I saw this article from Crain's New York posted the other day on Twitter by Teresa, so a hat tip to Ms. Brooklyn Backstretch. Some of this had been reported previously in dribs and drabs, so I don't know that it's news per se, but I think it is rather significant. Kind of the 'other shoe,' so to speak, as Genting here lays out clearly the rewards they wish to extract in return for building the convention center that even they admit will lose money. After all, they're not a charity; they still want something in return for providing the jobs that a convention center would create.
“We have to have a project here, and with a $4 billion private investment and no tax payer money there have to be business conditions, obviously, that are going to allow us to make this project feasible,” [spokesperson Stefan] Friedman said. [WNYC.com]
So, naturally, Genting wants a bigger slice of the VLT pie. That share is currently approximately 30%.
While specific details on the agreement were unavailable, an example of the sort of situation Genting could be pushing for was given: Pennsylvania. According to a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, similar gaming operations about 55 percent. [WNYC}
Genting, however, may want to point to an example closer to home. Recall that the legislature granted Louis Cappelli an unprecedented 75% share for his casino project at the Concord. That project has not, and may never, come to fruition. But that special rate was carved out for Cappelli for a project in which he would have invested only a quarter of what Genting is talking about for its $4 billion loss leader, and which would likely have created far less jobs.
Genting also and understandably wants assurances that a competing casino will not pop up in the area.
Christian Goode, Genting's senior vice president for development, said the company would have difficulty raising capital to finance the $4 billion project if its business model could be upended “with the stroke of a pen,” by a rival winning permission to open a gambling establishment in the immediate vicinity. [Crain's NY]
Raise capital? These guys? They have more money than God Mitt Romney, and I wouldn't be surprised if they pay an even lower effective tax rate. But I guess there's limits to everything. Remember, they're also talking about investing $3 billion in their Miami project.
The Crains article also mentions this:
Genting will pay for upgrades to the Aqueduct subway station and for direct A-train service to take passengers from Fulton Street in Manhattan to the site—with a stop in downtown Brooklyn—in half the 35 minutes it takes now.
Huh? A private corporation funding an MTA project largely for their own economic benefit? The cost aside, doesn't the MTA have far more pressing needs in providing decent service to the residents and taxpayers of NYC and its environs than to devote personnel and resources to a privately-owned casino?
- Good excuse to stick in this video of a song with the same title as this post, from my favorite album of last year.
In the 5th at the Big A, Max's First (5-1) goes second off the layoff for trainer Ben Perkins, who scored with Well Spelled last week, and has been in the money with four of his last six starters. This seven-year old son of Max's Pal (Marquetry) was stepping up in class fairly significantly when he shipped in last month, and responded with a solid second, rallying sharply from way off the pace in a race dominated by lone speed Fight For VLT's. Max's First swept 3-4 wide around the turn rather effortlessly before going into a drive once straightening away; final furlongs in 11.4 and 12.1. It was a solid move with no pace help. And that's the concern here; not tons of speed. Fight For VLT's (6-1) returns (and how did he pay $40 after missing by a neck in the same company two races prior?), but I would hope and expect he'll find some company at some point in the class-dropping stalker Perfect Drive (2-1). This is a favorite you might have regarded with suspicion in the past, dropping off two wins as he is. But the $29,000 purse for this 7500 claimer compares favorably to the $22,000 purse in the 10K claimer in which he ran off the claim two back. With over $31,000 already in the bank in two races after being taken for $7500 by trainer John Campo Jr, he can win another $17,000 today, plus the claim proceeds if anyone is so inclined. Not too shabby. I'll cover in the exacta with he on top. Best of luck and have a great day.
***SPOILER ALERT**** As jk mentioned, commenting in the last post, I had some things to say about Luck on Twitter, and they weren't too complimentary. And that was just in 140 characters, enough merely to convey my opinion that its heavy-handedness and total lack of humor made it a laborious chore to get through. It was a completely grim and unforgiving portrayal of the game that we all love...at least throughout this pilot episode. Even when the four degenerate gamblers score a huge Pick Six jackpot, there was little apparent joy. One of them did do a little jig against the backdrop of sullen horseplayers, and that might very well have been the best scene in the show. I know there are some people who feel as if casual and prospective players will become intrigued about the game from watching this series. But there was absolutely nothing I saw in this pilot episode that screamed out "FUN!" Or even, "fun."
And, even if you are correct in thinking that I myself am being too heavy-handed in the above assessment....there's this: The script ranged from adequate to embarrassing, the characters were unrealistic caricatures, each more eminently uninteresting and unlikable (with the exception of Chantal Sutherland and Gary Stevens, the two actual jockeys who appeared) than the next, the dialogue was largely mumbled, Dustin Hoffman seemed uncomfortable at best - and who can blame him considering the cringeworthy scene in which he rips open his shirt in a rage ("Oh, I broke my buttons.") - and the profanity and the violently graphic portrayal of a horse breaking down were merely gratuitous. So, even if there was a little comic relief, as is the case with most excellent dramas (such as in The Good Wife, which I made the mistake of watching immediately beforehand), and which would have been singularly natural and appropriate in a show about the racetrack, it still would have sucked. In my opinion of course. I saw the first episode thanks to a free preview weekend for HBO, so please let me know if it gets better so I can eventually rent the DVD. I won't be signing up for HBO to watch this.
- Mucho Macho Man won the Sunshine Millions Classic on Saturday, making him two-for-two since being given some time off after he was inappropriately entered in the Belmont. I'm not a big fan. Nice horse, but was a cut below the top three-year olds last year (not saying much), and I didn't understand why he got so much love in last year's classics. A horse skeptic can usually find a way to diminish a win, so here goes - coming off an allowance win against a modest field from which no other horse has come particularly close to winning, Mucho Macho Man sat an easy stalking trip behind a slow early pace, picked it up to put the decently-talented Turbo Comprressor away, and then was all out to hold off the improved, but still not that fast, Ron the Greek to win this stakes restricted to Florida-breds. He earned a career high Beyer of 100. Not bad, but not enough to dissuade me to stand against once he steps up to top graded stakes company. If there is such a thing as top graded stakes company in the handicap division this year.
