Satish and the Breeders Cup...

[Kasept]

Sanan: Listen to Message, Understand Context
By Tom LaMarra

Updated: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:08 AM
Posted: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:44 AM

Breeders’ Cup board member Satish Sanan said March 9 he has reached out to several industry officials he may have offended with comments made on a satellite radio program, but it’s time to move on and work to improve the economics for Thoroughbred racing.

Sanan, on the March 2 edition of “At the Races With Steve Byk” on SIRIUS/XM, offered his views on the ongoing efforts by Breeders’ Cup to hammer out a plan for future host sites of the World Championships. Sanan, in response to questions from callers, shed some light on what Cup officials are considering and why in the context of a strategic plan.

Sanan said he “made peace with two or three industry constituents,” including the heads of Churchill Downs Inc. and the New York Racing Association.

“I wear my passion on my sleeve,” said Sanan, a longtime racing fan who has invested about $150 million as a Thoroughbred owner and breeder. “I’m candid, and when I’m too passionate, my words come in the way of my message. People really need to listen to the message I’m trying to convey.

“Nobody wants this industry to succeed more than I do.”

[randallscott35]

Satish's honesty is refreshing. We need more like him.

[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.”

[Antitrust32]

well, after this year I dont have to bother watching the BC, unless they put dirt on the main track again.

[tector]

I see that it remains neck and neck as to which sport has been more destroyed by its leadership (or, the lack thereof): horse racing or boxing. Both had great traditions and a prominent place in the American sport consciousness, but they have both been completely marginalized over the past couple of generations.

[randallscott35]

I will boycott the Breeders Cup if it has a permanent home....at least the first race.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by tector

I see that it remains neck and neck as to which sport has been more destroyed by its leadership (or, the lack thereof): horse racing or boxing. Both had great traditions and a prominent place in the American sport consciousness, but they have both been completely marginalized over the past couple of generations.

While there is plenty correct about laying aspects of the struggles of boxing and racing at the feet of their respective leadership(s), there is something far more basic at the heart of the erosion of their 'prominent place in the American sport consciousness'. The fundamental societal differences and changes in post WWII America have more to do with boxing and racing losing their position than mismanagement.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Kasept

While there is plenty correct about laying aspects of the struggles of boxing and racing at the feet of their respective leadership(s), there is something far more basic at the heart of the erosion of their 'prominent place in the American sport consciousness'. The fundamental societal differences and changes in post WWII America have more to do with boxing and racing losing their position than mismanagement.

I agree and isn't it ironic that things like UFC have become more mainstream than boxing and do as well Pay Per View wise. Strange.

[herkhorse]

(which has produced two consecutive injury-free renewals in 2008-09)

[tector]

Originally Posted by Kasept

While there is plenty correct about laying aspects of the struggles of boxing and racing at the feet of their respective leadership(s), there is something far more basic at the heart of the erosion of their 'prominent place in the American sport consciousness'. The fundamental societal differences and changes in post WWII America have more to do with boxing and racing losing their position than mismanagement.

Sure there was some of that. But there was plenty that was self-inflicted. For example, both badly handled the rise of television--boxing would put its "everyday" product on TV, but foolishly restricted its premier events to a pay model. Could you imagine if the NFL had done the same thing?

But back to today--why would any sport put its premier event, from the perspective of its core fan base, on a surface they detest? And this is just not any sport--it is a sport utterly dependent upon those same fans wagering money on that event? I mean, not only is that stupid, but it is arrogant. Moreover, that same surface not only disfavors many stars of the sport, but actually promotes the interests of foreign entries over domestic ones. It is a decision so stupid, in so many ways simultaneously, that if someone was deliberately determined to sabotage horse racing in the in the US, they would have been hard-pressed to devise such a scheme. But, somehow, the clever folks at the BC have managed the feat.

IF SA goes back to dirt, then this move is arguable. Absent that, it is a disaster.

[philcski]

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.