You made a tongue and cheek reference to my business.
Slots money isn't going to be there forever, of that I am sure. In the mean time, customers are leaving in droves. It is already happening at some places. What happens when that money is gone and the customers are gone, too?
Of course it is the tracks more than horsemen, I'll concede that point. I should have said welfare for tracks, of which horsemen are a part. Slots keep places in business that really don't belong in business. The effect is we have too many tracks with not enough horses, and crappy races to bet. Thus, people don't bet. That wouldn't be so bad if tied into the slots money were takeout cuts, but I haven't seen that happen, ever. When it does maybe my mind will change.
I have never said I want only a few tracks, but it wouldn't hurt to cut 25-30% of them. Hell, just in infrastructure alone the game could save millions. Do we really need Aqueduct and Belmont? Monmouth and the Meadowlands? Santa Anita and Hollywood? Pimlico and Laurel? Of course we don't.
That only tackles tracks in the same state in close proximity to each other. I could go on a with things like Philly and Delaware Park, Penn National and Charles Town, Turfway and River Downs, and so on. These tracks could work together and make things better for all with less dates.
In the end, the name of the game is handle. Without some of the changes I mention, it will continue to shrink. Just the fact that on a summer Saturday there are about 50 win pools to bet in makes the game very hard to play. The pools are diluted and unbettable at most places for all but the casual fan.
As for the political considerations, of course it is hard. But, is anybody even trying to change anything?
Finally, thanks for your take it or leave it statement. That is typical of a horsemen and a big part of why I think the way I do about things.
|