Three winners for Pletcher on Sunday at Gulfstream, giving him a ridiculous total of 30 on the meeting, from 84 starters (36%). We've seen the Toddster overwhelm his rivals on sheer volume at Saratoga; and though he does lead this meet in starters, it's not by itself nearly as much to explain his 17 win edge over runner up Chad Brown (55 starters). The only guy that tops his win percentage is Peter Walder, batting an impressive .400 with eight winners from just 20 starters.
Not like anyone is necessarily getting rich by following him though, other than his owners of course. His ROI on a $2 bet is $2.29; only three of his winners have paid out more than 4-1, and 12 have gone off at even money or less.
Each of Pletcher's three winners on Sunday may have benefited from track conditions; each one having stellar Tomlinson numbers of 410 or higher for mud. Holy Bull winner Algorithms ($7) also no doubt benefited from an ideal trip. Juvenile winner Hansen stumbled badly at the start before rushing up to the lead; and after getting to the first quarter in a modest 23.64, he and Ramon Dominguez blazed the second one in 22.03. I know the internal fraction at Gulfstream can be screwy (check out the first race at the distance that day); but very few horses are going to successfully stretch out off fractions like that, no matter where they are. Not Hansen on this day to be sure; though all in all, not a bad effort in his first start since the BC. For Algorithms, a typical early-season effort by a three-year old which says absolutely nothing about his distance prospects down the road, in a race that went the first half mile in 45.67, and the second one in 50.50. He seems just as likely to emulate his half-brother Keyed Entry as anyone else. Algorithms earned a Beyer of 98, for whatever that's worth.
Broadway's Alibi ($4.40) bottomed out the Forward Gal field with a blazing first half of 44.94, and drew away like Mitt Romney down there in Florida to win by nearly 17. Unlike the Mittster though, this daughter of Vindication was facing some worthy-looking competition, including three stakes winners, in her first stakes try. She's out of Broadway Gold, a stakes winning Seeking the Gold mare who's a half-sister to the Holy Bull/Florida Derby winner Dialed In. Broadway's Alibi earned a Beyer of 100.
Allowance winner El Padrino ($7.20) may have done the most to indicate that he's eligible to improve as the distances increase, overcoming a tight spot to win around two turns in his first start since his third in the Remsen last fall. This son of Pulpit, with inbreeding to Mr. Prospector and Secretariat (and his dam is inbred to Blushing Groom), is out of a Giant's Causeway mare. His second dam is the Ashland winner Chic Shirine, and his third dam is Too Chic, the dam of G1 winner Queena (the dam of G1 winner Brahms). El Padrino also earned a Beyer of 100.
- NYRA quickly reacted to flick away the latest broadside from a state government official; this time, and once again, the Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who issued a report, in the form of a letter to Charles Hayward, on the probe he promised over the summer, a followup to his critical audit report of June, 2010. At this point, NYRA's Director of Communications and Media Relations Dan Silver may very well have a response file ready to fend off the expected attacks. The file for DiNapoli Disses would be located somewhere amongst and between the ones marked for the occasions of Franchise Oversight Fantasies, Ignorant Newspaper Editorials, and Dumbass Politicians.
NYRA's response was curt and firm, in particular when pointing out that the Comptroller's summary statement issued to the press took a far dimmer view than what was actually expressed in the report. While DiNapoli, in his press release, would concede only that NYRA "has launched some cost containment initiatives," NYRA pointed out that the report (in PDF format here) was actually far more explicit in detailing what it has done to comply with his audit's recommendations.
However, as the actual audit report notes , NYRA has made strides in implementing the 2010 recommendations, including plans to enhance revenues, staffing analysis and cuts in overall staffing, the termination of our former integrity counsel and the awarding of a more cost-effective integrity counsel, cost savings on the transportation of horses between NYRA tracks, and several other cost-cutting initiatives.
In fact, the recommendations in the report that are marked 'Partially Implemented' seem instead to actually be rather substantively implemented. And the ones marked 'Not Implemented' hardly seem that significant or material at all in the larger scheme of things. For example, there's this one:
Recommendation 5
Identify the extent to which other NYRA operations and services deviate from standard industry practices and evaluate whether such departures are necessary and cost-effective.
Status - Not Implemented
Agency Action - NYRA officials asserted that they do not pay for any practices that deviate from industry practice. However, they have not supported their assertion with any documented analysis.
Another is regarding surprise mutuel clerk cash counts not being a surprise; and the other two concern concessions, which is now out of NYRA's hands for half of the year, as Genting has taken over at the Big A.
Not only did the Comptroller paint a dark picture in his press release, he stated, in a fit of mere speculation, that “NYRA stands to squander significant revenue from the recently opened VLT franchise at Aqueduct." NYRA responded, helpfully: "As a reminder, the use of VLT proceeds is regulated by statute and primarily allocated to purse money and capital expenditures."
And in the most bizarre aspect of the exchange, the Comptroller contended that NYRA "expects a $19.7 million loss from racing operations in 2012." This assertion was mentioned only in the press release; it was not part of DiNapoli's report at all. When asked where DiNapoli got that number, a spokesperson for the Comptroller told Matt Hegarty that it was "provided by NYRA during a closing conference." [DRF] But that notion is flatly disputed by NYRA, which stands by its expectation to turn a slight profit, $1.4 million, from racing operations this year. I have no reason to doubt that; it jibes with financial projections I've been shown in the past.
