G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 39 Non Members

Galloping into the red - West Australian 28/01

West Australian Racing

Comments

  • Unknown
    said:

    can you post stry for me over hre?

    story is here

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/racing/8731069/prize-money-slashed-as-perth-racing-gallops-into-the-red/
    +1 -1
  • super.imposesuper.impose    43 posts
    thks.where the $15mil in debt from?they borrow to pay stks?
    +1 -1
  • LuckyLongshotsLuckyLongshots    4,270 posts
    said:

    Winterbottom at $500k and railway at $750k will attract the same quality field. There's $500k saved straight away.

    Sack whoever is responsible for organising the "entertainment" on the big days and there is a potential windfall of another $500k if they get someone who is in touch with what gets people thru the gates :roll:

    Funkster for committee! You just saved a million bucks!

    In saying that I understand PR have to try new things, and not everything always comes off, that's life, but sometimes you just see what is and isn't going to work before it happens!

    Love to know what Vanessa Amorosi got paid, surely Angus and Julia Stone would have attracted double the crowd and been the same price!

    Under 5,000 patrons went on Winterbottom Stakes day, so why does the race need to be worth $750k?

    Even Takeover Target and Apache Cat couldn't attract a big (10k+) crowd on Winterbottom Stakes day!
    +1 -1
  • mcginty71nzmcginty71nz    195 posts
    cmon tibor, sort out number 5, you've got the brains and the skills.
    +1 -1
  • chocchoc    789 posts
    Alright, why announce this a week out from the sales?
    Lets put some confidence into the buying market, not dent it.
    Breeders now facing another hurdle to try and achieve something out of their efforts
    +1 -1
  • RhinoRhino    208 posts
    on the flipside they had no choice but to do it in order to be fair to buyers purchasing under the belief there horses would race for 50k. Personally would rather they cut early 2yr prize money down plus a trim some of the other feature races that have been mentioned
    +1 -1
  • chocchoc    789 posts
    Yes, depends on your perspective doesn't it.
    We have quite the anomaly with some feature races oversubscribed in terms of price, and general programmed races set to take a dip.
    2 YO races are should be encouraged, as if you're a buyer, you're looking for early ROI (Return on Investment), and that encourages the breeder to create for the market. Witness the success of Oratorio for example.
    I've said it before - the key to a vibrant Industry is the health of its Stakesmoney. SA is a prime example. Lets not go down that path.
    +1 -1
  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    said:

    on the flipside they had no choice but to do it in order to be fair to buyers purchasing under the belief there horses would race for 50k. Personally would rather they cut early 2yr prize money down plus a trim some of the other feature races that have been mentioned

    Totally agree.
    I'm buying next week and would be dirty if they withheld the announcement.
    Early 2yo races should be no more than $40k. Usually 6-9 horse fields and poor betting races anyway. Generally it's in the horses best interest for them not to be racing before the new year.
    +1 -1
  • LuckyLongshotsLuckyLongshots    4,270 posts
    said:

    Personally would rather they cut early 2yr prize money down

    image
    I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist - will never happen!
    +1 -1
  • pajonespajones    669 posts
    Some good posts on this issue. Blaming owners for betting with corporates is embarassing --- and also will have zero positive impact. The people in charge of rwwa and racing do NOT understand gambling and this is the real issue. From this lack of understanding flows the myriad of other problems like the hopeless contract with centrebet, failure to negotiate with betfair and teh corporates etc etc.
    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,446 posts
    said:

    Obviously the corporates and exchanges are well run as you say. But they are living off and leaching from the industry. They need to contribute for everyone to survive and flourish.

    Leeching off the industry? Are you for real? Ask yourself, why does the industry exist? It exists purely and simply for punters. If not for punters, there would be zero media coverage and nobody would give a toss who had the fastest horse. Innovative corporate bookies/betfair are the only things that are stopping punters from leaving "the industry" in droves. Nobody cares about your industry any more. You are clinging to pensioners and their $1 bets. Young people gamble but unlike their pensioner punting predecessors, they have a choice in what to gamble on. The "industry" is not appealing any more, that's why you have to get musical acts and other promotions to get people on course.
    People in general only like the races as a wagering platform. The antiquated high cost model is unappealing to the modern punter. I laugh at your "putting on the show". Punters flock to (and pay for) attractive betting media. They will shun the high cost products and move to the low cost model.
    Wilson, you can charge what you like for putting on the show but if you charge too much, don't be surprised when nobody turns up!
    +1 -1
  • cubescubes    689 posts
    said:

    said:

    Obviously the corporates and exchanges are well run as you say. But they are living off and leaching from the industry. They need to contribute for everyone to survive and flourish.

