a better place.

Setting up a sports wagering account isn't difficult. Getting paid without setting off red flags is another matter.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by JJP

Setting up a sports wagering account isn't difficult. Getting paid without setting off red flags is another matter.

I haven't had any issues in a long time

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I haven't had any issues in a long time

Its really besides the point. The real point is that sports gambling is much closer than you realize, and like 10 Pt Move up said, state governments are looking for more and more ways to get additional revenue. Why let the offshores and mob get the benefits? Guys like Adelson are already worried about it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by JJP

Its really besides the point. The real point is that sports gambling is much closer than you realize, and like 10 Pt Move up said, state governments are looking for more and more ways to get additional revenue. Why let the offshores and mob get the benefits? Guys like Adelson are already worried about it.

Actually it is much further away than you believe. Have you not paid attention to the state of NJ and Monmouth's bid? The state passed the laws and Monmouth was a willing sponsor but they have lost in Fed court every time so far. The have 1 appeal left, to the supreme court which may not even decide to hear the case. Other states have attached themselves to case as you are correct in that they are looking to grab revenue where ever they can. However as it currently stands the odds of widespread sports wagering looks fuzzy.

http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...stponed-again/


http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...ent/#more-8137

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The longer terms problems would have been short term problems w/o them.

How do you think racing would fare if they built a casinos right down the road from the tracks and we got nothing but competition? While the tracks seem a bit like traitors now that they have morphed into gaming companies a whole lot of them would have surely went under especially when the economy went south. We may not like the direction that many have gone in but we cant race without them either.

I think that it is naive to believe that racing could have figured out some sort effective national strategy that would have stemmed the tide against casino's. Sports betting isnt that close especially if the Supreme Court declines to hear NJ's case. Not to mention that it is already easy to set up an online sports wagering account currently. Anyone who wants to make a wager on a sporting event in this country shouldnt have any problem doing so.

While there is no doubt that the money hasnt exactly been well spent, it is difficult to make a case that w/o slots revenue we would be in a better place.

I dont agree with any of this.

I think we are much closer to legalized sports betting, state by state, then people think. Revenue streams are drying up and that apple is too big when big gov programs started to become unsustainable.

Racing should improve their product, their distribution, the takeout percentages. It would have grown under better management.

1. Why is it not legal in all 50 states to wager online? A stronger lobby and nationalized effort could have made this happen IMO.

2. Why is it that after HD has been out for 15 years or you cant even stream a HD telecast until recently, much less see it on TV. I can watch Youtube of some nobody in HD but I cant watch a sport that is mostly a television event with the best possible view?

3. Why cant we get it so the withholding threshold was higher so professional or recreational players do not have to wait sometimes a year to get their rightful money?

4. Takeout has been beaten to death but still, it should not be blended into the mid 20's. A first year math student could be presented the numbers and asked is this a good investment and they would laugh and say of course not.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

4. Takeout has been beaten to death but still, it should not be blended into the mid 20's. A first year math student could be presented the numbers and asked is this a good investment and they would laugh and say of course not.

Nobody wants us to look at this as an investment, we are supposed to look at it as entertainment. Hasn't that been made abundantly clear by now?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nobody wants us to look at this as an investment, we are supposed to look at it as entertainment. Hasn't that been made abundantly clear by now?

CJ thats basically what I do.

I look at it like golf fees to a country club, a player has to know the math makes it very unlikely you come out ahead so just figure it into your disposable income. So instead of say $500 a month to one hobby its $500 a month to the race track.

I think thats what race executives understand as well. I dont think they relate to keeping a customer long term, they know with the math its very unlikely that they do. They need to grind them for a short term until they leave. They are likely much more focused on attracting new customers due to this inevitable churn so to speak.