Comments on: CHURCHILL — DOWN OR UP? http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/churchill-down-or-up-441.htm William Shanklin Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:36:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Steve Zorn http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/churchill-down-or-up-441.htm/comment-page-1#comment-123 Steve Zorn Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:32:57 +0000 http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/?p=441#comment-123 The other comparison that one of us should do is to look at the actual results from racing for the big three -- Magna, Churchill, and the financially impenetrable NYRA -- and see if there are significant differences. That comparison is made a lot more difficult by (a) NYRA's status as, effectively, a not-for-profit corporation, whose financial reports, when available, aren't comparable to those of SEC-reporting companies, and (b) Churchill and Magna's involvement on both on-track racing and providing simulcast signals and, at the same time, operating online/telephone wagering networks. Although he may own some horses, Robert L. Evans isn't a career racing guy any more than Carstanjen is. Evans came to Churchill only a few years ago from a career in technology companies. Is that better than being a lawyer? Perhaps, but it certainly is consistent with Churchill's aggressive moves to reposition itself as a wagering site rather than a bunch of race tracks. The other comparison that one of us should do is to look at the actual results from racing for the big three — Magna, Churchill, and the financially impenetrable NYRA — and see if there are significant differences. That comparison is made a lot more difficult by (a) NYRA’s status as, effectively, a not-for-profit corporation, whose financial reports, when available, aren’t comparable to those of SEC-reporting companies, and (b) Churchill and Magna’s involvement on both on-track racing and providing simulcast signals and, at the same time, operating online/telephone wagering networks.

Although he may own some horses, Robert L. Evans isn’t a career racing guy any more than Carstanjen is. Evans came to Churchill only a few years ago from a career in technology companies. Is that better than being a lawyer? Perhaps, but it certainly is consistent with Churchill’s aggressive moves to reposition itself as a wagering site rather than a bunch of race tracks.

]]> By: Seabiscuit http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/churchill-down-or-up-441.htm/comment-page-1#comment-122 Seabiscuit Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:05:03 +0000 http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/?p=441#comment-122 Any earnings review should include some context. You wrote: "In the past several years, Churchill Downs earnings have been on a significant downward trend-with earnings per share of: $5.86 in 2005, $2.21 in 2006, and $1.14 in 2007. " A better metric would be comparing core earnings, as the overall results in 2005 benefitted from a huge one-time item -- the $260 million sales of Hollywood Park -- while the results of 2007 were decimated by hurricanes in Florida and Louisiana that cost numerous race days at Calder and Fairgrounds. One other note: Churchill has always traded at a premium to its peers due to its lack of debt, consistent cash flow, industry-leading brand and world-renown marquee event. Any earnings review should include some context.

You wrote:
“In the past several years, Churchill Downs earnings have been on a significant downward trend-with earnings per share of: $5.86 in 2005, $2.21 in 2006, and $1.14 in 2007. ”

A better metric would be comparing core earnings, as the overall results in 2005 benefitted from a huge one-time item — the $260 million sales of Hollywood Park — while the results of 2007 were decimated by hurricanes in Florida and Louisiana that cost numerous race days at Calder and Fairgrounds.

One other note: Churchill has always traded at a premium to its peers due to its lack of debt, consistent cash flow, industry-leading brand and world-renown marquee event.

]]>