California Authority of Racing Fairs | Horse Racing Free Tips

Proposed Legislation Suggests Extra Six Months Of Racing at Golden Gate

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 racing in the northern half of the state, according to proposed legislation introduced in Sacramento.

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.

According to California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) executive director, Larry Swartzlander, the legislation was drafted by CARF in agreement with The Stronach Group (TSG), on the proviso that Golden Gate Fields remains open for racing an extra six months.

TSG announced in July that it was closing the Bay Area facility at the end of December with the goal of increasing field size and adding another day of racing a week at Santa Anita.

“Our one concern from stakeholders was: Does The Stronach Group renege on us here, and doesn't extend [racing at Golden Gate Fields],” said Swartzlander, who said that CARF had tried to stipulate in the bill that Golden Gate fields remains open through June 2024.

“We wanted to put that in legislation–we wanted to–but we simply couldn't do it,” said Swartzlander, before adding that “everyone's pretty adamant that they will extend racing through June.”

TDN reached out to TSG Saturday morning with various questions, including whether the company indeed intended to extend racing an extra six months at Golden Gate Fields if the legislation is passed. TSG has not yet responded. The story will be updated accordingly.

“Consensus approval within the California racing industry to introduce this legislative amendment is a major step forward. It provides the flexibility to create a path for a new racing and business model leading into 2025 that is fair and balanced for all California owners,” wrote Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO, Bill Nader, in a statement.

The proposed legislation states that, “notwithstanding any other law, if the board does not license a thoroughbred race meet to be conducted by a racing association at a racetrack located in the cities of Berkeley and Albany after July 1, 2024, a thoroughbred racing association, or racing fair, in the southern or central zone licensed by the board to conduct a thoroughbred race meet or fair meet shall, during racing weeks not allocated by the board for a race meet in the northern zone, be deemed to be operating in the northern zone for the purpose of conducting all permissible forms of wagering in the northern zone pursuant to this chapter and making and receiving required distributions from those wagers in accordance with this chapter.”

The language is a proposed amendment to AB 1074, co-authored by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) and state Senator Bill Dodd, (D-Napa).

At last month's CHRB meeting, TSG representatives had floated the idea of keeping the facility open until mid-2024 on condition that the current system of divvying up the simulcasting proceeds is revised to benefit the tracks in Southern California, where TSG is consolidating its operations.

Until now, various stakeholders in Northern California–including representatives of CARF–had voiced reservations about altering the system by which simulcast wagering proceeds are allocated.

For the purposes of simulcasting proceeds, the state is broken into three main geographical zones–the “Southern,” “Central” and “Northern” zones.

Largely speaking, the south and central zones are rolled into one big “southern zone,” roughly spanning the northern tip of San Luis Obispo County down to the Mexico border. The “northern zone” consists of the remaining counties in the state.

The monies generated from simulcasting wagering are used for a variety of operational expenses besides purses, including payments to the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA), the backstretch retirement fund and workers' compensation.

Next year's racing calendar in Northern California is, of course, still to be decided. Swartzlander floated a plan that if Golden Gate Fields remains open until mid-2024, Santa Rosa would stage a Thoroughbred meet from mid-October–when the Fresno fair meet ends–until the end of the year.

The 2025 Northern California Thoroughbred racing calendar, Swartzlander added, could still hinge around a permanent base at Cal Expo. Such a plan would apparently require reaching an agreement with California's harness racing industry, which only last year extended its lease of operations of the Cal Expo Harness racetrack until May 2030.

Swartzlander also suggested the permanent bases of any extended 2025 Thoroughbred racing calendar in the north could be split between Cal Expo and Santa Rosa.

“Negotiations are continuing,” said Swartzlander. “We'll work with them [WatchandWager Cal Expo] to come up with a solution. Whether we end up with a 50-50 split between Cal Expo and Santa Rosa, or whether we end up relocating Harness to another track, there's several options.”

