Re: Clueless Clowns lurk over NY racing (1039 Views)
Posted by:
SoCalMan2 (IP Logged)
Date: September 03, 2013 02:27PM
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BY:Tom Noonan
>
> "NYRA Board – agenda is now clear"
>
> Posted August 29, 2013
>
>
> The August 28 meeting of the New York Racing
> Association’s Reorganization Board was the most
> significant one in the Board’s 10-month history.
> It was the first meeting for Chris Kay, NYRA’s
> newly appointed President and CEO, but it was not
> because of him that the meeting had such
> importance. Rather it was the constant, almost
> subliminal, comments by David Skorton, Chairman of
> the Board, concerning the financial future of
> NYRA. The issue can be stated simply: what role
> will revenues from the video lottery terminals at
> the racino adjoining Aqueduct have in the NYRA’s
> future? When VLT revenues are included in NYRA’s
> financial statements, NYRA turns a profit; when
> they are not included, there is a loss.
>
> It is clear where the Cuomo Administration is on
> the question - NYRA should be operating without
> the revenue from the VLT’s. That was the constant
> refrain by Skorton, Andrew Cuomo’s hand-picked
> Board Chairman, with Cuomo’s Budget Director and
> Board member Robert Megna nodding vigorously
> anytime someone commented that the revenues should
> not be considered. The issue has both immediate
> and long-term significance. If NYRA decides to
> operate as if the revenues are not available, it
> will require significant controls on expenditures
> - serious cutting of costs. The long-term in
> this case is not actually all that long. NYRA has
> to come up with a recommendation on returning to
> private operation in less than 20 months. If that
> means putting the franchise out-to-bid, it is
> unlikely an outside group will bid unless the
> franchise is operating at a profit without the VLT
> revenue.
>
> Given the importance of this matter, along with
> Chairman Skorton’s obvious focus on it, one might
> expect it would have taken up the better part of
> the two-hour meeting. But we first had to sit
> through Chris Kay’s reading of a prepared
> statement for almost 40 minutes. Interspersed
> throughout the statement were a series of video
> clips, including Kay’s interview on NBC on
> Travers Day, Kay’s unveiling of the viewing tower,
> Kay’s plaque honoring the winningest jockeys, etc.
> There was also a clip of one of the daily unsung
> heroes. This particular one was the security
> guard who helped a lost five-year old reunite with
> his mother. When your standard for heroism is not
> letting a five-year old wander around a race
> track, the bar is obviously not set too high.
>
> Most of his remarks had to do with enhancing the
> “guest” experience, as Kay refers to fans. One of
> his “metrics” for measuring increased satisfaction
> is that spending on food, drink and apparel is up
> 18% over last year. He also mentioned enhancing
> the experience for women, referring to the
> “Fabulous Fillies” promotion, a lunch honoring
> Mary Lou Whitney that raised money for breast
> cancer awareness, and a concert starring Zendaya
> that attracted mostly girls and their mothers.
>
> A second priority for Kay is improving the quality
> of racing, a topic to which he devoted a mere five
> minutes of his speech. He mentioned equine safety,
> specifically noting the decline in fatalities at
> the Belmont spring meet. While this is indeed a
> notable accomplishment, his failure to mention
> either the four racing fatalities at Saratoga,
> including two in the same race on Sunday that
> equaled Belmont’s total, or the serious injury to
> an exercise rider on Monday, gave his remarks a
> rather unsettling feeling. Another five minutes
> were devoted to his main priority - the
> reprivatization effort - including his
> observation that the “critical figure” is net
> profit without the VLT revenues.
>
> The VLT revenue topic came up in other reports,
> including the report by the CFO and one by the
> head of the Board’s Finance Committee. At no
> point, however, was there an in-depth discussion
> of the matter. Then, with only about five minutes
> left in the meeting, Skorton asked if “everyone
> was comfortable” with operating as if there were
> no VLT revenues. And, he made it clear that such
> a decision would “dictate expenditure control.” I
> wondered if I was hearing correctly. The Chairman
> of the Board allows the CEO to drone on for forty
> minutes about a host of inconsequential matters,
> pushes every other speaker to move quickly so the
> meeting can end on time, and then drops a
> bombshell with little time to discuss it.
>
> Fortunately, not everyone was “comfortable” with
> taking such a significant step. After several
> Board members raised legitimate concerns, Skorton
> allowed how “these subtleties are important,” and
> that a “fuller discussion” - presumably one
> lasting longer than five minutes - was
> warranted. But he also wants to have that
> discussion in private, while simultaneously
> stating his commitment to operating in public.
>
> Skorton’s regular comments expressing his
> “commitment” to a public process for important
> decisions has become nothing short of laughable,
> and after 10 months of failing to follow through
> on even the most basic aspects of open government
> is significantly undermining his credibility. I
> realize that he is following the lead of his boss,
> the Governor, but the Cuomo NYRA is about to
> embark on a path that is going to have a
> significant impact on New York racing and the tens
> of thousands of lives dependent on it. It is a
> discussion that is necessary and important, which
> is why it is one that must be conducted in the
> open.
No one else outraged by this? These guys are going to kill New York racing, and nobody is going to care. How can the chairman and ceo of a company ask the board to agree to forgo a major source of revenue in exchange for nothing? Could the directors of a private company just decide to forgo a major source of revenue for nothing in return and not be sued into oblivion?