View Full Version : Moran Hits A Home Run
Cangamble
12-11-2008, 12:29 PM
There are no fans, only horseplayers:
http://paulmoranattheraces.blogspot.com/2008/12/blind-lead-blind-deaf-and-dumb.html
thruncy
12-11-2008, 01:24 PM
There are no fans, only horseplayers:
http://paulmoranattheraces.blogspot.com/2008/12/blind-lead-blind-deaf-and-dumb.html Grand Slam Homerun! At least Magna has a little class.
lamboguy
12-11-2008, 01:29 PM
good one
Indulto
12-11-2008, 02:37 PM
CG,
You are right ... it would have gone out of the old Yankee Stadium. ;)
From the article:
http://paulmoranattheraces.blogspot.com/2008/12/blind-lead-blind-deaf-and-dumb.html
The blind lead the blind, deaf and dumb
By Paul Moran December 11, 2008… There are no fans to bring back and bettors are reacting to an unpalatable product by reducing risk. This is more a financial market than a sport.
… Frank Stronach’s … first mistake was the notion that people come to racetracks to be entertained, which is entirely fallacious. Horseplayers show up, if at all, to bet on horses.
… The real problem is that the people who operate racetracks lack an understanding of the sport and its audience. They continue fruitlessly ludicrous attempts to emulate the business practices of other sports, which are organized in leagues and franchises and enjoy central authoritative organizations. Racing is by comparison a herd of cats attempting to solve the same challenges that began to manifest themselves decades ago when the handwriting first appeared on the wall.
… Racetrack operators have not suffered the loss of a live audience; they have encouraged the migration to alternatives venues. This is neither accident nor unfortunate but was premeditated. Lamenting the result is ridiculous. Aside from the most important days of the racing season, there will never again be a vibrant atmosphere at most racetracks. Saratoga, Keeneland and Del Mar, along with Tampa Bay Downs and Oaklawn, are the exceptions and share the strength of the short, clearly defined seasons coupled with inviting ambiance.
… Racing differs from other sports in every conceivable way.
Most importantly, it is not a spectator sport but rather participatory through wagering, which is its central nervous system. …
… Racing has no equivalent to Mark Cuban but certainly could use such a personality. In this sport, original thinking and an outside-the-box approach will surely be rebuffed.
… The term “fan” in racing, except in rare and short-lived circumstance, is not applicable. There are only horseplayers, most of whom have no interest in being at Aqueduct or Hawthorne or Laurel Park on a daily or even occasional basis.
… Repeat after me: There are no fans. There are only horseplayers. They are already out there. You just don’t see them. They pay attention but they are not particularly happy. A look at the races being run today at most tracks may provide some insight as to the source of this displeasure. So, lacking opportunity, they put less money at risk. To make matters worse, they are suffering the same economic hardships that plague pretty much everyone in the world at the moment.
Bringing them back to Aqueduct, Hawthorne, Laurel Park, Turfway Park is not an option.
Work with what you still have.I disagreed somewhat in my own comment there, but this article is among the best of a slew of recent good ones addressing racing's problems.
BIG49010
12-11-2008, 09:46 PM
Should be mail to every racing executive.
George Sands
12-11-2008, 11:17 PM
CG,
You are right ... it would have gone out of the old Yankee Stadium.
He needs an editor over there, Indulto. Badly. I'm not talking about his points. I'm talking about his writing. It is a mess, beginning with his first sentence and going all the way to the end. There is no way that he read this whole thing even once before posting it. I'll give examples if you like, but I think you'll see for yourself if you reread it slowly. And it's a shame because he does have something to say.
jballscalls
12-11-2008, 11:58 PM
I agree with some of the sentiments in his article, but to some degree, doesnt every horseplayer start out as a fan?? so often you hear us say that our dad took us out to the races and taught us how to read the form etc. But i know when i was a kid it was more about the sport than the gambling. then it evolved into the gaming part as i got older.
