The entire state has been trying to come to grips with the looming June 9 closure of Golden Gate Fields, the lone commercial track in the region, and the Mar. 21 vote by the CHRB was viewed as a NorCal racing lifeline by the estimated 250 supporters in attendance.

Those very vocal and at times emotional NorCal racing advocates greatly outnumbered proponents of a plan that would have instead consolidated all commercial-track racing in the state in Southern California.

The NorCal supporters consisted of horsemen who have called the circuit home for decades, plus a contingent of statewide breeding interests.

Those individuals had the group backing of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF), which will operate the expanded Oct. 16-Dec. 25 Pleasanton meet under the auspices of a new management entity called Golden State Racing.

The California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), whose board of directors had unanimously voted to back the initiative that also calls for three other fairs venues to pick up other dates that will be abandoned by Golden Gate's closure, was also behind the Pleasanton idea.

1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both the closing Golden Gate and the financially struggling Santa Anita Park–had teamed with Del Mar Thoroughbred Club and the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) to try an convince the CHRB that its alternate plan would be in the best long-term interests of the state as a whole.

That SoCal concept instead focused on redirecting simulcast revenue from the northern circuit to the southern tracks. It was further based on a premise that would have attempted to accommodate displaced Golden Gate outfits by creating more opportunities for lower-level horses to race at Los Alamitos Race Course, dropping the “claiming floors” at both Santa Anita and Del Mar, and establishing “relocation allowances” for stables that had to pack up and move while only short summer fairs meets were conducted in NorCal.

In the middle were the CHRB commissioners, who repeatedly expressed frustrations during the Mar. 21 meeting that because the NorCal and SoCal factions couldn't cooperate to come up with a joint plan, they had been placed in the unenviable position of having to choose one option over the other while knowing that they'd be making some constituents unhappy no matter how they voted on the measure.

Yet while the CHRB did ask pointed questions about CARF's plans for Pleasanton and how the new operation would be funded, commissioners saved their most barbed criticisms for 1/ST Racing's executive vice-chairman Craig Fravel, who only 48 hours before the meeting had penned an open letter that warned of potential consequences that might occur if the CHRB voted against the SoCal plan.

In his Mar. 19 letter–which backers of the Pleasanton plan clearly took as an ultimatum–Fravel had written that “should the Board allocate dates in the north per the CARF proposal Santa Anita will immediately meet with the TOC to implement purse cuts for the balance of 2024.”

Fravel also wrote that “Further planned investments in capital projects at Santa Anita will be reevaluated [and] further operation of Santa Anita and San Luis Rey [Downs] as training and stabling facilities may be in jeopardy.”

In response, CHRB commissioner Damascus Castellanos openly called out 1/ST Racing during Thursday's meeting for being too coercively demanding and for making an already complicated situation more difficult. Castellanos said over the past two days since Fravel's letter was made public, the CHRB has been inundated with calls from concerned constituents.

“I'm not upset because of the calls,” Castellanos told Fravel. “I'm upset because I don't do well with bullies. That's the problem. I'm upset that you [put this burden on] the CHRB. And that's not right. But, if that's the way you felt [you needed to] play the game, then that's what you're going to do…. You want to be the bully? You want to take your ball and run? Then that's up to you. I'm not advocating that. But what I'm saying is don't put that burden on us…. Everybody in this room has a responsibility to take care of themselves and each other. And I believe that that hasn't been done.”

CHRB commissioner Wendy Mitchell told Fravel that she was bothered by 1/ST Racing announcing Golden Gate's closure, not working constructively with NorCal interests to present a workable alternative, then responding with threats of closure when 1/ST Racing didn't like the concept that CARF came up with.

“That's not fair and that's not right,” Mitchell said. “And that's not a good business strategy…. You can't just throw out all these threats to us and say the industry is going to collapse in California [if you don't get your way].”

Mitchell continued: “We're expected, as regulators, to pick sides. To pick north against south. To pick fairs, versus, you know, the Southern California tracks. I don't like the way this was handled. I don't appreciate it. I think we need to have a different attitude and strategy for how to save horse racing in the state of California versus what we have seen so far.”

Fravel then attempted to explain what he meant in the letter using a more moderate tone while underscoring that 1/ST Racing's chairwoman and chief executive officer, Belinda Stronach, remains fully committed to making sure Santa Anita doesn't suffer the same going-out-of-business fate as Golden Gate.

Racing at Santa Anita | Benoit

“The letter didn't say we're shutting down,” Fravel said. “The letter said we have to sit down and figure out what we're going to be able to invest with the prospect of continuing to lose money. I can say one thing: I was on the phone with Belinda yesterday. She does not want to close Santa Anita. We've had offers over and over again from people wanting to [buy it], but [upper management's response has consistently been] 'not for sale.' So the commitment is to continue racing. To make racing thrive at Santa Anita, and to try and reinvest our efforts in this product.”