So, where did DiNapoli really get that number? Perhaps, as Hegarty wrote, it "may reflect a difference of opinion on what costs should be included in the association's racing operations." Given his consistent record of exaggerated and/or misleadingly negative criticisms of NYRA, it's certainly fair to speculate that the Comptroller went out of his way to portray NYRA's outlook in the least favorable light possible.
And the release around the same time of the lobbying expenses and campaign contributions of other industry players (with, not surprisingly, the seemingly unlimited cash-resourced Genting leading the pack) raises another question: Is the continued hostility towards the association a result of the fact that NYRA seems to stand alone amongst those who do not "pay to play?" After all, if NYRA's name came up on the list of those who have generously contributed to politicians throughout the system, they'd certainly be hearing from DiNapoli or Robert Megna. And then Dan Silver would have to go back to his response file.
- ESPN's contract to televise the Breeders' Cup runs through 2013. But, given the opportunity to escape, they were outta there faster than Mitt Romney bolted from South Carolina. (Based on early polls, the Mittster may match that speed figure getting out of Florida too.)
“In the last few years, ESPN has reduced its coverage of horse racing and this event no longer fits with our overall content strategy,” an ESPN statement said. [Courier-Journal]
The "event" hasn't fit into their overall content strategy for some time now; almost from the start in fact. The sigh of relief you hear is the sound of ESPN execs who no longer have to pretend to care about it.
Well, I was kinda kidding when I first suggested a number of years ago that the Breeders' Cup be on Versus. Then, when the network picked up the Saratoga Saturdays and some other races, it seemed possible at some point, though not until the contract expired next year. As it turned out, that was nothing two parties couldn't work out if one was desperate enough. And now, Versus is the NBC Sports Network. It and its parent network is the home of the NHL, and now the home of the Triple Crown, the Breeders' Cup, and coverage from two of the premier race meetings, Saratoga and Keeneland. Not a bad place to be in my view. As opposed to being an afterthought if not a nuisance at ESPN, it's now a network priority that you'll see it proudly display, as it always did before the change. I think that should mean a lot to the sport, even if it costs it some households, assuming ESPN reaches more than NBCSN at this point.
The move does mean less broadcast network time for the Breeders' Cup, with only the Classic making it to parent NBC; that opposed to the early races which were shown on ABC the last couple of years. I think that's actually perfect; it's totally appropriate for the big race to get the showcase time to itself. It's always been the case - even before the Breeders' Cup diluted their own "World Championship" event with a plethora of non-World Championship-worthy races - that the event is far too much in one day for mainstream media and casual and/or prospective fans to digest. It's an industry affair. Those of us who are interested will find the races on NBCSN....or at a simulcast facility or ADW if need be. The Classic will be showcased on national TV. Perfect.
Well, almost perfect. I'm not so sold on 8 to 9PM Eastern time on a Saturday night being the ideal time. If we concede that the rest of the races are more suited for insiders, the Classic can still take its place with the Triple Crown races as one to be marketed to the masses. But there's a big difference between 4:30 until 6PM on a Saturday evening, when said masses may very well have nothing better to do, and two hours later, when they're priming and primping themselves for a night on the town. The West Coast venue makes the late start a natural in this particular year, and 'prime time' sounds nice. But I think Saturday night is less prime than other nights. Sunday late afternoon/evening would be perfect at other times of the year, but unfortunately, the network is kinda boxed in by football that time of the year. football season.
And this year, as is the case every four years, the event takes place in the shadow of a horse race of another kind, to be conducted the Tuesday immediately following. Though, based on the steadily deteriorating discourse that we've been seeing in the GOP debates and TV ads, that race may (hopefully) be decided by the quarter pole. It's pretty sad in my view when the "biggest question," as posed by the NY Times yesterday, is:
..whether Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner who bankrolled the “super PAC” Winning Our Future that ran negative ads against Mr. Romney in South Carolina, will write another multimillion-dollar check to finance similar attacks in Florida, where airtime is expensive.
(He is.) That's what politics comes down to in this country these days folks: money, and which side can best utilize it to attack the other side. And that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Sad.
The latest Siena College poll - released a few days ago as I continue to lag unacceptably behind in posting - shows that New Yorkers still support expanded casino gaming, though not by all that much, especially compared to support for other of Governor Cuomo's initiatives.
The poll found that the governor’s plans to create a commission for teacher evaluation and improvement holds the broadest support – about 82 percentage points.
Similarly, Cuomo’s call for an overhaul of campaign-finance laws is favored by a margin of 74 percent to 20 percent.
Private investment in return for the rebuilding of infrastructure also polls well, with 73 percent support the notion.
Expanding casino gambling in New York is more lukewarm, but still has a majority of support, by with 53 percent to 42 percent backing a constitutional amendment. [Capital Tonight]
Not overwhelming, but at least it fared better than the ridiculous convention center at Aqueduct, which the poll respondents correctly read through. (Or did they? The governor is probably correct in his contention that respondents presumed that the government was going to pay for it.)
The New York Gaming Association responded with a statement reaffirming that "once again that a majority of New Yorkers support of enhanced casino gaming."
The New York Gaming Association continues to advocate on behalf of the state’s nine racetrack casinos for enhanced gaming in a socially responsible and economically sensible manner.
And there's that now familiar "socially responsible" theme that we'll be hearing ad nauseum from this group. And everytime I hear it, I'll call it out for the BS that it is. If slots offered from 8AM until 4AM seven days a week is somehow 'socially responsible,' that what exactly constitutes irresponsibility? Casino games offered online? Well, that's another matter for another time.
What I found really surprising about the poll results, at least initially, was the breakdown by political party affiliation. Democrats narrowly favored expanded gaming by 49% to 46%. However, Republicans support the idea by a margin of 58-36! Huh? How can that be? The party of family values, marriage between a man and a woman (or women?), and in general imposing their ideas of morality upon all of us, in favor of casino gambling, and overwhelmingly?
