Crist responds in regards to "Takeout-Gate"

[affirmedny]

“Later on August 1, 2011 Hayward responded to Crist: “This gentlemen is correct. [emphasis added] Off the record, we have been working on this for some time. We originally had thought that we would announce this for Saratoga but political forces intervened."


am I the only one who read this sentence? If you did, how can you possibly blame Hayward unless you know who the political forces were and how they intervened? Why is this sentence omitted from the article that Bigmack posted?

[chickenhead]

reading the law is good, its good to stick with the law. The whole thing presented for clarity.

(a) The franchised corporation authorized under this chapter to
conduct pari-mutuel betting at a race meeting or races run thereat shall
distribute all sums deposited in any pari-mutuel pool to the holders of
winning tickets therein, provided such tickets be presented for payment
before April first of the year following the year of their purchase,
less an amount which shall be established and retained by such
franchised corporation of between twelve to seventeen per centum of the
total deposits in pools resulting from on-track regular bets, and
fourteen to twenty-one per centum of the total deposits in pools
resulting from on-track multiple bets and fifteen to twenty-five per
centum of the total deposits in pools resulting from on-track exotic
bets and fifteen to thirty-six per centum of the total deposits in pools
resulting from on-track super exotic bets, plus the breaks. The
retention rate to be established is subject to the prior approval of the
racing and wagering board.

It has been long known that NYRA is allowed to request changes in takeout rates within an established range...that range being established by the NYSRWB.

NYRA isn't "allowed" to request rates in this law, NYRA is imperatively told in the law that they must establish rates within these bounds, and they must seek approval of those rates. That is exactly what the law says, nothing more or less. Its an express demand on the franchise, specifically.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

NYRA isn't "allowed" to request rates in this law, NYRA is imperatively told in the law that they must establish rates within these bounds, and they must seek approval of those rates. That is exactly what the law says, nothing more or less. Its an express demand on the franchise, specifically.

Semantics now?

MUST ESTABLISH = request within the boundaries.

The process of establishing equals NYRA deciding on what rate they think would be appropriate and obtaining approval of said rate.

For they MUST REQUEST any change in rates. They can't simply set a rate (within the boundary) on their own.

Thus, they are ALLOWED to to request a change in rates withing the boundaries set by the governing body.

What exactly is the difference between what I posted in my own words and the legalese you posted?

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

No, in fact, it backs what CJ is saying.

It sure doesn't back what Crist is saying when he talks of 'if' Hayward knew. He knew and told him he was waiting to disclose an augmented takeout that was not allowed by law. Seems like a gun with some smoke, no?

Post 41 talks about being fair. I think it 'fair' to point out the last line of the posted article.

“The report is deeply troubling,” Megna wrote in a letter to Duncker, adding that NYRA has still not produced voluminous documents requested by investigators.

[PaceAdvantage]

What's crystal clear from the Hayward/Crist email is that Hayward believed he/NYRA had an option. Obviously, he had been advised of such incorrectly.

The reason why he thought he had an option is the key.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The reason why he thought he had an option is the key.

Well damn, that flies in the face of the lovefest for Hayward piece Crist wrote.

It's all well and good to defend the guy as he seems a nice enough fellow, but knowing you're charging your customers too much and waiting to disclose that fact because, among other reasons, you're about to open 10 new restaurants/bars probably won't play too well to Joe Sixpack.

This was news to me, and I personally believe this was news to Hayward. I can think of no reason why he would have concealed that knowledge, and I believe that had he known the wrong rate was being applied, he would have gotten it changed immediately. Crist 5/1

[thaskalos]

It's hard to take Steven Crist seriously after this statement he released today...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Well damn, that flies in the face of the lovefest for Hayward piece Crist wrote.

It's all well and good to defend the guy as he seems a nice enough fellow, but knowing you're charging your customers too much and waiting to disclose that fact because, among other reasons, you're about to open 10 new restaurants/bars probably won't play too well to Joe Sixpack.

The bottom line in all of this is intent.

If NYRA believed (which the Hayward/Crist memo seems to indicate) it had OPTIONS, then there was no intent to deceive or defraud.

Just because they KNEW the temporary higher takeout rate provision had expired doesn't mean they were necessarily under the impression that they IMMEDIATELY must switch back to the lower takeout.

Hayward's own words to Crist indicate that very notion. That NYRA believed (wrongly of course) that the impetus was on them to immediately see to it that the takeout rate be dropped back to the old rate.

It's right there in black and white, as CJ pointed out...there would be no other reason for Hayward to use that type of language otherwise. He wasn't speaking publicly, trying to cover his ass. He was writing a private email to Steve Crist, a man he had a longstanding relationship with since the days when Hayward was CEO of the DRF.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Semantics?

"Allowed":
Give (someone) permission to do something.

"Shall":
Used in laws to express what is mandatory.

Go find the shalls in that law. They are mandatory, not allowed.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Just because they KNEW the temporary higher takeout rate provision had expired doesn't mean they were necessarily under the impression that they IMMEDIATELY must switch back to the lower takeout.

I'm aware of the relationship between Crist & Hayward and can respect their friendship, howevah, were you able to read SC's piece today when he said neither of them knew about it?

And I disagree that their intent is the issue at hand. The forthright thing would have been to contact all parties and admit an oversight had taken place, IMMEDIATELY. That's typically what a responsible CEO does, not defining their intent.

[toetoe]

Originally Posted by bigmack

... probably won't play too well to Joe Sixpack.

Nor to the ganja enthusiasts in the lav, mon. [Exhale.]

[toetoe]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Makes a lot of sense when you think about it...

Thinking ... thinking ... [insert (:Cogitating.) emoticon] ... nope, nothing so far.

[PaceAdvantage]

So it is your contention then that Hayward's own words (written in what he thought was a private email, thus he had no reason to "fake it") do not go a long way towards shedding light on the thought process and belief system that was in place that led to the decision to not pursue the takeout drop immediately (because they were under the mistaken impression that they had an OPTION)?

That's an odd way to treat evidence like that...

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

That's an odd way to treat evidence like that...

We're ostensibly talking about something that was not entirely legal. An oversight, I'll buy. Checking what your options are to disclose that to the public in a timely fashion is not unlike Johnny Corzine exploring his options of how to explain missing customers funds. It ain't copacetic.

Am I nuts or did Crist say today that neither he nor Hayward knew and if Hayward did he would have disclosed it immediately? Now you're off on a jag about options & intent.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not looking to defend Hayward's actions, only looking to explain them and to neutralize the ridiculous "he/they should go to jail" and "criminal conspiracy" notions I've seen posted here.

Thus, the examination of Hayward's actual words and my look at intent and the glaring question as to why he thought he had an option in the first place.