According to plans for the Pleasanton proposal submitted by CARF that were included in the CHRB meeting packet, “In order to provide for the additional horses expected to run at this meet, more than 300 portable stalls will be moved to [Pleasanton's] Alameda County Fairgrounds. No other improvements to the facilities are needed at this time. However, future investments could include additional permanent stalls, improvements to the grandstand and the installation of a turf course.”

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, later put an approximate $7-million projected price tag on the turf course, noting that it wouldn't be undertaken until at least year two of the Pleasanton phase-in.

CARF's plan further called for other dates formerly run at Golden Gate to be reallocated this year between Sonoma County Fair (July 31-Aug. 20), Humboldt County Fair (Aug. 21-Sept. 17) and the Big Fresno Fair (Sept. 18-Oct. 15).

CARF and Alameda County Fair have drafted a licensing agreement that will cover five years, the written materials stated.

Back in January, the TOC had previously articulated in front of the CHRB that even though it was in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger existed in the form of that move increasing economic pressures in the south that the TOC believes would erode the overall California product.

On Thursday, Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer, said that while agreement among its board members wasn't unanimous about not backing the Pleasanton plan, “in terms viability, there just wasn't enough assurance that this was a viable plan.”

Nader said the TOC had difficulty with the extended Pleasanton meet using the higher California takeout structure that applies to fairs (instead of the lower commercial takeout scheme that Golden Gate would have been required to use), because, he explained, that form of bet pricing would be burdensome to horseplayers.

Nader also said that he wasn't sure CARF's proposed daily purses (which are still a work in progress) reflected an accurate projection, because Pleasanton would basically have to match what the better-established, lower-takeout Golden Gate meet generated in betting handle to achieve it. The TOC, he said, has come up with slightly different and lower figures.

Nader made it clear that he wasn't arguing which projection was right and which was wrong. But he did state concerns that within a few months, the CHRB will have to make decisions on 2025 dates allocations, and that even then, the Pleasanton meet won't yet be completed, so no one will have “the real truth” on whether the numbers make sense or not.

“The TOC does represent the north. It does represent the south,” Nader said, which elicited catcalls and boos from many in attendance who have accused the TOC of not being representative of the NorCal interests. “What we want is just reliable, accurate information to understand what puts California in the best position going forward.”

Nader continued: “No matter what we do, no matter what decisions are made, there's going to be some pain, and there's going to be some who are going to walk away disappointed. And unfortunately, that's inevitable. I don't care what decision is made–no matter what we do, it's going to have impact to the detriment of some. Frankly, I just think it's unavoidable.”

Alan Balch, the executive director of the CTT, explained prior to the CHRB's vote why his organization backed the NorCal plan.

“Our board, nine people south and north, are unanimous in supporting the effort to keep Northern California racing going,” Balch said. “We believe that racing is California is not going to survive in any meaningful, important way without California breeding, [and] we just need to have a chance to keep breeders interested and motivated to breed, and to provide hope for the future.

“We can all disagree about the viability of any particular northern plan,” Balch said. “But with no plan and no racing in the north, there is very little incentive for California breeders to continue.”

Balch said that his constituents have heard too much rhetoric from the TOC and 1/ST Racing along the lines of, “If this northern money doesn't come to the south, we'll have to cut purses in the south.”

But, Balch postulated, “Do these people realize that if there is no Northern California racing, the Northern California purses will be cut to zero? Does that make sense? Not if we're all in the same state. We have to work together.”

Prior to the CHRB's unanimous vote in favor of the NorCal plan, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, pointed out that, “This is a serious fiduciary responsibility that the board is taking on here, [and] it's increasingly clear to me that if racing is going to survive in California at all, we can't make two circuits. We have to make one circuit [in which tracks] are not conflicting with each other, where you're benefitting each other.”

CHRB vice-chair Oscar Gonzales added that even if the NorCal interests get what they want out of the vote, they, too, must realize that SoCal does need some form of cooperation and financial help.

“I believe that this [vote] should be an opportunity to reset, [and] the start of mending fences,” Gonzales said. “And [then] let's get on with making California racing the best in the nation.”

Castellanos concurred.

“We need to work together. We need to figure out how to keep racing in California. Not just northern, not just southern–in California. Because if we keep on going at this rate, we're going to implode. There's no reason for us to cannibalize each other,” Castellanos said.

The post CHRB Unanimously Approves Plan to Make Pleasanton New Center of NorCal Circuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The post Six New Board Members Join Thoroughbred Owners Of CA BOD appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Some Northern California stakeholders said they suspected political intimidation was the motive for the request when the balance of the industry's economic power in California is up for grabs, and at a time of heightened tensions between industry interests in the North and South of the state.

“This constant back and forth that's happened is really unfortunate. It's not sustainable,” said owner-breeder Justin Oldfield, who chairs a working group to help facilitate ongoing racing in the North. “Racing in California is in jeopardy here. We need the North. We need the South. We need to figure out a way to make this all work.”

It's currently unclear who or what entity hired Benbrook Law group to file the 10-page Public Record Act (PRA) requests sent to the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) and the Alameda County Fair.