However, after thinking about it a bit more, it all makes perfect sense. For one thing, it's an easy answer for a party that looks to cut budget deficits while slashing taxes for high income earners. Whatsmore, the notion of big corporations enriching their wealthy owners and shareholders via an activity as similar to a highly regressive tax as unfettered gambling is surely quite appealing to the GOP. Y'know, we see those scenes in casino ads of affluent-looking types whooping it up all the time, but the reality that I've seen in my limited time spent walking through them (on the way to gamble at the track) is quite different. Sure looks like strictly a working class activity to me. I dunno, maybe the rich folks come out on Saturday nights.
Speaking of rich folks, boy, was I wrong a few weeks ago when I virtually counted Mitt Romney out. Sure, he's in trouble in South Carolina, badgered by negative ads and by the fallout of his own unwise words and actions (or inaction, as in the refusal to release his taxes. Man, I can't wait to see what's in there if he ever gets around to it). But the lunatic fringe vote is split between Newt and Rick Santorum, and his organization and money bodes extremely well for primaries and caucuses ahead. In any case, we'll sure be seeing a lot of this clip in which he casually dismisses with a laugh his income from speaking engagements - said to be some $374,327.62 - as "not very much." Watch:
As I've said before, the Occupy movements have brought the issue of income inequality squarely into the forefront, and this guy, with his millions and his 15% tax rate and his "you wanna bet $10,000" and his dismissive attitude towards a sum of money that would make most all of us extremely happy, is just out of step. What's more, he's shown on more than one occasion that he can't take the heat. The other GOP candidates may be nuts, but this guy is a clown who is sure to make big mistakes once he gets on the big stage with an incumbent who may have a flawed record, but who is unlikely to beat himself.
Yeah yeah, I'll write about some horse racing soon.
I'm going to post NYRA's response to Robert Megna's letter discussed in the last post in its entirety. That's a post I'd like to have back. It's based on a story that is basically completely bogus, written by a reporter who has shown an eagerness to bash NYRA in the past. The issue was not at all, as James Odato wrote, whether NYRA "has been improperly letting people bet on credit." In fact, there is no issue, as NYRA's procedures regarding express funding of its ADW accounts are completely within the law...a point which some readers were able to ascertain before I did. So I apologize to NYRA and to you readers for jumping the gun without performing due diligence. Though my point that NYRA needs to be extremely careful remains.....and this little imbroglio shows exactly why. NYRA's statement follow. I'm sure you'll soon be seeing it on Capitol Confidential as well.
The following is a response to the letter sent by Robert L. Megna, Chairman of the New York State Franchise Oversight Board, to New York State Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) Chairman John Sabini, dated January 11, 2012, in regards to The New York Racing Association, Inc’s (NYRA) policies on its advanced deposit wagering account funding practices:
The funding policies for NYRA’s advanced deposit wagering program (NYRA Rewards) are in compliance with the law and pursuant to the procedures approved by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. We refute any allegations that suggest otherwise, and stand by our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices. NYRA welcomes a review of our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices by the NYSRWB.
NYRA Rewards allows customers to make immediate deposits into their accounts of up to $1,000 per week via an electronic funds transfer, referred to as Express Funding. In order to be eligible for Express Funding, a customer must pass a negative check screening process conducted in accordance with financial industry standards using the latest technology available in the marketplace. NYRA screens all of its existing customers and all new customers for eligibility on each request transaction. This process was approved by the NYSRWB on February 26, 2008, and has been in place and followed by NYRA since.
Mr. Megna’s letter asks the NYSRWB to determine whether NYRA has extended credit for any wagering by customers in violation of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering, and Breeding law. If a customer makes an Express Funding deposit to NYRA with insufficient funds to cover the deposit, NYRA has not extended credit. Rather, the person making the deposit has committed a crime and NYRA has been the victim of fraud. If this occurs, NYRA rigorously pursues recompense from the customer and bank.
Furthermore, NYRA Rewards Express Funding is consistent with industry practices for advanced deposit wagering funding policies. Virtually all industry advanced deposit wagering programs, both within the State of New York , and outside of the State, allow customers to make immediate deposits with similar policies in place to those of NYRA. Some, like Catskill OTB and Nassau OTB, allow customers to make immediate deposits up to $10,000. NYRA Rewards Express Funding is limited to $1,000 per week.
The examination was triggered by a Times Union inquiry to the Racing and Wagering board last month that [Franchise Oversight Chairman Robert] Megna found out about, according to Lee Park, a spokesman for the racing board.
NYRA spokesman Dan Silver and President Charles Hayward have declined to take calls from the Times Union during the past month. After a reporter forwarded Megna’s letter to him, Silver wrote in an e-mail on Thursday that NYRA’s account wagering operation complies with the law and follows procedures approved by the racing board. [Capitol Confidential]
Oh man. This probe comes of course on the heels of the takeout overcharge and the accidental Lasix shot(s).
If NYRA is essentially letting betters wager on credit by accepting bets against underfunded accounts, Megna said, “this would represent significant mismanagement.”
That's pretty strong language coming from Cuomo's budget director, and the chairman of an oversight board that has the power to recommend to the Racing and Wagering Board that NYRA's franchise be revoked. Here's the language from that particular clause from the franchise agreement:
The franchise oversight board shall notify the franchised corporation authorized by this chapter in writing of any material breach of the performance standards or repeated non-material breaches which the franchise oversight board may determine collectively constitute a material breach of the performance standards.
Now it goes on to say that NYRA has "reasonable opportunity to cure" any such breaches and there would then be a hearing by the Board and besides, we don't want to jump to any conclusions about what NYRA has or has not done here, which is not really clear from Odato's post. But it's surely interesting to note that materiality is not even a threshold that has to be met if indiscretions and errors are "repeated," and this (if proven to be so) would be the third one to be exposed in a short period of time.
