Open Letter To The Stronach Group: Where Are The Answers?

Over a week has passed since The Stronach Group (TSG) announced with a short statement light on detail the closure of Golden Gate Fields at the end of the year–a momentous decision that figures to upend a way of life for so many in California.

Since then, the company has remained publicly mum on the reasons behind the closure, and its vision for the future.

Every day since the announcement, the TDN has submitted a series of questions, to which TSG has responded only once. “For now, the [Sunday] statement is going to be our comment around the story. We look forward to being in touch in the future about our plans,” wrote Stefan Friedman, a TSG spokesperson, last Monday.

The silence is troubling for the thousands of breeders, trainers, owners, grooms, hotwalkers and phalanx of individuals attempting to make a living from horse racing in the state.

With the clock racing towards the end of the year–when many will pack up bag and box, van and car, to start life anew on Christmas Eve–they face stark decisions about their professional futures and personal lives.

Do they try to make a go of it in Southern California, or do they ply their trade in another state? What's best for their families? What kind of investments should they be making at this year's sales? How do they shape their breeding plans for next year? And what kind of industry will exist to justify such investments?

These are tough questions to grapple with at the best of times–much harder still beneath a veil of uncertainty and not a little fear. The edifice of any successful racing operation is built upon foundation stones laid years, decades sometimes, in advance.

With this in mind, the TDN is publishing the questions submitted each day to TSG, and again asking when can stakeholders expect the answers they need to make those long-term business decisions that ensure this industry's future.

1 – It appears that TSG didn't give all the relevant stakeholders much (if any) of a prior warning before making the announcement. If that is indeed the case, why did TSG decide to make the announcement in this abrupt fashion?

2 – How many horses does TSG expect to be relocated to Santa Anita from GGF? And has TSG spoken with the connections of those horses about possibly making the move?

3 – Many of the horses at Golden Gate don't seem an obvious fit for the Santa Anita/SoCal circuit. Is TSG concerned that fewer horses than expected will make the move? Is TSG prepared to offer cheaper claiming races at SA (cheaper than $10,000) to accommodate the lower-level horses currently stabled at GGF?

4 – What was the reason for closing GGF? Are they economic reasons? If not, are the reasons to do with the recently proposed Berkeley City Council ordinance? Or are they a combination of factors?

5 – Did the economics from Computer Assisted Wagering (CAW) play any part in the decision to close GGF?

6 – Furthermore, TDN understands that the GGF purse account was in deficit to the tune of around $1.9 million. Did this play a part in the decision to close GGF? If so, is Santa Anita's purse account in the red or black?

7 – Is it true the state is stepping in to turn GGF into a park?

8 – What are TSG's thoughts about CARF's proposal to make Cal Expo a year-round hub of racing in the north?

9 – What specific long-term plans does TSG have for Santa Anita? Will TSG be making any substantial financial investments into the property, to show stakeholders that the company is sincere about the long-term viability of the facility?

10 – On top of that, will TSG be making any investments in the Santa Anita backstretch–in particular, to vastly improve living conditions for the backstretch workers living there?

11 – Does TSG intend to purchase the Arizona Downs facility?

12 – Will TSG extend GGF's closure date to accommodate the needs of California industry stakeholders in making the necessary adjustments to their businesses?

The post Open Letter To The Stronach Group: Where Are The Answers? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Greg Ferraro Q&A: Northern California Racing ‘Necessary’ For Racing’s Viability

Sunday's news that The Stronach Group (TSG) will close its flagship Northern California racetrack, Golden Gate Fields, at the end of the year has ripped through the state racing industry like a cannon shot.

It has left owners, breeders, trainers, grooms and a whole multitude of individuals whose livelihoods hinge around the sport scrambling for answers as they attempt to plot their futures in a vacuum of hard facts.

Instrumental in this confusion is the glaring dearth of public information coming out of TSG. Every day this week, the TDN has submitted a series of basic questions about the company's decision to sell Golden Gate Fields and its short- and long-term plans in California.

TSG has responded only once, on Monday, pointing to its Sunday statement–a statement scant on detail.

Seeking clarification therefore on the reasons behind, and ramifications from, Sunday's news, TDN spoke with Greg Ferraro, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) chairman.