So the question we the tracks need to answer is not only how to please horseplayers, but how to create them.
magwell
12-12-2008, 12:42 AM
He needs an editor over there, Indulto. Badly. I'm not talking about his points. I'm talking about his writing. It is a mess, beginning with his first sentence and going all the way to the end. There is no way that he read this whole thing even once before posting it. I'll give examples if you like, but I think you'll see for yourself if you reread it slowly. And it's a shame because he does have something to say. Morans article was one of the best ever posted here.... now please give examples why you say it was a mess.....:confused:
Indulto
12-12-2008, 12:55 AM
He needs an editor over there, Indulto. Badly. I'm not talking about his points. I'm talking about his writing. It is a mess, beginning with his first sentence and going all the way to the end. There is no way that he read this whole thing even once before posting it. I'll give examples if you like, but I think you'll see for yourself if you reread it slowly. And it's a shame because he does have something to say.Since when did you ever need my permission to diminish anyone's work? ;)
Since you fancy yourself a literary critic, by all means, display your wares. If your points are valid, I hope you'll also give him a chance to address them as a comment at his site.
trying2win
12-12-2008, 01:41 AM
Cangamble,
--Thanks for the link to the article.
--I thought Paul Moran was 'right on the money' in his article here.
--As for the criticism for Paul Moran's typos etc, I only noticed one as I read the article...i.e. about 'price gauging'...I'm sure Paul meant to say 'price gouging'. He's right about that in many ways. Just look at some of the concession prices at a racetrack :D. I guess the exorbitant track takeout in some cases at various racetracks, could be said to be a form of 'price gouging' too.
T2W
ralph_the_cat
12-12-2008, 01:55 AM
a good read?:lol:
there are no fans?... just horseplayers?... you have to be an ass to write a long article like that with "there are no fans just horseplayers" being the one thing you want me to walk away with after reading the article... He bad mouths everyone else for not seeing the industry properly, which I would agree with some what, but yet this guy cant even seem to put the industry in perspective...
there are no fans... :rolleyes: geez, this guy has it all figured out... :rolleyes:
please... just another rant... :ThmbDown:
if betting was banned and they ran the derby off BC fees no one would watch the derby?...
even the smaller stuff going on in the industry,
Is there anyone out there thats going to watch Marble Cliffs race tomorrow at TP but probably not even bet on it?... is there anyone out there that watched peppers prides last race or 2 and didnt even bet it?... but just wanted to watch it because they're a FAN of horse racing?... You might as well just delete the thread you guys have on here with all the old classic races from years past... we cant bet on them, so why would we watch it?... we're not fans right?... please... :ThmbDown:
George Sands
12-12-2008, 02:18 AM
Since when did you ever need my permission to diminish anyone's work? ;)
Since you fancy yourself a literary critic, by all means, display your wares. If your points are valid, I hope you'll also give him a chance to address them as a comment at his site.
You are the Indulto who made a post calling Andy Beyer's work "professionally obnoxious," right? Did you see Moran's title? Is he diminishing anyone's work?
George Sands
12-12-2008, 02:45 AM
Morans article was one of the best ever posted here.... now please give examples why you say it was a mess.....:confused:
The beginning of his very first sentence (!) is a debacle that would never get by an editor. Here it is:
"In a revealing Monday analysis of declining betting receipts that began late in the 20th Century and has since steepened that appeared on his site,"
An editor would not allow him to ruin his opening by running "steepened" into "that."
More:
" just like the nations nation’s racing hippodromes."
"It is difficult to imagine Magna’s long-term survival is unlikely and the most devastating failure in the racing’s history is almost assuredly at hand."
"price gauging"
"When racetrack crowds were large, there were no legal gambling alternatives outside Nevada, clearly defined seasons, no off-site options, no Internet and no in-home simulcasting."
He also blew off necessary commas all over the place, but I have to stop somewhere.
Indulto
12-12-2008, 03:57 AM
You are the Indulto who made a post calling Andy Beyer's work "professionally obnoxious," right? Did you see Moran's title? Is he diminishing anyone's work?You're trying to sic tlg on me, right? ;)
I remember posting to the effect that being obnoxious was sometimes a part of Beyer's professional "schtick" (SP?) as opposed to being an obnoxious professional or obnoxious to professionals or however else it may have been interpreted. I also remember you making a big deal about it at the time, so -- given your MO -- I'm sure that poorly-phrased text must be an archive search key.
Of course Moran is diminishing the work of others. That's what he got paid to do and earned awards for -- as opposed to having nothing better to do like us message board posters.:eek:
Industry leadership IS blind to what's happening, deaf to its customers, and in some cases, just dumb!
