NEWS
New England HBPA votes to accept contract offer from Suffolk
Posted: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:10 PM
by Steve Myrick
The New England HBPA voted unanimously on Thursday to accept the latest purse contract offer from Suffolk Downs, with one modification.
The horsemen’s group transmitted notice of their agreement in principle to Suffolk management on Friday afternoon, according to Frank Frisoli, the attorney representing the New England HBPA.
“We’ve made every single concession they asked, to the extent we can,” Frisoli said. “I don’t know what more we can do.”
According to Frisoli, the horsemen have agreed to race an 80-day schedule with provisions for an additional five days if certain conditions are met. He said the agreement calls for $8.25-million in purses during the 2011 summer meeting. The track and the horsemen will split simulcasting revenue.
The one part of the proposal that Frisoli said New England HBPA members could not accept was a clause preventing the group from opposing state legislation to reduce the number of racing days.
Current state law requires 100 live racing days in order for the track to simulcast racing from other venues. Reducing the racing calendar would require a change in state law.
Frisoli said the New England HBPA cannot legally bind its members not to oppose new legislation. He said some members also are members in other organizations, including the Massachusetts Breeders Association, which may work to oppose any reduction in racing days.
“We’re very pleased we’ve reached agreement with them on revenue,” Frisoli said. “We believe it’s equitable. Every issue has been resolved except the number of days.”
Frisoli said the New England HBPA board agreed if the law is changed, horsemen will race the reduced number of days. If it is not, they will race 100 days, spreading the same $8.25 million over more days.
Track management confirmed late on Friday afternoon that they received the New England HBPA’s response, but the initial reaction from Suffolk Downs was not nearly as rosy as the view from the horsemen’s attorney. They saw Friday's letter as a rejection of the track’s latest offer because it does not accept all the terms.
“Despite Mr. Frisoli’s verbal gymnastics,” track spokesman Christian Teja said, "it appears there has been no change in the HBPA’s position since its February 10th proposal, which equates to about $80,000 a day, for 100 days of racing. The increase in purses was contingent upon one condition, neutrality on legislation to reduce the number of days required to simulcast, that the New England HBPA is unwilling to meet.”
Steve Myrick is a Massachusetts-based Thoroughbred Times correspondent
READER COMMENTS
|
|
|
Posted by: DougM, Boston, MA on February 26, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Howard, which do you think would be the better meet. 100 days of racing at 82000 a day or 80 days at 103000. This issue isn't about Suffolk vs the HBPA, it's about the entire economic picture of racing. This is a nationwide problem in case you don't follow what's going on in the rest of the country. State's are not going to subsidize racing with slot machine money much longer and Governor's like Christie in New Jersey are going to demand that the racing product stand on it's own. Let me spell that out for you. It means that there will either be enough fans wagering on racing to support the purses and track's expenses or there will be no racing. Get it. Now the Horsepeople in New England can get their collective heads out of the ground and work toward a solution that saves the industry or they can continue to demand that which they can't support(more racing than fans want)and beg to be subsidized. One may lead to a brighter future while the other leads to complete failure. You make the call.
Report Abuse 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Howard, Dover, MA on February 26, 2011 at 01:34 PM
Doug (obvious Suffolk MGMT plant) is so far off in blaming the horsemen.
They agreed to the money. The state mandates the 100 days. The horsemen aren't opposing Suffolk going to the legislature, but at the same time aren't going to go with them to ultimately do something that will hurt racing.
Suffolk wants to have a casino and as little racing as they can legally get away with. This is just the opportunity to cut days out. So what it comes down to Doug is this, Suffolk can go to the state and shorten schedule, racing will go on and we will have yet another horrid year of the worst product in the country. (no one standing in the way)
Or they can blame the horsemen for not bending over and saying thank you as they are forced into yet another 3rd input of a deal.
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Brian, Boston, MA on February 26, 2011 at 07:47 AM
Suffolk Downs and its leadership has for years said they need a casino to save horse racing and open space for the breeding farms.
I guess if they don't have horse racing there is no need to build a casino at Suffolk Downs
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Doug, Boston, MA on February 25, 2011 at 11:13 PM
Acceptance of a proposal means you accept the provisions in the proposal. It is deceitful for the HBPA to claim they have agreed to the Suffolk Downs proposal. They have not. The HBPA has not moved from their demand to run 100 days since the beginning. Their demand for a 50/50 split of simulcast revenue has been met by Suffolk Downs. The request to keep the barn area open for the same 30 weeks as has been done in the past has also been agreed to. The provision to run 80 days which has been presumably agreed to by the HBPA, has in effect been blocked by their refusal to allow the legislation to proceed unapposed through the legislature. The HBPA insists on their right to oppose which could in effect guarantee 100 days remains for 2011. This would completely change the parameters of the agreement necessitating some potentially drastic changes after the meet has begun. Hence substantial disagreement remains and it is shameful of the HBPA to make the claim that they unanimously accept the proposal when they know that substantial disagreement remains. Ultimately they must answer to their membership for their behavior, and how they've managed to move New England racing to near extinction.
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
