New Derby Infield Choice

[TheSpyder]

Specials section with shade, sports bar, and upscale (for infield) amenities; $150 each.

Not a bad idea if you enjoy the craziness and can't get tickets elsewhere.

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic.../1037/SPORTS08

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Specials section with shade, sports bar, and upscale (for infield) amenities; $150 each.

Not a bad idea if you enjoy the craziness and can't get tickets elsewhere.

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic.../1037/SPORTS08

Its gonna be like the time when they put millionaires row in the infield due to construction in the clubhouse a couple years back, a bad idea. I think real infielders are gonna look down on these people, and god forbid if it rains, those people might need more then shade to protect them from the stuff that will be thrown at them. Another gimmick IMO

-bt-

Greed, stupidity, and arrogance all rolled into one big ball of ****.

[Thunder Gulch]

Another shameless grab at the cash for Churchill Downs.

[blackthroatedwind]

I don't get it....why is this bad? They are offering another alternative to patrons......if people aren't interested they don't have to patronize it. As for the dollar cost, what am I missing, as they have been neglectful not to try and capitalize on their big day in the past. Please remind me of the other businesses that don't try to cash in on popularity.

Racing constantly gets trashed for being complacent. But, somehow this idea is already a bad thing? This kind of thinking makes no sense to me.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't get it....why is this bad? They are offering another alternative to patrons......if people aren't interested they don't have to patronize it. As for the dollar cost, what am I missing, as they have been neglectful not to try and capitalize on their big day in the past. Please remind me of the other businesses that don't try to cash in on popularity.

Racing constantly gets trashed for being complacent. But, somehow this idea is already a bad thing? This kind of thinking makes no sense to me.

Couldn't agree more with you....It's business!! The audience is captured. It's akin to food and drink prices at stadiums, airports, and movie theaters.....

[slotdirt]

For what it's worth, Derby tickets are still incredibly more affordable than are tickets to many other championship sporting events out there. If I didn't have seats for 2009, I'd certainly at least investigate this arrangement; I can think of worse ways to watch the Derby.

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't get it....why is this bad? They are offering another alternative to patrons......if people aren't interested they don't have to patronize it. As for the dollar cost, what am I missing, as they have been neglectful not to try and capitalize on their big day in the past. Please remind me of the other businesses that don't try to cash in on popularity.

Racing constantly gets trashed for being complacent. But, somehow this idea is already a bad thing? This kind of thinking makes no sense to me.

b/c you're taking more space away from a section of the downs that is already over populated. As if it wasn't hard enough to walk through the infield on derby day you're gonna tent off a huge space for "private" seats? why spend 150 when you could pay like 200 something in sit in the grandstand, with a view? IMO this whole idea is trying to accomodate those people who are tired of standing in line to wager/use the bathroom in the infield on derby day. If you would like to tack on $110 to your day more power to ya

-bt-

[blackthroatedwind]

If they aren't using their available space in the most profitable manner possible then they are being irresponsible. Isn't Churchill a public company?

[infield_line]

cash or the yank to get regular Derby seats, who will be happy to pay to be there and have a little separation from the total hedonism...not that there is anything wrong with that, that goes on in the infield. I mean have you ever tried to use one of the portable johns in the infield after about 2 in the afternoon....? If the one I walked into had not been full of marijuana smoke, dude I would have hurled it was so gross....

I/L

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If they aren't using their available space in the most profitable manner possible then they are being irresponsible. Isn't Churchill a public company?

well i don't know what you mean by "available space", i imagine they're gonna be chopping a decent piece of the infield off to infielders, and make space for this to work. If it's in the middle of the infield like millionaire row was then it might be a bigger problem then you think (ala mud wars). Like i said, to each is own. But i think this idea is about as cool as the $1K Julep idea the pushed a couple years ago.

-bt-

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by infield_line

cash or the yank to get regular Derby seats, who will be happy to pay to be there and have a little separation from the total hedonism...not that there is anything wrong with that, that goes on in the infield. I mean have you ever tried to use one of the portable johns in the infield after about 2 in the afternoon....? If the one I walked into had not been full of marijuana smoke, dude I would have hurled it was so gross....

I/L

i like the idea and have signed up..im sure it will be better than some seats ive been in and have its own tote..the biggest problem.. 175 for both days..steal

[philcski]

Originally Posted by -BT-

b/c you're taking more space away from a section of the downs that is already over populated. As if it wasn't hard enough to walk through the infield on derby day you're gonna tent off a huge space for "private" seats? why spend 150 when you could pay like 200 something in sit in the grandstand, with a view? IMO this whole idea is trying to accomodate those people who are tired of standing in line to wager/use the bathroom in the infield on derby day. If you would like to tack on $110 to your day more power to ya

-bt-

Pimlico already does this setup, with the "Top of the Stretch" seats. I've sat in them multiple times and they're fantastic.

Just my opinion, but alot of the infielders aren't worth the $40 they spend to get in. They add $0 in handle and trash everything in sight. Who cares if there's 5k less of them?

[-BT-]

Originally Posted by philcski

Pimlico already does this setup, with the "Top of the Stretch" seats. I've sat in them multiple times and they're fantastic.