In the mean time, you're obviously avoiding backing up your claims about Moran. :D
OK, I just saw your post. Go apply for the job.:lol:
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 06:11 AM
a good read?:lol:
there are no fans?... just horseplayers?... you have to be an ass to write a long article like that with "there are no fans just horseplayers" being the one thing you want me to walk away with after reading the article... He bad mouths everyone else for not seeing the industry properly, which I would agree with some what, but yet this guy cant even seem to put the industry in perspective...
there are no fans... :rolleyes: geez, this guy has it all figured out... :rolleyes:
please... just another rant... :ThmbDown:
if betting was banned and they ran the derby off BC fees no one would watch the derby?...
even the smaller stuff going on in the industry,
Is there anyone out there thats going to watch Marble Cliffs race tomorrow at TP but probably not even bet on it?... is there anyone out there that watched peppers prides last race or 2 and didnt even bet it?... but just wanted to watch it because they're a FAN of horse racing?... You might as well just delete the thread you guys have on here with all the old classic races from years past... we cant bet on them, so why would we watch it?... we're not fans right?... please... :ThmbDown:
The so-called fans do not support the industry financially enough to make it even close being viable, only the horseplayer does.
Fans are in affect useless to the bottom line. And Moran is making the point by disregarding them as not even existing. In the business bottom line side of things, fans don't exist, only horseplayers do.
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 06:20 AM
I agree with some of the sentiments in his article, but to some degree, doesnt every horseplayer start out as a fan?? so often you hear us say that our dad took us out to the races and taught us how to read the form etc. But i know when i was a kid it was more about the sport than the gambling. then it evolved into the gaming part as i got older.
So the question we the tracks need to answer is not only how to please horseplayers, but how to create them.
Almost every horseplayer I know started out as a friend or family of a gambling participant or an owner trainer.
Almost all of them started to gamble because the game was much more beatable (if good enough) up until the early 90's when Beyer figs showed up in the form and other forms of gambling like lotteries and slots took away a lot of the mooch money as horse racing stopped being the only game in town.
What would attract a new customer? What it boils down to is the opportunity to become a long term winner and/or an equal bang for the gamblers buck.
We know there are long term winners at poker, and they are advertised in front of us....this caused many young gamblers to go the poker route.
Who is the poster boy for horse race gambling? And it has to be someone who doesn't receive rebates, because rebates are not something the tracks want to advertise.
Zman179
12-12-2008, 08:54 AM
there are no fans?... just horseplayers?... you have to be an ass to write a long article like that with "there are no fans just horseplayers" being the one thing you want me to walk away with after reading the article... He bad mouths everyone else for not seeing the industry properly, which I would agree with some what, but yet this guy cant even seem to put the industry in perspective...
there are no fans... :rolleyes: geez, this guy has it all figured out
I actually agree with Moran's statement.
How many people in racing do you see wearing racing paraphernalia such as jackets, caps, etc.? 90% of the time it's either an owner or trainer. Or how many people would go around to the different tracks of the country like some devoted baseball fans would visit stadiums? Many times when a horseplayer visits a new track it is because he has either business to attend in that city, or happens to be there on vacation. You can't be a fan of a racehorse like you can with a sports player because as soon as the horse gets good and begins to attract attention, 99 times out of 100 that horse will be retired in a few months; the sports player will stick around until at least the end of his contract. A New York sports fan would wear his Mets/Yankees/Jets, etc. jacket with pride in his team. You see someone walking with an Aqueduct jacket and the first word that comes to mind is "homeless", and that's IF you see someone walking around in an Aqueduct jacket. Racing doesn't give itself to create a true fanbase not only because of the greed of owners, trainers and especially breeders, but also because 90% of tracks treat their customers as trespassers.
So...no, I don't believe that racing has fans to a large extent. Sure there are some who are really fans, but that number is very low. Barely enough to be represented in a pie chart compared to racing's current clientèle. In fact, I'd take it a step further. I'd say that the actual makeup of racing's customers is 25% horseplayers and 75% gamblers.
if betting was banned and they ran the derby off BC fees no one would watch the derby?...
Eventually, no. It wouldn't happen immediately, but the race would probably fade away within 10 years. There is a reason why the race is so popular: everyone's got a flutter on the race. Take away the gambling and everyone will be saying, "Kentucky what?" Besides, the BC fees would be next to nothing because the BC couldn't make any money. How?!? There's no gambling!!
aaron
12-12-2008, 09:34 AM
A great article by Moran. The race track executives just don't get it. NYRA is 10 years too late with giving free parking and admission at Aqueduct. I assume NYRA will probably charge for parking and admission at Belmont where they average attendance during the week is 3000. Gulfstream ruined a great race track.
I like live racing,but it is so much easier betting from home or from a local otb. I used to go to the track 3-4 times a week,now I seldom go.
