I stumbled across these photos someone posted on Flickr of the Great Barrington Fair from a visit in August 2010:
Glimmerglass, I saw this thread and thought it had been resurrected to discuss the latest controversy at Suffolk. I can’t claim to know the details, but from the little bit I heard on the news, there is a dispute between track management and the horsemen about the number of live racing dates. Anyone have the real story?
It was funny to note the date on the first post and think that February must be a fractious season at Suffolk!
So far, both the NEHPBA and several HBPAs across the country have pulled simulcast signals from Portland Meadows, Beulah Park, Gulfstream Park, Tampa Bay Downs , and NYRA.
I think the NEHBPA is picking the wrong battle here - I’m really afraid Suffolk will go the same way Rockingham did as this situation at Suffolk seems very like the one that happened at Rock. It’s just too bad. I could better understand the NEHBPA causing a massive stink if expanded gaming had passed in Mass, and there was the immediate potential for Suffolk to be raking in casino-related income. But at the moment, times are tough and expanded gaming hasn’t passed. Everyone has to compromise, and it doesn’t seem like the NEHBPA understands that or wants to. But I could be misreading the situation.
ETA: the general feeling I’m getting is the NEHPBA isn’t acting on the behalf of general population of horsemen associated with Suffolk, but on the agenda of a chosen few who maintain control of the situation.
Thanks for the links and commentary Jessica. What a shame if this brings Suffolk down!
Yep big problems with keeping racing alive in Mass. Suffolk Downs, sans any chance of getting other gambling on site to help feed racing, needs to cut back on live racing days.
There is no live racing at Suffolk right now (in case anyone is wondering) but the track remains open to take bets on other tracks. However other tracks are heaping on the woes to SD by cutting their broadcast signal and thus nixing simulcast race wagering. Without NY, OH and FL tracks to watch/wager on those who want to wager from Suffolk just won’t come.
Boston Herald Feb 8, 2011: “Suffolk jobs may be in peril over simulcast dispute”
The clash between Suffolk Downs management and horse owners centers on a stalemated contract for live racing in 2011, which will determine the amount paid out to the winning horse owner, the number of live racing days and the percentage of revenue shared from simulcasting. The horsemen’s association wants the racetrack to continue to host live racing for 100 days with $10.6 million in winnings, while the track wants to cut the number of live racing days to 67 and pay out $7.5 million in winnings.
The track, which according to management is already operating at a loss, says it cannot afford the higher purse payouts. Suffolk already laid off 65 employees and cut salaries for dozens of others in September.
Under state law, the track must have 100 days of live racing — a regulation it is lobbying to change. Suffolk has depended the rest of the year on simulcasting from other racetracks across the country.
I don’t see a positive end to this one.
Nor do I, but honestly this should come as a surprise to no one given the track has been operating at a loss for years, hoping to be saved by casino development in a state with longstanding anti-gaming legislature.
Links to the NEHBPA’s stance, for perspective, however skewed it may be:
The truth about the "SD purse dispute fact sheet’ [NEHBPA’s words, not mine]
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;5415430]
The truth about the "SD purse dispute fact sheet’ [NEHBPA’s words, not mine][/QUOTE]
I can’t even get through all of that. What a poorly composed piece of writing - the blocks of text make my head hurt. Forget the content.
Boy did this thread catch my eye. Went to the fairs every year as a kid and worked at Suffolk in the 70’s and 80’s. I haven’t waded through all the articles and posts here but how can they even think of running at Marshfield and Brockton if the gambling public can’t even support Suffolk? Would it be only the few weeks the fairs run? Maybe this is the first step to try and get casino gambling into Plymouth county? I can’t see the founding fathers letting that slip by. But thanks for the memories.
[QUOTE=CFFarm;5427249]
… how can they even think of running at Marshfield and Brockton if the gambling public can’t even support Suffolk?[/QUOTE]
The thread is 2-yrs old and the optimism back then was far higher. The plans cited never went anywhere that I recall 
Back then Suffolk was feeling some Statehouse love to just maybe get the slots so offering up more racing sites seemed logical.
I still think there easily could be room for a boutique meet (say 10-days) in the Berkshires just as Atlantic City Race Course successfully holds their equally brief meet when Monmouth and NYRA has racing going on. Not that such a turf meet in Western Mass when the Tanglewood crowd is in full force would change a thing with the demands by horsemen at Suffolk.
The other day I remarked that the Brockton plan (floated in 2009 and the OP of this thread) never happened. Further in light of Suffolk’s woes it had even less of a chance. Well I evidently I spoke too soon as those plans have been dusted off. Go figure:
The Enterprise Feb 11, 2011 “George Carney hopes to bring horse racing back to Brockton”
George Carney said he invested roughly $3 million into the fairgrounds track in 2001 and is willing to invest the $1 million more he feels it would need to be ready for racing this year.
“I have been watching (the situation) very close,” Carney said. "(Suffolk) may shut it down completely. I have no knowledge of their position, but I know they’re steadfast against running more than the 67 days.
“… And if there are extra days available and they’re gonna go unused, my position is, hopefully, I would be able to pick up the slack at Brockton.”
“George has just offered us a new home,” [Brian Hickey, a lobbyist for the New England Horsemen’s and Benevolent Protective Association] said. “He said that he would run 100 days. I don’t have a contract with him. It’s just been a conversation. I think he’s a very honorable guy. I think his intention would be to attract us down there. We would look long and hard at Brockton Fairgrounds.”