As I've made clear here in the past, I'm not objective when it comes to NYRA - that's borne out of 40 well-satisfied years of going to their tracks (my constant complaining about the condition of Aqueduct notwithstanding). I like the people there; think that they are nice, smart, and truly passionate about the sport. I don't see any good whatsoever that would come out of some other entity - God knows who it would be - taking over the franchise here. But while it's surely true that people and companies make mistakes all the time, these guys are really under the microscope. NYRA apparently has no friends in Albany, least of all it would seem the powerful and sometimes cranky governor, whose very infrequent references to the association have been aloof, at best, with a not-so-vague tinge of hostility. So I think they better stop fucking up.
The New York Gaming Association (NYGA) - you know, the nine New York racino owners who want casino gambling all to themselves - have released their first radio ad. It will be run in the Central, Western and Southern Tier areas of New York State....a not-so-subtle dig at the Senaca Nation, which claims the Western Tier as its exclusive territory. And no doubt in response to the ad campaign planned by the tribe. You can hear the NYGA ad on their home page (though not with whatever version of Firefox I have). This is just the beginning of two years of such ads, both on radio on TV, leading up to a possible referendum in November 2013 to be sure. (And I suppose that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which has already helped to bring the political discourse in this country down to even new lows, allows super PAC advertising on referendums as well.) I got a press release from NYGA with a handy summary of the ad. You can probably guess what's coming.
The spot begins with the sound of a vacuum cleaner. A voiceover immediately follows saying that this is the sound of money and jobs that are being “sucked right out of the state” as New Yorkers travel elsewhere for casino gaming.
Then the sound of the vacuuming ceases. [And cue the cheesy music.] The voiceover attributes this to the efforts of the Governor and the legislative leaders who have expressed their support for legalizing gaming in New York State. The voiceover continues to highlight the keys areas of the New York Gaming Association’s position and approach to legalize gaming here in New York State.
The NYGA and its voiceover will no doubt stick to its central message: that they are the "responsible operators we know and trust." The benevolent, kind patriarchs of benign gambling that responsibly has their facilities open only 20 hours a day. They get another dig in at the Seneca Nation with the assertion that they have "always honored their commitment to New York," no doubt a reference to the fact that the tribe has withheld $350 million in payments in protest of the racinos in their claimed zone.
"We can change this" - there's that vacuum again - "to this" - the sound of k-ching and some people whooping and cheering. From my experience, that must have been recorded at a racetrack. I surely haven't spent that much time in racinos, and I know that people do win there at some point (don't they?) - but I've seriously never ever heard any cheering there, and have never seen anything other than that glassy-eyed, stony slightly-bored trance of an expression on anyone's face.
"Enhanced casino gaming only at racetracks - it's a jackpot for all New Yorkers." Except for those amongst us who are all too susceptible for this kind of mindless gambling.
And except perhaps for the racetracks themselves....as, opposed to VLT's for which a split for the tracks was written into the law, the industry currently has absolutely no guarantees that it will benefit from expanded gaming. NYGA will tell us that the tracks will profit from increased traffic that the new table games will attract. But they don't quite explain how they would compensate for, say, the virtual roulette games with virtual women with their virtual breasts hanging out that will be replaced by real roulette wheels with real women (who will no doubt be hired partly on the basis of their breast size). Unless the legislature makes it so at some point, the tracks would get no revenue from those; nor from any table games that just happen to usurp space now reserved for slots. The harness horsemen have already started to make that case. As usually seems to be the case, we haven't heard from the thoroughbred guys. They're probably too busy trying to figure out the best way to navigate the new landscape in which they can win $18,000 worth of purse money in a single restricted $10,000 claiming race.
And Genting, the same company that not long ago pledged to be such a good neighbor to its racing friends next door at the Big A, has already floated the idea of shutting it down.
Looking forward, the firm has also pitched to state officials a plan to shut down horse racing at Aqueduct and redevelop the racetrack at Belmont to allow it to be used in the winter, according to people familiar with discussions. In turn, the land at Aqueduct could be freed up, which would likely need to be bid out by the state.
"It makes a lot of sense," Genting's Mr. Goode said. "At this point, it's just conceptual." [Wall St Journal]
Look, Aqueduct is going to close. It might be two years, five years, ten....but it going to happen at some point. It makes too much economic and logistical sense. I've heard top NYRA officials concede so. As I've explained before, I think it would totally suck from a horseplayer's point of view. The difference in the track configuration amongst the three tracks provides much of the juice and angles for handicapping. Year round racing (except for Saratoga) at the massive Belmont track with its one turn distance races would be dreary and monotonous over the course of 10 1/2 months. We've all known all along that, at some point down the road, horse racing would outlive its usefulness for the track/racino owners, going from the reason for their very existence, to a space and money-wasting burden. But surprised to hear Genting come out and actually say it so soon. Or...maybe not so surprised.
- There was some incredulity expressed on Twitter over the fact that Raconteur ($2.40) was 1-5 in the third race at the Big A on Friday. 1:5 on Raconteur? Who bets horses like that? asked @andyserling. Seriously, I ask that about just about any horse who goes off at that price. Make that any horse. I know 20% ain't a bad return for a minute or two, but the whole concept of betting a lot to make a little is just foreign to me when it comes to horse racing, a venture in which scores of opportunities to do the opposite present themselves every day. (At least as far as betting on horses to win, as opposed to lose, but that's a different story for another time.)
And especially with a horse like Raconteur, who hadn't come particularly close to winning in five career starts at odds ranging from 6-5 to 7-2. Based on the form and speed figures, maybe 1-5 was really an accurate reflection of the horse's chances to win this particular race. But in cases like this, in a theoretical perfectly logical world, maybe the race simply becomes unplayable as far as win bets, and the players withdraw any money bet and there's no pool!