    Leeching off the industry? Are you for real? Ask yourself, why does the industry exist? It exists purely and simply for punters. If not for punters, there would be zero media coverage and nobody would give a toss who had the fastest horse. Innovative corporate bookies/betfair are the only things that are stopping punters from leaving "the industry" in droves. Nobody cares about your industry any more. You are clinging to pensioners and their $1 bets. Young people gamble but unlike their pensioner punting predecessors, they have a choice in what to gamble on. The "industry" is not appealing any more, that's why you have to get musical acts and other promotions to get people on course.
    People in general only like the races as a wagering platform. The antiquated high cost model is unappealing to the modern punter. I laugh at your "putting on the show". Punters flock to (and pay for) attractive betting media. They will shun the high cost products and move to the low cost model.
    Wilson, you can charge what you like for putting on the show but if you charge too much, don't be surprised when nobody turns up!
    What a whacky argument.This is delusional. Horse racing does not exist "purely and simply" for the punter. If punters left horse racing en masse there would still be horse racing but just as an equestrian sport like show jumping, polo, eventing etc. Not going to happen but to highlight the lunacy that racing exists only for the punters.

    Punters are extremely important to racing because they drive growth and make racing one of the biggest industries in the country.

    Racing as public entertainment is declining not because of the TAB and it supposed poor returns but too much racing and SKY channel exposure.

    Corporates are 'LEECHING' on racing, if they contributed an acceptable product fee the argument wouldnt exist. RWWA wouldnt give a toss if the WATAB was in decline if it wAS Balanced out by an equitable return from the corporates.

    And punters arent leaving the industry in droves that is more nonsense nor does the industry rely on pensioner $1 punters or that no ones cares about the industry.

    What is wrong with Perth Racing's stance is they havent faced the music of their own failings and just jumped on a soft target. Corporates are hurting the industry but PR's injuries are mostly self inflicted.
    +1 -1
  • TheFunksterTheFunkster    3,840 posts
    Good post Cubes :thumbup:
    +1 -1
  • RodentRodent    7,446 posts
    Cubes, 40 years ago heaps of young people were interested in horse racing and punting on it. How many 18-25 year olds are into horse racing and punting on it nowadays? That is why the industry will continue to decline. We are losing punters faster than we can replace them. Youngsters prefer to gamble on sport.
    You are right that racing would exist without punters but it doesn't change the point I was making. Trainers and owners whinge about decreasing prizemoney now so how many would stick around to race for ribbons?
    I'll say it again, youngsters prefer to gamble on sport.
    How do you propose to win their gambling $ back over to racing? By putting on bands? By putting on a girls day out? Marketing gimmicks won't cut it in the long run.
    How about competing on price? How about offering them more bang for their buck so that they may enjoy wagering on the races more than betting on sport? That is the only way to go long term.
    Clinging to a high cost model that worked well when racing had a monopoly on the gambling $ won't cut it in the ultra competitive world we live in today.
    To keep the rake the same today as it was 40 years ago means that racing has been unable to increase efficiency in the last 40 years OR whatever savings have been made in increased efficiency over that time have NEVER been passed on to punters.
    Horse racing must accept there is competition for the punting $. A refusal to compete on price leaves racing extremely vulnerable.
    +1 -1
  • cubescubes    689 posts
    said:

    Cubes, 40 years ago heaps of young people were interested in horse racing and punting on it. How many 18-25 year olds are into horse racing and punting on it nowadays? That is why the industry will continue to decline. We are losing punters faster than we can replace them. Youngsters prefer to gamble on sport.
    You are right that racing would exist without punters but it doesn't change the point I was making. Trainers and owners whinge about decreasing prizemoney now so how many would stick around to race for ribbons?
    I'll say it again, youngsters prefer to gamble on sport.
    How do you propose to win their gambling $ back over to racing? By putting on bands? By putting on a girls day out? Marketing gimmicks won't cut it in the long run.
    How about competing on price? How about offering them more bang for their buck so that they may enjoy wagering on the races more than betting on sport? That is the only way to go long term.
    Clinging to a high cost model that worked well when racing had a monopoly on the gambling $ won't cut it in the ultra competitive world we live in today.
    To keep the rake the same today as it was 40 years ago means that racing has been unable to increase efficiency in the last 40 years OR whatever savings have been made in increased efficiency over that time have NEVER been passed on to punters.
    Horse racing must accept there is competition for the punting $. A refusal to compete on price leaves racing extremely vulnerable.

    Sensible argument, cant argue with most of it. There needs to be a compromise soon.

    Youngsters prefer choice and those that dont cater for will be doomed but a lot of young people still bet on racing and like you intimate we cant lose them.
    +1 -1
  • BlakeBlake    8,176 posts
    said:

    Well if they reduce the stake money , they then have to reduce the percentage that the winning trainers get .
    It is 10% now and should come into line with the jockeys , who put their lives on the line everytime they go out there and thats not taking into account that most of them are wasting to make the weights .
    I hear that a lot of trainers are increasing the costs to owners , well then they can cop some of the hit .

    kidding aren't you. 90% of trainers in this country are eating the paint off the walls and you want to give them less for working their arses off and work 16 hours a day 365 days a year. please. the only way training fees are going up is because feed etc is going up. you don't survive if you don't move with the times you can't pay the bills.
    +1 -1
  • BlakeBlake    8,176 posts
    said:

