2014 admission hikes for Belmont, Saratoga: GA $5, Clubhouse $8

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by art vanderlay

You do understand this thread is about price increases for admission, seats, and parking, at NYRA tracks.

yes, of course. so, that is at variance with say...admission, seats and parking at other tracks? like i said earlier in the thread, arlington was $7 each last time i went, several years ago. since it was 7 at arlington, that means i can't discuss 5 at belmont? i mean, it's still green dollars with george washington on them, right?

[art vanderlay]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, of course. so, that is at variance with say...admission, seats and parking at other tracks? like i said earlier in the thread, arlington was $7 each last time i went, several years ago. since it was 7 at arlington, that means i can't discuss 5 at belmont? i mean, it's still green dollars with george washington on them, right?

That includes a program right. I get it you go to the track once every few years of course a price increase wouldn't bother you.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by art vanderlay

That includes a program right. I get it you go to the track once every few years of course a price increase wouldn't bother you.

i'm sorry if out of all this you only take away the notion that i go once every few years.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, of course. so, that is at variance with say...admission, seats and parking at other tracks? like i said earlier in the thread, arlington was $7 each last time i went, several years ago. since it was 7 at arlington, that means i can't discuss 5 at belmont? i mean, it's still green dollars with george washington on them, right?

Does Arlington get subsidized by slots?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Does Arlington get subsidized by slots?

You get that this ploy of making NYRA "profitable" on the balance sheets for 2014 is part of the plan to not "subsidize" NYRA right? Not to mention that it isnt in any way a subsidy, it is part of payment for the billion dollars of land the state now officially owns.

Having a philosophical argument about charging horsepalyers for extra's is a interesting topic. However in NYRA's case it isnt a apples to apples argument because there is real doubt about the true goals of the oversight board or at the very least the Chairman and several members. Plus virtually every racino is required by law not to charge admission. I mean who would hire Kay if the goal was to maximize profits at an entity that handles over 20% of the 10 billion or so bet in this country?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You get that this ploy of making NYRA "profitable" on the balance sheets for 2014 is part of the plan to not "subsidize" NYRA right? Not to mention that it isnt in any way a subsidy, it is part of payment for the billion dollars of land the state now officially owns.

Having a philosophical argument about charging horsepalyers for extra's is a interesting topic. However in NYRA's case it isnt a apples to apples argument because there is real doubt about the true goals of the oversight board or at the very least the Chairman and several members. Plus virtually every racino is required by law not to charge admission. I mean who would hire Kay if the goal was to maximize profits at an entity that handles over 20% of the 10 billion or so bet in this country?

I know that, I also know that bettors/fans don't care (nor should they) what political maneuvering is going on behind the scenes. What fan is going to say, "well paying admission sucks, but I don't really mind because I know it is just the state trying to grab all the slots money?"

Enough on this from me, just going to see how it plays out.

[10 pnt move up]

The sooner racing gets off slots welfare the better because it was a short term infusion of cash, no way were the politicians going to go far this arrangement.

Racing should really be hoping the NJ online betting deal works out, that could open the door to full, legalized, internet wagering in every state, and that would grow the game.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

The sooner racing gets off slots welfare the better because it was a short term infusion of cash, no way were the politicians going to go far this arrangement.

Racing should really be hoping the NJ online betting deal works out, that could open the door to full, legalized, internet wagering in every state, and that would grow the game.

Why wouldn't the casino's steal online betting?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

The sooner racing gets off slots welfare the better because it was a short term infusion of cash, no way were the politicians going to go far this arrangement.

Racing should really be hoping the NJ online betting deal works out, that could open the door to full, legalized, internet wagering in every state, and that would grow the game.

I don't agree at all in regards to growing the game. IMO, it will actually hurt it because right now, they pretty much have the market cornered when it comes to 'legal' online wagering.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Scav

I don't agree at all in regards to growing the game. IMO, it will actually hurt it because right now, they pretty much have the market cornered when it comes to 'legal' online wagering.