Those who did, for whatever unfathomable reason, wager on Raconteur to win, had to sweat it out more than they would like. Looked like he might draw away once he took command turning for home, but he head to hold off a resurgent Five Sixteen. Our friend the verbose chart caller described his victory in the most tepid terms you're likely to see in a results chart: held on well enough to reach the finish line first. prompting @DRFGrening to tweet: Don't let anybody see you cashing ticket on this horse. Personally, I'd sooner be seen in the casino.
Speaking of which, after a particularly slow Xmas week, the first full one with the full compliment of 5,000 VLT's, the win per machine figure at Resorts World rebounded to $353. That's still below the $380 figure that NYRA is using for their 2012 budget (a figure which would presumably be needed to attain and maintain in order to keep the current purse structure). However, looking at past years' results at Yonkers, it seems as if business there generally takes off from this time of year and peaks in February and March. Whatsmore, this is still I believe a 'soft opening,' at least in terms of marketing and advertising, of which I haven't seen any.
You probably by now have read of Governor Cuomo's proposal to build...or, rather....to have Genting build an enormous convention center at the Aqueduct site; where one presumes would also be in line for a full-fledged casino should that come to fruition.
The proposed $4 billion, nearly 4 million-square-foot convention center in Queens between New York City's major airports would replace the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan. The Javits Center was considered too small almost from the outset and poorly suited for the kind of bold, glitzy convention center that would be appropriate for Manhattan as a world destination.. [Wall St Journal]
Well, I dunno, maybe I'm just dumb and naive. But I've been saying all along that Ozone Park hardly seems the place for any sort of 'destination resort' type of place. The Javits Center is "poorly suited," but this is a good location? Seriously, I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to plan a convention there, improved subway service from Manhattan notwithstanding. I mean, don't convention-goers want to have proximity to a wide range of restaurant and entertainment options? I don't think that Bar 360 and whatever cheesy music they eventually schedule at Resorts World quite qualifies.
And listen to this guy:
Heywood Sanders, professor of public administration at the University of Texas and an expert on convention center economics, said he doubted that the Queens plan would succeed.
“The convention business is a disaster everywhere,” Professor Sanders said. “Simply building more space gets you nothing more than a big empty building. And to put it in a place where there aren’t any hotels, restaurants or amenities next door is to doom it to serving only a local or metropolitan market.” [NY Times]
Just one man's opinion, however expert he may be on the topic, to be sure. (And in typical blogger fashion, I left out the retorting quote from an advocate.) But sure makes sense to me.
- Sorry once again for the sparse posting....been working on a project outside of my already full-time job. Will be back asap....in the meantime, best of luck at the races this weekend, and have a great day.
This is the text from the portion of governor's State of the State address dealing with expanded casino gambling. Nothing new....and no details on where the casinos should be.
Comprehensive Approach to Casino Gaming
We have long flirted and dallied with another potential economic engine — casino gaming — and when it comes to gaming, we have been in a state of denial.
It’s time we confronted reality.
It’s not a question of whether we should have gaming in New York — the fact is we already do. Native Americans have five casinos in New York and we have nine racinos at our racetracks. We don’t fully realize it, regulate it, or capitalize on it, but we have gaming. In fact, New York State now has 29,000 electronic gaming machines — more than Atlantic City, and more than any state in the Northeast or Midwest.
Our state is also surrounded by gaming. States and Canadian provinces just across our borders have legalized casino gaming. They get the tourism, the revenue, and the good jobs that belong here.It’s estimated that over $1 billion of economic activity from gaming can be generated in our state. Therefore, let’s amend the Constitution so that we can do gaming right. And let’s take the first step this year.
Governor Cuomo will make his already official support for expanded gaming really officially official when he touts it in his State of the State address on Wednesday. Joseph Spector writes in this report:
Cuomo is considering whether to let the racetracks add table games -- which would make them full-fledged casinos -- or set up destination areas where casinos would be located. [DemocratandChronicle.com]
As far as I know, Cuomo is not expected to announce that determination in Wednesday's speech. And jeez, let's hope not! I mean, what fun would that be? We might be deprived of many months of BS like this:
"I think the governor correctly understands that what we need in the state is jobs," said Jeff Gural, a Manhattan developer who owns Vernon Downs in central New York and Tioga Downs in the Southern Tier. "And one good thing about table games is that it's really a jobs bill as opposed to a revenue bill."
Well....no, Jeff. It's a revenue bill, make no mistake about that. Both for the state, and for prospective casino owners such as Gural (though not at all necessarily for the horsemen), who is part of the New York Gaming Association lobbying for the casinos to be limited to the nine existing racinos. Sure, it is a revenue bill that will indeed create some jobs. But truth be told, it would likely create more jobs if Cuomo opts for new destination areas without an existing infrastructure in place. (Watch the NYGA pivot smoothly into anti-casino advocacy should that become the case.)
The Seneca Nation tribe is gearing up to weigh in with an ad campaign in an attempt to maintain what they claim is their "exclusivity zone."
The Senecas contend they have exclusive gaming rights in western New York—west of Route 14, which runs from Wayne County to the Southern Tier. The tribe has withheld $350 million from the state in protest to the racinos at three western New York racetracks—Buffalo Raceway, Batavia Downs and Finger Lakes. Last month, the Senecas filed for arbitration over their claims. [Politics on the Hudson] (Again, the omnipresent Joseph Spector)
By opening the door for foreign and Las Vegas-style gaming operators to build casinos within the Seneca exclusivity zone, the State will be inviting these operators to take their revenues out of New York State to shareholders in Asia, Las Vegas and elsewhere. [Senacas Mean Business] (good job with the slogan there)
As opposed to, say, Genting? The state doesn't care that much what these companies do with their profits as long as they're generating and paying their share of the revenue. (And yeah, creating some jobs too.)
- The tight three-way race underway in Iowa as I write this (before Ron Paul weakened to third in deep stretch) had me thinking about the three-way dead heat in the 1944 Carter Handicap. (And no....I wasn't there, or anywhere!) There's no video of the race, but there is video of the 1974 edition. And man, that Forego was pretty damn good, doncha think? Wow.