Ferraro didn't just speak about Golden Gate Fields, but also shared his thoughts and concerns surrounding the ongoing rollout of the Horseracing and Integrity Act's anti-doping and medication control program (ADMC).

The HISA-related portion of this interview will be published in part two in Saturday's TDN.

The following has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

TDN: When did you first know that TSG was selling Golden Gate?

GF: The staff at CHRB heard about it last Friday. Somebody from the agency called with some questions about Golden Gate. [CHRB] staff said, 'well, why are you asking these questions?' And they said, 'Well, the state was in negotiations to make a deal on Golden Gate.'

Then we called The Stronach Group executives and said, 'Do you know what's going on?' They said, 'Yes, Golden Gate is going to be sold,' and asked us to keep it confidential until Monday when they intended to make an announcement. But obviously, it leaked and came out on Sunday.

TDN: Which state agency contacted the CHRB?

The California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. [It presides] over several boards including Parks and Recreation and Natural Resources. We're one of them as well.

TDN: Is the end date for Golden Gate of December 2023 set in stone?

From what my sources told me yesterday, yes, that's set in stone. Any idea of extending dates beyond [Dec.] 18th is a no go.

TDN: Do you know what the motivating factors were in the decision?

No, I don't. Probably the ability to make a deal with the state. Developers have never been interested in the Golden Gate property because of the height limit [on developments]. You can't develop it to make any money.

TDN: Is that what it's going to be used for, a park?

It's not final yet, but I know that's what the negotiations are about.

TDN: Do you think that proposed Berkeley City Council ordinance had any sway in the decision?

I don't think so. Golden Gate has fought those battles before, and I think they would have fought it again.

TDN: What do you make of TSG's argument that this consolidation will reinvigorate racing at Santa Anita?

They claim that they're going to make capital investments in San Luis Rey and Santa Anita to improve racing and make up for the difference of the loss of training facilities in Northern California. I don't know how that's going to work. We'll have to wait and see what they propose.

TDN: Do you know what those capital improvements are?

No, I don't. They haven't detailed anything yet. I assume by our board meeting in August [16th] they'll have some kind of a proposal.

TDN: You haven't seen any detailed TSG proposal yet?

No, I haven't.

TDN: Does it concern you that they'd make such a momentous decision without simultaneously sharing with the public their vision for the future?

It could have been presented a little better, let's just say.

TDN: Are you worried that they don't have a detailed plan?

I'm worried that the proposal is not going to satisfy the needs of the Northern California horseman.

TDN: What do you make of CARF's proposal for Cal Expo to become a hub of racing in the north?

It's an interesting proposal. They're talking about Pleasanton, Santa Rosa and Cal Expo, with the idea that they could race maybe up to 10 months and have their headquarters at Cal Expo.

The problem is the harness [racing industry] has a 10-year contract for training at Cal Expo. So, I don't know where harness racing would go or how you would get around that. But I think it's worth looking at. It's something California horsemen and the breeders are certainly interested in.

TDN: How important is maintaining a substantial racing presence in Northern California for the future of California racing, in your opinion?

It's vitally important. If you just take a look at the foals bred in California, 35% of them race at Golden Gate Fields. That's a substantial number of horses. The thought of moving all these horses to southern California, there's only 20% of them that are suitable for down here. So, what are you going to do with the rest of the horses?

I think some sort of Northern California [circuit], or if it's not Northern California alternate track somewhere, would be necessary for the viability of racing.

TDN: If TSG's vision goes ahead and you see those horses from up north come down south to consolidate racing down there, could that facilitate the collapse of the breeding industry in California, which already isn't terribly healthy?

That's what the breeders are worried about. Yes.

TDN: Are you worried about it as well?

Fifty percent of the horses that race at Santa Anita are California-breds, and that's only 20% of the foal crop.

TDN: It sounds as though then you're leaning towards the CARF proposal.

I think it's interesting. I wouldn't say I'm leaning towards anything at this point. Myself and the rest of the board, we feel it's up to the industry to really solve this problem. We can't do it. The board can't do it. We can assist. We can approve any proposals that look interesting.

