Posts Tagged ‘bris’

By Ray Paulick
Is anyone really surprised to see Churchill Downs Inc. involved in yet another dispute with horsemen’s organizations over contractual terms for account wagering or advance deposit wagering? The incident in California involving TrackNet Media, the company CDI owns in partnership with Magna Entertainment, is the latest in a series of contractual and legal disputes between the Louisville, Ky.-based company and horsemen’s organizations in several states. 

The common thread in all of the disagreements is an effort by Churchill Downs to squeeze as high a percentage as possible for its TwinSpires ADW platform. In so doing, purses and state breeding programs, and in some cases racetracks, will get a smaller slice from account wagering dollars.

The formation with Magna of TrackNet Media in 2007, along with the subsequent launch of TwinSpires and the purchase of the AmericaTAB account wagering company, Bloodstock Research Information Services and an interest in the Horse Racing TV cable network, has made Churchill Downs a major player in the ADW world. The company can offer content (through its racetracks), wagering services (TwinSpires, which absorbed many of the AmericaTAB customers), television distribution (HRTV) and past performance information used by horseplayers (Bloodstock Research). 

CDI is also rumored to be the leading candidate to buy TVG, the largest ADW company in terms of customers and pari-mutuel handle, and with much greater distribution on cable and satellite television than HRTV. TVG is believed to be getting a larger share of account wagering revenue than any of the other ADW companies, at least in California, in part because of their investment in programming and distribution. If CDI ends up owning TVG and keeping its customers, it will be the leading ADW company in the U.S. It also may put an end to a lawsuit filed by TVG’s owners against HRTV for alleged infringement of company patents.

TrackNet Media negotiates ADW contracts with racetracks, including those owned by Churchill or Magna, which is what happened in the current California dispute. In essence, then, a company owned by Churchill and Magna may be negotiating on behalf of ADW companies owned by Churchill and Magna with racetracks owned by Churchill and Magna – an interesting scenario, to say the least. In some cases, as in California, those negotiations do not include representatives of horse owners.

Many industry participants who have been following CDI’s activities over the last 18 months are convinced the company is intent on moving wagers made on track or at simulcast facilities – including those owned by Churchill Downs – to its TwinSpires ADW platform. The reason? Churchill is positioning itself to make more from each dollar wagered through TwinSpires than it does from a dollar wagered on-track or at one of its off-track betting facilities.

The company has refused to negotiate with the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Group, a company formed in November 2007 to act as an agent on behalf of its members (local horsemen’s organizations throughout the United States) on ADW contracts. In fact, last year, when horsemen in Kentucky and Florida exercised their rights under the Interstate Horseracing Act to cut off signals for simulcasting or account wagering, CDI sued several local horsemen’s organizations and the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Group, alleging anti-trust violations.

Some parties were dropped from the suits when CDI and local horsemen’s organizations reached contractual agreements on ADW revenue splits (in some cases, very short-term agreements). But at least one of the defendants, the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, which countersued CDI, opted not to have the legal action dropped after CDI and the horsemen reached an agreement on account wagering for the 2009 Churchill Downs spring meeting.

It’s an interesting case. In its counterclaim, the Kentucky HBPA pointed out a clause in the purse contract between Churchill and Kentucky horsemen that dealt specifically with possible future ownership of an account wagering company by CDI. The contract, said to be written by the Kentucky HBPA’s longtime counsel, the late Don Sturgill, with Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Maloney, was executed before CDI got into the account wagering business and is effective through the end of 2009.

The counterclaim (click here for a copy) against CDI reads: “Section 4E of the contract clarifies that wagers made on races through an ADW owned by CDI, i.e. TwinSpires, are to be treated as if made physically at Churchill Downs racetrack for purposes of determining the percentage of monies to be paid into the Horsemen’s Account for horsemen’s purses. Section 4E specifically states:

“Telephone Account or Other Electronic Media Wagering: For purposes of determining the amount of purses to be paid under this Paragraph 4, a telephone account wager or other wager made through an electronic media wagering system, the majority of which is owned by Churchill, shall be deemed to have been made at the racetrack or Trackside (Churchill’s OTB facility), as the case may be, and Churchill revenues received therefrom shall be allocated and paid to Horsemen as purses in the manner decribed in the appropriate subparagraph of this Paragraph 4. Fifty percent (50%) of any source market or other similar fees received by Churchill from telephone account wagering systems as a result of wagers made in Kentucky on races simulcast from within or outside of Kentucky shall be allocated and paid to the Horsemen as purses. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “source market” or “other fees” shall mean: any and all fees paid to Churchill and/or its horsemen by Television Games Network or any other account wagering entities not owned by Churchill for the right to accept wagers from account holders located in the state of Kentucky.”