Broadly speaking, the PRA requests ask for records and communications related to the closure of Golden Gate Fields, and to the continuation of Thoroughbred racing after the closure of Golden Gate Fields. This includes any records related to the creation of a new entity, “whether public or private,” that would “participate in hosting or conducting Thoroughbred racing,” and the allocation of wagering proceeds once Golden Gate closes.

Aside from its role in the campaign to recall Gov. Newsom, Benbrook Law Group has been involved in several high-profile politically-driven legal campaigns with a right-wing bent, including in recent years challenges to affirmative action programs, and a lawsuit against the state by the Firearms Policy Coalition challenging gun and ammunition disclosure laws.

After a Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled to give supporters of the effort to recall Gov. Newsom more time to collect the necessary signatures for a special election, it transpired that the judge and Bradley Benbrook–who founded Benbrook Law Group–were once attorneys at the same Sacramento law firm, and had served as co-counsel on at least two cases.

Before last month's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), The Stronach Group (TSG) Los Alamitos and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (DMTC) issued a joint submission to the CHRB, asking the regulator to allocate race dates for the last 14 weeks of 2024 and for 2025–beyond the Northern fair meet dates–with operations concentrated in the South.

Citing the tough economics of maintaining parallel North-South racing circuits, the letter also outlined a broader set of proposals, including a possible legislative change to permit Los Alamitos to card night Thoroughbred races beyond 4 1/2 furlongs for $5,000 claimers and below, and $8,000 maiden claimers.

Against a backdrop of strong vocal support from NorCal stakeholders, representatives from CARF unveiled during the CHRB January meeting possible plans for a racing circuit in the North to be based at Cal Expo in Sacramento or at Pleasanton, which hosts the Alameda County Fair.

Stakeholders in the North appear to have until the March 21 CHRB meeting to assemble a concrete proposal for extended racing operations beyond the summer fairs.

According to Jerome Hoban, CEO of the Alameda County Fair and CARF board chair, Pleasanton has become the primary focus for a racing HQ in the North.

“CARF Board voted last week to support Pleasanton as being a potential hub for Northern Racing,” wrote Hoban, in an email on Feb. 11. He added that “many details need to be worked out to make this a reality,” including contract negotiations related to the property and on financing.

One such negotiation would appear to concern Pleasanton Golf Center Driving Range, which currently operates within the fairgrounds.

“The Alameda County Fair Board will need to approve the plan and ultimately, the CHRB would need to allocate the dates and license the meeting,” wrote Hoban. “We know that Northern California racing is vital to the entire industry as well as the Fairs. The economic impact of Northern racing is staggering and has a broad reach across several states.”

Prior to the January CHRB meeting, three TOC board members resigned from the organization in protest at the joint submission to the state regulator.

“It is clear to us that the current leadership is not being transparent and not working to represent the entire state of California,” wrote Lindsay LaRoche, Johnny Taboada and Ed Moger, in their resignation letter.

TOC leadership subsequently pushed back against several claims made in the letter.

Another point of leverage in the ongoing negotiations concerns legislation passed last September that means if Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funnelled south when there is no live racing in the northern half of the state after that date.

It is currently unclear who or what entities have hired the Benbrook Law Group to issue the PRAs. The TOC, TSG, DMTC, Los Alamitos and PETA have all denied hiring the firm. Benbrook declined to answer the same question.

In response to claims that the company had been hired to intimidate Northern racing interests at such a sensitive stage of negotiations, Benbrook wrote that it is “hardly political bullying or intimidation” to ask a public entity to comply with its public record disclosure obligations.

“All the more so considering that these public entities appear to be using public resources to figure out how to make money from gambling proceeds,” Benbrook wrote. “Your questions suggest that some parties think all of this should be happening outside the public's view; we respectfully disagree with that.”

Long-time Northern California owner-breeder Tom Bachman said that “there's a lot of skulduggery going on” as the fight over the future of horse racing in California plays out.

“I think they're going to make whatever push they can to collapse the North,” Bachman added. “If they threaten Pleasanton, that's the heart of being able to keep the North up and going.”

The post Politically Powerful Law Firm Hired To Issue NorCal PRA Requests appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Although the CHRB concluded the meeting–which featured testimony that was at times emotional, hopeful, angry, and even ominous–without taking any voting action on the situation, proponents behind ideas that would turn one of the NorCal fairs locations into a venue capable of hosting nearly year-round Thoroughbred racing had a decided edge in turnout and vocal support.

In part, that's because those NorCal-based supporters enjoyed a home-track advantage, because the Jan. 18 CHRB meeting was held at Cal Expo in Sacramento, the preferred location for a year-round venue as outlined in a presentation by the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF).

But the locale wasn't the only factor, as much of the back-and-forth debate also came across as a referendum about larger racing entities allegedly trying to trump smaller ones, whether or not 1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both Golden Gate and Santa Anita Park–will be good for the state in the long run, and whether or not the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) organization speaks for all the stakeholders in the state or just the higher-end stables based in SoCal.