(Dave Johnson was pretty good himself.)
- The Rangers won the Winter Classic and lead the Eastern Conference of the NHL. It was an exciting game with a thrilling finish, but one played on an ice surface which was clearly not ideal. (Great photo gallery from the game here.) A lot of talk about the officiating down the stretch. Some people who normally would never be associated with wild conspiracy theories about officiating are really scratching their heads about this one. Rangers coach John Tortorella said: "I’m not sure if NBC got together with the refs or what to turn this into an overtime game." [Ranger Rants] (Best Rangers beat writer blog by a mile) While Tortorella has been fined in the past for comments on officiating, this is like Ron Paul-type stuff. He can expect a hefty fine for questioning the integrity of the officials and the league.
But man, with the Broadway Blueshirts (outfitted in an unbecoming white Winter Classic jersey that I suspect we'll be seeing more of until they sell out of them at the Team Store) leading 3-2 as the game wound down, there was some really strange stuff. Marian Gaborik clearly hooked on a partial break-in with no call. Ryan McDonough, the monster second year D-man acquired from the Canadians for Scott Gomez in a trade that could turn out to be the Ken Hodge-Rick Middleton deal of its time, was slammed into the goal post by a Flyer, thus dislodging it; yet the Rangers were the team that was penalized. Ryan Callahan was hooked up high while racing towards the puck with the Flyers' net empty, but was also whistled off on an incongruous diving penalty, later changed to holding the stick.
The one call I thought was actually OK was the penalty shot awarded to the Orange Crud with 19 seconds left when McDonough covered up the puck in the crease. My question there though is - who exactly called that penalty? I never saw either of the refs pointing at center ice to signal a penalty shot. And neither did any of the NBC guys, including sharp-eyed Pierre McGuire right down on the ice. Was it the result of some intervention from Toronto? Or from HBO, which didn't get a shootout to cap off their 24/7 series, but got something pretty darn close to it?
We usually hear grumbling from the losing coach. However, as former NHL referee Kerry Fraser told the Times' Jeff Z. Klein: “In normal circumstances, when the winning coach had something negative to say, I always placed more value on his comments than those made by a loser.” Indeed, Tortorella may set a record for the biggest fine for complaints about the referees by a winning coach!
A Daily News headline the other day read: Democrats may say no dice to New York casinos, Sheldon Silver warns. However, I think that's a case of a paper making up news in order to attract some readers/traffic. All the Speaker really said is that he can't guarantee how his conference will vote. The fact is that Silver supports it, as does the Governor and the Senate Majority Leader....and I for one don't sense any real organized opposition to the idea in the legislature. . And Silver acknowledged that the climate is far different from the last time it came up in the late 90's.
Not only is the deficit-plagued state desperately in need of new revenue and job creation, but casinos have sprouted up in surrounding states and even on Indian reservations within New York.
“There may be an attitude of ‘Let’s take some of the revenue and keep it home,’” Silver said.
A familiar argument to be sure. Even Mayor Mike, a one-time gambling opponent, trotted that one out to explain his recent reversal. The mayor may have once opposed expanded gambling on the basis of its being regressive, the inevitable saturation, and the fact that casinos are not the panacea for the surrounding neighborhoods that advocates make them out to be. But not anymore. There's sufficient cover at this point for politicians of most stripes to take this easy way out of having to make difficult fiscal decisions.
What the Speaker may really be getting at is buried in the last sentence of the article.
Silver said it is possible that his members will want the constitutional amendment to be more specifically defined than the one Cuomo has talked about.
Because the big question now regarding casinos is not 'if,' but 'where.' (At least in terms of getting the question posed to the voters in a referendum which could take place in Nov 2013.) So, this could set off a frenzy of activity by the New York Gaming Association (NYGA) representing the nine existing racinos, as well as the tribes and private investors such as Louis Cappelli who are looking for a piece of the pie. (Though their lobbyists would probably be happy to see the matter drag on for a couple of years.)
- With 5,000 machines now on line, the win per machine figure for the week ending 12/24 at Resorts World dropped to a relatively anemic $261. While the weeks leading up to Christmas are generally slow ones for the racinos, that's significantly below the $380 figure NYRA is using for their 2012 budget. Of course, I haven't seen an iota of marketing on the part of Genting to this point, have you?
- The purse increases, said to be in the order of 36%, took effect at the Big A on Wednesday. When Stud Muffin ($15) won the 5th race, owner Bruce Golden Racing collected a winner's share of $35,400 (60% of the $59,000 purse)....more than $10,000 more than his $25,000 optional claiming price. No wonder activity has been brisk at the claim box! When Stud Muffin last ran, in the same state-bred optional claiming level, the purse was $43,000. Seven-year old has now earned $44,000 with a win and a second since being claimed by David Jacobson for $20,000, nice.
In the 7th, Coosada ($7.10) shipped in from Churchill off the claim for trainer John Good. He last ran in a 16K claimer there which carried a purse of $21,000. Here, he dropped to 14K, but competed for a purse of $34,000. Owner Maggi Moss collected a winner's share of $20,400 - nearly as much as the Churchill race offered overall - plus the proceeds from a Linda Rice claim, for a total of $34,400. Not a bad return.
The way I see it, the NYRA takeout fiasco is far more breathtaking in the sheer incompetence and ineptitude on display, by both the association and the bodies that regulate it, than its actual practical effect. "$8.6 million taken out of horseplayers' pockets" may sound draconian. However, over 15 months and thousands of affected wagers, it's really for the most part just relative dribs and drabs withheld from bettors who were probably overjoyed to have won and collected in the first place. Half of them will probably never even realize that anything untoward occurred.
And let's face it. This was not money that was going to go towards stimulating the economy or creating jobs. One could argue that the vast majority would have been churned right back into the pools. So NYRA was probably hurting mostly itself and its horsemen.