The HBPA claims that Churchill Downs has not paid horsemen in accordance with that clause in its purse contract, and estimates a $3 million shortfall in purses.

Judge John Heyburn II of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville has ordered a Feb. 19 conference to discuss and argue the pending motions in the case. Judge Henburn also wrote a draft (which can be seen by clicking here) containing “a statement of the relevant facts and Plaintiff’s (Churchill Downs) legal theory as well as discussion of the standing, statutory immunity and contract issues.”

The HBPA must feel as though they are on solid ground with their counterclaim against CDI. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they have agreed with CDI to have the legal action dropped?

Account wagering has brought about many changes in the pari-mutuel industry. It’s clear that what is decided now on the division of revenue, either in the courts or among horsemen, tracks and ADW companies, will have a major bearing on the future economics for horse owners, tracks and the wagering companies, as well as on the horseplayers who fuel the game.

Let’s hope these issues are resolved while we still have people interested in betting on our sport.

The Paulick Report is interested in what you think about this issue. Write a publilc comment in the section below, and take the Daily Paulick Poll (located on the left-hand column of the home page) about whether you think it’s in the best interests of horsemen and fans for Churchill Downs Inc. to purchase TVG.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

By Ray Paulick

One of the first projects that landed on my desk when I joined the Thoroughbred Times as managing editor in 1988 was a feature story on the Jockey Club, the organization historically entrusted with registering Thoroughbreds and being the keeper of the Stud Book. The article was accompanied by a lengthy mail-in survey of Thoroughbred Times readers. The story and the survey results were of great interest, for at the time I had no idea how broadly the Jockey Club reached across the entire industry and how unhappy rank and file breeders then were with the organization’s service, pricing and activities.

It should be noted that there was an agenda to the article. The Thoroughbred Times was then owned by Richard F. Broadbent, whose Bloodstock Research Information Services was facing new competition from a subsidiary of the Jockey Club. There were questions about whether a tax-exempt breed registry like the Jockey Club should create a subsidiary to compete with a private enterprise company like BRIS, which supplied statistical data to breeders, owners and various publications. A few years later, the Jockey Club helped form another for-profit company, Equibase, which competed with the Daily Racing Form to collect racing results (the Form eventually closed its track and field operations and became Equibase’s biggest customer). The Jockey Club has since started other for-profit businesses.

One of the things that struck me was the comparison between how the Jockey Club and the American Quarter Horse Association conduct their business. The Jockey Club is clearly a breed apart from its Quarter Horse counterpart. The AQHA, then and now, is a relatively transparent organization, one whose membership is open and whose leadership is democratically elected through regional and national elections. There is a board of directors, from which comes an executive committee and elected officers. The AQHA has term limits that prevent individuals from maintaining longstanding control of the organization. The AQHA web site publishes a great deal of information about its governance and membership rules, which can be read here.

By comparison, membership in the Jockey Club has always been by invitation only. Click here for an explanation about membership. It is "governed" by a rotating board of stewards, though that term is used loosely since the Jockey Club has been under the firm control of just two men since 1982, when Ogden Mills “Dinny” Phipps was named chairman and William S. Farish became vice chairman (pictured left). Click here to see the current list of Jockey Club members, stewards, and officers.

The AQHA is a huge organization that maintains the registration of more than five million Quarter Horses, with 135,000 registered in 2007 alone. There are nearly 350,000 AQHA members. According to Internal Revenue Service Form 990 for tax exempt organizations, the AQHA generated $54.4 million in revenue in the 2005-06 fiscal year, the most recent year available. At that time it had $73 million in total assets, including nearly $49 million in investment securities. Click here for the AQHA Form 990.

The AQHA, like the Jockey Club, maintains pedigree records, but also promotes the Quarter Horse breed through horse shows and publishes three magazines (the Quarter Horse Journal, the Quarter Horse Racing Journal, and America’s Horse) that had total circulation of over 400,000 in 2006.

The AQHA charges as little as $25 to register a Quarter Horse foal if done within seven months of birth. The organization is based in Amarillo, Texas, and its highest-paid officer, longtime executive vice president Billie G. Brewer, earned an annual salary of $424,928; treasurer Lee Callaway was paid $221,965 (both figures are from the IRS Form 990.) The two executive salaries represented 5.5% of the AQHA’s total payroll of $11,725,124.