But I think at this point, the board would sit back and wait and see what the industry comes up with, what alternate plans they have, and then we can help guide or participate with the industry to solve the problem.

CARF's proposal is interesting. We haven't seen yet what The Stronach Group's proposal is. And maybe there are alternate proposals. Everything's happened so fast that we really haven't had time to dig into what the proper solution would be.

TDN: TSG has been quiet since the announcement, at least publicly. Could the CHRB hold an emergency meeting before Aug. 16 to force the company to divulge information that stakeholders need?

It's something we would consider, but there's no sense holding the emergency meeting if there's no information to come forward at that meeting. So, right now we're looking at different groups to see if they have their proposals consolidated enough to give us a chance to look at it.

I have the feeling–I don't know–but I have the feeling since The Stronach Group hasn't put anything out there yet, that perhaps they don't have their plans fully developed.

TDN: If indeed TSG doesn't have a solid plan, given how integral they are to the future of California racing, do you have concerns about their approach to conducting their business?

Of course. Yes.

The other issue is the money. Betting in Northern California, the money stays in Northern California. In Southern California, the betting stays in Southern California. But The Stronach Group is looking at these capital expenditures. They're going to request part of the Northern California money, and I'm sure that the other groups like CARF and perhaps the breeders are going be opposed to that. So, the real fight may be over where the funds go.

TDN:  Speaking of capital expenditures, I think a key thing for many trainers, and certainly the stable staff and the grooms, are the backstretch living conditions at Santa Anita. If indeed TSG succeeds in its plans, could a rehaul of the Santa Anita backstretch be a condition of their license?

Absolutely. It would be.

We're always concerned about the welfare of the backstretch workers given Santa Anita as it stands now. They couldn't absorb any more backstretch workers in those facilities. And so, something would have to be done.

The welfare of the backstretch workers is a primary concern for the board. As it is, where are those people going to go after Dec. 18th? I mean, the week before Christmas, they're out of work, you know? And, and so, that's quite a concern for us as to what's going to happen to those people.

TDN: What do you see when you plot California racing's future–especially a likely future without Los Alamitos. And what role could and should the CHRB play in shoring things up?

It's a concern to us. I mean, Los Alamitos is probably short-lived. If something happened to Doc. [Dr. Ed] Allred, I think that would be the end of Los Alamitos. That leads to Santa Anita and Del Mar. And given the value of Santa Anita's property and The Stronach Group's performance so far, you wonder how long Santa Anita could survive.

So yes, the CHRB is quite concerned about the continued viability of California racing. It's mostly in the hands of the industry. But we're certainly going to take any steps we can to help the industry survive and be healthy.

The post Greg Ferraro Q&A: Northern California Racing ‘Necessary’ For Racing’s Viability appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Golden Gate Fields Facing 50-Day Closure

Officials at the Pacific Racing Association and Golden Gate Fields (GGF) have announced that the track and stable area will be closed to all activities and occupants for a seven-week period beginning June 18, 2022 and extending through Aug. 7, 2022, in order to provide 'safe and unimpeded access for required upgrades, repairs and inspection of the utility infrastructure serving the GGF facility.' During that time frame, there will be no live racing or training and housing will be unavailable.

In a memo issued late Wednesday, officials explained they have no choice but to take the action and that the track is required to undertake steps to 'evaluate, repair and replace sanitary sewer infrastructure' that serves the facility. As required by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Regional Private Sewer Lateral Ordinance, GGF must evaluate its more than 6,000 feet (more than a linear mile) of sanitary sewer laterals serving the facility. Portions of the work cannot be completed safely or expeditiously without a complete shutdown of all operations.

The memo goes on to state that the track will work with stakeholders over the course of the next three months to minimize the impact the repairs will cause. It was not immediately clear where displaced backstretch workers would be accommodated.

Golden Gate was also forced to close its facility 15 years ago when the racing surface was replaced.

The post Golden Gate Fields Facing 50-Day Closure appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

For Arlington, The End Is Here

The ninth race Saturday at Arlington is scheduled to go off at 6:12 p.m. Central Time and that will be it. Barring an 11th-hour miracle, the plug will be pulled by Churchill Downs and the wrecking ball will soon be on its way. Considered one of the most beautiful tracks in the world and an important part of American racing since opening in 1927, Arlington Park will run its last-ever card Saturday.

