Probe of NYRA execs may be launched - NYRA may lose slots subsidies

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

THESE BREAKDOWNS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED BY 2010, BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THE STATE AND THE BREEDERS %'S ARE FIXED AND SKIMMED OFF THE TOP, AND NYRA RETAINS THE REST.

Uh oh....STOP THE PRESSES!

OK, so they aren't all home runs.

[Tom]

No one is forcing anyone to bet NYRA.
If you are so concerned you are getting screwed, play River Downs.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by Tom

No one is forcing anyone to bet NYRA.
If you are so concerned you are getting screwed, play River Downs.

I think it is a valid question to ask where all the money is from that $8.5 million that was overcharged. Some has been returned by a few ADWs in the form of rebates, but there must be quite a bit of it still outstanding.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by cj

It looks to me like Hayward has had to constantly fight against increases in takeout before he was able to try for cuts. Too bad he wasn't in California I guess.

And I suppose it was like Snow White in the forest for Barry Shwartz when he was dealing with Albany and the OTBs on takeout.

[YT="Barry Shwartz meets with Legislators and OTB"]hQZ6zzLpoNQ[/YT]

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

So a typical Saturday for you? That should be fun.

Only when I'm downwind of you, and no it's not fun.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Only when I'm downwind of you, and no it's not fun.

That means you'd actually have to go to a track and support the industry you spend so much of your time railing against. That isn't part of the wannabe advocate that doesn't bet playbook, is it?

Too bad cat racing isn't a sport. You'd be the Pletcher of the training game based on the size of your stable.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here is something that is not so clear to ME...

When some people here were criticizing the fact that NY's exotics takeouts were 26%, even with a thriving casino operation...we had others reminding us that the NYRA's hands were "tied" as far as takeouts were concerned.

And yet, once this takeout "misunderstanding" was exposed...Hayward was pretty quick in announcing that the takeouts would be reduced to 24%...not only temporarily, but PERMANENTLY!

I know that this takeout reduction was meant as a way of returning the extra money back to the wagering public...but whose determination was it to make the takeout reduction PERMANENT?

If it was the NYRA who decided this...doesn't it mean that they have more power over the takeout rates than was originally thought that they did?

Obviously it was a lot easier to get it done after takeout gate. Anybody fighting him then would look like a fool, especially with casino money rolling in.

He didn't have to ask for it to be permanent. If you are trying to say it is easy to get takeout reductions passed in New York, you haven't followed the history the past 20 years.

[cj]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

And I suppose it was like Snow White in the forest for Barry Shwartz when he was dealing with Albany and the OTBs on takeout.

This has to be an act. I can't imagine anybody could be this clueless yet post so much if it wasn't. You really think the financial situations were remotely close during the two eras?

[jelly]

Originally Posted by cj

Obviously it was a lot easier to get it done after takeout gate. Anybody fighting him then would look like a fool, especially with casino money rolling in.

He didn't have to ask for it to be permanent. If you are trying to say it is easy to get takeout reductions passed in New York, you haven't followed the history the past 20 years.

It's even more difficult to get takeout reduced when you don't ask that It be reduced

[aaron]

All the talk about lowering the takeout seems a little disingenious to me.In 2001 the takeout on straight bets was 14%,it is now 16%. The takeout on 2 horse bets was 17.5 %,now it is 18 %. The takeout on all other exotic wagers was 25 %,now it is 24% because of the error in takeout. The Pick 6 on non carryover days is the only bet that was really reduced. It was 20% and is now 16%. NYRA,very well may have been in favor of a lower takeout,but it was never accomplished.The only reduction only helps a select few bettors.
In 11 years there have really been no improvements in takeout.

[MadWorld]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

If you raise takeout in order to start a program which rebates the increase you clearly believe you'll keep more money net (even after program adminstrative costs) than if you hadn't raised takeout. Either that, or you're intent on driving your business into the ground. In other words, increased takeout w/ rebates = increased take. How is that the same as reducing takeout?

So if you lower takeout and it actually brings in more money due to increased handle, you actually raised takeout?

Rebates are a way of lowering takeout for larger bettors that are in theory much more price sensitive. Rebates are a percentage back of money wagered, therefore it is like a lowered takeout.

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Did he really mean it, or was that just the line he fed to all the girls? Let's look at the first of the two emails to Hayward the Interim Report reproduces:

An email provided by NYRA showed that on September 28, 2010 an individual notified Charles Hayward of the following:

“This takeout increase was supposed to sunset on September 15, 2010. I can’t find anywhere that it has been removed and am quite sure that it hasn’t since NYRA didn’t promote it. We had emailed back and forth about this back in 2008 and you told me that it would be removed, as scheduled, on the above date. [emphasis added] Would you mind letting me know if it has or hasn’t and if it hasn’t, why?”

Hayward emailed the individual on October 4, 2010 indicating that he was sending the inquiry to NYRA’s General Counsel Patrick Kehoe. It should be noted that staff did not find an email from Hayward to Kehoe on this subject. However, NYRA has asserted legal privilege on communications with its legal department. The Board has requested a privilege log.

So, in 2008 he was telling people: 'now don't you worry your pretty little head about this takeout increase. Just as soon as the law sunsets we'll drop those rates right back to where they are now.' But, in 2010 it was all 'do I know you?' Tsk tsk.

Did they not put Hayward's response here? Why not when they included his (edited) response to Crist? I would assume an email to General Counsel would be so they could check with the Racing and Wagering Board (since the racing and wagering board sets takeout). If he wanted to know the current takeout rate it would be to the Mutuels Department.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

That means you'd actually have to go to a track and support the industry you spend so much of your time railing against. That isn't part of the wannabe advocate that doesn't bet playbook, is it?

Too bad cat racing isn't a sport. You'd be the Pletcher of the training game based on the size of your stable.

Ho hum, another "if you don't agree with me you must not bet" tirade. So predictable.

The continuing cat obsession is telling, though. Clearly someone jilted you in favor of a cat. My sympathies.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by cj

This has to be an act. I can't imagine anybody could be this clueless yet post so much if it wasn't. You really think the financial situations were remotely close during the two eras?

Do you really think Shwartz's efforts weren't opposed? Takeout went down not up during Shwartz's tenure and up not down under Hayward. Whether Shwartz made the best use of political capital is certainly debatable, but he used it. Hayward, as that letter to Crist you want to treat as gospel makes clear, was reluctant to really push the issue. That's the fact, Jack.

[Greyfox]

Memo to Self :
Never put anything in an e-mail that can potentially come back to haunt you.
In fact avoid writing or signing anything of that nature.
Be very careful about how you answer all written correspondence.
(There must be stuff out there somewhere in the virtual universe that I wish I had back.)

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Ho hum, another "if you don't agree with me you must not bet" tirade. So predictable.

The continuing cat obsession is telling, though. Clearly someone jilted you in favor of a cat. My sympathies.

The only thing predictable here is what you decide to argue for or against.

But, I continue to be flattered by the attention.