The Jockey Club is also a rich organization, one that is exempt from federal taxes but also has several wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries. The Jockey Club’s 2006 IRS Form 990 states that it registered 37,300 foals that year. The Jockey Club generated $13.2 million in revenue in 2006, the most recent year the figures are available. It claimed $32 million in total assets, including $21.6 million in investment securities. Click here for the Jockey Club Form 990.

In addition, the Jockey Club claimed that its subsidiaries generated over $25.7 million in income for 2006 ($13.7 million by TJC Holdings Inc. & Subsidiaries, which is engaged in information services and software solutions; $4.9 million by The Jockey Club Racing Services, for the collection of Thoroughbred racing data; and $7.1 million by The Jockey Club Technology Services, Inc., for its technology services). Click here for more information on those subsidiaries, which include shared ownership in the data collection company Equibase, and full ownership of TJCIS (The Jockey Club Information Systems  and data supplier Equineline), and InCompass Solutions, which provides software systems for racetracks.

The Jockey Club’s IRS Form 990 lists its annual Round Table Conference in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., publication of its Fact Book, and providing financial support to other industry organizations among reasons for its tax-exempt status, in addition to its breed-registry responsibilities.

The Jockey Club charges $200 to register a Thoroughbred foal, considerably higher than the AQHA’s fee. Its last increase was in 2000, when it was upped from $175. The Jockey Club, which for many years was known as the “New York Jockey Club,” relocated its registration department from New York to Kentucky in 1988. 

Its highest-paid officer is president Alan Marzelli  (pictured, left), who earned $672,796 in 2006, 58% more than the AQHA’s top executive. The Jockey Club has three executive vice presidents: James Gagliano, with a salary of $256,885; Daniel Fick, $243,546; and Laura Banllaro, $243,804. IRS Form 990 also lists but does not itemize another $542,776 in 2006 pension plan contributions for those officers. The salaries represented 39.1% of the Jockey Club’s total payroll of $3,626,092 (exclusive of its subsidiaries, each of which have its own executive staff and employees).

The Jockey Club’s 2006 tax return came to light recently when an entity called “CTBA Boardwatch” (which generally concerns itself with the inner workings of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association) distributed IRS Form 990 to numerous individuals. A number of those people contacted the Paulick Report and were outraged over the salaries paid to Marzelli and his three executive vice presidents.

I don’t know the going rate of executive compensation for a tax-exempt company in New York, where three of the four Jockey Club officers are based (only Dan Fick, a former AQHA executive, is located in the Lexington offices of the Jockey Club). Perhaps those numbers are perfectly in line with other non-profits. I would imagine, though, that the going rate for an executive staff is higher in New York than it would be in Kentucky.

It does seem strange to me that the Jockey Club continues to maintain a nicely appointed office in the high-rent district of midtown Manhattan, on 52^nd Street just off Park Avenue. I doubt that it’s gotten many walk-in customers seeking to register their foals since the registration department was moved to Lexington more than 20 years ago. It is conveniently located near the headquarters of Bessemer Trust, the Phipps family-run wealth management firm whose offices are just a few blocks away on Fifth Avenue.

I asked Jockey Club communications officer Bob Curran why the Jockey Club continues to have a New York office 20 years after the organization’s primary function was relocated to Lexington. A few days later I received the following statement from Jockey Club president Marzelli: “Beginning in 1989, when the first of our commercial subsidiaries was incorporated, The Jockey Club has created and developed a group of for-profit subsidiaries and strategic partnerships, each designed to serve specific segments within the industry by utilizing highly efficient, state-of-the-art technology platforms. We have built and managed this growing list of technology-based companies with a corporate office based in New York and operations centers in Lexington, Ky., and Mountain View, Calif.”

That didn’t really answer the question “why a New York office is necessary” although it did tell me something I didn’t know; namely, that the Jockey Club now has a division in California’s high-tech Silicon Valley town of Mountain View.

The bigger question is who is the Jockey Club accountable to. Is it simply Phipps and Farish and their hand-picked stewards? Is the breeders who have paid registration fees over the 100-plus years of its existence? Is the Thoroughbred industry at large? If there is accountability to the industry, why isn’t there more transparency in the operational and financial activities of the Jockey Club and its various subsidiaries? Why is its membership so restrictive and its governance so secretive?

James Gagliano, one of the aforementioned executive vice presidents, touched on some of these questions, during the Jockey Club Round Table in August in which he discussed some of the activities of the Jockey Club and its affiliate for-profit companies. Click here to read Gagliano’s remarks.

Are you satisfied that the Jockey Club is properly and responsibly representing the best interests of the Thoroughbred industry? Let us know in the comment section below, or take the Daily Paulick Poll about the Jockey Club and its activities, located on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page.

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.