I dont feel like people are not betting on horses and instead betting on casino games.

When 50% of the country has to go to the track or some OTB to bet I think its a much bigger loss than it would be if there is online betting on casino games.

Horse players bet on horses because its a game of skill and not just mathematics. I guess you could argue poker could be a main competitor but for years there was online poker play, dont think that affected racing at all.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I know that, I also know that bettors/fans don't care (nor should they) what political maneuvering is going on behind the scenes. What fan is going to say, "well paying admission sucks, but I don't really mind because I know it is just the state trying to grab all the slots money?"

Enough on this from me, just going to see how it plays out.

So you are willing to ask why but because you dont like the messy political realities you just dismiss them? Discussing this particular situation involving NYRA without acknowledging the politics involved being a giant pink elephant in the room makes the conversation pointless.


I'd expect a little higher level of discourse here.

[Cannon Shell]

Let's not forget that that $16 for those seats and now the $8 clubhouse fee goes directly to the track. That $24 doesnt have to be cut up like $24 in wagers are.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let's not forget that that $16 for those seats and now the $8 clubhouse fee goes directly to the track. That $24 doesnt have to be cut up like $24 in wagers are.

But with churn, the difference isn't near as great as your post would make it seem.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are willing to ask why but because you dont like the messy political realities you just dismiss them? Discussing this particular situation involving NYRA without acknowledging the politics involved being a giant pink elephant in the room makes the conversation pointless.


I'd expect a little higher level of discourse here.

Will racing survive once all this slot money disappears?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Will racing survive once all this slot money disappears?

For the most part no.

Probably more in line with what steeplechase racing is now.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are willing to ask why but because you dont like the messy political realities you just dismiss them? Discussing this particular situation involving NYRA without acknowledging the politics involved being a giant pink elephant in the room makes the conversation pointless.


I'd expect a little higher level of discourse here.

Did I ask why? I don't think so. I asked if Arlington gets slots money.

I don't mind discussing the reasons, I'm just saying most bettors/fans don't care about the why. Honestly, why should they?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Did I ask why? I don't think so. I asked if Arlington gets slots money.

I don't mind discussing the reasons, I'm just saying most bettors/fans don't care about the why. Honestly, why should they?

They should care because it matters. I dont expect anyone to like paying more especially when they throw the "better experience" nonsense at you with absolutely no detail as to what that entails. But it is like saying that NBA fans should ignore the salary cap when talking potential trades.

Hell Kay more or less admits what they are doing here.

Personally I'd be for no charge for admission at Belmont and an upcharge for "premium" area's but NYRA can't do that because the state wont let them give the gate away. Not to mention they need the extra revenue to make the books balance for the 2014 budget. This board is acting in the short term because for most of them that is all there is going to be. If the state was serious about growing racing, Kay and this board wouldnt be in charge.

Essentially Cuomo is the villan here, Skolrton is the hatchet man and Kay is Baghdad Bob

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You get that this ploy of making NYRA "profitable" on the balance sheets for 2014 is part of the plan to not "subsidize" NYRA right? Not to mention that it isnt in any way a subsidy, it is part of payment for the billion dollars of land the state now officially owns.

Having a philosophical argument about charging horsepalyers for extra's is a interesting topic. However in NYRA's case it isnt a apples to apples argument because there is real doubt about the true goals of the oversight board or at the very least the Chairman and several members. Plus virtually every racino is required by law not to charge admission. I mean who would hire Kay if the goal was to maximize profits at an entity that handles over 20% of the 10 billion or so bet in this country?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is the issue that people should really be worried about, not a $2 increase in admission.

[freddymo]

http://www.drf.com/news/steven-crist...hould-get-gate

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

http://www.drf.com/news/steven-crist...hould-get-gate

Crist may be right substantively, but isn't it a bit ironic for criticism to be coming from an entity that just instituted its "value added" DRF Plus package, so its loyal customers now have to pay to read news articles?