NYRA Fanchise Recommendation

[ELA]

What really concerns me about this stage of the game -- which is truly crucial -- is the amount of due dilligence put forth by the committee. I don't want to sound like a jerk and appear to be a heckler from the sidelines, but my concerns surround whether or not this committee is truly in a position to make a recommendation. Even though it is not binding on anyone or anything and it is merely a recommendation, can they make an educated recommendation.

The aspersion cast or appearence can have potentiall far reaching ramifications (kind of like when Peter Jennings reported that Al Gore is the next President of the US. While it didn't go that way, the mere reporting can sway the election).

How many meetings have they had? How much time has the accounting firm/consultant actually spent reviewing the bids, financials, etc. Did they conduct interviews? There should only be about a hundred or so more questions asked here?

Anyway, all that aside (and that is a great deal to push aside) -- there is aspect/question here -- does the recommendation sit until Spitzer takes office and does he get/take/have the final say over who gets the franchise? Does the current legislators try and get something done before year end (there has been talk and rumors that the legislators could meet one more time before year end and sneak this in)?

What if Spitzer wants time to re-analyze and re-examine this entire situtation? So I have one last question . . . WHERE ARE THE FRIGGIN' VLT'S??? Enough political BS already.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ELA

What really concerns me about this stage of the game -- which is truly crucial -- is the amount of due dilligence put forth by the committee. I don't want to sound like a jerk and appear to be a heckler from the sidelines, but my concerns surround whether or not this committee is truly in a position to make a recommendation. Even though it is not binding on anyone or anything and it is merely a recommendation, can they make an educated recommendation.

The aspersion cast or appearence can have potentiall far reaching ramifications (kind of like when Peter Jennings reported that Al Gore is the next President of the US. While it didn't go that way, the mere reporting can sway the election).

How many meetings have they had? How much time has the accounting firm/consultant actually spent reviewing the bids, financials, etc. Did they conduct interviews? There should only be about a hundred or so more questions asked here?

Anyway, all that aside (and that is a great deal to push aside) -- there is aspect/question here -- does the recommendation sit until Spitzer takes office and does he get/take/have the final say over who gets the franchise? Does the current legislators try and get something done before year end (there has been talk and rumors that the legislators could meet one more time before year end and sneak this in)?

What if Spitzer wants time to re-analyze and re-examine this entire situtation? So I have one last question . . . WHERE ARE THE FRIGGIN' VLT'S??? Enough political BS already.

Eric

Eric, it is a RECOMMENDATION and is binding in absolutely no way.

In other words, it's meaningless.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Eric, it is a RECOMMENDATION and is binding in absolutely no way.

In other words, it's meaningless.

Excactly, in fact the same game will be played again next year. Speaking to Nader he is realistic about this recommendation, i.e. they won't get it. But it doesn't matter. I think they have an excellent chance in the long run to keep it....He also said that relations with Spitzer were improving quite a bit.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Excactly, in fact the same game will be played again next year. Speaking to Nader he is realistic about this recommendation, i.e. they won't get it. But it doesn't matter. I think they have an excellent chance in the long run to keep it....He also said that relations with Spitzer were improving quite a bit.

I think the game will be played quite differently next year.

They can't get the recomendation. Basically claiming land ownership disqualifies them.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think the game will be played quite differently next year.

They can't get the recomendation. Basically claiming land ownership disqualifies them.

Andy, who is "They" and "them" -- ??? Thanks.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ELA

Andy, who is "They" and "them" -- ??? Thanks.

Eric

They is NYRA.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

They is NYRA.

Thanks for the clarification. So, maybe I am missing something or drawing a real mental blank here, but why does claiming land ownership -- which I believe NYRA is still standing by there original claim -- disqualify them from being the one who the committee recommends? Thanks again.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Eric, it is a RECOMMENDATION and is binding in absolutely no way.

In other words, it's meaningless.

Andy, I agree and know that. My point, or should I say my concern is -- is it truly meaningless? Could there be ramifications, lawsuits, who knows what -- if the committee makes a recommendation, Spitzer moves into his office next year and as he is unpacking says "thanks for the recommendation, but I am going with . . ." (a different bidder). How does that play out?

At this stage I think the last thing the racing industry needs -- nationwide -- is more factionalization. It is not good for the industry in any way, shape or form. I do hope it's meaningless -- with NO ramifications.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

Andy, I agree and know that. My point, or should I say my concern is -- is it truly meaningless? Could there be ramifications, lawsuits, who knows what -- if the committee makes a recommendation, Spitzer moves into his office next year and as he is unpacking says "thanks for the recommendation, but I am going with . . ." (a different bidder). How does that play out?

At this stage I think the last thing the racing industry needs -- nationwide -- is more factionalization. It is not good for the industry in any way, shape or form. I do hope it's meaningless -- with NO ramifications.

Eric

Ad Hoc committees can be powerful depending who is on them. But basically the "gov't" will do what they want and ignore an independent ad hoc.