On the racetrack, it figures to be a quiet afternoon. At the same track that has played host to Secretariat, Citation, Dr. Fager, John Henry and has been the site of the Grade I Arlington Million, the sport's first ever $1-million race, and a Breeders' Cup, the richest races of the day will be a pair of $40,000 allowance races.

“The mood here is one of  sheer depression,” said trainer Mike Campbell, who is the president of the Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association. “This is as ugly as it gets. Churchill is so tone deaf that they are actually going to have fireworks on Saturday night after the races. More so than anything, that shows how tone deaf they are.”

The beginning of the end began in September 2019 when Churchill Downs declined to apply for a casino license for Arlington. The company committed to only two more years of racing at the suburban Chicago track.

That stunned horsemen, who had been led to believe that Churchill was on board when it came to opening a casino at Arlington, which would have guaranteed the track's future. Conventional wisdom is that Churchill does not want a casino at Arlington because it would compete with a highly successful gaming facility it owns in nearby Des Plaines, Illinois. The next step was Churchill announcing that the track was being put up for sale. The list of potential buyers includes a partnership led by former Arlington president Roy Arnold that wants to preserve racing, but it appears highly unlikely Churchill will sell to that group.

“It's corporate greed. That's all it is,” said trainer Michele Boyce, who has two entered for Saturday. “Churchill is obviously worried about making money for their shareholders, which they have done a very good job of.  Somewhere along the line, though, you've got to have a little bit of compassion too, for history and for people and for the traditions a place like Arlington has. To see racing in Chicago reduced to basically nothing is downright cruel.”

“Churchill Downs wants to own casinos,” said leading trainer Larry Rivelli. “It's a lot more lucrative to own a casino than a racetrack. It's just unfortunate because they had the opportunity to open a casino here and they passed on it. That's why everyone is so angry. They lobbied for it for 20 years and in the end they said no.”

Thoroughbred racing moves to Hawthorne Oct. 8, the first day of a meet that will run through Dec. 27. Hawthorne has been given the green light to build a casino and is in no danger of closing. The problem is that it is the only racing facility left in the Chicago area and is required to divide its dates between Thoroughbred and Standardbred racing. There will be two Thoroughbred meets at Hawthorne next year, one that covers April, May and June and another that will be held in October, November and December. The Standardbreds will have the July, August and September dates, leaving a huge hole in the thoroughbred racing schedule.

For Rivelli, that's not a huge problem. He has a large stable and plenty of quality horses. He plans on having a division next year in Kentucky. But there are plenty of Illinois-based trainers who don't have the quality or quantity to pull something like that off.

“There are trainers here who are just sick about what is happening,” Campbell said. “There has been a gamut of emotions. I've got people who don't know how they are going to make a living. They don't know where they are going to go. The majority of the horsemen here are local guys who don't really have the quality to go somewhere else. They don't have that many options. We have trainers and owners here who are just ready to give up. This is going to take a terrible toll on the ranks of horse ownership.”

Boyce has already decided to move her operation to Indiana Grand. She will ship to Hawthorne on occasion, but says the truncated racing season next year in Illinois does not work for her. She doesn't see how a circuit can possibly make it when there is no racing during three keys months of the summer.

“It's not going to work until they can open up a new harness track,” she said. “I'm ready to sell my home and go elsewhere. The only thing that will save Illinois racing is if they can create a situation where both breeds can have their own track and have what they need. It's not shaping up that way right now. With the way things are, it's very hard to see a future in Illinois racing.”

Campbell and the horsemen have worked tirelessly to find a solution for Illinois's racing's problems. He said he is holding out some hope, only because the Arnold bid has yet to be formally rejected. But he's practical enough to know that there is very little hope and that 94 years after it opened Arlington is done.

When Arlington opened on Oct. 13, 1927, the Daily Herald called it “America's Greatest Race Course.” The weather was cold and the wind was biting but 20,000 fans showed up that day to welcome in Chicago's newest racetrack. The crowd was there to celebrate. That won't be the case Saturday. You don't celebrate at a funeral.

The post For Arlington, The End Is Here appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights