Bill Nader | Horse Racing Free Tips

Final Golden Gate Fields Meet Potentially Set For 25% Purse Cut

The overnight purses for Golden Gate Fields' final meet are potentially set for a 25% cut due to a longstanding overpayment of the purse account, according to Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO, Bill Nader.

The Bay Area racetrack is scheduled to race from Dec. 26 through June 9, 2024, after which, the facility is set to close permanently.

The purse account, said Nader, is overpaid by some $3.1 million.

“There's a pretty big overpayment that's been building,” said Nader. “They're looking to claw some of it back, but not all of it.”

While the TOC is still in negotiations with 1/ST Racing and Gaming, which operates Golden Gate Fields, about the proposed cuts, such a decrease in overnight purses was a “distinct possibility,” said Nader. He added that further details should be available Tuesday or Wednesday, when the condition book would be issued.

“You can increase and decrease purses pending purse generation at any point in any year, so, they're within their rights,” said Nader, who added that, as an example, Maiden Special Weights would drop from $30,000 to $22,500 under the proposed structure.

“But this thing's blown out to a big number,” he said, of the purse overpayment. “Handle was down in 2023. They haven't really cut purses at all. Frankly, they wanted to cut purses last fall—we told them no, and they didn't.”

Dave Duggan, Golden Gate vice president and general manager, confirmed that the track had been in discussions with the TOC to cut purses there “for quite some time.”

Santa Anita's overnight purses are also scheduled to be cut around 5% for its upcoming Winter/Spring meet, underway Dec. 26, with $2 million cut from the track's stakes schedule, said Nader.

Ed Moger is currently leading trainer at Golden Gate, with around 40 horses stabled there. The anticipated cuts to Golden Gates' purses could lead to some Northern California trainers relocating elsewhere, he said.

Officials for Arizona's Turf Paradise recently announced they hoped to operate a meet there from Jan. 29 through May 4, pending approval from the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority.

If the 25% purse cut is enacted at Golden Gate, “there would probably be some barns that move there,” Moger said, about Turf Paradise, adding that while he would not relocate to Arizona, such a purse decrease could see him shift a significant portion of his horses south to Santa Anita.

“But it's tougher to win a race at Santa Anita,” said Moger. “I'll have to play it by ear.”

When asked about the allure from other tracks to Golden Gate's current trainer colony, Nader suggested that even with a 25% cut, Golden Gate's purses would still compare favorably with Turf Paradise.

The Stronach Group (TSG) announced in July that it was closing Golden Gate Fields at the end of December with the goal of increasing field size and adding another day of racing a week at Santa Anita.

After pushback from industry stakeholders who argued that such an abrupt closure would pose an existential threat to the future of racing in Northern California, TSG officials left the door open to delaying the track's closure another six months. But they appeared to make such a deal incumbent upon a reshaping of the way simulcasting proceeds are allocated in the state.

The rule of thumb is that proceeds from wagers made in the “northern zone” stay in Northern California to pay for purses and operational expenses, while the proceeds from wagers made in the “southern zone” stay in Southern California for the same purposes.

Initially, various stakeholders in Northern California—including representatives of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF)—voiced resistance to TSG's idea of moving these proceeds south.

In September, however, California lawmakers sought enough buy-in to pass legislation that meant if Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1 next year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funneled south when there is no live racing in the northern half of the state after that date.

When asked about recent turn of events involving Golden Gate Fields, Moger appeared resigned to the situation.

“I've been here for almost 50 years,” said Moger. “I'm not too happy about it.”

The post Final Golden Gate Fields Meet Potentially Set For 25% Purse Cut appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

U of A Symposium: Trying to Find a Way Forward Amid Track Closures

A panel about racetrack closures in the prime afternoon time slot on the first day of Tuesday's Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program (RTIP) in Tucson had the potential to be a somber and eulogistic affair, but it did yield some interesting back-and-forth when the discussion turned to how the industry might best stem the tide of Thoroughbred venues going dark for good.

The topic “Land For Sale. How Will Race Track Closures Impact the Industry's Long-Term Sustainability?” elicited some of the commonly debated plights facing the industry, such as the decline of the foal crop, the fierce competition for the thinning horse (and horse owner) population, how to shore up field sizes, and the emergence of so-called “super” trainers and multiple-owner partnerships.

The panelists largely agreed those practices are consolidating the remaining equine assets into the hands of too few entities, but each speaker had a slightly different take on how to best deal with those woes.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), didn't shy from rhetorically asking what he termed as “the hard question” about racing in the state that he represents. California is facing outsized upheaval because of the planned 2024 closure of Golden Gate Fields, right on the heels of a 10-year span that also saw top in-state tracks Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows slide off the Thoroughbred grid.

