Comments on: Would slots at tracks be long-term cure or poison? http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/2009/06/25/would-slots-at-tracks-be-long-term-cure-or-poison/ Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Tom Eblen Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:08:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: hoist the flag http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/2009/06/25/would-slots-at-tracks-be-long-term-cure-or-poison/#comment-3236 hoist the flag Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:59:07 +0000 http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/?p=3188#comment-3236 Your analysis is spot on. Slots are not the savior for the horse industry, they are in the vanguard of the continued marginalization of the horse industry. To save the farms, the horsemen, the tracks, the backstretch workers, etc., what is needed is an interest in horse racing. Slots simply are a revenue stream that do not have any connection to racing other than that they both are a form of gambling. Slots are profitable, racing is not. Slots are growing in handle, racing’s handle is shrinking. Whether the slot machines are in Vegas, Atlantic City, an Indian Reservation or at a track, their appeal has nothing to do with racing. Yes, when they are located at a track, the revenue can be used to subsidize racing. But, frankly, if slots are extremely profitable, and racing is a financial drain, how unhappy do you think the shareholders of Churchill Downs, Inc., for example, would be if CDI became a slots company that eventually closed its tracks to stop the bleeding, but created shareholder value in the slots business? Some state governments already are looking at the issue. Although NY State is as disfunctional government as there is, a few members of the state legislature have already been questioning the wisdom of tying slots to tracks, arguing that the purpose of the slots in NY was to generate income to support the state government, so why are we subsidizing tracks with the proceeds when we can just run stand-alone slots parlors to generate revenue for the state without siphoning off money to horses. Slots certainly generate income and to the extent that slots are associated with tracks, horseracing benefits by sharing in that income. But, to survive, horseracing– not “racinos”– need to generate income. Slots can be used to subsidize any otherwise unsuccessful activity. For example, if I ran a buggy whip factory, and was able to put in 5000 slot machines and a few nice restaurants on my property I am certain I could make a very profitable go of it, even if my total sales of buggy whips remained flat or even declined. The financial success of such a business would not signal a resurgance in the buggy whip industry, nor save jobs for people who create buggy whips or the raw materials used to make them. Slots may or may not be needed to keep the doors open at KY's tracks for the short term. To keep those doors open long term, however, the racing industry needs to make racing itself profitable. It would be awful if they cannot. Your analysis is spot on.
Slots are not the savior for the horse industry, they are in the vanguard of the continued marginalization of the horse industry. To save the farms, the horsemen, the tracks, the backstretch workers, etc., what is needed is an interest in horse racing. Slots simply are a revenue stream that do not have any connection to racing other than that they both are a form of gambling. Slots are profitable, racing is not. Slots are growing in handle, racing’s handle is shrinking. Whether the slot machines are in Vegas, Atlantic City, an Indian Reservation or at a track, their appeal has nothing to do with racing. Yes, when they are located at a track, the revenue can be used to subsidize racing. But, frankly, if slots are extremely profitable, and racing is a financial drain, how unhappy do you think the shareholders of Churchill Downs, Inc., for example, would be if CDI became a slots company that eventually closed its tracks to stop the bleeding, but created shareholder value in the slots business? Some state governments already are looking at the issue. Although NY State is as disfunctional government as there is, a few members of the state legislature have already been questioning the wisdom of tying slots to tracks, arguing that the purpose of the slots in NY was to generate income to support the state government, so why are we subsidizing tracks with the proceeds when we can just run stand-alone slots parlors to generate revenue for the state without siphoning off money to horses.
Slots certainly generate income and to the extent that slots are associated with tracks, horseracing benefits by sharing in that income. But, to survive, horseracing– not “racinos”– need to generate income. Slots can be used to subsidize any otherwise unsuccessful activity. For example, if I ran a buggy whip factory, and was able to put in 5000 slot machines and a few nice restaurants on my property I am certain I could make a very profitable go of it, even if my total sales of buggy whips remained flat or even declined. The financial success of such a business would not signal a resurgance in the buggy whip industry, nor save jobs for people who create buggy whips or the raw materials used to make them.
Slots may or may not be needed to keep the doors open at KY’s tracks for the short term. To keep those doors open long term, however, the racing industry needs to make racing itself profitable. It would be awful if they cannot.

]]> By: MILLHOUSE http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/2009/06/25/would-slots-at-tracks-be-long-term-cure-or-poison/#comment-3234 MILLHOUSE Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:27:12 +0000 http://tomeblen.bloginky.com/?p=3188#comment-3234 No one in the horse business said this was a solution. This was only a means to let us compete on a level playing field. The "no" votes were a clear sign that Senate Republicans don't care about us or our jobs and taxes. No one in the horse business said this was a solution. This was only a means to let us compete on a level playing field.

The “no” votes were a clear sign that Senate Republicans don’t care about us or our jobs and taxes.

]]>