Big $ MTH "uber meet" experiment moving forward - Page 4

freddymo · #61 03-09-2010, 11:49 AM

I would think the biggest names will stay in NY unless told to ship with a horse.

richard · #62 03-09-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

80k maidens...So comedy!

It'll be a cavalry charge challenging the Kentucky Derby. Except they probably have the sense to limit the field to 12 horses like they do in NY.

freddymo · #63 03-09-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard

It'll be a cavalry charge challenging the Kentucky Derby. Except they probably have the sense to limit the field to 12 horses like they do in NY.

9 12 horse fields will be outstanding

Cannon Shell · #64 03-09-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan07

I would have to think places like Churchill will be affected more that Woodbine. In addition, you can probably forget about any ''decent'' (if at all racing) at Suffolk, which would force them to out of business at the end of the year, if not sooner. At least half the stables are expected to be empty at Suffolk this year.

CD and NY will be the ones most effected horse-wise. Suffolk can still count on Clement to make 40 starts to keep the old % high.

parsixfarms · #65 03-09-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

CD and NY will be the ones most effected horse-wise. Suffolk can still count on Clement to make 40 starts to keep the old % high.

What about Delaware? Haven't they be competing with Monmouth for the same "B string" horses from the big outfits the past few years. Now, they will be at a real competitive disadvantage from a dollars perspective.

Cannon Shell · #66 03-09-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

I would think the biggest names will stay in NY unless told to ship with a horse.

The most of the biggest names in NY already stable a string at Monmouth unless Pletcher, Clement, mcLaughlin, Levine and Dutrow arent considered big names anymore

NTamm1215 · #67 03-09-2010, 02:49 PM

Isn't this all kind of a setup for the casinos to tell the state that the tracks are not getting anything starting in 2011?

NT

Cannon Shell · #68 03-09-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

What about Delaware? Haven't they be competing with Monmouth for the same "B string" horses from the big outfits the past few years. Now, they will be at a real competitive disadvantage from a dollars perspective.

They will be effected somewhat but the reality of Monmouth is that the big guys are going to run a lot of thier 'A' string horses there which may make the races really tough. A lot of the midwest guys Pat Pope brings in wont have the horses to win a lot there. The MD guys dont have the stock either. I really think NY get hurt the worst simply because no track has less "contorl" over their horses or trainers than they do. Money talks and if given the choice of an 80k or a 45k purse NY is going to lose. Lets face it there are a handful of trainers who are going to win the lionshare of the money at monmouth. the claiming guys will be dropping hard and the usual suspects will dominate the maiden and allowance ranks. An 80k purse sounds great but if you cant hit the board why bother?

Cannon Shell · #69 03-09-2010, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Isn't this all kind of a setup for the casinos to tell the state that the tracks are not getting anything starting in 2011?

NT

The casinos still are scared that the tracks will get slots and if the meet is deemed sucessful (at least by the politicians) it will be in the Casino's best interests to just pay the tracks off. They might get away with a smaller number though.

NTamm1215 · #70 03-09-2010, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The casinos still are scared that the tracks will get slots and if the meet is deemed sucessful (at least by the politicians) it will be in the Casino's best interests to just pay the tracks off. They might get away with a smaller number though.

It just seemed to me that this was kind of a "put up or shut up" type move by the governor where he's letting them know the results of the meet are going to be monitored closely.

I have the imagine the Philly setup is hurting AC quite a bit as well, so I think they'll be a tad less willing to part with even a dollar for racetracks.

NT

Cannon Shell · #71 03-09-2010, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

It just seemed to me that this was kind of a "put up or shut up" type move by the governor where he's letting them know the results of the meet are going to be monitored closely.

I have the imagine the Philly setup is hurting AC quite a bit as well, so I think they'll be a tad less willing to part with even a dollar for racetracks.

NT

Trying to handicap politicians is tough. I just think that if the meet goes off as a success, daily handle up, attendance up (both are close to slam dunks with the shorter meet), lower expenses, media praise, etc. the pols are gonna elbow the casinos in the ribs and say "Hey isnt racing without slots great? Lets keep this system in effect."

If the success is measured against the doubling of total handle, then we should enjoy the summer at Monmouth this year. There may not be another.

You know i was also thinking that Monmouth would be a great destination for a CA outfit looking to get off the poly and diminishing purses. Wouldnt be shocked if a few CA outfits shipped in.

freddymo · #72 03-09-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The most of the biggest names in NY already stable a string at Monmouth unless Pletcher, Clement, mcLaughlin, Levine and Dutrow arent considered big names anymore

We were talking about Jocks not owners..I am well aware of the bigger names that have stables in NJ..

freddymo · #73 03-09-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They will be effected somewhat but the reality of Monmouth is that the big guys are going to run a lot of thier 'A' string horses there which may make the races really tough. A lot of the midwest guys Pat Pope brings in wont have the horses to win a lot there. The MD guys dont have the stock either. I really think NY get hurt the worst simply because no track has less "contorl" over their horses or trainers than they do. Money talks and if given the choice of an 80k or a 45k purse NY is going to lose. Lets face it there are a handful of trainers who are going to win the lionshare of the money at monmouth. the claiming guys will be dropping hard and the usual suspects will dominate the maiden and allowance ranks. An 80k purse sounds great but if you cant hit the board why bother?

Will a stable like a Sciacca be free to run in NJ without issue in your opinion?

freddymo · #74 03-09-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Trying to handicap politicians is tough. I just think that if the meet goes off as a success, daily handle up, attendance up (both are close to slam dunks with the shorter meet), lower expenses, media praise, etc. the pols are gonna elbow the casinos in the ribs and say "Hey isnt racing without slots great? Lets keep this system in effect."

If the success is measured against the doubling of total handle, then we should enjoy the summer at Monmouth this year. There may not be another.

You know i was also thinking that Monmouth would be a great destination for a CA outfit looking to get off the poly and diminishing purses. Wouldnt be shocked if a few CA outfits shipped in.

How do they go back?

Cannon Shell · #75 03-09-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

We were talking about Jocks not owners..I am well aware of the bigger names that have stables in NJ..

I'm sorry for the mistake.

freddymo · #76 03-09-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The casinos still are scared that the tracks will get slots and if the meet is deemed sucessful (at least by the politicians) it will be in the Casino's best interests to just pay the tracks off. They might get away with a smaller number though.

It's getting to a point that I am not so sure they care about slots or anything else.. The casinos save the Borgata and a little Harrahs are dead! Philly starts table games in April.. I do agree a deal will get done because its cheaper to pay off the track then compete.

Cannon Shell · #77 03-09-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

Will a stable like a Sciacca be free to run in NJ without issue in your opinion?

What are they gonna do to him? He runs a shitload of horses, especially in the winter. There are plenty of empty stalls in ny in the winter

Cannon Shell · #78 03-09-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

How do they go back?

Same way they got there?

freddymo · #79 03-09-2010, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What are they gonna do to him? He runs a shitload of horses, especially in the winter. There are plenty of empty stalls in ny in the winter

So you dont think a trainer with 20 to 50 stalls is going to be concerned to leave town and support a rival meet?

parsixfarms · #80 03-09-2010, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If the success is measured against the doubling of total handle, then we should enjoy the summer at Monmouth this year. There may not be another.

In some respects, my reaction was the same as NTamm when I read this in the Bloodhorse article. Given the handle necessary to support these purse levels, if they don't do that much, it would not surprise me to see the politicians simply say that the game can't sustain itself, so let's get out of the racing business.