The only way players might be brought back to the track is to have a lower take out on track. In other words if you bet thru your account on track you get a take out reduction. This could be programmed into computers on track in the same way the additional takeout is programmed into computers at otb.
I've seen many big bettors leave the track in the last 10-15 years. Most of them are still betting. They are betting offshore or thru otb's so the track's take becomes significantly less.
jballscalls
12-12-2008, 11:28 AM
What would attract a new customer? What it boils down to is the opportunity to become a long term winner and/or an equal bang for the gamblers buck.
We know there are long term winners at poker, and they are advertised in front of us....this caused many young gamblers to go the poker route.
Who is the poster boy for horse race gambling? And it has to be someone who doesn't receive rebates, because rebates are not something the tracks want to advertise.
Half of the guys who you see on ESPN that are called poker pro's are busted. they get put into the games by syndicates or just dudes with massive cash. So they surely arent beating the game. Any many of the ones arent beating the games, they are just making so much in endorsements that they are up $$.
I think one of the problems is that new aspiring gamblers see poker as a skill game and horse racing as a luck game. I have friends that will come out to the track, look at the pp's and be like "what is this crap"
I have no idea who could be a poster boy for horse race gambling. The guys i know who beat the game regulary and beat it for a good amount (mind you thats 2 people) are very apprehensive about anyone knowing who they are.
Anyways, i like hearing what horseplayers have to say on these topics, because in the end we all need to work together to get this ship back on track.
OTM Al
12-12-2008, 11:30 AM
I've read this article a few times now and thought about it a bit because on my initial thought, something wasn't quite right.
First though, let me say that it was very well written and is the type of writing that has been sorely lacking from Mr. Moran for some time. While I have been highly critical of him in the past, I never had issue with his ability as a writer. As this article and the subsequent reaction to it shows, he can argue well and state his case in an excellent manner. What I have felt is most lacking with Mr. Moran is his abilty as a journalist, and I continue to see that in this article. He continually is lacking in concrete fact and often fills his pieces with innuendo and personal opinion. Since he is a blogger these days, the use of such a technique, while ethically irresponsible from the point of actual journalism, is acceptable as long as readers can distinguish that they are not neccessarily reading fact, but rather opinion.
As to the article itself, it is clear why there would be so much approval on this board and by the commenters on his. His main point is that tracks should concentrate all efforts on the horseplayer. Well, we are his target audience and he is saying something that seems to be of benefit to us, so it sounds great. However as I think about what he has said and the reaction that has been posted, I am reminded of that saying about being careful of what you wish for.
I find his ideas shortsighted, the same complaint he seems to lodge against management of the tracks. If tracks would solely concentrate, as he says, on what they already have rather than trying to build fans, eventually what they will have is nothing. Fans become horseplayers. People must be attracted to the sport before they are going to want to gamble on it. I know several people who like to gamble who won't touch the horses. To a person the reason they say they won't do it is because they know nothing about it. They see it occasionally and some think it may even be interesting, but there isn't that thing there that has attracted them to it. Had they been made fans, then their dollars likely would have followed.
Exposure is what is needed to create fans. Fans are what is needed to create horseplayers. I'm sure there are a few straight sports bettors out there who could care less about the game, but the vast majority of people who bet football, were attracted to the game first. The betting just made it more pleasurable to them.
He is partially right in the respect that the push, at least in the initial stages of creating fans is not getting them straight out to the track. I liken it to how our potential graduate students are eventually won over to come to the school I work at. First, they become interested in the subject matter. We do certain advertising to make them aware of our school. They do their own research and looking around and learning. It is often the final sale that comes when they actually come here. There is time and effort that must be invested in that. Just grabbing someone off the street and trying to pull them in before all else simply wouldn't work. Some it will, but the vast majority are going to need that spark of interest first.
Racing screwed the pooch when it became so proprietary over its signal. Understandable at the time because back then everyone had their corner bookie and nothing AT THAT TIME would have immediately benefited the tracks. Now we call it short sighted. Yes, customer service can always be improved. Existing horseplayers can and should be treated with exactly the respect due to them. However, to cater only to them would be beyond foolish. Because eventually they will all be gone and then there will be nothing.
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 11:58 AM
:1:Half of the guys who you see on ESPN that are called poker pro's are busted. they get put into the games by syndicates or just dudes with massive cash. So they surely arent beating the game. Any many of the ones arent beating the games, they are just making so much in endorsements that they are up $$.