Yet it was telling that no fewer than 26 industry stakeholders spoke before the board on this wide-ranging, controversial North/South topic during the public commentary period, and not a single one voiced support for an alternate plan proposed by TOC in conjunction with executives from Santa Anita Park and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club.

That TOC-backed concept would consolidate all commercial-track racing in the state at SoCal. The goal would be to maintain level purses there under a simulcast revenue “redirect” plan that would also try to accommodate displaced Golden Gate outfits by creating more opportunities for lower-level horses to race at Los Alamitos Race Course, dropping the “claiming floors” at both Santa Anita and Del Mar, and establishing “relocation allowances” for stables that had to pack up and move.

The TOC's takeaway message was that even though it is in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger exists in the form of increasing economic pressures in the South that, in turn, could contribute to millions of dollars in purse overpayments at Santa Anita and Del Mar that would likely erode the overall California product.

“With the closing of Golden Gate, can we continue to support two full-time circuits? This is a fair question,” said Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer.

“We are running out of time,” Nader continued. “If there is agreement on one point, I think it would be that the latest possible decision on the allocation of 2024-25 race dates would be at the CHRB meeting in March. This would help re-establish stability and certainty for the many who are looking for answers.”

Nader's tone was largely somber and straightforward as he discussed the TOC's rationale with executives from 1/ST Racing and Del Mar presenting alongside. But at times his comments were met with derision and catcalls from opponents, who greatly outnumbered the supporters of the TOC's plan.

Many of those same folks also cheered and applauded any mentions of trying to save year-round NorCal racing.

At one point, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, asked audience members to respect decorum so that the outbursts wouldn't bog down the meeting. But his request to “stop the clapping and the booing” went largely unheeded.

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, detailed his organization's work-in-progress plan to install a seven-furlong track inside the current main mile oval at Cal Expo, which for years has largely hosted Standardbred racing outside of the short season that the Thoroughbred fair races in Sacramento.

Swartzlander said Cal Expo would likely race 103 Thoroughbred dates in the future (on the outer oval), with cards scheduled roughly twice weekly when the other NorCal fairs weren't in season.

“We are looking at funding from horsemen, CARF, and potential grants,” Swartzlander said, admitting that his plan is just in its initial stages because horsemen in California have only known since July about 1/ST Racing's plan to close Golden Gate.

As a result, Swartzlander was light on specifics such as firm costs and a timeline.

Swartzlander said next up is a Jan. 26 meeting with the Cal Expo board of directors seeking conceptual approval.

“If the board does decline to approve racing at Cal Expo, we will move to Pleasanton,” as a potential year-round NorCal racing home, Swartzlander said. “The Pleasanton board is very strongly in support of racing, and if I have to make one commitment to you, Pleasanton will race.”

When CHRB executive director Scott Chaney pressed Swartzlander for cost details, Swartzlander gave an estimate for state-owned Cal Expo's overhaul in the $1- to 1.5-million range.

Chaney expressed surprise at such a low figure.

“I'm not going to lie. I think you're very low,” Chaney said.

“One of the things that concerns all of us is uncertainty right now,” Chaney said. “We're, I'm sure, bleeding horses every day because there's no clear plan. We don't know what we're doing in the future [and] I am concerned about timeline and cost at Cal Expo. I just think it's unrealistic. I know it's unrealistic, to be honest.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell said she appreciated CARF's efforts at coming up with a plan, but also expressed doubts.

“I don't see how any of this lines up,” Mitchell said. “And I guess my concern from a regulatory or from the industry perspective is I don't want to create false expectations for people that are really unattainable…. I don't mean to be negative or a doubter, but I'm trying to be realistic and pragmatic about what the industry is facing.”

Commissioner Damascus Castellanos said that the time crunch and uncertainty was caused by 1/ST Racing, not CARF.

“The industry was kind of slow to get going on this whole thing,” Castellanos said. “We would be so further along if [1/ST Racing] came to us with proper notice [and] the groups in this room today probably could have gotten together and been done with this plan.”

Ian McLean, an owner and breeder, said during the public commentary session that the CHRB itself is partly to blame.

“If I'm not mistaken, this board works for us. We don't work for you,” McLean said. “The one thing that I've asked this board for years and years is to give us more attention in NorCal. Give us more time. Make us more important. Listen to what we have to say, and make us feel like we matter. And I don't think that's been done.”

McLean said the CHRB's response to CARF's proposal is too focused on negativity and “looking for the holes” in the plan.

“And I agree that you should look for the holes,” McLean continued. “But you should also look for 'How could we patch those holes?'”

Jamey Thomas, a third-generation NorCal trainer, advocated for the CHRB taking a slower approach.

“CARF needs time to get all this situated and done,” Thomas said. “It's kind of been a rush job. They're rushing us, forcing us, to get this stuff done faster than it can be done. Again, if they had let us know a year ago, by now everything could have been in place, we would have had a place to run. And we will have a place to run. The thing is, we just need the time.”

