Philly.com

[Cannon Shell]

The obvious points missed that scream for attention is that Greenwood, the owner operator of Parx is a foreign based company and their cut of the slots revenue is far greater than the horse racing industry's share. Of course the only reason that parx/greenwood has slots is because of horseracing however that point always goes unnoticed. As for the conspiracy theory that the state is behind the article I would say that considering the buffoonery who make up the state politicians in PA it would be highly unlikely. However IMO conspiracy filled mind the most likely source of this and other anti-racing articles is upper level management at Parx. They stand to gain the most with an elimination of racing.

[Cannon Shell]

And lets be serious about the ridiculous notion that anyone at any gambling establishment should care where the money they loses goes to. Slots players don't support racing, they play slots. Like people that play powerball aren't playing it to make a life changing score but to actually support the social programs that supposedly are funded by the lottery? The racetrack and horseman have a contractual agreement to split the revenue. It is a business agreement not much different than when state provide certain businesses and industries sweetheart tax and other deals to lure them into setting up in their state. Are those deals fair to the other established businesses that are not getting incentives or tax breaks? Of course not. While it pretty much universally agreed that racing has squandered much of the money in an inefficient manner (probably nowhere moreso that PA) the idea that somehow these deals are immoral or unfair is ludicrous.

[pointman]

One thing I never hear mentioned which Chuck touched on is that State governments, in particular to NY, have used horse racing as a way to get other forms of gambling legalized, specifically Casino gambling.

Certainly in NY, there would be no slots at Yonkers, Aqueduct, Saratoga Harness, Monticello, etc., from which the State has made a ton of money, without tying it to the horse racing industry.

Typical government BS with the horse racing industry is to use the horse racing industry to achieve goals and then dump them when they don't need them.

Without any doubt, if New Yorkers approve gambling statewide as Cuomo wants in a vote to Amend the State Constitution, the money flowing to horse racing here will be immediately cut off.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by pointman

One thing I never hear mentioned which Chuck touched on is that State governments, in particular to NY, have used horse racing as a way to get other forms of gambling legalized, specifically Casino gambling.

Certainly in NY, there would be no slots at Yonkers, Aqueduct, Saratoga Harness, Monticello, etc., from which the State has made a ton of money, without tying it to the horse racing industry.

Typical government BS with the horse racing industry is to use the horse racing industry to achieve goals and then dump them when they don't need them.

Without any doubt, if New Yorkers approve gambling statewide as Cuomo wants in a vote to Amend the State Constitution, the money flowing to horse racing here will be immediately cut off.

But it should be. Horse racing shouldn't be subsidized and I love racing. Sink or swim.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

But it should be. Horse racing shouldn't be subsidized and I love racing. Sink or swim.

I disagree. When the choice is between subsidizing an industry that the State has soaked for over 100 years while being able to raise significant tax revenue or having no casinos and having your residents subsidize the citizens of other states they are forced to go to gamble, the former is an easy choice.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by pointman

I disagree. When the choice is between subsidizing an industry that the State has soaked for over 100 years while being able to raise significant tax revenue or having no casinos and having your residents subsidize the citizens of other states they are forced to go to gamble, the former is an easy choice.

100 years? So let's make up for lost time....why is the Post Office a failure? And Amtrak? Racing can survive but it will look different.

[NTamm1215]

What NYRA gets is not a subsidy. The land on which Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga sit was given to the state in exchange.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

100 years? So let's make up for lost time....why is the Post Office a failure? And Amtrak? Racing can survive but it will look different.

This here is what folks call a false equivalency.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

100 years? So let's make up for lost time....why is the Post Office a failure? And Amtrak? Racing can survive but it will look different.

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

What NYRA gets is not a subsidy. The land on which Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga sit was given to the state in exchange.

Nick is absolutely right here, I used the wrong term. It is not a subsidy and NYRA in particular paid dearly in this deal with the theft of their land which, let's be honest, the State took for purposes that are not in the best interest of the horse racing industry.

Comparing racing to the Post Office or Amtrak is absolutely ridiculous, in fact, it only highlights what happens when the government gets their hands on an industry and ultimately destroys it. In NY in particular, the State is the single most contributor to the model that has left NY horse racing not profitable.

Going back to the early 1970's and the decline of the model that made NY racing successful, the first big dent was OTB. I know there will be those who will blame NYRA for this since they had the opportunity to run it initially, but it is a choice that NYRA, Roosevelt, Yonkers, etc. should not have had to make. The only reason OTB's were put in place in NY was so the State could get a bigger cut of the money. Then when the State ran the OTB's they did so in a manner which had no interest in the racing industry but only suited the State, bigger cuts for the State and patronage and destroyed the racetracks' ability to remain profitable.

Any business whose model starts getting turned upside down by having more and more taken away from it will ultimately get to a point where there are too many hands in the cookie jar taking too much money from the business that it can no longer sustain a profitable model. It is the same reason that pushing higher and higher taxes on business ultimately becomes counterproductive because you put too many of them into a corner where they can no longer make a profit.

NYRA has been dealt the most ridiculous cards over the last 40 years that remaining profitable is impossible due to State interference. And I don't want to hear the decline in attendance BS.

Randall, your reasoning is not logical. You want to ignore how the government has put the racetracks in position to have an unprofitable model. Instead, you just want to say regardless of how we got here, the racetracks are responsible for getting out of a hole dug for them by someone else by themselves. Or as you say, lets chain a 1,000 pound weight on horse racing's legs and tell the industry sink or swim.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

But it should be. Horse racing shouldn't be subsidized and I love racing. Sink or swim.

When the gov't institutes competition with any existing business the existing business is almost always compensated in some way. Plus it isn't a subsidy when the existing business (the racetrack) becomes the casino, it is a business deal. If the casino has no relationship with the track whatsoever it would be considered a subsidy.