Such an idea would likely satisfy Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, who has long pushed for a number of racing companies to get different components of the state’s Thoroughbred product.
It is unclear whether the idea of splitting up the tracks is something being promoted just by Bruno and some of the remaining NYRA competitors, or if it has been embraced by the Spitzer administration. A spokesman for the governor declined comment.
Under one scenario floated this week at the Capitol, NYRA would get the rights to run racing at Saratoga, with the rights for Aqueduct and Belmont going to the highest bidder among the various racing entities that have already made a pitch for the franchise. The VLT casino at Aqueduct would be put out to bid. Real estate ventures involving unused land at the tracks for hotel and other development would go to one or more of the groups already tied to the different bidding alignments.
This scenario follows Bruno's plans for the franchise.
But the idea has its detractors. Some industry officials say the original point of creating NYRA in 1955 was to take away the fierce competition that four racetracks at the time were engaged in for a limited supply of gambling dollars. Going back to a pre-1955 model would again pit Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga against each other in competition for such things as purses, best horses and stakes races in an era where the industry is already facing a battle with casinos, Internet sites and other forms of betting. Industry officials and those in the state Legislature believe NYRA would block any effort to split up the franchise.
Bruno earlier this week told The Blood-Horse that “productive’’ talks were underway with the Spitzer administration that could lead to a deal by Thanksgiving. He said he believes the governor has moved away from his idea of awarding the racing side of the franchise exclusively to NYRA because he realizes the Senate will not approve that plan.
When asked if the Spitzer administration has been holding firm to its NYRA recommendation, Bruno said on Nov. 5: “No, no, no. I think that they’re open. They’re realistic. They understand that this is not going to happen the way they presented it. And, I give him credit for the people around him. They’re very open and they’re communicating in a more realistic way.’’
Bruno has proposed the idea of a new state authority to oversee the franchise with the power to award the track franchise to one or more groups. The authority would be led by Republican appointees – considered a non-starter for the Democratic governor.
NYRA officials, who have been in contact with Spitzer’s office since being recommended by the governor, were unaware of any such plan to split up the franchise being backed by Spitzer.
“We’ve not had any discussions that would lead us to believe that is a real option,’’ said Steven Duncker, NYRA’s chairman. He declined further comment.
The franchise issue is not standing on its own. A slew of unrelated issues – from new construction projects and tax cuts to a possible pay raise for legislators – are all linked in a classic Albany-style way and could be part of one big package that the governor and Legislature approve before the end of the year. Or nothing could get done.
Bruno said on Nov. 7 said it is “50-50’’ whether a deal is put together by Dec. 31 – the date NYRA’s current franchise expires. NYRA, which in bankruptcy court claims it owns the tracks no matter what happens to the franchise, has recently threatened to shut down racing in January if a deal is not struck.
NYRA has a major stick over the state: bankruptcy court. If a deal is made in Albany that is unsatisfactory to the NYRA board, it is likely NYRA will simply go back to the federal bankruptcy court judge in Manhattan overseeing its case and let him decide such major issues as who owns the racetracks – decisions that could affect the overall franchise debate.