Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kasept
Extensive piece by Ray Paulick this morning, (based on his exchanges with Cup consultant Bill Field), explaining the strategy behind Santa Anita as a BC 'home'.
We will expand on with it with Satish this afternoon on ATR...
THE CASE FOR A CALI CUP
By Ray Paulick
The recommendation, not surprisingly, has been met with criticism, from several fronts. Easterners feel they are at a distinct disadvantage when shipping horses to California. Horseplayers are focused on their dislike of the Pro-Ride synthetic track at Santa Anita (which has produced two consecutive injury-free renewals in 2008-09). Many Kentucky breeders want to be able to drive to Churchill Downs to attend the event, especially when it is scheduled right on top of the breeding stock sales at Fasig-Tipton and Keeneland.
I asked Field, who consulted with English soccer’s Premier League during a phenomenal growth period, how a group of Kentucky breeders could realistically be convinced that it is in their best interest to approve a plan to relocate the Breeders’ Cup 2,000 miles away. They might agree in principle that a dramatic and bold step is needed to infuse the Breeders’ Cup with additional revenue, but what would convince them to put the interests of the organization ahead of their own self-interest?
“Make no mistake,” Field replied by email, “if all the right elements of a deal can be put in place, Santa Anita will be the best place for Breeders’ Cup to maximize its impact. With the sport facing such difficult times, the success that Breeders’ Cup can have there will make a real difference–not least to the benefit of those Kentucky-based breeders you refer to. So, I’m not sure I agree with the implication in your question that having Santa Anita as the long-term location won’t actually be in the interests of those breeders.” |
There are flat-out LIES in this piece. (1) "On the plus side, New York is the media capital of the U.S. (though the media has pretty much ignored the Breeders’ Cup)". This is absolutely not true. The NY Post runs 4-5 full color pages a DAY for the week running up to the Cup, regardless of location. The LA Times... not so much. (2) "but there are disadvantages to putting the Louisville, Ky., track in a heavy Breeders’ Cup rotation. Poor weather, a small media market". Media market statistics assumes that consumer penetration is equal amongst all locations. If I were selling shovels on a TV commercial, would I expect more people to watch in Florida or Minnesota? LA has a laughably bad sports history supporting their teams (outside of the Dodgers and Lakers), let alone interest in a sport 90% of the local population would never attend. How about comparing actual potential viewers? 10% of 17 million isn't different from 40% of 4 million (the population within 90 minutes of Louisville.) (3) "If Breeders’ Cup can generate a 50% revenue increase over five years from sources that are driven by being at Santa Anita–seating and wagering revenue, increased sponsorships and state support–then it is very hard to argue against." Even the most pie-in-the-sky optimists can see a 50% growth target would be near impossible to attain, especially when you consider a large portion of your target wagering audience could potentially walk away if they never got to see the event live locally.
Don't get me wrong- I love Santa Anita, but to have it as a permanent host completely defeats the vision of the initial BC.