I mention this not in an attempt to diminish what happened. It's inexcusable. But with the fight over casinos starting to simmer, and just in the course of everyday politics and business with the rivalries and conflicts that accompany them, we're certain to hear that number used as a cudgel by those to whom NYRA is an obstacle to their business interests, or just the convenient foil they have been for quite some time. So I think it's important to keep things in perspective.
In any event, this whole affair is just so bizarre; there's no rational explanation for what occurred. I wrote in the last post about how the sunset provision was common knowledge when the law was passed, and how everyone seemed to have mysteriously forgotten about it (including myself). But, as it turns out, not everyone had. Pull the Pocket wrote of a poster on the Paceadvantage site who says that he actually contacted the Racing and Wagering Board in January of 2011 about the takeout being too high, and never received a response! How can that be? What were they thinking of?
The immediate reactions of the two main parties involved, NYRA and the Board, also left something to be desired as far as I'm concerned, as they tried to slip it by as if nothing major had happened. This is the audio of the meeting of the NY State Racing and Wagering Board at which the takeout overcharge was discussed and disclosed. The subject is brought up rather casually, second on the agenda after some routine matter involving Capitol OTB, and framed initially in the context of NYRA's request to lower the rate to a point under the maximum allowed. If you go to the 18 minute mark, you'll hear Chairman John Sabini praise his auditors for discovering the discrepancy. That doesn't jibe however with the subsequent reports that the error was found by Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. And Tom Precious reported in Bloodhorse that the Board and its Chairman may be on thin ice.
[Franchise Oversigh Board chairman Robert] Megna also said, interestingly, that he would be “remiss” if he did not also express his “deep disappointment in the failure of the racing and wagering board to adequately discharge its regulatory responsibilities” to catch the accounting error by NYRA.
The matter poses problems, state sources said, for NYRA and the racing board’s leadership, which was not appointed by the current Cuomo administration since it took office nearly a year ago. Given Megna’s unusual public rebuke, it remains uncertain whether NYSRWB chairman John Sabini can hold onto his post under the weight of the new NYRA controversy. [Bloodhorse]
As for NYRA, they tried to totally gloss the matter over with a press release entitled NYRA LOWERS TAKEOUT ON EXOTICS. And I think they may come to regret blaming the error on "the complexity of the takeout provisions in the Racing Law." The fact is that the sunset provision stands out in its clarity from the rest of the gobbledygook in the law. Sometimes contrition is the best course. Oops, we messed up, we're sorry. There's a great song on the Lemonheads' first album, the somewhat overlooked punk classic Hate Your Friends. I won't print the profane title here in deference to the blessed holiday that is now upon us. But the lyrics go:
So I f**ked up I'm only human So I f**ked up I did the best I could do And then I f**ked up What do you want I said I was sorry would it help if I said it again, and again, and again, and again?
Well, in this case....probably not. Have a great holiday everyone.
§ 32. This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed 2 years after such effective date.
That's the clause in SENATE BILL #S8549 SAME AS ASSEMBLY BILL #A11635, passed on June 17, 2008, that required that the 1% increase in the takeout rate for super exotics at NYRA tracks expire on Sept 15, 2010. NYRA's failure to revert to the lower rate has it in the hot seat again.
NYRA...will be required to pay back bettors about $8.6 million...if it can track them down through racing accounts. It will also have to help clear up IRS issues with those who won exotic bets during the period. Further, NYRA will be required to pay a $50,000 contribution to a racing-related charity. [Albany Times Union]
In a press release, NYRA cited "the complexity of the takeout provisions in the Racing Law" in explaining the oversight. Section 32 above actually isn't all that complex. In fact, it's relatively straightforward. [..deemed repealed 2 years after such effective date]. It's Section 2, which lays out the actual takeout rates, that's complex. I'm not going into it in detail because, to be quite honest, I don't understand at all how it translates into a 1% increase in the takeout rate on superexotics. NYRA did though.
Maybe obscure, though not entirely appropriate, is a better way to describe Section 32 in that the clause is tucked away at the very end of 17 pages that only a sadist would actually read through. Whatever the reason, NYRA was certainly not the only party who missed the boat, as Matt Hegarty reports in the Form.
And not even the racing board was aware of the error, since it signed off on documents throughout the past 15 months that described the superexotic rate at 26 percent. Under New York's laws, the board is required to review and approve NYRA's business plan every year, and the plan that was approved for 2012 listed the superexotic takeout rate at 26 percent rate. The board also approves NYRA's simulcast contracts, which list the takeout rates applied to all wagers. [DRF]
Scheduled to last two years, the takeout increase has the negative effect of reducing bettor winnings.
“Increasing the takeout at a time when racing is in distress is not a good idea,” said Bennett Liebman, head of Albany Law School’s Racing and Wagering Law Program. “In New York, no one can ever tell when something is temporary or not.”
That surely turned out to be a prescient comment. (I missed the clause myself, and needed Mr. Liebman to point it out to me.) And, in the same article, Charlie Hayward is quoted as saying (with respect to the state takeover of NYCOTB that the increase was related to): "The short-term pain will result in a much bigger reward, long term.” Don't know if, by 'short-term pain,' he was referring specifically to the increase being temporary and I won't put words in his mouth here. But I think one could fairly surmise that he was.
If he was however, he apparently forgot about it. As did Paul Post. And Matt Hegarty. And Bennett Liebman (who now works on racing and gaming matters for the governor). Those are all really sharp guys! The always takeout-vigilant HANA didn't seem to realize anything was amiss. It all smacks of a mass Vulcan Mind Meld.
Even no less of an authority on both the Pick Six and takeout as Steven Crist, who referred to the sunset provision (if rather skeptically) in his column of June 17, 2008, didn't seem to notice. If he missed it, then I suppose anyone could have. Still, the whole thing is really kinda weird.