Tom Bachman, who said he's been breeding and selling Thoroughbreds in California for 40 years, underscored that the state's bloodstock industry works on a different timeline.

“My concern as a breeder is that the decisions I make today, the results are three or four years away when I've got to sell,” said Bachman. “So it's very difficult to have faith that three or four years from now there's sustainable racing in California. So my breeding now has moved to Kentucky.”

Johnny Taboada, who was a TOC director until last Sunday, when he was one of three directors to resign in protest over the TOC's proposed statewide consolidation, told the CHRB that the NorCal fairs are in jeopardy without a year-round track in the region.

“If you rush into the decision without giving the chance for the NorCal [entities to come up with an plan for a] circuit, you're going to not only put people out of work, you're going to be closing the fairs as well,” Taboada said. “If we don't have the dates assigned to the North and therefore the money goes to the South, that will be the end of not only NorCal racing, but also the fairs.”

CHRB chairman Ferraro wrapped up the session by saying that this is only the first major discussion on an enormously important topic.

“We needed your information. We need your input,” Ferraro said. “I'm telling you, it's not easy sitting in this chair looking at this situation. It is almost a no-win situation for this board. We're going to do the best we can to do right by everybody. But obviously, we have no decision-making [Thursday], so we will have to end this meeting without a decision, and we'll see what happens over the next couple of months.”

The post Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Owner of Harris Farms, Harris was inducted into the California Racing Hall of Fame in 2008 and was honored last year by the Edwin J. Gregson Foundation for his industry service. Harris Farms has been connected to over 50 California divisional champions, including eight California Horses of the Year. He is a former California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) Commissioner and currently serves on the board of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA).

Green, also an owner and breeder, is a current Board Member of the CTBA. The San Luis Obispo-based lawyer has raced under the name of SLO Racing Stable since 2010.

Mathis was the 2021 California Trainer of the Year. He was also leading trainer at the 2023 Golden Gate Fall Meet and finished seventh in the standings during the 2022 Del Mar Summer Meet. Based at Golden Gate Field, the 44-year-old is the winner of just under 800 races in his career. His winners include stakes winners Jimmy Blue Jeans and Give Me The Lute.

All three will serve the TOC Board as representatives of the North. According to TOC president and CEO Bill Nader, board members volunteered names to fill vacancies. “We spoke yesterday and had a productive discussion and will officially ratify the new members in short order,” Nader said.

“We are honored that John, Ty and Andy, well-respected North horsemen, will join our board,” said TOC Chairman Gary Fenton. “We are in a period of great transition and their passion, wisdom and institutional knowledge of California horse racing, in particular the North, will be of tremendous value to the board and our members as we work together to find the right path for the future of California racing.”

The post Harris, Green and Mathis to Join TOC Board appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

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

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

Approximately 30 million dollars is at the center of the battle, the projected net revenue from wagering derived in the north. The projection is derived from past revenues generated annually through Thoroughbred simulcast, ADW and live racing wagering in the north.

Under current law, these funds must remain in the north, for the benefit of the north–both for horsemen and any race meet that continues to offer Thoroughbred racing in the future. The powers that be in the south, 1/ST Racing and The Del Mar Thoroughbred Club are pushing to change the law so they can use those monies “to boost” racing in the south.

At the end of the day, these changes are political–the law must be changed. Experience tells me political contributions will certainly flow, if not are flowing already, to influence legislative changes that will undercut the investment and livelihoods of hundreds of horsemen in the north.

Curiously, and disappointingly, the leadership of both the CTBA and the TOC were supportive of the change even before their members learned of it. Each personally offered statements of support to 1/ST Racing that were included in the release announcing the closure of Golden Gate. Even now I find that troubling because, to my knowledge, neither has made any effort to convene their affected members in the north to ascertain first-hand our feelings, ideas, or concerns. No efforts whatsoever.

Without use of the revenues generated in the North, the Thoroughbred industry in the north will disappear. The significant investments made by many of us will be lost without any apparent regard by leadership elected by and for the purpose of representing our interests too.

I'm told neither board has even taken a vote on these issues, yet their chairs and paid executives open and privately advocate for the plans laid out by 1/ST Racing.

Having previously spent time myself on both these boards, I cannot recall a single instance prior leadership ever committed those organizations to such important positions without first having convened membership, held meaningful discussion and debate, then taken action/a vote of the board then made public to their members.

When did the genuine concerns and interests of TOC and CTBA members cease to matter to the leadership of those organizations?

When members' interests are no longer valued by the chair, the chair really should ask themselves, am I still the right person for this job?

Should this become the end of racing in the north, California Thoroughbred owners will have less than half the opportunities to run their horses and breeders will have lost venues that previously hosted races filled by nearly 70% Cal-breds.

All of us should be asking TOC and CTBA leadership why these issues have not come to the forefront in direct discussion and engagement with affected members.

Northern California horsemen and women have a right to know what the lobbyists for these organizations are saying and doing about these legislative changes. We should know how each board member voted on these issues and the minutes of each organization should explain to members why each organization has determined–for the benefit of all its members–to act as they are.