:2:I think one of the problems is that new aspiring gamblers see poker as a skill game and horse racing as a luck game. I have friends that will come out to the track, look at the pp's and be like "what is this crap"
:3:I have no idea who could be a poster boy for horse race gambling. The guys i know who beat the game regulary and beat it for a good amount (mind you thats 2 people) are very apprehensive about anyone knowing who they are.
:4:Anyways, i like hearing what horseplayers have to say on these topics, because in the end we all need to work together to get this ship back on track.
:1: They are perceived as making big money. And there are a few that actually win big. That is what matters. Online poker players have been created because of these players, and since the rake is low in poker, actual online long term winners have been created.
:2:I think you might have it mixed up. I can't see how anyone would look at a form and not believe horse racing is a huge game of skill. Like all gambling though, luck plays a big role. Poker doesn't require mounds of reading and learning to be adequate at it. And good poker players win, while the vast majority of good handicappers lose thanks to the high takeouts.
:3: Create enough winners and someone will squawk about it. We have quite a few squawkers on this board. Not sure if they are long term winners though:) BTW, do those winners get rebates, and if not, why not?
:4: Without horseplayers there is no game.
jballscalls
12-12-2008, 12:56 PM
:1: They are perceived as making big money. And there are a few that actually win big. That is what matters. Online poker players have been created because of these players, and since the rake is low in poker, actual online long term winners have been created.
:2:I think you might have it mixed up. I can't see how anyone would look at a form and not believe horse racing is a huge game of skill. Like all gambling though, luck plays a big role. Poker doesn't require mounds of reading and learning to be adequate at it. And good poker players win, while the vast majority of good handicappers lose thanks to the high takeouts.
:3: Create enough winners and someone will squawk about it. We have quite a few squawkers on this board. Not sure if they are long term winners though:) BTW, do those winners get rebates, and if not, why not?
:4: Without horseplayers there is no game.
thank you for numbering the points LOL
:1a: the rake in poker is low, unless your playing a small limit game like most people are. In my mom's poker house the rake is 3 dollars for the house and 2 dollars for various jackpots, and that is in the 4/8 games as well as up to the 20/40 games. So in a 4/8 game where the average pot is 20 to 40 dollars, its a significant amount. not to mention most players tip a dollar or two for every pot. And 4/8 is usually about half of our business. But in any bigger game, the rake % is wayyyyy lower than horse racing.
:2b: All my friends who are casual track goers think racing is just animals running around in a circle with a not very smart man on top of them. they think its a crap shoot. Maybe my friends are different than the normal casual fan though.
:3x: I agree with you, there are lots of squawkers!! i dont know anything about rebates as i've never worked in management or in mutuels.
:4: Without Horseplayers there is no game. Without horseman there is no game. Without the tracks there is no game. like i said we all need each other. The difference is horseplayers can take their money elsewhere to other venues of gaming. That is why they are THE most important factor. Customer service in this industry definately has a long way to go.
ralph_the_cat
12-12-2008, 01:00 PM
The so-called fans do not support the industry financially enough to make it even close being viable, only the horseplayer does.
Fans are in affect useless to the bottom line. And Moran is making the point by disregarding them as not even existing. In the business bottom line side of things, fans don't exist, only horseplayers do.
wait a minute... the fans do not support the sport financially?... with todays technology, fans are the ones that show up to support the industry with on track attendance and handle... on track handle is the most important to the industry because it lets them keep the highest percentage of money... and suddenly a fan can not be a horseplayer too?... If you took the fans away from the sport you would have next to nothing with on track handle and only a bunch of bitter horseplayers complaining from their computer monitors about how the "industry doesnt know whats going on"... theres people that keep talking about promoting the sport and we want to do it with out fans?... what?...
OTM Al
12-12-2008, 01:09 PM
thank you for numbering the points LOL
:1a: the rake in poker is low, unless your playing a small limit game like most people are. In my mom's poker house the rake is 3 dollars for the house and 2 dollars for various jackpots, and that is in the 4/8 games as well as up to the 20/40 games. So in a 4/8 game where the average pot is 20 to 40 dollars, its a significant amount. not to mention most players tip a dollar or two for every pot. And 4/8 is usually about half of our business. But in any bigger game, the rake % is wayyyyy lower than horse racing.
:4: Without Horseplayers there is no game. Without horseman there is no game. Without the tracks there is no game. like i said we all need each other. The difference is horseplayers can take their money elsewhere to other venues of gaming. That is why they are THE most important factor. Customer service in this industry definately has a long way to go.