The California legislature goes into recess on Sept. 14. October 14 is the last day for California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature on or before Sept. 14.

The post Proposed Legislation Suggests Extra Six Months Of Racing at Golden Gate appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Northern California Trainers React to Golden Gate Closure, Plot Their Next Moves

Whether someone had the biggest stable in Northern California or a two-horse operation, the news released Sunday that Golden Gate Fields, which opened in 1941, will shut down at the end of the meet in December was a punch to the gut and led to a great deal of uncertainty. Horsemen have just five months to figure out what they will do next. The possibilities are many. They could shift their operations to Santa Anita. They could stay put and hope that the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) circuit expands and offers enough racing opportunities to make it viable to remain in Northern California throughout the year. Or they could simply leave the sport.

The TDN checked in with six Northern California trainers, ones with both big and small stables, and asked how they plan to try to make the best out of a bad situation and whether or not they will relocate to Southern California.

Steve Sherman: I was surprised by the announcement like everyone else. I really didn't have a clue. They had just fixed the roof on my barn, so I really didn't think this sort of announcement would be coming out. I was shocked. You always heard rumors that the place could be gone in two, three years, but I certainly didn't think it would be closing in December. As for a plan, I'll be honest with you, I don't have one. I will see how things shake out. I don't want to make too quick of a decision. Is Santa Anita an option for me as we speak right now? No. I have no plans to go there. Things could change, but as of right now it's not my plan. I was going through my barn and I probably have 10 to 12 horses that could compete down there. It's just a different beast down there compared to the way it is here. The horses are much better and the races are a lot tougher. That's why you see a lot of horses come up north. It's because they can't handle it down there. Out of 1,000 horses here, maybe they'll get 200, 300. That might help short term, but if those horses don't do well there and don't pan out what does the long-term picture look like? And where are the other 600-700 horses going to go? I don't see what Santa Anita is envisioning. Maybe they were expecting to get half the horse population from here or maybe two-thirds of it. If so I could understand what they're trying to do. But when people start going through their barns and trying to figure out what horses can make it down there, there's probably not that many. The numbers don't add up.

Dan Markle: I had a pretty good routine. Raced up at Emerald in the summer and went down to Golden Gate in the winter. That worked out pretty good. But to lose Golden Gate is devastating. With them closing Golden Gate I'm going to have to think of something new. I don't have the caliber of horses that can compete at Santa Anita, so I won't be going there. And the purses at Santa Anita aren't that great either compared to some of the other big tracks. I guess I'm going to have to relocate. Maybe they can get something going with the Fairs. I think that's possible. If that happens it might work out better than what we had before. But I'm not in favor of moving my operation down there at all.

Marcia Stortz: I am hearing that CARF is going to try to work things out so that the meets go for 10 months between Sacramento and Pleasanton. I'd like that because it would be good to get back on the dirt. I have a couple of horses that would fit in Southern California but not really many more than that. It's a different league. We were told in December a year ago that The Stronach Group was going to replace the surface, which was, in my opinion, in dire need of repair. We were told the new surface would be put in by June when we left for the fairs. When it wasn't purchased in the winter, the writing was on the wall in my opinion.

I would never move to Santa Anita. First of all, I don't think I would get the stalls. I suppose I could try to get into Los Alamitos.

Golden Gate | Vassar Photography

Brendan Galvin: It was a bit of a shock. We were kept in the dark, but we do know that the people at CARF are trying to organize something. It's unfortunate that they are closing Golden Gate. That place has been good to me. I've got to go some place or I've got to retire and I don't have the money to retire. I'll either go to Southern California or another state. I've got some nice allowance horses here, but they probably wouldn't be allowance horses down there and that's a problem. I also have some cheap horses who would have no business going down there. It's a real kick in the head. I'm hoping the fair tracks can get something together. If they don't expand I think that will be the end of the fair circuit because nobody is going to ship all the way back up here for a few months of fair racing. There are a lot of horses here who would be running over their heads at Santa Anita. These horses are here for a reason. Everyone wants to win at Santa Anita and Del Mar and if they could they would be there already and not racing in Northern California. These horses are here for a reason.

