Reasons for not expanding Saratoga meet
Sept 11, 2013 23:23:51 GMT -5
Post by Jon on Sept 11, 2013 23:23:51 GMT -5
A follow-up to the NYRA is a Joke thread LOL Have at it NY and Saratoga naysayers ;D
Love Saratoga and think it's the best US track with the best meet. Yeah - that's my opinion LOL
Just hope it survives the Cuomo Puppet Show.
Reasons for not expanding Saratoga meet
By JEFF SCOTT
The Saratogian
During the first six months of 2013, the New York Racing Association showed a deficit of $10.3 million in its racing operations, nearly twice the figure for 2012. This loss was more than compensated for by the $54.3 million in VLT revenue NYRA received during the same period. Nevertheless, NYRA officials believe the organization needs to be able to turn a profit without the benefit of casino money.
The goal of operating in the black without VLT funding is understandable, given that there is no guarantee this money will continue to flow forever. In achieving this goal, however, there’s always the danger that NYRA will elect to rely on Saratoga even more than it does now – in other words, that it will use financial considerations to justify expanding the Saratoga meet for the second time in four years.
Sports.SCOTT COLUMN: Reasons for not expanding Saratoga meet
Published: Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on stumbleuponShare on redditShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services6By JEFF SCOTT
During the first six months of 2013, the New York Racing Association showed a deficit of $10.3 million in its racing operations, nearly twice the figure for 2012. This loss was more than compensated for by the $54.3 million in VLT revenue NYRA received during the same period. Nevertheless, NYRA officials believe the organization needs to be able to turn a profit without the benefit of casino money.
The goal of operating in the black without VLT funding is understandable, given that there is no guarantee this money will continue to flow forever. In achieving this goal, however, there’s always the danger that NYRA will elect to rely on Saratoga even more than it does now – in other words, that it will use financial considerations to justify expanding the Saratoga meet for the second time in four years.
Whenever there is talk of lengthening the meet, the subject of Saratoga’s “quality of racing” always comes up. But what exactly does this phrase mean? What is it that makes Saratoga so special?
The heart of the Saratoga schedule is a large group of prestigious, well-funded graded stakes (35 this year) that no other track can match over a similar period. These races attract top horses from all over the country. In recent years, thanks mainly to the ongoing cannibalization of the Belmont spring-summer and fall championship meetings, Saratoga’s stakes lineup has become even more formidable. (Five current or former Grade 1 races have been moved from Belmont to Saratoga since 2006. One, the Ruffian Handicap, has since been moved again, to Aqueduct.)
Saratoga’s reputation for excellence, however, hasn’t been based solely on the races it offers. It also has been based on the fact that there are types of races it has not offered, races it was believed would compromise the high-quality product for which Saratoga was known.
As the number of races run at Saratoga has increased – this summer there was a record 420, 76 more than a decade ago — there has also been an increase in certain races that barely existed here in 2003, if at all: starter races, maiden claimers, and the now ubiquitous turf sprints.
Starter races are essentially glorified claiming races. In 2003, Saratoga carded two starter events. This year there were 27 starter optional claimers, the vast majority of them written for horses who had been competing in lower-level claiming races between $20,000 and $35,000.
In 2003, there were seven maiden claiming races at Saratoga, with an average claiming price of $73,000. This summer there were 47, with an average claiming price of just $30,000. Thus, not only has the number of maiden claimers exploded, but the races are also being written for much cheaper horses.
In 2003, there were no turf sprints at Saratoga. This summer there were 60, the most since the race was introduced here in 2005. While the number of turf sprints has continued to climb, the number of turf races carded at longer distances — which gave Saratoga’s turf program at least a measure of balance — has been in steady decline. (In 2003, turf races greater than nine furlongs made up 17 percent of the total turf schedule. By this summer, the percentage of these longer races had fallen to a mere 6 percent.)