    Well if they reduce the stake money , they then have to reduce the percentage that the winning trainers get .
    It is 10% now and should come into line with the jockeys , who put their lives on the line everytime they go out there and thats not taking into account that most of them are wasting to make the weights .
    I hear that a lot of trainers are increasing the costs to owners , well then they can cop some of the hit .

    kidding aren't you. 90% of trainers in this country are eating the paint off the walls and you want to give them less for working their arses off and work 16 hours a day 365 days a year. please. jocks get 130 a ride no matter where they finish. guess what, if a trainer's horse doesn't earn $$ then trainer earns no $$. the only way training fees are going up is because feed, wages, rent and everything else is going up. you don't survive if you don't move with the times you can't pay the bills.
    +1 -1
  • chocchoc    789 posts
    said:

    said:

    Well if they reduce the stake money , they then have to reduce the percentage that the winning trainers get .
    It is 10% now and should come into line with the jockeys , who put their lives on the line everytime they go out there and thats not taking into account that most of them are wasting to make the weights .
    I hear that a lot of trainers are increasing the costs to owners , well then they can cop some of the hit .

    kidding aren't you. 90% of trainers in this country are eating the paint off the walls and you want to give them less for working their arses off and work 16 hours a day 365 days a year. please. jocks get 130 a ride no matter where they finish. guess what, if a trainer's horse doesn't earn $$ then trainer earns no $$. the only way training fees are going up is because feed, wages, rent and everything else is going up. you don't survive if you don't move with the times you can't pay the bills.
    Fark me, lets reduce the earnings of people producing the very entities which most of you bet upon. Brilliant.
    While we're at it, lets continue to cut stakes so that breeders cop a loss procducing that which you're buying.
    Then we can all go to the Casino (or the STC) and bet on elctronically run races like the pokies
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    How can PR be 15 million in debt?

    Is anyone accountable?

    Racing and pacing are unable to run their business within any sort of budget.

    Perhaps they should takes some advice from their greyhound counterparts who seem to be able to manage their business despite minimal support from RWWA and a distribution percentage that is well below their turnover percentage.

    When RWWA was formed, industry members were told that future funding would be based on each codes performance.

    Years later the best performing code(greyhounds) by turnover percentage receives the worst distribution and the other 2 codes continue to have financial issues.
    +1 -1
  • cubescubes    689 posts
    said:

    How can PR be 15 million in debt?

    Is anyone accountable?

    Racing and pacing are unable to run their business within any sort of budget.

    Perhaps they should takes some advice from their greyhound counterparts who seem to be able to manage their business despite minimal support from RWWA and a distribution percentage that is well below their turnover percentage.

    When RWWA was formed, industry members were told that future funding would be based on each codes performance.

    Years later the best performing code(greyhounds) by turnover percentage receives the worst distribution and the other 2 codes continue to have financial issues.[/quot

    with only 3 tracks there is no way that greyhounds out perform gallops. overall gallops would be carrying other 2.

    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    In regard to turnover percentage versus distribution percentage.

    Dogs betting turnover is over 20% yet they only recieve 13% of distribution.

    The distribution is a joke.

    Can`t see how racing is carrying anyone, they spend more than they`ve got.
    +1 -1
  • super.imposesuper.impose    43 posts
    dogs best performing code&carying thbreds??biggest crap i seen written on here in long while.if dog turnover 20% where rest come from?odds on it aint trotting
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Super

    2009/10 total betting turnover by code

    racing harness dogs
    55.3% 19.8% 24.9%


    2009/10 distribution by code

    racing harness dogs
    59.7% 27.6% 12.6%

    The stats don`t lie. Which code is getting shafted?
    +1 -1
  • super.imposesuper.impose    43 posts
    source?is that total beting by code or only west aust?
    +1 -1
  • super.imposesuper.impose    43 posts
    found graph in rprt on racing wa website.

    TAB Turnover on WA Racing by Racing Code 2009/10

    thor 63.5% trot 20.2% dog 16.3%

    ?
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Why shouldn`t distribution be based on total turnover?
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    Is it still the biggest crap you`ve seen written?
    +1 -1
  • dungydungy    9,278 posts
    FRK was on 6pr the other day talking to Moona Murry and Timmy Goss man bottom line is if the trainers dont have owners then they dont have a job pretty simple the owner is the backbone of the industry because if they dont provide the stock thn there is nothing to train simple !!
    +1 -1
  • super.imposesuper.impose    43 posts
    yes.lks that dogs carrying trots not rcing.
    +1 -1
  • FastmoneyFastmoney    4,912 posts
    So 24% of all the money invested on the tote is invested on greyhound racing but they only receive 13% in stakemoney.

    55% of all money invested on the tote is invested on racing but they recieve 59% in stakemoney.

    Distribution is funded by all turnover not just turnover on WA.

    Seems to me racing is doing alright out of the distribution deal yet they can`t stay in the black with their finances.
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.