Just my opinion, but alot of the infielders aren't worth the $40 they spend to get in. They add $0 in handle and trash everything in sight. Who cares if there's 5k less of them?

yeah i know about the top of the stretch at pimlico, those seats are right on the fence of the turf course with some kind of view. From what i read of the article
"Churchill Downs announced yesterday that it will add a higher-priced restricted area that will take up prime real estate in the middle of the infield."

its gonna be a fenced off area on the bricks portion of the infield, which pretty much smack dab in the middle of the infield. The later in the day it gets the more drunk people get and they're gonna be pissed that they have to walk all the way around this thing just to go to the bathroom or to wager, i saw it happen first hand when the caged millionaires row. From the company standpoint you have to appreciate the way they're trying to squeeze the dime out of this event, but as a patron of the infield the last 10 years, this is gonna suck.

-bt-

[Diver67]

Unless you buy grandstand seats from Churchill Downs--which most people can't do--you can spend a LOT more than $150 and STILL not see anything. Our seats in 2006 cost us $495 through a broker and we were virtually at ground level on the apron. Add in the infield corporate tents and all we saw was a flash of horses going by in the stretch (if we were lucky and the people in front of us weren't too tall). We also had NO cover from rain. So the infield idea doesn't sound all that bad.

Frankly if I go again I'm going to spend the money for decent seats on Oaks day and then go to the Keeneland OT for Derby day.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't get it....why is this bad? They are offering another alternative to patrons......if people aren't interested they don't have to patronize it. As for the dollar cost, what am I missing, as they have been neglectful not to try and capitalize on their big day in the past. Please remind me of the other businesses that don't try to cash in on popularity.

Racing constantly gets trashed for being complacent. But, somehow this idea is already a bad thing? This kind of thinking makes no sense to me.

I see where you are coming from with the corporate angle, but what about taking care of the loyal folks who pay $40 for little or no view, push a pile of money through the windows, and drink their $9 juleps without much complaint? I know there are a lot of infielders who contribute next to nothing to the handle, but the wannabee millionaires who show up for one day in their suits are by in large the $2 show players more interested in fancy hats. How many of those $9 drinks you think the guy in the pinstripes is going to knock back? I'd put BT or any of my crew against 90% of the customers in terms of how much they spend, but we're the ones getting squeezed.

If you really want to maximize your profits, how about going ahead and raising the price on juleps to $20 and increasing the take to 35% because the one race a year folks really aren't motivated by any return on their wagers, and I'd probably still drink 8 juleps just because it's a long day.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I see where you are coming from with the corporate angle, but what about taking care of the loyal folks who pay $40 for little or no view, push a pile of money through the windows, and drink their $9 juleps without much complaint? I know there are a lot of infielders who contribute next to nothing to the handle, but the wannabee millionaires who show up for one day in their suits are by in large the $2 show players more interested in fancy hats. How many of those $9 drinks you think the guy in the pinstripes is going to knock back? I'd put BT or any of my crew against 90% of the customers in terms of how much they spend, but we're the ones getting squeezed.

If you really want to maximize your profits, how about going ahead and raising the price on juleps to $20 and increasing the take to 35% because the one race a year folks really aren't motivated by any return on their wagers, and I'd probably still drink 8 juleps just because it's a long day.

Interesting study in demographics. Blame is easy, maximizing revenue is always an excuse or casue, etc. Maybe this appeals to more people, maybe it doesn't.

I don't think it's about debating what % of infielders contribute nothing to the handle vs. the % of millionaires who show up, don't drink and bet $2. The simple fact is that the guy in the pinstripes can afford to buy more of those $9 drinks than the infielder. Whether or not those monies are spent is a foolish arguement, but that's probably what CD has in mind. Who knows.

Personally, I too think it's a good idea. Are people being "squeezed" so to speak? I don't know. Has anyone seen the details and specifics of exactly how this will work, or is just the automatic jump to blame? The loyal customer shouldn't be the one squeezed, but that's the way it will happen.

Eric

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I see where you are coming from with the corporate angle, but what about taking care of the loyal folks who pay $40 for little or no view, push a pile of money through the windows, and drink their $9 juleps without much complaint? I know there are a lot of infielders who contribute next to nothing to the handle, but the wannabee millionaires who show up for one day in their suits are by in large the $2 show players more interested in fancy hats. How many of those $9 drinks you think the guy in the pinstripes is going to knock back? I'd put BT or any of my crew against 90% of the customers in terms of how much they spend, but we're the ones getting squeezed.

If you really want to maximize your profits, how about going ahead and raising the price on juleps to $20 and increasing the take to 35% because the one race a year folks really aren't motivated by any return on their wagers, and I'd probably still drink 8 juleps just because it's a long day.

The infielders don't drink the mint juleps, they sneak flasks in taped to their legs

And seriously, they contribute nothing to the handle, although your fancy-suit-guy point is well taken.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by philcski

The infielders don't drink the mint juleps, they sneak flasks in taped to their legs

And seriously, they contribute nothing to the handle, although your fancy-suit-guy point is well taken.

If you really think they don't contribute to the handle, you've never stood in line for 45 minutes getting shut out trying to make a bet. I bet at least two races per trip just to prevent this. Even the lines at the $50 window are occupied. True there are undoubtedly thousands who don't put anything in, but every window on the infield is jam packed by the third race.

Also, while it is true a lot of booze makes it through the gate hidden from the cops, the game has greatly changed since the new security measures in 2002. No more coolers, and they search bags. Same as the betting windows, the lines for mint juleps are always full, and the infield has sold out of mint juleps two of the last four years.

[slotdirt]

I couldn't imagine what I would do if I was denied mint juleps at the Derby. That would be scandalous.