“What's the best path forward, and can California support two circuits?” Nader postulated before following up with the TOC's perspective.

“We know we have the [Northern] fairs, that's a given,” Nader said. “And we have Southern California. But can we support two circuits, knowing what we know?” in terms of the above-referenced downward trends.

Nader continued: “One avenue would be to look at something new [as a flagship track] in the north. [Plus] there is no alternative [revenue stream from gaming to fund purses], which makes it really hard, because we're doing it the old-fashioned way, pari-mutuel wagering only, sort of one arm tied behind your back…

“If there's something in the north that we think is viable and can really form a good business case, that would be option one. If not, then we have to redirect to suitable opportunities in the south, and make use of our assets at our racetracks at not only Del Mar and Santa Anita, but also Los Alamitos.

“If the foal crop can rebound, and we can get some positive momentum, maybe we can stay a little bit close to even” in terms of nationwide track closures, Nader said.

“It's really important that California stay strong, that we keep supporting [it],” Nader said. “Our owners are big players at the Keeneland sale and many of the major yearling sales. [So] in terms of understanding the worth and the value of what everybody brings, less racing may not be the worst thing if we can improve the product and make it better for the people who bet on the races, because that triggers the handle, and that drives the engine.”

Nader explained that for Californians, it can be difficult to see other iconic, nationally important tracks, like Belmont Park and Keeneland, planning substantial long-term facility upgrades while grand places like Santa Anita and Del Mar are more focused on the year-to-year survival of their underlying state circuit.

“That's great that they're leveraging that [financial] advantage to make their venues better, no problem with that,” Nader said. “But I want everybody to be reminded how important California is. California doesn't have those [secondary revenue] advantages…. In terms of expectation management, we're okay, but we still want to escalate to the next level…. I think for the rest of the country, everybody should recognize [how] important California is to the rest of the country: Racing, breeding, history, tradition.”

Smaller tracks weren't left out of the discussion. Phil Ziegler, the president of Emerald Downs in Washington, made the observation that all too often the big-name track closures get the headlines, while it is often the disappearance of the smaller venues, like county fair race meets, that quietly erode the sport from the bottom up.

Chris McErlean, the vice president of racing for Penn Entertainment, Inc., whose Thoroughbred track holdings include Penn National in Pennsylvania, spoke candidly about how well-intended racing executives in Penn's home region of the mid-Atlantic unintentionally contribute to the very problems they're trying to fix.

This includes, McErlean said, giving big-outfit trainers “unlimited” stall allotments or writing so many conditions that races either become hard to fill or go with too few entries to be appealing to bettors.

“We do that out of convenience, [and] that's kind of self-perpetuating. That's kind of what works, but it's probably not the right thing to do,” McErlean said.

McErlean talked about how difficult it can be for a racing executive to deny alleged “super” trainers stall space and dominance across race conditions knowing that if they clamp down, that trainer will just move on to the next track down the road that will be more accommodating.

“I think we've hurt ourselves that way, and it just becomes more difficult to bring that genie back into the bottle once you let it go,” McErlean said.

“I've been involved in the mid-Atlantic for maybe 25, 30 years,” McErlean continued. “Tracks always work together very well there. But every year the discussion is, 'Let's coordinate race dates' or 'We need to coordinate race dates, it makes sense.' And it never happens. So, yeah, we're our own worst enemies.

“But at the end of the day, we run our individual businesses. We're not a league,” McErlean said. “We compete against each other [and] it's difficult to do those changes [because] we can step out and make the right choices, and then everybody else keeps doing what they're doing, and then we end up being the net loser. People want to cooperate. It's just very difficult to be able to actually pull the trigger…. In theory it sounds good. In practice, it's just much more difficult to execute.”

Craig Fravel, the executive vice chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, whose portfolio of tracks includes Santa Anita, Gulfstream Park, and the to-be-closed Golden Gate, underscored a focus-on-owners mantra.

“We do have to make sure that owners are sustained in a more profound manner, that they're engaged, and that they have, you know, a fighting chance to make some money,” Fravel said. “It's a game of hope. We don't want to fool them into thinking that this is a [can't-miss] investment in Microsoft in 1978. But we do want to give them hope, and we want to make sure they're well-treated…

“If we're going to try to change things, we're going to have to try things,” Fravel said. “We're going to have to do things that are new and different and sometimes make us uncomfortable.”

The post U of A Symposium: Trying to Find a Way Forward Amid Track Closures appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Sets ’24 NorCal Schedule, but GGF’s Closure Remains ‘Elephant in the Room’

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) on Thursday approved a calendar that fleshed out the Northern California racing schedule through mid-September 2024. But the initiative still left race-date gaps late in the year that must be addressed both for next season and the future as stakeholders and regulators attempt to realign the circuit in the wake of news that Golden Gate Fields will not be part of the racing landscape beyond next June.

