Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
The problem with this argument, and you know this, is that this is a very finite and specific meet/situation, and moving the money to the second meet doesn't matter. In fact, what they are doing is saving money so there can be a second meet, or at least one that isn't skeletal. Having more money for that meet, but failing to give away the average in this one, doesn't change things.
The other thing your argument ignores is that you parse the money out in the manner you suggest, which obviously I understand and agree in theory with what you are saying, when your results will allow you to increase purses later. Well, while the handle numbers have been phenomenally good, and surely way better than I expected, they still don't justify these purse levels, even with the subsidy, so how exactly can that translate into raising purses later in this 50 day session....or at least enough to meet the announced average?
Once again, so that it is clear, this Monmouth meeting has been a great success from a fan's perspective, and that is a great thing. Nobody can, or should, argue with that. However, that doesn't preclude having some realistic discussions about other facets of the plan. In fact, this should be especially important in this example given how many people claim this is a blueprint for a direction racing could, should, or must be not only exploring but perhaps heading towards. Looking at all parts, and honestly seeing how well they work, is the only way to reach intelligent and successful conclusions.
|