Commission: Raynham Park simulcast at risk if Suffolk Downs fees remain unpaid
Tuesday
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted last week to require Raynham Park, which belongs to Brockton Fairgrounds owner George Carney, to pay around $300,000 within 30 days or face the suspension or revocation of its license that allows for simulcast race betting.
RAYNHAM – Raynham Park, a former dog track that continues to operate as a racing simulcast center, is being ordered to fork over more than $300,000 in fees, which Suffolk Downs has long claimed it is owed as part of an off-track betting arrangement that was established by state law.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted 3-2 last week to require Raynham Park, which belongs to Brockton Fairgrounds owner George Carney, to pay the money within 30 days or face the suspension or revocation of its license that allows for simulcast race betting. The two dissenting commissioners said they agreed with a motion to enforce the payment, but wanted to give Raynham Park more time.
Simulcast betting has been the main attraction at Raynham Park, located on Route 138 near the border with Easton, since greyhound racing was banned throughout the state following a ballot referendum that was held in 2008 and enacted in 2010.
The five-member commission was unanimous that it had the authority to make a determination that Raynham Park must pay the 3 percent of its intrastate simulcast revenues to Suffolk Downs for the the time period in question, which was from October 2014 and June 2015. After that time span, the state legislature suspended the fee obligation following the opening of the Plainridge Park Casino.
Lawyers for Raynham Park argued that that Suffolk Downs was not an active horse racing licensee during that period of time, and that the issue should be resolved in court, instead of by the state commission. Patrick Dinardo, representing Raynham Park, said that, in its petition to the state gaming commission, Suffolk Downs never mentioned that 90 percent of those fees would go to the New England Horsemen’s Association, which has a purse agreement with the Boston facility.
“Suffolk Downs is trying to collect these premiums for its benefit, when the statute says that these premiums are supposed to be paid into purses,” Dinardo told the commission during a meeting held in Boston on Thursday. “The point of the premiums was to augment the purses. If you’re not having a racing operation, then there is no purses. From the period in question, October 2014 through June 2015, there were no races at Suffolk Downs, and therefore no purses. ... The New England Horsemen is the real party of interest here.”
Dinardo said if the matter is settled in court, it would be better because all of the facts about the simulcast arrangement would come out through the evidence discovery process.
“If Suffolk Downs wants to bring an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief, and they think they have an entitlement to this premium, we can address that issue in the court, where it's a question of interpreting the statutory scheme,” Dinardo said.
The lawyers for Raynham Park also argued that the adjudicatory guidelines for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission do not contemplate such an enforcement action by the commission.
“Ultimately, it will end up in Superior Court, one way or the other,” Dinardo said.
Catherine Blue, general counsel for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said that the issue is within the commission’s jurisdiction under the state’s horse racing law, and that the commission could hold a hearing to suspend or revoke Raynham Park’s license if it doesn’t pay the bill.
Reached on Tuesday afternoon, Carney, the owner of Raynham Park, said that Suffolk Downs didn’t apply for a racing license in 2014, and for that reason he believes it isn’t entitled to the simulcast premiums.
“I didn't feel we owed them money,” Carney said. “That's my position.”
Carney said that he and his lawyers are now still deciding whether to take the matter to court themselves.
Commissioner Enrique Zuniga said that he doesn’t buy Raynham Park’s argument.
“The heart of the matter is whether the obligation was there,” Zuniga said. “That's the part I'm not persuaded at all on, the claims from Raynham.”
The following is a video of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting on October 13. The discussion on the Raynhan Park simulcast fees begins at 1:24:30.
http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/20161018/commission-raynham-park-simulcast-at-risk-if-suffolk-downs-fees-remain-unpaid
Before the lights truly went dark on 
Posts
