New Jersey goes for quality over quantity

Grey

Grey

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
9,470
Location
Dublin
http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/03/monmouth_park_to_offer_average.html

New Jersey is going to drastically reduce the number of race meetings in 2010. Meadowlands will stage no thoroughbred racing and the number of fixtures at Monmouth Park will reduce from 140+ to 70+.

The 50 day spring and summer meeting, starting in May, will be staged on weekends and holiday Mondays, and prize money per day will rise from around $300k to $1m, the highest in the US.

The state and racing authorities in New Jersey feel that drastic action was needed to stop racing's decline there. It will be interesting to see how their moves to reduce quantity but improve quality succeed.
 
:lol::lol::lol: That's made me laugh out loud, Mel! I can see him stroking his chin thoughtfully right now... !

That's got to also be a sign of the downturn over there, surely? They've also had a torrid time with the sales over the past couple of years, so it must be taking its toll.
 
It's a sign of the times, right enough, but what's interesting is that while the number of meetings is being scaled back, with midweek fixtures being eliminated, overall prize money will remain more or less the same and the average pot per race during the busiest part of the year will more or less triple.

The hope is that by improving the quality of New Jersey racing punters will wager more on it than they do at present. Presumably market research was telling them that too much mediocre racing was bad for business.
 
Interesting that the midweeks are going. I've only been racing once in the USA, hundreds of years ago at Centennial, but I was much smitten by the large outside loges which you could sit down at with your snacks and drinks, let alone the panoramic restaurant. And unlike Ascot, these were free, not hired, and much more comfortable and roomy. The standard of customer care - and I think it was waaay back in 1975 now I think about it - was so far in advance of the UK (even now at most courses), but I don't know whether the US has been successful at making horse-racing a family affair in the way that its football and baseball is? I think that those endless cards with 10, 11 and 12 races might put some folk off. I've no idea why they do that, unless it's because their fields are generally so small, and they need to spread the horses out, rather than get it all over with in 4 or 5 races!

But their prize money is astronomically high compared to our pathetic little bungs - crikey, the Arabs probably tip the doorman at their hotel more than most of the first prizes our handicappers get! It's derisory to the point of being insulting, but I just don't see the ROA baring its teeth (if it has any) and boycotting racing until the prize monies go up to worthwhile levels. Banded racing didn't work - the same old gee-gees are still Zimmering their way round the AW tracks throughout the winter, bless them (I say that because they clearly still enjoy their outings at age 53) - it's still a case where the 'better' classes, like 3, continue to offer a total prize fund of around £12,000, while in the US, a winning Seller can pocket twice that! Truly nuts.
 
BUT and this is a big but - US racing is most seriously on the down if my trip last year is anything to go by. OK the crowds were up for Breeders Cup days but I went to Santa Anita two days before and on the Sunday afterwards and it was painfully empty. Hollywood Park has been sold and is supposedly being turned into housing/shops etc although why anyone thinks they will make money doing that is beyond me - its a bad area (gangs are rife still) so no-one will want to live or shop there. Once the racetrack has gone the area will get worse.

I was also struck by the decline in the quality of the horseflesh on show - take Neil Drysdale for instance - one of the best trainers in the US - he has poor claimers in his barn. Out of the 40 so he had, I wouldn't have minded training no more than a handful. When I was over there in the early 90s, apart from the glorious AP Indy, he had a whole heap of lovely Group level horses. And he isn't the only trainer in these circumstances. He is so down about the racing over there, I can see him upping sticks and heading to Hong Kong in the next few years.
 
Depressing news, jinny. Sounds like the tracks are on a par with our greyhounds in the UK - Coral seems hellbent on reducing prize money to tramp-tipping levels, thus discouraging the owners at the surviving tracks and, with the high-profile closures already made, the company seems to be lending itself to the increasing abandonment of dogs, since clearly not all find loving new homes. Stinking attitude, I think. Having made millions off the backs of the animals for decades, now it's time for the greedy sods to eye up the properties as prime real estate (which many were and still are) and to hell with the knock-on effect. They're not building new tracks in less residentially desirable areas, so it's all about greed.
 
Horse racing in America will be all but dead within 10 years.

This subsidy-addicted basket case of a sport has made no effort whatsover to change its business model over the last 20 years since competition for the gambling dollar from non-racing sources has so dramatically increased.

The idea that racinos are going to continue to be happy to fund horse racing out of casino profits is not a goer. They, and hard-pressed taxpayers alike, are now questioning the rightness of this. Most racino operators would be very happy to shut down the racing side of things, and they would be supported in this by most taxpayers and politicians.
 
I confess complete ignorance of it being so subsidised, Venusian. British racecourses survive because so many have turned themselves into 101 things other than being a racecourse, and many racedays into - as per Ascot today - a multi-layered day out for not just the betting-oriented (who can, and seemingly do, stay indoors playing their exchanges via WiFi), but a much wider and once disparaged 'ignorant' public, via Ladies Days, charity days, family fun days, music nights, you-have-it. Thus racing can be shown on screens as an entertainment experience, alongside its regular product. If the US courses are still depending on hand-outs to keep going, then no wonder your view is so dismal. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a bouncy, can-do approach to turning the apathy on its head from various horseman's groups, more particularly breeders, who while suffering from the recession as much as anywhere else, must surely see their market being even more adversely affected by the tracks' vulnerabilities?
 
. British racecourses survive because so many have turned themselves into 101 things other than being a racecourse, and many racedays into - as per Ascot today - a multi-layered day out for not just the betting-oriented (who can, and seemingly do, stay indoors playing their exchanges via WiFi), but a much wider and once disparaged 'ignorant' public, via Ladies Days, charity days, family fun days, music nights, you-have-it.
Click to expand...

Horse racing most often started in a locality as an appendage to other events such as fair days, carnivals, etc so in some ways the new direction being taken by many racecourses is in fact a return to their roots.
 
Very true, Grey. Perhaps that's something we overlook about its heritage, and something that 'Racing for Change' ought to point out more often? Le plus ca change an' all that! (Sorry, haven't remembered which keys do the accents!)
 
In America, when people vote on, or politicians decide on, whether or not a racetrack is to be allowed to have "slots" or other non-racing gambling facilities, the decision they make is not based on anything to do with the virtues, or otherwise, of horse racing. Any positive decision is based solely on the amount of extra money than can be generated for the State's coffers.

These racinos have had to agree to give a certain proportion of their profits to the State for it to spend on schools, roads etc. They have also had to agree to pass on another proportion to prize money for horse races at the track.

People up and down America (in those states where horse racing is permitted) are now questioning the logic of donating money to greedy owners, trainers and jockeys, when the money could be far better spent elsewhere. They are fed up having to hand out an eternal subsidy to horse racing, when other sports, entertainments and industries have to rely on generating their own income from their own efforts. Horse racing has refused to do anything about it for far too long, presumably hoping that no one will mind. Well, they do now and the clock is ticking.

To give you an idea of what will happen, north of the border in Canada, where much the same arguments obtain, I see that in the state of Quebec all the racecourses, both thorooughbred and harness, have now closed. There must have been a dozen or so less than a generation ago.
 
Last edited:
So the solution - or partway - might be for prize monies to drop (they are astoundingly high, even for low-rated nags) and for the courses to drop their subsidies and learn how to survive in the same way that theatres and sports arenas do? Why is no-one picking up that ball and running with it? If they've seen the writing on the wall, I'm surprised that in what we like to think is the best American fashion, they're not already reinventing themselves. Or do they, meaning American turf clubs' committees, simply not care when the last horse finishes in the last race?
 
The prize money on offer at some American tracks is quite staggering, but virtually every dollar and cent of it comes from cross-subsidies from the casino/slots part of the operation.

It's been known for a day's prize money at a track to exceed the betting turnover on the races, and this at tracks where admission is free, or very nearly so. You can't run a business like that.
 
That's plain daft, but why make the prizes so extravagant? This whole thing sounds like a circular argument - they close the tracks because the other forms of betting don't like paying out so much dough, but the don't need to pay so much dough, so why close the tracks? Also, what's the problem with charging admission, and making the tracks work harder, such as working as exhibition centres and all the rest of the peripherals which actually support most of British racing today? I don't see the logic in the USA, and that's really odd for a country whose commerce has always been immensely logical!
 
The operators want to shut down racing at the tracks, but keep the casino/slots bit (the profitable part) open. That would immediately and dramatically increase both profits and state revenues at virtually all "racinos". They could also then develop the land taken up by the actual circuit itself.
 
So it's just a casino, then! Can racecourses in the States exist as independent entities, not allied to the wider world of gambling, Ven, or are they inextricably - if unprofitably - linked to these non-racing activities? I can see they'd like the land taken by the circuits, in the same way as dog tracks have been flogged off here for housing, hotels, and other uses - all far more profitable than the dog tracks. But then again, the tracks were (and it seems to some dog owner friends of mine, still very much are) being run down so as to make them less alluring. The menu at Hove is pretty sub-carvery level most of the time, with some of the food close to being most appreciated by the canines, rather than the humans. The decor is outdated and tired (although couldn't say that for my one foray to Oxford), and the kennelling for the dogs is very substandard. Last year, owners had to buy and install their own heaters for their dogs, as the track had let the heaters conk out and failed to replace them. All very shoddy indeed beneath what is seen on tv.
 
krizon said:
So it's just a casino, then! Can racecourses in the States exist as independent entities, not allied to the wider world of gambling, Ven, or are they inextricably - if unprofitably - linked to these non-racing activities?
Click to expand...