But it could all be coming to an end. The dispute between the track and horsemen seems to be at a standstill, as the track, unreasonably, expects horsemen to take a decrease in race dates, a decrease in already radically-cut purses and an unfair distribution of simulcast revenue. As a result of this, the NEHBPA has withdrawn it’s consent to allow the NYRA simulcast signal coming into the track…
Kudos to the NEHBPA for digging in and standing their ground. And to the other HBPAs around the country that stand with them. Because horsemen and horsewomen deserve better than what they have been getting.
Since when has being “deserving” ever been a factor in getting a paycheck in horseracing? Um, hello…there are no guaranteed paychecks in racing. Anyone who owns a racehorse because they are depending on a paycheck from it IS IN THE WRONG BUSINESS. Period. If that means the death of the industry, so be it. I’m tired of cleaning up the wake of used up and broken horses from that path, and I know I’m not the only one.
There was a short time when the “new” owner seemed to be “horseman-friendly”, but I can see now where the intent may not have been sincere. Pouring money into the track seemed to be more about preserving and protecting the investment, with an eye on future slot revenues, and not about improving the track.
Outrageous! A businessman trying to protect his investment! There seems to be a sentiment as if the track is just floating in money, hoarding it away from pesky “horsemen”. Have you been to Suffolk on a rainy day? You need an umbrella inside the grandstand as much as you need one out on the apron. The place is a money pit without revenue.
Somehow it would be fitting if New England racing is reduced to running out of Brockton. A bullring is an appropriate venue for the quality of croplet bred in Massachusetts.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy
Since when has being “deserving” ever been a factor in getting a paycheck in horseracing? Um, hello…
there are no guaranteed paychecks in racing. Anyone who owns a racehorse because they are depending on a paycheck from it IS IN THE WRONG BUSINESS. Period. If that means the death of the industry, so be it. I’m tired of cleaning up the wake of used up and broken horses from that path, and I know I’m not the only one.
Wow, a bit harsh. Most people who work at the track are not owners and depend on a weekly pay check to care for their families just like the rest of the world. Not the mention the surrounding businesses in East Boston.
Wow, a bit harsh. Most people who work at the track are not owners and depend on a weekly pay check to care for their families just like the rest of the world. Not the mention the surrounding businesses in East Boston.
There’s a lot of “we want what’s rightfully ours” going around on Facebook right now, which is probably what BF is commenting on. Yes, it’s important for purses to be large enough to support the horsemen, but the bottom line is that the purses aren’t the weekly paycheck. They aren’t a guarantee. If you’ve got a ten horse field, there’s a one in ten chance that you’ll bring home the winning paycheck. So they aren’t what’s deserved they are what’s earned by prepping the horse correctly, and having a bit of luck on your side. In my mind, the day rate charged to the owners is the weekly paycheck. The race purses are the gravy (and I am fully aware that some trainers also own their own horses - one of the women I’ve got layups for this winter works a full time job all winter long to support herself and them - she doesn’t sit home whining about purses she may or may not win next summer not being able to support her. That’s the point I’m trying to make)
The sentiment I’m getting from a lot of people is that Suffolk is trying to screw the horsemen out of the money that is already “theirs”, when in fact, the way I look at it, Suffolk is trying to support EVERYONE who works at the track - Suffolk employees as well as the horsemen. Yes, I suppose it could be argued that without the horsemen there would be no Suffolk, but without the owners (Mr. Fields), management, employees, and bettors, there would be no place for the horsemen to race. And the horsemen have shown blatant disregard for everyone involved by pulling the simo signals (and subsequently cutting back the weekly paychecks of those who work at the track all winter, helping to earn the money the horsemen want for their purses).
Both sides have to make compromises, that’s for certain. But the horsemen (NEHBPA) need to start acting less like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum and more like adults trying to work out a solution in a less than ideal situation.
I lied. There is a new article out
Talks continue
So the NEHBPA is still refusing to restore simo signals, continuing the loss of income to both Suffolk (and one would think, purses) and the Suffolk employees working there through the winter. Fantastic.
And cutting off the simo signal isn’t harsh? I know people on both sides of this issue whose jobs are at stake here. The NEHBPA represents owners and trainers – owners who, according to the NEHBPA, are depending on purses to feed their families. That is the organization with which I am taking issue, as the HBPA’s action of cutting the simulcasting signal --the main source of income from which the track can draw to pay those purses which may or may not trickle down to little guys about whom you seem to think I am being harsh-- are ultimately what will result in loss of jobs.
Churchill Downs owned Arlington Park management and horsemen agreed to solid deal (in my view) that adjust the value up - or - down based upon field size. NYRA has in the last couple of summers added a kicker value if the field size expands but I don’t believe had an elevator to retract if less then X horses actually go to the gate.
Paulick Report/Arlington Park release 2-21-11 “Purses Based On Field Size”
The purses listed in the condition book for overnight races will be based upon a field of seven or more betting interests at the time the horses reach the paddock for a race. Any overnight race field that enters the paddock with six or fewer betting interests represented will run for 85% of the listed purse with the remaining 15% being banked in the purse account to prevent over-payments for those races.
Using a maiden special weight race as an example, the purse listed in the condition book would be $28,000. Should a field of six or fewer betting interests reach the paddock for the race, the purse for the race would be adjusted to $23,800.
While those are fat purses compared to daily races at Suffolk it illustrates a good give and take with track management and horsemen. Both groups need to have some skin in the game to be mutually motivated bring in more wagers which then in turn should help beef up the purse sizes, etc.