Members of each organization should openly question and challenge those boards and hold them accountable just as we do other elected representatives. They voluntarily chose to represent our collective interests. They have a duty and obligation to explain why they are proceeding in the manner they seem to be, while what seems like a majority of us believe otherwise.

As one owner to another, one breeder to another, I ask you to think about these issues and then join me in asking some serious questions of the TOC and CTBA boards.

–Tom Bachman, Owner and Breeder

The post Letter to the Editor: The Future of the North appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The plan–shared via Zoom during a press briefing lasting about 30 minutes–appeared large on big-ticket promises though short on specifics in other key areas, including the broader industry impacts from the closure of Golden Gate Fields.

The following details were divulged in the form of a press release:

• Over $1 million to support the relocation of horses, trainers, jockeys, backstretch employees and caregivers from Golden Gate Fields to Santa Anita Park as part of the consolidation of racing in Southern California, and to support the California breeding program.
• A $4.5 million, brand-new all-weather synthetic track that will replace the existing training track at Santa Anita Park. This change will not only allow for the seamless transition of horses used to running on the synthetic track at Golden Gate Fields but will serve to improve the overall safety environment at Santa Anita Park.
• A commitment to fund a portion of 2024 heath care premiums for Golden Gate Field employees.
• The creation of a job board accessible to backside employees to support the transition to Santa Anita Park.
• An investment of $500,000+ (over two years) toward building a state-of-the-art equine pool for hydrotherapy and horse exerciser, accessible to trainers at Santa Anita Park, that will help horses more easily recover from injury.
• $23.2 million toward a backside barn improvement program.
• In addition to returning a fourth day of weekly racing to Santa Anita Park resulting in 26 extra race days, 1/ST RACING will invest $2.5 million into building a turf chute at the track.

During the course of the press conference, CEO of 1/ST Racing and Gaming Aidan Butler and Craig Fravel, executive vice-chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, expanded upon some of these details.

The biggest ticket item concerns the $23 million toward backstretch improvements. “The initial piece of work is to replace every single roof and outer extremity of the barns,” said Butler.

“This is a huge undertaking. We have 2,000 stalls on the backside of Santa Anita. To quickly carve into that answer, there's not a lot of room at Santa Anita to add extra stalls. But the job when completed should have a very modern-looking and -feeling backside.

“The larger plan which we'll touch upon at a different time is that we have future proofed what would happen if we needed more stalls. Some would argue that's a great problem to have. We do have quite a few answers for that, but nothing that would be wise to announce today,” said Butler.

When asked to expand upon what he meant by cutting edge, Butler described it as an overarching theme, meaning “we're going to try to be best in class and cutting edge in everything we do.”

TSG aims to begin work on the synthetic replacement to the training track at the end of the fall meet in November. “The hope…would be to get this ready and operational by opening day,” said Butler.

The new one-turn turf chute at Santa Anita would start in the north parking lot, said Butler, who explained that the idea sprung from the growing inventory of turf horses in Southern California.

“We appreciate and understand that the ecosystem currently in California is quite turf heavy from a racehorse perspective, so, adding new turf options and turf distances and starts is going to be hugely beneficial,” said Butler.

As to the economics behind these proposals, Fravel appeared to leave the door open to the possibility that proceeds from simulcasting handle in Northern California could be diverted south.

“We will be meeting with other stakeholders and looking at gaps in the calendar and looking at how we can reconfigure the economics of California racing,” said Fravel.

In its initial statement, TSG explained that a key “goal” of the consolidation was to increase field sizes at Santa Anita and add “another day of racing to the weekly racing calendar at Santa Anita Park, come January 2024.”

When asked how long Santa Anita could remain financially viable if that extra day of racing doesn't materialize, both Fravel and Butler described the proposed investments as spurs of economic activity.

“I think with an influx of horses from the north, along with the positive impact these changes would have, we have a very realistic chance of making that happen,” said Fravel, who said contingency plans were in place in case the four-day race week didn't materialize, but declined to say what they were.

In answer to concerns that the horses in Northern California will become swamped in the Southern California circuit at the entry box, Butler discussed bringing staff from Golden Gate Fields to help smooth the acclimatization process.

“I think the intent over time is that it will become one population,” said Butler. “We've had some experience in other parts of the country where we can, during bigger meets, run higher quality from a purse perspective, and then middle tier racing on the same card.”

The paddock at Santa Anita | Benoit

Butler added: “There is another Thursday. Really the intent is to not completely load that day up with horses from Golden Gate, but to mix them across the whole four days' racing.”

In tune with Butler's comments, Fravel discussed the possibility for the “creative” carding of races with an expanded horse population.

“We fully expect that we'll be able to write condition books, racing conditions, be creative in terms of making sure that, not only the current population at Golden Gate has a place to run, but also that we'll be able to support additional racing hopefully at Los Alamitos,” Fravel said.

In terms of a totally reconstituted Southern California racing product, Butler raised the possibility of additional 'Ship & Win' incentives.