Not all racecourses have attached casinos anyway, Kri. As far as I know, none of the major racetracks in Kentucky, New York or California are 'racinos' as such. That's not to say that they operate as self-sustaining entities as they are subsidised by the individual state racing boards (answerable to the state legislatures), which are responsible for running racing in each state, as well as collecting the pari-mutuel tax.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...010-03-04_belmont_stakes_nyra_money_woes.html

Just found this article looking around on Google. Given Venusian's comments about the impact of 'racinos' it paints a pretty grim picture that the only manner in which the NYRA can see to boost revenue is to fast-track slot machines into Aqueduct. Pretty worrying as well if there were actually serious discussions about cancelling the Belmont due to lack of prize-money!
 
I thought that Ven was talking mainly about Californian tracks, trackside, but if any courses have to depend on hand-outs, that's got to be a very vulnerable position to be in. I don't understand this obsession with slots - surely the courses could manage if they scaled back on their take for bloated prize purses, and used the courses more imaginatively, as we've done, which has seen them not only keep going, but make excellent profits through their non-racing events? I just don't geddit!

Just read the article and note they plan to slash other prize monies in New York. I've always, rightly or wrongly, associated slots with gangsterism and too many 'deals' done under, rather than on, the table with the authorising bodies, or at least their management. Bad enough that racing still seems to be associated with drugged horses and bent results in the US - adding in the probably Mafia-controlled slot machines business will do nothing to gainsay that - as I say, right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Last year's stakes money was $6.08 million; this year it's $4.6 million. Liebau and Wyatt [the track managers] say this allows them to keep decent purses and fields for claiming races that keep more people employed.
Click to expand...

Can somebody help interpret this? Are they saying that they have chosen to reduce the pots for the higher class races in favour of maintaining prize money levels in the bread and butter races?

If so they have taken the opposite direction to New Jersey.
 
On the other hand, time was when Brighton regularly saw crowds of 20,000 and old b&w photos of Plumpton show policemen lining the two sides of the track from the winning post to the bottom turn, keeping the crowds at bay (not a single plastic breakaway rail in sight!). Now, a crowd of 5,000 at the former and 10,000 at the latter would be record-breakers.

So I think dwindling physical crowds, versus stay-at-home viewers, are inherent all over the UK. There are also so many other calls on leisure time now than there used to be. People weren't, for the most part up until the 1970s, home-owners - if you could afford to actually buy, rather than rent or live in tied houses, you were considered very well off. Home ownership means playing around with DIY and gardening and there's also now widespread car ownership, meaning that the public can roam far and wide in a way it never used to, in search of other entertainments. I remember that it was back in 1953 or 54, when the first people got a car in our neighbourhood. We children all went to admire it and were admonished not to put as much as a sticky finger on it! Social change has led to a huge about-face in entertainment. You don't board one of many buses 'going to the boots and laces' any more. You might hop on the single free one the course runs, if you don't drive, but there are no longer charabancsful of happy punters out for a day out and a nice fish 'n' chip supper afterwards. Times have changed dramatically and quite rapidly. Racing in the USA hasn't, it would seem. Perhaps instead of bemoaning the loss of the 'faces' at the track, it should hire some of them in for post-racing performances. It doesn't seem to be looking at ways to include itself in the iPod generation.
 
Last edited:
Monmouth Park's bold experiment of cutting out its midweek meetings and tripling the average prize fund per race for its remaining dates seems to be paying off.


Monmouth Park's $50 million elite summer thoroughbred season has been a big success so far, according to figures released by the track on Thursday.


Roughly halfway through the meet at the shore-area venue attendance, mutuel handle and field size all are showing double-digit or better gains over last year.
Compared to the first 24 days of last year — using only Friday, Saturday, Sunday and holiday Monday cards, which the track is running now — daily attendance is up 13 percent to 10,572.
Daily on-track handle is up almost 43 percent, averaging $752,718. Total handle has seen the sharpest rise, jumping nearly 118 percent to an average of $7,672,255 a day.
The average field size for this meet is nine horses; last year field size averaged 7.44.
"Everyone at the Sports Authority had high hopes for this bold experiment," said Dennis Robinson, president and CEO of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, which owns the track. "To say at the midway point that this meet has been a success is an understatement. We're cautiously optimistic that the second half of the Elite Summer Meet will continue to exceed all expectations."
The summer meet, which runs through Sept. 6, still has its biggest race on tap, the $1 million Izod Haskell Invitational on Aug. 1.
But Monmouth also will face competition for wagering dollars from the prestigious Saratoga race meet, which begins July 23 in upstate New York.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top