The Preakness; Kegasus!

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I completely disagree. People were eventually going to die because of the BYOB policy. I'd rather lose out on 20-30k in attendance who spend virtually nothing on betting than have a bazillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit.

How can you say disagree when I said BYOB was removed to eliminate danger from full cans being tossed? You can still get plowed only you don't have to carry it in now. You may still have a wrongful death suit. On that topic, it is called insurance. You pay for it, so use it once in a while.

As for the lost revenue, it is more than gambling. Tix cost about $60 bucks and then the people buy beer, food, memorabilia, etc. I bet each infield head is valued at near $100 to MJC. That multiplied by the near 50k drop caused by the change in policy adds up to $5M. You can chose to lose whatever you want, but MJC and MD racing needs the $5M.

[slotdirt]

You honestly think MJC lost $5 million by not allowing 22 year olds from Dundalk to bring in as many cases of beer as they could carry? Really?

Having seen the yokels that end up in the infield on many an occasion, I'd say the average amount brought to MJC from infield patrons was roughly 37 cents a head. Those dummies weren't buying cotton candy and Preakness t-shirts when they had 96 meisterbraus on their person.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You honestly think MJC lost $5 million by not allowing 22 year olds from Dundalk to bring in as many cases of beer as they could carry? Really?

The short answer is yes. The long answer would involve breaking down your obvious ignorance and prejudice and I won't waste my time.

[slotdirt]

Oh no, I'd love to hear about how the kids from Glen Burnie were spending $40 per head by your estimate on top of the $60 ticket price on memorabilia and refreshments, let alone betting. You've clearly never been in the Preakness infield before, nor is math your strong suit. But yeah, I'm ignorant and prejudiced.

And from what year to what year did the Preakness attendance decline by 50k?

ETA: a Thoroughbred Times article detailing how Preakness attendance has never dipped more than 35-ishk in the last dozen years. Moreover, the article also discusses how handle was down in 2010 despite a substantial increase in attendance. So yeah, I'm sure those Baltimore County kids are spending a ton on things other than $20 all you can drink beers when they show up at the track.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...ss-stakes.aspx

[slotdirt]

Just doing the math in my head (and I realize I'm the only one who cares or is belaboring this point), but to lose $5 million on the infield from '08-'09 would mean that A., the attendance decline from one year to the next was entirely infield tickets, which it most likely was not, and B., each infield patron from 2008 would have had to spend approximately $84 a person on top of the $60 ticket price that wasn't spent in 2009.

Now, do some people that go to the infield spend some sort of money on something? Of course. But are the majority of those patrons the types to spend near $100 on betting or goods when they were allowed to bring as many cans of Mickey's they could carry? I would suggest not.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Just doing the math in my head (and I realize I'm the only one who cares or is belaboring this point), but to lose $5 million on the infield from '08-'09 would mean that A., the attendance decline from one year to the next was entirely infield tickets, which it most likely was not, and B., each infield patron from 2008 would have had to spend approximately $84 a person on top of the $60 ticket price that wasn't spent in 2009.

Now, do some people that go to the infield spend some sort of money on something? Of course. But are the majority of those patrons the types to spend near $100 on betting or goods when they were allowed to bring as many cans of Mickey's they could carry? I would suggest not.

have you been in the infield for the Preakness? I could easily see the money lost in the 4-5 million range, and yes the attendance decline was probably 98.7% infield tickets, did you see the TV view? The infield was empty compared to being packed the years before. And they are not just drinking, but gambling away.

[slotdirt]

Yes, I've been to the infield - was there in 2009 even - and no, I've never noticed a gang of people waiting to bet. It's just not a "betting" crowd per se.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by booner

I keep getting the feeling a roomful of potheads are coming up with these marketing campaigns.

They would be much more successful if this was the case.

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I completely disagree. People were eventually going to die because of the BYOB policy. I'd rather lose out on 20-30k in attendance who spend virtually nothing on betting than have a bazillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit.

The track actually stands to have significantly more potential liability if they sell the beer than if they allow BYOB. It is called dramshop.