Empire challenges rumored NY franchise plan

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Eric, I agree completely, but that's what you get with a political hack like Jeff Perlee in charge. Besides the backroom deals that led to the NYTHA endorsement, Empire's "negative" campaigning on the franchise issue is no different than the what these guys do it on the political front. And they wonder why people are turned off to their schtick?

I hear you. I don't know Jeff Perlee, but I do remember reading his CV, perhaps on their website or in their proposal. To be honest, whatever I read, I forgot. Be that as it may, with regard to the NYTHA -- this decision was very rash and done without proper due diligence and consideration. It was very premature as well. In addition, when the board of the NYTHA made this decision -- even though it might have been well within the board's purview -- it appeared to not represent the majority of the NYTHA membership. Thus, it did not represent the collective views and desires of the membership.

Look at the leadership of the various organizations -- the NY Breeders was headed up by Dennis Brida and Barry Ostrager (the lay-leader). I can't really speak to Brida, however, Ostrager is very well known, well respected, and is an extremely intelligent man. The NYTHA was headed up by Bob Flynn and Richard Bomze (the lay-leader). Again, I can't speak to Flynn, however, Bomze constantly seemed out of his league, over his head, etc. I don't think the NYTHA did an adequate job in dealing with NYRA -- well before the franchise RFP process began. In my opinion, the NYTHA used legal counsel as a crutch which not only cost a great deal of money, but also can be very reflective of much larger issues -- the quality and confidence in the board, the respect or lack thereof from other organizations, and how the NYTHA is able to accomplish or not accomplish representing the best interests of the horsemen.

Anyway, what's done is done and history should very much teach us a great deal.

Eric

[theiman]

Perhaps Empires raise of the takeout is a realistic approach to the finances of the racing/casino scenario? They might be the only ones to admit it up front.
Is there any promise, in writing, in the other plans from Excelsior and NYRA, that raising the TO wont be the case down the road?

I think Empire wants a fair shake as all do. When the original evaluation, from the Pataki group, came out Empire was rated behind Excelsior. I think Spitzer heard enough, I know I wrote to him and to the Saratogian newspaper about the rating of Excelsior and the credit they were be given for the Chicago horse racing management team that runs the harness tracks, actually instead of runs the harness tracks it should be "ruins" the harness tracks.
I am sure you are all aware that the same "racing experienced management team" that Excelsior claims to have, namely the Johnstons from the Chicago harness tracks, also surcharge the winning wagers on track at an additional 1%. In addition, if you wager intertrack from say Maywood Park on a race at Balmoral you are surcharged at 1.5% of your winnings. You sure you want these people in charge in NY?

There is alot to look at at all of the groups, just make sure all of the cards are on the table before awarding something that someone may regret they will be stuck with for a long time!!

[SentToStud]

In the first story, next to last paragraph, bold italics added:

"In its current bankruptcy court proceedings, NYRA claims ownership of the three tracks. Industry insiders say the Spitzer administration is concerned about losing the legal fight over the land claims and would rather work out a deal in which NYRA would keep the racing side of the franchise in exchange for giving up the track claims. The Spitzer administration is also demanding that the current NYRA board resign in return for another franchise and a new management structure be put in place."

I read this as total management change of NYRA moving forward.

Correct?

If correct, why?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

In the first story, next to last paragraph, bold italics added:

"In its current bankruptcy court proceedings, NYRA claims ownership of the three tracks. Industry insiders say the Spitzer administration is concerned about losing the legal fight over the land claims and would rather work out a deal in which NYRA would keep the racing side of the franchise in exchange for giving up the track claims. The Spitzer administration is also demanding that the current NYRA board resign in return for another franchise and a new management structure be put in place."

I read this as total management change of NYRA moving forward.

Correct?

If correct, why?

So Elliot can put HIS people in!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So Elliot can put HIS people in!

Can't he just fire them and get on with it?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I read this as total management change of NYRA moving forward.

Correct?

If correct, why?

This is not correct.

The board and management are two distinct entities. Without getting too deeply into it, the board ( 24 or 25 people I believe ) comes from different places, and one of these could probably be construed as " Pataki people " and almost certainly at least Spitzer wants these people out.

While some from the board will remain it seems likely that most will be replaced. Steve Duncker, who is chairman, is not one of those that would be replaced in my opinion. He certainly should not be.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is not correct.

The board and management are two distinct entities. Without getting too deeply into it, the board ( 24 or 25 people I believe ) comes from different places, and one of these could probably be construed as " Pataki people " and almost certainly at least Spitzer wants these people out.

While some from the board will remain it seems likely that most will be replaced. Steve Duncker, who is chairman, is not one of those that would be replaced in my opinion. He certainly should not be.

Thank you.