“There are lots of plans in the works to not only attract international runners, but keep up the good work that's been done,” said Butler.

As for the Golden Gate diaspora, the number of trainers and horses that can be accommodated at Santa Anita and San Luis Rey Downs is limited, admitted Butler–a restriction dictated by limited stall space in Southern California, he added.

“We're going to give every trainer and every horse as much as we can to get down here,” said Butler, pointing to the proposed industry support fund.

“Not only a stipend per horse that comes down, but also stipends for jockeys to try to integrate down in the south. There is a separate piece that covers the trainers themselves, humans as they're moving around, and their employees,” Butler added.

After the meeting concluded, TDN asked if the relocation funds would also be used to help those trainers, backstretch staff and horses who are unable to relocate south to Santa Anita or San Luis Rey Downs.

“Yes, if there is any left,” wrote a TSG spokesperson.

One enormous question stemming from TSG's plans is how the closure of Golden Gate Fields will impact the state breeding industry, which has been contracting for years.

As a sign of just how integral Cal-breds remain to the state racing product, however, during Santa Anita's recently concluded six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, according to DRF chart data. Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races.

At Golden Gate Fields, Cal-breds made up nearly 70% of all starts last year, according to DRF chart data–a number that had grown from 60% of all starts at the track in 2013.

TSG has proposed hosting the annual Cal-bred sale at Santa Anita. When asked if TSG has run the numbers on the impacts on the state breeding industry from the closure of Golden Gate fields, Fravel admitted the company had not made such calculations, but pointed toward the additional funds earmarked for the breeding industry.

“We have had breeders who have said to us they're very encouraged with the prospects for Santa Anita, and increased purse money that should be available to them,” said Fravel.

“We're going to sit down with the leadership of the CTBA [California Thoroughbred Breeders Association]. They have some ideas in terms of how they can promote additional breeding, and support the existing program,” Fravel added.

In Friday's press releases, TSG wove in remarks from the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) and from prominent California breeder Terry Lovingier.

“While we continue to work diligently on what the north might look like in 2024, today's announcement answers important short-term questions about the future of California racing and Santa Anita Park,” said Bill Nader, TOC president and CEO. “This represents both an investment and a commitment by Belinda Stronach and her team to not only stabilize but likely improve California racing for stakeholders, horsemen/women, backstretch workers and the betting public. These initiatives will provide a much better environment for our horses and make our overall racing stronger for the immediate future.”

“With these renovations and the commitment to California-bred racing, I see the opportunities for Cal-breds greatly increasing and providing more value for those horses because of it. I'm going to breed more mares to take advantage of it. This is going to benefit the entire industry in the state,” said Lovingier.

“We're a racing company,” said Fravel during Friday's press conference. “We love racing, and we want it to succeed. Hopefully the breeders will share that optimism with us.”

“We are confident that this comprehensive package of important measures will not only bolster the racing, training, owner and fan experience at Santa Anita Park, 'The Great Race Place', but also support Northern California stakeholders through a challenging transition period, and lead the way with state and industrywide changes that will result in a healthier, competitive and sustainable future for Thoroughbred racing in Southern California,” said Belinda Stronach, TSG chairwoman, CEO and president.

On Thursday, news broke that Stronach has been in talks over the last year to become an investor in the Sacramento Republic Football Club.

The post Stronach Group Outlines Plans for Southern California appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“It's like you're Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life, and you're losing your job right before Christmas,” said trainer Tim McCanna Monday, while on the road to Del Mar for the track's summer meet. “It just really leaves things up in the air.”

The reason for the closure of Golden Gate, according to TSG's Sunday announcement, was to focus its racing and training venues at Santa Anita Park and San Luis Rey Downs, consolidating the horse population in Southern California with the goal of increasing field sizes and adding another day of racing to the weekly racing calendar at Santa Anita.

McCanna, who maintains a stable of roughly 36 horses at Golden Gate, said that about half of his string are classy enough to fit the Southern California circuit. But at the moment, McCanna is unsure where the rest of his string might head, he said.

As such, McCanna said that he might end up leaving California entirely to race elsewhere. “It's possible,” he replied.

“I don't want to,” he added. “My home's up in Washington. It's a great commute for me back to my ranch up there, and to my owners up there. I still run at Emerald Downs. It was just a good fit, Northern California.”

Given the political winds that have pummeled California racing, and the spotlight Golden Gate has been under by animal rights groups in recent years, there's a palpable sense of inevitability about the closure among many industry stakeholders.

More shocking has been the abrupt nature of the announcement, poorly timed to coincide with the Northern California yearling and horses of racing age sale Aug.15 at Alameda County Fairgrounds.

“If I were those guys, I wouldn't even call the van to pick the horses up,” said Tom Bachman, a long-time owner-breeder in the state.

The decision to close Golden Gate, Bachman added, will likely hit the state's biggest breeders the hardest–a grim prognosis with profound implications for Santa Anita.

During Santa Anita's recently concluded six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, according to DRF chart data, and Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races.

