Improving the product

[sumitas]

And what is wrong with charging a low general admission of $3 like the Spa does ? I think that is very reasonable for having full access to the grounds other than the clubhouse ( which costs $2 more). A reason why the Spa is the most successful meet in the world is because it is fan friendly and filled with history, not mall like stores.

Churchill should put a Chuck E. Cheese in the infield to cater to the guy with the wife and kids who latch onto him like a plocastamus on a sh.it-covered aquarium bed.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by sumitas

And what is wrong with charging a low general admission of $3 like the Spa does ? I think that is very reasonable for having full access to the grounds other than the clubhouse ( which costs $2 more). A reason why the Spa is the most successful meet in the world is because it is fan friendly and filled with history, not mall like stores.

For someone that doesn't go often or just uses it for entertainment, it probably isn't a big deal. But think about the guy that is going 5 or 6 days a week. The kind of guy that actually bets real money and pays for the product. He is out over $1,000 in admission for the year before he makes his first bet. This is on top of the 20% takeout he must overcome. You think they could at least hand out some free lube.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

For someone that doesn't go often or just uses it for entertainment, it probably isn't a big deal. But think about the guy that is going 5 or 6 days a week. The kind of guy that actually bets real money and pays for the product. He is out over $1,000 in admission for the year before he makes his first bet. This is on top of the 20% takeout he must overcome. You think they could at least hand out some free lube.

Tracks already do this. I haven't paid to get into Arlington, or for a program (either simucast or Arlington) in two years.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Scav

Tracks already do this. I haven't paid to get into Arlington, or for a program (either simucast or Arlington) in two years.

Some do, most don't.

[Cannon Shell]

I think all of your ideas are good except #4 which is a little too simplistic. If you eliminate a lot of tracks breeders will produce far fewer horses. Assuming that you would be in favor of eliminating the smaller tracks, you will be left with the bigger track horseman who are far more likely to not run or scratch than their cheap track counterparts.

#8 would be better dealt with more formal education of stewards rather than the 3 day course that now serves as accreditation. Also forcing them to make public the reasons behind the decision would be helpful. The rules are pretty much the same everywhere but allow for too much individual latitude.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think all of your ideas are good except #4 which is a little too simplistic. If you eliminate a lot of tracks breeders will produce far fewer horses. Assuming that you would be in favor of eliminating the smaller tracks, you will be left with the bigger track horseman who are far more likely to not run or scratch than their cheap track counterparts.

#8 would be better dealt with more formal education of stewards rather than the 3 day course that now serves as accreditation. Also forcing them to make public the reasons behind the decision would be helpful. The rules are pretty much the same everywhere but allow for too much individual latitude.

#4, I did say at all levels of racing, meaning high level, mid level, and lower level tracks. There should be a pyramid no doubt. As for breeders producing far fewer horses, I'm not sure this is really a bad thing for anyone but breeders. With the foreign buyers now, I don't think it would hurt that much. I'm pretty sure the game will survive without Indiana, Ohio, and Texas bred horses and the like.