The evidence is that Saratoga’s “quality of racing” has already been compromised over the past decade.. Any additional expansion of the meet will almost certainly bring more of the same, further degrading a hard-won reputation for excellence that has made Saratoga one of racing’s few bright spots in recent decades.
Love Saratoga and think it's the best US track with the best meet. Yeah - that's my opinion LOL
Just hope it survives the Cuomo Puppet Show.
Reasons for not expanding Saratoga meet
By JEFF SCOTT
The Saratogian
During the first six months of 2013, the New York Racing Association showed a deficit of $10.3 million in its racing operations, nearly twice the figure for 2012. This loss was more than compensated for by the $54.3 million in VLT revenue NYRA received during the same period. Nevertheless, NYRA officials believe the organization needs to be able to turn a profit without the benefit of casino money.
The goal of operating in the black without VLT funding is understandable, given that there is no guarantee this money will continue to flow forever. In achieving this goal, however, there’s always the danger that NYRA will elect to rely on Saratoga even more than it does now – in other words, that it will use financial considerations to justify expanding the Saratoga meet for the second time in four years.
Sports.SCOTT COLUMN: Reasons for not expanding Saratoga meet
Published: Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on stumbleuponShare on redditShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services6By JEFF SCOTT
During the first six months of 2013, the New York Racing Association showed a deficit of $10.3 million in its racing operations, nearly twice the figure for 2012. This loss was more than compensated for by the $54.3 million in VLT revenue NYRA received during the same period. Nevertheless, NYRA officials believe the organization needs to be able to turn a profit without the benefit of casino money.
The goal of operating in the black without VLT funding is understandable, given that there is no guarantee this money will continue to flow forever. In achieving this goal, however, there’s always the danger that NYRA will elect to rely on Saratoga even more than it does now – in other words, that it will use financial considerations to justify expanding the Saratoga meet for the second time in four years.
Whenever there is talk of lengthening the meet, the subject of Saratoga’s “quality of racing” always comes up. But what exactly does this phrase mean? What is it that makes Saratoga so special?
The heart of the Saratoga schedule is a large group of prestigious, well-funded graded stakes (35 this year) that no other track can match over a similar period. These races attract top horses from all over the country. In recent years, thanks mainly to the ongoing cannibalization of the Belmont spring-summer and fall championship meetings, Saratoga’s stakes lineup has become even more formidable. (Five current or former Grade 1 races have been moved from Belmont to Saratoga since 2006. One, the Ruffian Handicap, has since been moved again, to Aqueduct.)
Saratoga’s reputation for excellence, however, hasn’t been based solely on the races it offers. It also has been based on the fact that there are types of races it has not offered, races it was believed would compromise the high-quality product for which Saratoga was known.
As the number of races run at Saratoga has increased – this summer there was a record 420, 76 more than a decade ago — there has also been an increase in certain races that barely existed here in 2003, if at all: starter races, maiden claimers, and the now ubiquitous turf sprints.
Starter races are essentially glorified claiming races. In 2003, Saratoga carded two starter events. This year there were 27 starter optional claimers, the vast majority of them written for horses who had been competing in lower-level claiming races between $20,000 and $35,000.
In 2003, there were seven maiden claiming races at Saratoga, with an average claiming price of $73,000. This summer there were 47, with an average claiming price of just $30,000. Thus, not only has the number of maiden claimers exploded, but the races are also being written for much cheaper horses.
In 2003, there were no turf sprints at Saratoga. This summer there were 60, the most since the race was introduced here in 2005. While the number of turf sprints has continued to climb, the number of turf races carded at longer distances — which gave Saratoga’s turf program at least a measure of balance — has been in steady decline. (In 2003, turf races greater than nine furlongs made up 17 percent of the total turf schedule. By this summer, the percentage of these longer races had fallen to a mere 6 percent.)
The evidence is that Saratoga’s “quality of racing” has already been compromised over the past decade.. Any additional expansion of the meet will almost certainly bring more of the same, further degrading a hard-won reputation for excellence that has made Saratoga one of racing’s few bright spots in recent decades.
