After much deliberation at the California Horse Racing Board meeting Sept. 19, Golden State Racing was granted a conditional license to operate racing at Pleasanton beginning Oct. 19.

The condition requires, in accordance with CHRB rule 2044, that a signed agreement between GSR and a horsemen’s representative, in this case the Thoroughbred Owners of California, present a signed agreement to the board by the close of business Sept. 23.

GSR and TOC could not reach an agreement on the meets purse structure earlier in the week, leading to the debate that ensued on the floor of the board meeting.

The plan submitted by GSR to the CHRB in its license application called for a 26-day meet to be held at Pleasanton from Oct. 19 through Dec. 15. This meet would include 26 races per week. The California Association of Racing Fairs, one of the entities behind GSR, reserved the right to change the number of races based on horse availability.

Including six stakes worth $75,000 each, the application estimated total purses of $4,244,425 million, an average daily purse of $163,247.

The TOC argued that, in talks between the two organizations following GSR receiving an allotment of race days at the March 21 CHRB meeting, that the organizations came to an agreement of benchmarks needed to run the meet. These benchmarks, according to TOC president and CEO Bill Nader, called for a purse structure of $4.42 million, an average of $170,000 per day.

“We thought it best to keep purses at a level that was slightly higher than the traditional CARF summer schedule, but well below the Golden Gate level (before purse cuts, about $200,000 per day),” Nader said. “That was the basis of the agreement, that was all memorialized in the benchmarks.”

CARF executive director Larry Swartzlander said that raising overnights by 4-6%, as proposed by the TOC, would put them in “a major purse overpayment status.”

A purse overpayment is when a track pays out more purse money than was generated for purses. Over the winter, Golden Gate cut its purses 25% to pay back a $3 million overpayment, leading to an average daily purse of $129,485 by the time they closed.

Swartzlander admitted that an overpayment is virtually guaranteed for the fall meeting, stating that an overpayment between $400,000 and $500,000 was acceptable as they would be able to recoup that money during the 2025 winter/spring meet, which historically produced more handle for Golden Gate than the fall. However, his projection said that following the TOC proposal would lead to an overpayment of $880,000.

“I said we would attempt to make the benchmark,” Swartzlander said. “March was a few months ago. Things have changed, handle has declined. The projection of the purse has simply gone down.”

Nader stated that the proposed number of races during the fall meet is “unrealistic.” The TOC would rather see GSR host 24 races per week instead of 26.

“If the North can make the most of its opportunity and meet the benchmarks, as spelled out in the TOC/CARF race meet agreement submitted to the CHRB in May, it has our support into 2025,” Nader said. “If the North cannot meet the benchmarks, and we continue with the status quo, than the North and the South will continue to sink lower.”

“This board, in the interest of giving the North a chance to survive and prove themselves took a gamble in awarding the dates for Golden State Racing,” said CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro. “That gamble was made under certain benchmarks that we all agreed on. Suddenly, those benchmarks are under question. Here we are on top of the race meet with serious questions about viability.”

After the public debate between both sides, Swartzlander and Nader met away from the board as the meeting progressed. The pair reached an agreement that stipulates that purses will start being reduced after the overpayment reaches $400,000 so that the meet does not exceed $500,000. The signed agreement required to be presented to the board by Monday will iron out the final numbers on purse distribution.

Swartzlander expressed belief that the fall meet will prove successful among horsemen, stating that they have received about 1,000 stall applications and that CARF has put in over $2.5 million to improvements of the facility. He also stated that the current meeting at Fresno marked “the first time in years as a director of racing” that he rejected five- and six-horse fields for entrance.

“I want to thank the horsemen of Northern California,” Swartzlander said. “They’ve united; they want to make this work.”

Date allotment for race dates in 2025 was also discussed at the Thursday meeting, with Ferraro expressing hesitation about allotting any dates to GSR until the results of the fall meet can be analyzed.

“Until we see how you do on your fall meet, I think it would be premature for this board to agree to dates for you,” Ferraro said. 

Vice-chairman Oscar Gonzales countered this sentiment, stating that they can approve the race day allocation for GSR’s winter/spring meet as an actual awarding of a license would not take place until a later date.

“I think for planning purposes you have to have a framework,” Gonzales said. “To not approve an entire statewide calendar I think would feed into that narrative that’s it’s the have, have nots—rural vs. urban, north vs. south—that I believe we’re trying to avoid.”

The Southern tracks also had a dispute over who would be awarded a “dark week” in December 2025. California typically awards dates by race weeks that beginning on Wednesdays and ending on Tuesdays.

Los Alamitos Race Course’s final race week in 2025 would expire Dec. 16, with Santa Anita Park’s race week beginning Dec. 17. This would create a 12-day gap in racing between Los Alamitos’ final live race day Dec. 14 and Santa Anita’s traditional Dec. 26 opening date.

A Los Alamitos’ proposal calls for it acquire part of the dark week through Sunday, Dec. 21, in order to earn more revenue from simulcasting.

“A partial allocation of these dark dates represents an undeniably more equitable distribution among all licensed Southern California Thoroughbred racing associations of the ‘dark day’ benefits afforded the industry,” Los Alamitos Racing Association president and CEO Edward Allred penned in a letter sent to the board prior to the meeting. “LARA is concerned that its continuing exclusion from the allocation of dark weeks benefiting only two of three licensed Thoroughbred racing associations does not advance the objectives of the Horse Racing Law.”

Representatives from Los Alamitos at the meeting stated that revenue generated during the dark days would be entirely dedicated to purses paid during its Thoroughbred meet.

Aidan Butler, president and CEO of 1/ST that owns and operates Santa Anita Park, voiced his disagreement, stating that it does not benefit Santa Anita as the only dark days it would have access to would be negatively impacted by a lack of racing across the country over the Christmas holiday. Even just the drop in one week would decrease Santa Anita’s date allotment by 9%.

“This is getting a little out of whack, it really is,” Butler told the board. “It’s starting to really put pressure on Santa Anita.”

The board chose to approve all 2025 dates with the exception of the dark weeks that occur during the year in the South. The decision to postpone a decision on the dark weeks to a later date was made following a new idea proposed by board member Thomas Hudnut.

“To end the arguing over who gets what, the money from the dark days should be allocated proportionately in Southern California among the three Southern California tracks,” Hudnut pitched. “Proportional to the extent that it mirrors their relative handles at the end of the year.”