Back on July 16, 1/ST Racing, which owns both Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, announced that Golden Gate would cease racing at the end of 2023. That timetable was later revamped by 1/ST Racing, which earlier this month announced that it would keep NorCal's last remaining commercial track open through mid-June of 2024 in an effort to provide stability for a circuit that will soon have to rely on extended fairs racing to remain viable.

Prior to the CHRB's 7-0 vote on Sept. 21 to approve 2024 dates for the work-in-progress circuit, Scott Chaney, the board's executive director, explained that even though a measure of short-term certainty would be achieved, at some near-future point everyone involved in the process would have to deal with the “elephant in the room” that will arrive in the form of Golden Gate not opening on Sept. 11, 2024, for its traditional autumn meet.

Chaney outlined two likely post-Golden Gate scenarios: That entities wanting to conduct new race meets will “find a home for dates and make more of a year-round racing calendar,” or the NorCal circuit will morph into “a really great fair season each summer, and [then try] to take care of those horses that might not have a place to run in Southern California” while NorCal racing goes dark, perhaps for months at a time.

“So I think that's what's facing the industry going forward,” Chaney said. “We've kind of kicked the can down the road a little bit, and I really appreciate [the six-month Golden Gate extension]. But the hard decisions, we've really just forestalled them for a few more months.”

Chaney also underscored that any entity wishing to fill the NorCal dates void would be advised to get its act together sooner rather than later, “because we have humans and horses that we have to think about come the end of fair racing next year.”

Chaney read into the record the schedule the commissioners approved. At least for right now, it will look like this for 2023-24:

“Golden Gate Fields from late December through June; followed by the normal four weeks of Alameda County Fair; followed by the normal three weeks at Cal Expo; followed by Santa Rosa, who is requesting and is interested in an additional third week, and then followed by Ferndale, who also is interested in a third week,” Chaney said.

“So that takes us through Sept. 10,” Chaney said. “The one remaining fair would be Fresno, and they are requesting the first two weeks of October. So that leaves the last few weeks of September, and then mid-October through December, unallocated.”

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director of California Authority of Racing Fairs, told the board prior to the vote that, “We would like to see the dates awarded for the fall period, but at this point we don't have a definite location.”

CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales tried to strike a positive tone by pointing out that while not perfect, the NorCal situation is not as bleak as it looked two months ago when the bombshell Golden Gate news first dropped.

“We definitely want to reassure Northern California horsemen, breeders and owners in particular, that racing will continue; that this board is going to do everything that we can,” Gonzales said, alluding to the work that still needs to be done.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), pledged his organization's support for NorCal, and he said the TOC recognized the important role the circuit plays in the state's overall racing.

But Nader did express concern about a third week of racing at Ferndale, which he said averaged only 5.12 starters per race over two weeks this summer.

“So to stretch it to three weeks, from the TOC point of view…I just think it might be one step too far,” Nader said, adding that keeping the Ferndale meet at two weeks, at least for now, “would make better sense.”

Swartzlander defended Ferndale based on its small-track aesthetics trumping the low number of starters.

“When you talk about the number of horses, last year we had 5.02, which was less than we had this year,” Swartzlander said. “Every year Ferndale is basically in that category. You know, I can't applaud it or say negatively against it. It is what it is. And if you've been up there–great fans; have a good time–it's just a good atmosphere. And I believe with the third week, and also you change the playing field in Northern California, [we] expect to have better support.”

Gonzales pointed out that by allocating dates on Thursday, the CHRB wasn't outright approving a three-week license for Ferndale. That decision to grant actual licensure will happen closer to the race meet's start, which is standard procedure for the CHRB. Gonzales said if veterinarians and other CHRB staffers at that time present evidence that three weeks at Ferndale would be too much of a strain or a stress on horses, the board will address the issue.

The post CHRB Sets ’24 NorCal Schedule, but GGF’s Closure Remains ‘Elephant in the Room’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Awards ’24 SoCal Dates, But Warns NorCal Uncertainty Could Be Factor In Final Say

Southern California's racing calendar for 2024 will nearly mirror this year's dates template, with the exception of Del Mar Thoroughbred Club being awarded a fifth week at its fall meet to dovetail with that track's hosting of the Nov. 1-2 Breeders' Cup.

But several California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) commissioners who voted in favor of next year's SoCal schedule at the Aug. 17 monthly meeting made it clear those dates allocations were not to be considered a “rubber stamp” approval that couldn't change at some point in the future.

