14,000 - THROUGH THE GATE

Very true Garrick,UK racing is booming at the gates but bust at the banks

Oops Hibs you may have just baited the Tote vs Bookie debate, again!

Garrick attendance is important. There were probably many non racing people who attended some of whom may have been converted in some way or another, whether that be on a nice win or perhaps ownership. The conversion rate is tiny, I am sure, but being at the races will trigger interest in some form. It's far better than none at all.

In order for this sport to survive all regions need to host big events. If JHB can pull a 30,000 to 50,000 then the sport will be heading the right direction. This is probably one of the only issues where I agree with Magic on the fact that provinicialism should not be brought into racing. i.e comparing July with the Met with Champions Day. (Note the order LOL!!!) Interprovincial trainers, horses and Jockeys compos will only elivate the sporting side of racing IMO.

Alcaponee Wrote:

---

> Oops Hibs you may have just baited the Tote vs
> Bookie debate, again!
>
> Garrick attendance is important. There were
> probably many non racing people who attended some
> of whom may have been converted in some way or
> another, whether that be on a nice win or perhaps
> ownership. The conversion rate is tiny, I am sure,
> but being at the races will trigger interest in
> some form. It's far better than none at all.
>
> In order for this sport to survive all regions
> need to host big events. If JHB can pull a 30,000
> to 50,000 then the sport will be heading the right
> direction. This is probably one of the only issues
> where I agree with Magic on the fact that
> provinicialism should not be brought into racing.
> i.e comparing July with the Met with Champions
> Day. (Note the order LOL!!!) Interprovincial
> trainers, horses and Jockeys compos will only
> elivate the sporting side of racing IMO.


on track bookies complaing there is too many drinkers and families and no money,bookies giving up their pitches.so not sure the bookies are doing any better than the totes..

I see where you are going. Fact is these events are social events first and racing later. I see this every year at the July. I do believe that some are converted at these events though.

From my experience of these events and talking to non racing patrons, the gap is between bringing them in and leaving them to flounder in the mountains of permutations and options. I cant tell you how many I try to educate on the muggs pinacle bet and IMO what should be racings draw card in betting terms, the Pick 6.

In fact my very first post on ABC in 2007 was about the July and the missed opportunity to promote the Pick 6 bet. Pick 6 the horse raced in the event. I also posted on how complex the betting options are and the fact that it is overwhelming for newbies to enter. Getting into racing is the same as starting to smoke. Its difficult to inhale at first but after persistance you suddenly become a smoker. (Excuse the analogy).

The operators have chosen to promote the simple trifecta bets at the big races but for me the Pick6 would be my weapon of choice. They would be selling the Lotto type dream and most love the big win dream. The newbies I have spoken to all say "Who wants to win a couple of hundred bucks on a trifecta, where can we win big money?"

Would say that racing on line via the bookies was the way to go as tote queue was long and they closed early with plenty punters wanting to punt UK races, so a lost opportunity IMO

If Turffies was located in a better area there would of been 20 000 people...

100% Greg - Begs the question using the sale of Clairwood as an example, would the money earned from the sale be enough to rebuild at a new location? Cant imagine what a grandstand would cost. If not then surely the sale price is wrong!

In turffies case I cant see thr property being worth too much. IMO there are 3 options: stay put with low attendence, cut and run or get gov to start uplifting the area.

I don't have audited figures to hand but, using the Western Cape as an example, I have to correct the misconception as to how big crowds REALLY were in the often lamented halcyon days of racing :

Firstly - The further the facts retreat into history the bigger the historical crowds seem to become! I clearly remember Met crowds during the 70's seldom ( if ever ) exceeded 30,000. And this was against a background where :

a. The event was HEAVILY promoted for free in the press.
b. There were no alternative forms of gambling.
c. There were no operative off course outlets
d. They was no simulcast.

So despite the fact that the only way to see the race was to go to the course that fact did not actually produce an inordinately large crowd as most expereinced the race on the radio!

Midweek crowds for normal racing were small -probably somewhere between 5,000 - 10,000 at best. And once again ALL betting was conducted only at the racecourse.

Saturdays were always bigger but I would still be surprised if total crowds ever exceeded 20,000.

Now take those selfsame hypothetical 20,000 'Saturday' souls and spread them amongst all the offcourse outlets and home viewership.

So where has the turnover gone?

I hate to continue harping on this issue but probably into other activities or simply into the household budget!

My annual turnover ( note turnover as opposed to winnings/losses ) probably used to run into the low millions per annum. It is now nil. Why? Because I do not trust the product. There's too much spin choking on the smoke which suggests, at the very least, that there must be some semblance of fire.

And irrespective as to whether you agree with me or not I at least am prepared to contribute to the debate. Thousands have rather just walked.

Garrick Wrote:

---

> I don't have audited figures to hand but, using
>
> My annual turnover ( note turnover as opposed to
> winnings/losses ) probably used to run into the
> low millions per annum. It is now nil. Why?
> Because I do not trust the product.

Garrick, would you be prepared to consider that a contributory reason may also be that the punting game has become harder too? Is it possible that you are less inclined to turnover millions because you are more likely to lose now than before? I suggest that merit rating handicaps has changed the punting landscape so that skill and info help less and so horse racing gambling start to resemble casino gambling?

My personal observation is I am forced to play smaller, and more often. Smaller because I am statistically less likely to be correct than before, or put another way, even though bookmaker odds have improved as it is possible to get a price from a 110% book, or even better if you timed it right and took a bet when your choice was a point or two higher.

So even though the odds seem better, the races are more open, and the results less predictable. Has your turnover walked because you edge went first?

Can't agree more Jack

I Think bringing back 4 places for the place accumalator would defintely entice more punters and increase pools,giving more winning punters and will get them to make the p.a a regular and popular bet.
Can anyone with links to the relevant authorities at Gold circle try and suggest this idea to them,the question is will they listen? Or is it all about short term profits?

I have the belief that for racing to survive it needs more ADDICTS not more spectators - No matter how you paint it Racing survives on punting and it is the addicted punter that keeps it going not the July day tripper