Improving the product

[Scav]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

"8) Rules reform regarding DQs...way too many people are baffled by some of the happenings."

how about just making the stewards discussion a matter of public record? i don't understand why there isn't a recording made and a transcript available. i don't think we need new rules. we just need transparency on how current rules are being applied.

transcripts would do that.

A very GOOD point

[sumitas]

You want bigger fields how about raising the purses across the board.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by sumitas

You want bigger fields how about raising the purses across the board.

???

[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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by sumitas

You want bigger fields how about raising the purses across the board.

LOL...how exactly are you going to do that without increasing the handle? (Short of slots, of course) That is the point of this, increasing handle.

[Bobby Fischer]

a mass media effort (television on cable)

the next best thing, and maybe the easiest, is to provide free tvg hrtv to all cable subscribers for 6 months while drastically improving the effort.

*re-shaped major track racing schedule(prime time night racing)
* top class sports announcers to participate in the broadcast and more *"flexible advertising rules"(signs for beer and trucks around the safty rails and tacky visability).

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

a mass media effort (television on cable)

the next best thing, and maybe the easiest, is to provide free tvg hrtv to all cable subscribers for 6 months while drastically improving the effort.

*re-shaped major track racing schedule(prime time night racing)
* top class sports announcers to participate in the broadcast and more *"flexible advertising rules"(signs for beer and trucks around the safty rails and tacky visability).

Who's going to pay for that? Are TVG and HRTV going to decrease what it costs to carry their signal to cable providers proportionally based on the number of new subscribers each company connects each year?

Sounds like a pretty expensive experiment when most people with new connects wouldn't give either of those channels the time of day, and the networks would be footing the bill all the same.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Who's going to pay for that? Are TVG and HRTV going to decrease what it costs to carry their signal to cable providers proportionally based on the number of new subscribers each company connects each year?

Sounds like a pretty expensive experiment when most people with new connects wouldn't give either of those channels the time of day, and the networks would be footing the bill all the same.

you either have to invest in cable time or pay tvg/hrtv

dont forget the money it would cost to facilitate prime time racing, hire classA announcers, and put up all those ad banners on the rails.

either way it is an investment

i happen to be a big believer in the wonders of mass media on a product. I could be wrong.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

you either have to invest in cable time or pay tvg/hrtv

dont forget the money it would cost to facilitate prime time racing, hire classA announcers, and put up all those ad banners on the rails.

either way it is an investment

i happen to be a big believer in the wonders of mass media on a product. I could be wrong.

I guess I'm just confused as to how you're getting to your endpoint in this scenario.

Who is investing? Who is going to pay TVG/HRTV to continue to broadcast and compensate their on-air talent while they are giving their product away for free, or on the flipside, who is going to compensate the cable companies who are apparently just going to flip the switch and give away channels for free after already paying for them?

Where is the money going to come from? That's a hell of a lot of money to cover 6 months worth of broadcast time.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Who is investing? Who is going to pay TVG/HRTV to continue to broadcast and compensate their on-air talent while they are giving their product away for free, or on the flipside, who is going to compensate the cable companies who are apparently just going to flip the switch and give away channels for free after already paying for them?

I hardly think that Chef Tony and Billy Mays hawking their crap between races is paying the brunt of the bills...I would suspect that the networks (TVG/HRTV) exist to pimp their own AWD's and are additionally compensated by the tracks they cover. Maybe not...But the amount of revenue they recieve from your cable bill is inconsequencial. Offering the service free of charge is not as far off as one would think.

[MISTERGEE]

how bout this idea

1-make it so there is almost no where to sit to see racing live

2-treat everyone like crap

3-make the experience extremely uncomfortable

4-rip everyone off

5-serve plenty of Franks energy drink

oops, damnit this has already been done--------GP 2008

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I hardly think that Chef Tony and Billy Mays hawking their crap between races is paying the brunt of the bills...I would suspect that the networks (TVG/HRTV) exist to pimp their own AWD's and are additionally compensated by the tracks they cover. Maybe not...But the amount of revenue they recieve from your cable bill is inconsequencial. Offering the service free of charge is not as far off as one would think.

But then it's all circular. There is still a substantial amount of money floating around between the groups.

If you're saying that TVG doesn't need the revenue that they get from providing their signal to a cable company, then that answers my original question: TVG and HRTV pay for it.

Because you better believe that no cable company is going to pay for a channel and then give it away for free, nor should they. It's bad business because the cost of all of these channels gets passed on to the customer. That's exactly why the Big 10 Network has been such a royal pain in the ass, because they want an amount equal to every customer that exists in a cable footprint, even when every customer is not watching. No cable company is going to pass that on to their customers for a niche network that has a high operating cost...at least they shouldn't.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Who is investing?

this is important !


There is no investing in the league in part because there is no league.

There has to be some type of unified governing body for horse racing. Even something like the NBA or NFL has in place.


"horse racing" can't keep a cheater out of the game
we can't sell the sport to the masses via television
we can't clean up the game with the current structure.


With a better gov't and full scale use of mass media, horse racing could actually expand. Renovate and construct new venues. Double the handle and increase the player base five fold. They could afford to hire a few good actuarys and figure out how low the takeout/concessions/admission should be. Provide top class information to the players.