While Cal-breds make up a significant portion of Santa Anita's inventory, however, their influence is waning, according to DRF chart data. The average Cal-bred race field size at Santa Anita's recently concluded meet was 7.36. In 2018, it was 9.01. Ten years ago, it was 9.70.

“I don't know what's going to happen to Barton Thoroughbreds, and the Terry Lovingiers and Tommy Town–those people who breed a large number of horses–I just don't know where those horses are going to find a home,” Bachman said, before estimating that only between 10-15% of the horses at Golden Gate would suit the SoCal circuit.

“The Stronach Group have made a really poor decision trying to prop up Santa Anita with the horses from Golden Gate,” Bachman added. “There's just not enough horses at Golden Gate to make the difference down there.”

Bill Nader, president and CEO of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), voiced frustration at the dearth of specific details currently on offer.

“It's all happened so fast,” said Nader. “Whether anybody thought this day would come or not, to that end we're surprised by the news, but we're not shocked by the news.

“By the same token, we do not have the complete story yet to really have any kind of meaningful discussion that can result in a recommendation as to what the best avenue is to take California racing forward,” he said. “There's so much missing detail at the moment, it's hard to give you a complete answer.”

The TDN requested an interview Monday with a TSG representative and submitted a series of questions.

Among the questions raised were those about future land use at the facility, and about specific reasons for the planned closure. Earlier this month, for example, the TDN reported that Berkeley City Council had issued a proposed ordinance that, if passed into law, would make it illegal to keep a horse stabled for more than 10 hours a day at Golden Gate, and requires that every horse has access to a minimum of one-half acre pasture turnout.

The TDN also asked about the organization's short and long-term future for Santa Anita. This included whether it planned to invest in renovating the track's long rundown living quarters for the backstretch staff–what many would see as a gesture of the organization's firm commitment to horse racing in the state.

Golden Gate Fields | Shane Micheli/Vassar Photography

TSG declined to answer the questions. “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.

But amid the rubble of Sunday's announcement, the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) has emerged swiftly with a possible alternative vision of racing in Northern California.

CARF executive director, Larry Swartzlander, shared with the TDN Monday a one-page document outlining in bullet-point CARF's position on the 2024 racing program.

Among the points raised, CARF proposes:

-That TSG reassess Golden Gate's closure date to run through the end of next June. This would give stakeholders more time to realign the racing calendar.

-That Cal Expo in Sacramento becomes the “base of operations” for year-round racing in Northern California.

-That CARF forms a new racing association called “Capitol Racing.”

-Finding revenue sources to support “capitol improvements” at Capitol Racing tracks, including a new turf track at Cal Expo.

-A new racing calendar with reduced dates with the intent to improve field size, return racing to four days a week, and give the Cal Expo turf course time to recover, among other reasons.

-Moving summer racing at Cal Expo to the evening.

According to Swartzlander, a new turf course at Cal Expo would take approximately six months to build and cost roughly $6 million.

There's currently no funding for the proposed track, though Swartzlander said there are a “variety of different funding sources” he was looking at.

“This was a unilateral decision,” said Swartzlander, about Sunday's announcement by TSG. “And now, this all needs to be reassessed with all the stakeholders of California.”

The next California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) race-dates committee meeting is on Aug. 16.

When approached about CARF's proposals Monday morning, Alan Balch, executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), declined to comment, other than to say that “we don't know what the CARF plan is, and we will evaluate what we see when we see it.”

Nader was similarly equivocal. “We can look at that as an option, and we'll have a conversation with them later this week,” said Nader.

“But again, we've got to put that down alongside whatever it is this plan is going to look like–we'll call it the 1/ST Racing, Santa Anita and San Luis Rey plan. Until we have those side-by-side, I think it's impossible to really come to any meaningful decision,” he said, adding that the TOC board was planning to meet via telephone late Monday afternoon.

“I expect emotions are going to run high,” he said. “It'll probably be a spirited conversation. But we won't have a unified position because there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle that are still unclear.”

Given the general quality of racehorse participating at Golden Gate, a potential obstacle to broad participation among that group at Santa Anita would be the minimum $10,000 claiming threshold at the track–a condition of licensure imposed by the CHRB in 2019.

According to agency spokesperson Mike Marten, however, the CHRB looked at Santa Anita's most recent license application–spanning their recently concluded winter-spring 2022-2023 meet–and that condition “was not discussed or included.”

Another wrinkle in this whole fragmented saga is TSG's potential purchase of the Arizona Downs racetrack, as reported by the TDN in August of last year.

Reached Monday morning, Tom Auther, an Arizona Downs owner and partner, said he and his partners have continued to speak with TSG representatives “every once in a while,” but that other potential buyers were circling the facility.

“I don't know if Golden Gate going away helps, hurts, or makes any difference at all,” he said, when asked if the announcement changes the color of these ongoing negotiations. “We've walked a couple other entities through it. But I don't want to make things sound imminent because it isn't.”

The post With Golden Gate Closing, Can Nor-Cal Fashion Alternative Circuit? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post