That caveat was relevant because of the uncertainty unleashed upon the statewide industry July 16 when 1/ST Racing, which owns both Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, announced that Golden Gate would cease racing at the end of this year.

On Aug. 16, a 1/ST Racing executive said at a meeting of the CHRB's race dates committee, which reports to the full board, that the company might be willing to push back Golden Gate's closure by six months, to June 2024, pending discussions with industry stakeholders about how to best re-work the NorCal schedule in a way that doesn't harm the $30 million investment the company is making to improve SoCal racing.

That Wednesday news about Golden Gate's possible six-month reprieve prompted differing opinions on Thursday between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) about how the CHRB should handle its scheduled agenda item that dealt with the awarding of the '24 SoCal dates.

Alan Balch, the CTT's executive director, advocated for the CHRB to hold off on awarding the '24 SoCal dates.

“We believe the entire state is interdependent,” Balch said. “We welcomed the [1/ST Racing] suggestion [Wednesday], not only that they would consider extending northern California at Golden Gate, but that they supported additional racing in the future in Northern California after the closure of Golden Gate. Since the state is integrated, because horses run [on both northern and southern circuits], we strongly urge this board not to allocate southern California dates given the pendency of potential legislation, and for many other reasons, until all the stakeholders can get together [to work out a plan].”

Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer, said that it was his group's belief that the “absence of insight in knowing what the north might look like didn't really influence the south.”

Thus, Nader continued, it would be “prudent” to award the SoCal dates on Thursday in order to give “the rest of the country some clarity and completeness that California is still strong and has a vision leading into 2024.”

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

CHRB commissioner Thomas Hudnut said he thought the CTT's idea had merit because delaying the awarding of dates to Santa Anita could be used as an aid in negotiating how 1/ST Racing might help the industry absorb the massive gap it is creating in the NorCal schedule.

“We can't force dates on anybody. But we can withhold them,” Hudnut said. “And I think there is some merit in the suggestion of the CTT to avoid awarding any dates right now. The dates are the 'carrot,' and the 'stick' we have is not awarding them pending people getting their collective acts together…”

After listening to industry stakeholders go back and forth for 2 3/4 hours at Wednesday's dates committee meeting, CHRB commissioners Wendy Mitchell and Damascus Castellanos both expressed concerns on Thursday how some entities didn't seem to be acting with enough urgency considering one month has passed since 1/ST Racing let it be known it would walk away from California's lone commercial Thoroughbred license in the north.

“I've been on this board four years now, and we're really at a crossroads more so than I think we've been [at] in my time here,” Mitchell said. “And I'm very concerned…. It is more urgent than it's ever been to have the industry stay in California.”

Said Castellanos: “Everybody has an idea of working together and doing what they've got to do for the industry. But nobody really came to us [Wednesday] with a plan…. So my concern is the urgency…. We can't force dates on anybody. You guys have got to come up with this…. I suggest, as an industry, get together. Figure it out.”

Eventually, Hudnut moved to defer the allocation of the SoCal race dates until the board's September meeting. But no commissioner seconded his motion, so it died.

CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, took a different approach. He not only made a motion that the board take up the SoCal dates issue right away, but he specified that the '24 dates for that region be “the exact replication of the dates we awarded for 2023, with the exception of the one week” during which Del Mar hosts Breeders' Cup.

Santa Anita, this year's Breeders' Cup host, currently has control of that extra autumn week. Its executives did not lodge any opposition Thursday to Del Mar being granted that week in '24.

Ferraro's motion was seconded. Before the final vote was taken, CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales reminded commissioners who might be cognizant of Hudnut's “carrot and stick” analogy that the board still has other resources to act as cudgels of compliance, such as the CHRB's powers to halt any licensee's ability to race at any time, or even to deny a license altogether after blocks of dates have been awarded.

“I mean, we have a lot of latitude as the board, so it's among the reasons that I intend to vote for southern California racing dates knowing that this board has been empowered [to make changes after awarding blocks of dates],” Gonzales said. “I believe we are going to be paying very, very close attention to see how things unfold here over the next few weeks and months.”

The motion to award the '24 SoCal dates then passed, with Hudnut casting the lone dissenting vote.

The exact blocks of SoCal dates were not read into the record prior to the vote. But the template they will follow lines up with year's rotation: Santa Anita from Dec. 26, 2023, to late June 2024; then Los Alamitos through early July; Del Mar through mid-September; Los Alamitos until late September; Santa Anita through late October; Del Mar through the first week of December; Los Alamitos until late December.

The post CHRB Awards ’24 SoCal Dates, But Warns NorCal Uncertainty Could Be Factor In Final Say appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post