Tim Bellasis: Nobody knows what to do. We are all hoping that CARF steps up to the plate and it looks like they will and that would allow racing to continue in Northern California. They're saying they could race 10 months out of the year. They've worried for a good five years that Golden Gate was going to close so they have a plan that can be put into action fairly quickly. They'll get some of the better barns from here with the better horses. They may go down there. Out of my 10 horses I've got now, seven of them are Santa Anita rejects. I wouldn't be capable of making any money down there. When Golden Gate decided they weren't going to put down a new surface on the Tapeta track, which was way overdue, you could pretty much tell what was going to come next. Santa Anita will get some of our horses, but it will be a small percentage. I think only 10-20% of the horses we have in Northern California could win a race down there.

Reid France: For me, it wasn't a big surprise. That being said, it's a bummer. It's the track I attended as a kid, I won my first race there and had a lot of success there. It's very disappointing that it's going to be gone. As far as my plans go, nothing is set in stone. We still don't know what kind of dates will come out of this. I will keep my options open and look at places like Florida, Kentucky and New York. Once we know what our options are here and we can sort some things out, we'll try to figure out where we'd go. We'll consider sending some to Santa Anita because we have a lot of Cal-breds. We're not closing that door. But we will look at a lot of places, all the major racing jurisdictions and see where we're at. I probably have a handful that could fit at Santa Anita. I'm sending five to Del Mar and will see what happens with them. This will all work itself out.

The post Northern California Trainers React to Golden Gate Closure, Plot Their Next Moves appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

’23 Dates for Northern California Edge Closer to Finalization

A 2023 race dates template for the Northern California circuit came closer to being finalized at Thursday's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, with commissioners unanimously voting to largely mirror the framework of the 2022 schedule.

The lone exception was that the board held off on a decision on whether Ferndale (Humboldt County Fair) would once again have to run its second of two weeks of racing at the end of August against overlapping competition from the commercial licensee Golden Gate Fields.

That part of the vote was parsed out and will instead be taken up by the CHRB at the December meeting, leaving time for those two license applicants to possibly reach a compromise so commissioners don't have to impose one.

A separate lengthy discussion during the nearly 3 1/2-hour meeting involved whether Sacramento (the state fair at Cal Expo) would retain its contiguous three-week block of dates during July, or if Santa Rosa (Sonoma County Fair) would instead be allowed to expand its own August block from two weeks to three.

Commissioners ultimately decided that issue by voting to leave Cal Expo's three-week slot intact, based partially on the Sacramento track's stated commitment to try night racing this year. Lights are already installed and used at that oval for harness racing.

“We are going to actively pursue looking at night racing,” said Larry Swartzlander, the executive director California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF). “Night racing could be very lucrative financially,” he added, from the perspective of Sacramento not having to go up against major earlier-slotted simulcast signals like Saratoga and Del Mar.

However, the board did indicate that in 2024, that sought-after third week could get awarded to Santa Rosa, which offers the appeal of being the only NorCal fairs meet that has a turf course. Exactly how that third week would be carved out of the current schedule would have to be decided next year.

“We know the horsemen would much rather be in Santa Rosa than here in Sacramento,” said Rebecca Bartling, Sonoma County Fair's chief executive officer. “The weather's much better. We also feel that the purses would be much stronger.”

Alan Balch, the executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), was among those who advocated for Santa Rosa to get a third week of racing in 2024, but said, “where it comes from and how it's structured is something else again, because you have so many competing factors to deal with.”

CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales said that at this time, the board couldn't technically make a promise to Santa Rosa that commissioners would vote in 2023 for a three-week meet there in 2024. But he did want it on record that the board would strive to “strike a balance” on the issue.

