The NYRA Reorganization Board unanimously approved the budget for 2014 that we previewed here yesterday. Not however without a caveat following a passionate debate on the admission and parking increases. (And I apologize, I was wrong yesterday about Belmont grandstand admission, which is currently $3.) To appease the opponents, Chairman David Skorton suggested that NYRA conduct some kind of "market research" on the increase before the next board meeting in March, and even Bobby Flay - who, at one point, helpfully declared that "whenever I need to raise prices in my restaurants, I just don't do it" - could see that was ridiculous.
Maybe I'm missing some point somewhere here, but I just can't imagine either of the following conversations ever happening: 1) Newbie: "I don't want to go to Belmont because $5 is too expensive to get in." (My nonbeliever friends can't believe the entry prices at the track are so low.) Or, 2) Regular racetrack customer: "I'm not going to Belmont anymore because it now costs an extra $2 to get in." (The parking admittedly is a wild card; currently free for general parking at Belmont, who knows what they're thinking; costs ten bucks to park at Del Mar, for example.) I could see perhaps less people forking over the additional three bucks to get into the clubhouse, but can't imagine any material effect on attendance, at least based on the admission increases alone.
Having said that, according to Teresa's aforelinkedto Bloodhorse piece, we're talking about trying to squeeze out an estimated measly $250,000. [Clarification/correction on this: Teresa tweets today: "Hike in fees of all kinds (admission/simulcast) meant to offset $1.8m deficit and carve out $250K surplus." So it is not an insignificant amount at all.] So Still, maybe it's just not worth the bad publicity. Already we have the habitual NYRA-basher Odato with the lede: "As the New York Racing Association planned to raise admission prices for live thoroughbred horse races, it awarded raises to some of its top officers," as if the two events literally coincided.
In any event, again, New York City is a city with zero off track betting facilities, and I'm completely perplexed as to why NYRA isn't pursuing the opportunity to operate an off track teletheater as it is permitted to by law. If they believe they can generate $9 million in additional handle at Longshots, I'd think a couple of well-placed snazzy off-track facilities in Manhattan could be a bonanza.
[Update: The Form's David Grening, who I'm sure was quite upset that he had to miss a day at Aqueduct to cover the board meeting, writes:
One thing that was not brought up at the meeting was NYRA’s previously stated desire to re-enter the New York City Off-Track Betting market by getting into bars and restaurants in the city. At previous board meetings, this was identified as a potentially important new revenue stream, but it was not broached in the 2014 budget.I'm sure Hayward had a plan, maybe they can get it from him.]
“We’re going to try and work on things for a while to get to a plan and then when we have a plan we can go to the right folks and see if we can get something done,” Kay said. “To be able to say on Dec. 4 this is going to happen sometime in 2014 is complete conjecture.”
14 Comments:
I would hope they keep the Belmont parking free. They would be nuts to charge 10 bucks to park there with all the "new cars" from local dealers. I think after enough feedback they will not raise prices for only $250K. They will be like we listened to our great fans & will not increase prices. NYRA has received $ for building improvements for the past 2 years. I haven't seen it. The new odds board in the infield is better- That's all I've seen. I would like to hear the race calls-NYRA execs should go to Woodbine & take some notes. That track is very nice & you can hear the races.
Setting aside for now the arguments as to whether there should be track admission at all, I think the outcry has been, in large part, because there's no indication that the money would be used to improve the quality of the tracks, specifically, Belmont. Kay said yesterday that we're getting a more "intimate experience" at Belmont come springtime. I would love to know what he means by that because he didn't elaborate.
If an admission hike goes to obvious improvements - getting in real food, fixing the bathrooms, improving the lighting, audio and video - then sure, increase away. Otherwise, it's just asking for money that doesn't need to be spent because the on-track experience at Belmont and Aqueduct have gotten worse, not better, over the last 2 decades.
Tried to post this earlier, but didn't go through for some reason...David Grening wrote about the (non)status of the OTB initiative in his report.
Management gets raises, horseman get increased purses, customers get to pay "only" $5 to get into Belmont plus parking. It is not worth $3 to get in so why should I pay $5. Even the Big A with free admission is an iffy proposition to spend a day there. Why do they get raises when attendance is declining? Why do horseman get increased purses when field size is declining? No accountability at all.
OK, in an ideal world, we'd have free admission and parking, free programs, decent food at fair prices, a blended takeout somewhere between 12-14%, oh, and purse levels that let the average thoroughbred owner break even.
But, alas, we're not in an ideal world. NYRA insiders tell me that they have to raise admission prices just to pay for the cost of turning on the lights and opening the doors. Surely a self-defeating strategy in the long run, but I sort of get it.
What bothers me though is the retreat from big ideas: delay in opening NYRA OTBs in NYC, apparently not much thought about an overall takeout reduction, though the new 14% Pick Five is a good idea, and less tender loving care for horse owners than even a down-market track like PARX. Martin Panza will help here, with ideas about new racing products, but perhaps instead of hiring a Chief Experience Officer, NYRA should be looking for a Chief Ideas Officer.
I personally don't think the increase in admission fee is that significant, but I can see a person who loyally attends the races can be a little upset. What I would've have done is allowed people who go to the track often, be able to buy a 10 "trip" for a reduced rate of $3-$4 and charge $5 to the one timers coming in. This way you keep your loyal fans happy and still get an increase from others.
I also wonder how the price increase is going to influence the give away days at Saratoga. Will the extra $2 per entrance deter people from going through the turnstile 10 times for their beer glass, umbrellas or t-shirts?
I don't understand the logic of those of you who don't oppose this move. You make an assumption that seems counter-intuitive in a time of decreasing attendence and handle; ie.that this will result in increased revenues. If you think that, I'll make the assumption that you also think the raise too modest. Or do you think the new price point is the ideal one?
NYRA should advertise their season passes more (I have *never* seen them promoted), if you go enough times, it's probably the right economic move. I think it's less than $100 for the grandstand for the year.
Seems to me they are bringing admission prices in line with other venues.
I doubt the negative reaction will result in a decrease in handle or attendance. Most of the serious players have passes, or play the races from elsewhere, and the increase is insignificant to any high handle players that actually pay the admission fee.
Most that pay admission are tourists, low handle players that are not going to stay away. Its entertainment, a day in the park, with some gambling thrown in for these folk. If they are worried about the admission fee they can go to Aqueduct.
While I get the jealousy motivation for people saying a person who gives out picks shouldn't be allowed to bet (i.e. they wish they had the handicapper's job )but not the logic. I think a better argument could made that any public handicapper MUST bet, because who are they to tell others to bet unless they are willing to risk their own money on those selections.
As long as they are betting their selections its fine.
Budget planing is not an easy task. I think they should not conclude the things in just one meeting. They should conduct more than one meeting so that all the aspects of the pricing issues can be considered.
Regards,
Arnold Brame
Considering they appear blind sided by the increase in taxes I am skeptical of any financial analysis of this organization.
Any competent CFO would have been on top of the income tax issues, just as any competent CFO would have noticed and insisted on disclosing the takeout issue that triggered the government takeover.
As for closing of Big A for training during summer, this could have serious unintended consequences, thankfully Violette seems on top of this issue...
Post a Comment