Breeders' Cup Leaning Toward Permanent Host?
By Tom LaMarra

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ost?source=rss

Updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10:11 AM
Posted: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 9:49 AM

Breeders’ Cup board member Satish Sanan indicated March 2 the organization is leaning toward selecting a permanent host site for the World Championships, and also discussed ongoing efforts that could lead to an industry-owned advance deposit wagering system. Sanan made his comments on “At the Races With Steve Byk,” a horse racing program on SIRIUS/XM Satellite Radio. Sanan, also a Thoroughbred owner/breeder, discusses industry issues every Tuesday on the program.

Sanan said Breeders’ Cup representatives planned to meet March 3 to discuss the host-site plan and could make a decision soon. In response to a caller who asked if a decision had been made, Sanan said: “It’s not ratified yet.” Sanan said Santa Anita Park in Southern California meets the criteria of major media market, ability to accommodate crowds, good weather, and generating revenue through attendance and pari-mutuel handle. The only area in which it falls short is its racing surface, currently synthetic.

Sanan said he believes Santa Anita will replace its synthetic surface with dirt. He admitted he’s “not a fan of synthetic surfaces,” but said a host-site decision shouldn’t be based on “dirt versus synthetic.”

What Sanan basically confirms is that rather than moving the event around, which would be best for the sport, BC officials want to permanently position the Breeders' Cup in SoCal, because that's what is financially best for the Breeders' Cup.

And then he decries the lack of cooperation on the ADW front: "[G]etting industry factions to work together and see the big picture has been a challenge." With decisions like this one, perhaps he ought to look in the mirror.

Satish and the Breeders Cup...
 

I am curious if Satish or if anyone else has the figures on the Breeders Cup that Satish references during the show. The handle, attendence, field size...etc since the cups beginnings. I am one that understands his line of thinking in regards to having a permanant home and would love to see the stats to back up his idea.
I understand most people don't like change, it was evident by the callers yesterday (it was frustrating to listen to Satish constantly being interupted while making a point). Satish calls it like it is and doesnt sugarcoat anything, which is greatly appreciated.

He doesn't mention stats, but there's a decent write up on bloodhorse.com today. The thing I appreciated being pointed out is that it's impossible for the Breeders' Cup organization to make money when the event is held at Churchill. It's easy to forget the tracks are hosting the event, and as such, have their own fiduciary interests, not those of the BC, in mind.

IF SA goes back to dirt, and IF the BC is only going to have one site, then SA is a fine choice (although I'd prefer CD). But I'd rather not see a single site at all. And IF SA keeps some poly crap surface, then the BC would be cutting its own wrists to choose it. Which might just be the best result of all.

Why doesn't CD make any money on the event?

BC gets all the money, not the host track.

Asher needs a healthy cut.

Count me among those that hopes the Breeders' Cup falls apart in the near future.

NT

:tro:

ive heard from some on here that the sa bc is the best they have been to
if they change to dirt i could see it.

would that really help racing..i dont think so.

How would it hurt racing?

All the purse money lost when the BC goes away will me made up by other regional stakes races?

Where does that purse money come from?

I know where you are going, so answer..a bunch more NYRA stakes? Foal registration woud go away so that isn't the answer

it will lose the only other telly time the sport gets derby bieng the other.
and the good horses will leave to run in dubai where the super -money will
still be..imo

I honestly don't know, but I assumed, that BC purse money came from foal nominations. No more BC equals no more nominating, you get to keep your money in your pocket, instead of trying to produce a horse that can take advantage of those purse supplements. Is that an awful thing?

I was commenting as a fan, not as an owner. I don't forsee owning a horse that can take advantage of the BC Stakes program, so I wasn't initially looking at it that way when I :tro:'d Nick's post.

what about the supplement of graded stakes by the b.c?

That's what Bob and I are talking about.......I think.