“It's been a very difficult last couple of years for all parties involved,” Gonzales said, alluding to the pandemic. “And it's very clear stakeholders love Santa Rosa, us included.”

Gonzales then called on CHRB staffers and its legal team to come up with “a motion that can kind of hold us to the [Santa Rosa] commitment, but without making, you know, an outright promise.”

Bartling then respectfully interjected: “Isn't a commitment a promise? Or a promise a commitment?”

The CHRB then proceeded to vote on the NorCal dates, minus the Ferndale/Golden Gate impasse that had already been kicked back to the December meeting. But commissioners apparently acted without realizing no actual motion had been verbalized and/or read into the record. Nor were the actual race dates for any of the other NorCal tracks specifically referenced during the meeting prior to the voting roll call.

After the meeting, TDN contacted CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten, who said that the commissioners had intended to vote upon the slate of dates that were printed in the meeting packet, with the non-binding commitment that Santa Rosa would get three-week consideration for 2024.

So the 2023 schedule reads as follows (the dates are awarded in blocks to determine simulcast host status and do not reflect the actual schedule of race dates):

Golden Gate-Dec. 22, 2022 to June 13, 2023

Pleasanton-June 14 to July 11

Cal Expo-July 12 to Aug. 1

Santa Rosa-Aug. 2 to Aug. 15

Ferndale-Aug. 16 to 29 (potential week overlap with Golden Gate TBD)

Golden Gate-Aug. 23 to Oct. 3 (potential week overlap with Ferndale TBD)

Fresno-Oct. 4 to 17

Golden Gate-Oct. 18 to Dec. 19

Regarding the Ferndale/Golden Gate standoff, several stakeholders discussed the main issues.

Jim Morgan, the legal counsel for the Humboldt County Fair, pointed out that Ferndale needs two weeks of live racing and simulcasting revenues with host status just to survive.

Morgan also explained that, unlike Golden Gate's commercial meet that he believes primarily serves as an exported simulcast product, Ferndale draws bigger live crowds that grow on-track interest in the sport, and its meet better dovetails with neighboring Oregon's fairs season, meaning those horses often ship to and stay in California, bolstering the field sizes at other tracks.

“We're talking one week. Golden Gate has all of the rest of the year,” Morgan said. “The county can't keep paying us a grant every year to stay alive, and [the continued overlap] would kill off this venue. And I don't believe, percentage-wise, that one week's revenue for Golden Gate Fields makes a big difference in their livelihood or outcome. But it makes a world of difference for Humboldt County Fair. We should not be penalized because we're smaller.”

Balch, of the CTT, weighed in with support for Golden Gate keeping its week of racing and host status instead of having Ferndale get it.

“I think it's extremely important to remember that Golden Gate Fields is the anchor and the fundamental foundation for fair racing in Northern California, because Golden Gate is the track that keeps the industry going on a year-round basis,” Balch said, adding that “there's always been tension in balancing the interests of Golden Gate with the fairs.”

Craig Fravel, chief executive officer at 1/ST Racing, spoke on behalf of Golden Gate. Under questioning from commissioners, he conceded that his organization would likely “be supportive” of an idea that got brought up whereby Ferndale got its unopposed second week of live racing while Golden Gate retained simulcast host status during the same time.

“Everyone keeps expecting us to stay open for training while meets are taking place at fairs, [so] being compensated for [that expense] would certainly be something that we would welcome, and [having] a break in the calendar is not a negative for us,” Fravel said.

Swartzlander, of CARF, urged everyone to look at the overall picture.

“We all have to understand that racing in Northern California is a continuum,” Swartzlander said. “Like any major sports, we have our AAA, AA and A teams. [The smaller entities] support the Del Mars and the Santa Anitas. We need to keep the fairs in strength, and we support what goes on in all racing.”

The CHRB had already finalized the Southern California racing schedule at its September meeting.

The post ’23 Dates for Northern California Edge Closer to Finalization appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post