Would like to comment on these two points.
Comparing takeout on a single race and the rake on a single hand or pull (push these days I guess...) of a slot is the most overused and inaccurate comparisons there are between the two. They don't take into account timing. How many races do you bet in an hour? How many times can you hit the button on a slot machine or hands can you play in the same time? That is the real comparison. Not a poker player, but I guarantee you the slots will suck more money away from you in the same amount of time than any takeout at any track does.
Horseplayers are not the most important factor. No one is the MOST important. Everyone can take their money and go home and if the game cannot be played with out all the elements, then they are all of equal importance.
ralph_the_cat
12-12-2008, 01:10 PM
I actually agree with Moran's statement.
How many people in racing do you see wearing racing paraphernalia such as jackets, caps, etc.? 90% of the time it's either an owner or trainer. Or how many people would go around to the different tracks of the country like some devoted baseball fans would visit stadiums? Many times when a horseplayer visits a new track it is because he has either business to attend in that city, or happens to be there on vacation. You can't be a fan of a racehorse like you can with a sports player because as soon as the horse gets good and begins to attract attention, 99 times out of 100 that horse will be retired in a few months; the sports player will stick around until at least the end of his contract. A New York sports fan would wear his Mets/Yankees/Jets, etc. jacket with pride in his team. You see someone walking with an Aqueduct jacket and the first word that comes to mind is "homeless", and that's IF you see someone walking around in an Aqueduct jacket. Racing doesn't give itself to create a true fanbase not only because of the greed of owners, trainers and especially breeders, but also because 90% of tracks treat their customers as trespassers.
So...no, I don't believe that racing has fans to a large extent. Sure there are some who are really fans, but that number is very low. Barely enough to be represented in a pie chart compared to racing's current clientèle. In fact, I'd take it a step further. I'd say that the actual makeup of racing's customers is 25% horseplayers and 75% gamblers.
Eventually, no. It wouldn't happen immediately, but the race would probably fade away within 10 years. There is a reason why the race is so popular: everyone's got a flutter on the race. Take away the gambling and everyone will be saying, "Kentucky what?" Besides, the BC fees would be next to nothing because the BC couldn't make any money. How?!? There's no gambling!!
Suddenly you have to wear a cap with smarty jones on it to be a fan?... ive been a fan of the Steelers since I was 3 years old, rarely miss a game and Ive never owned a Steelers cap or jersey in my life... theres more to it than that...
and I still dont get the idea that you guys dont think FANs bet horse racing...
Every announcer on here and every talking head host got a job at a track because they are a fan of the sport...
I have to be just talking to maybe the 3 or 4 people that arent fans... because its hard to believe that you guys are buying into what a "fan" is or isnt... A fan cant be a horseplayer too? they have to transition from a fan to a horseplayer?... where did this rule come about?... I dont get it... :bang: and Im not going to try and get it... I will admit other parts of the article are good, but the fan part is just plain stupid IMO...
jballscalls
12-12-2008, 01:27 PM
Every announcer on here and every talking head host got a job at a track because they are a fan of the sport...
I...
that and we could never work a real job!!
ralph_the_cat
12-12-2008, 01:40 PM
that and we could never work a real job!!
you could be the voice at grocery stores... "on the inside comes Mrs. Thompson and between shopping carts is Mr. Smith, a 1/16th out from the cashier and Ms. Johnson comes out of no where to get in line first!... Thats Ms. Johnsons 3rd checkout of the month... :lol:
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 01:56 PM
wait a minute... the fans do not support the sport financially?... with todays technology, fans are the ones that show up to support the industry with on track attendance and handle... on track handle is the most important to the industry because it lets them keep the highest percentage of money... and suddenly a fan can not be a horseplayer too?... If you took the fans away from the sport you would have next to nothing with on track handle and only a bunch of bitter horseplayers complaining from their computer monitors about how the "industry doesnt know whats going on"... theres people that keep talking about promoting the sport and we want to do it with out fans?... what?...
Race tracks are lucky to break even in Canada from those who show up at the track.
Remember, HPI is WEGs own ADW, so they get the money as if the person showed up live from the majority of hot markets in Canada.
They don't even keep attendance numbers because parking and admission is free.
Compare to online poker, and racing just needs online players to survive.
Besides, many who go to the track are horseplayers by definition. What percentage are fans anyway? And by fan, I would say someone who comes a couple times a year or less, and doesn't bet much.
ralph_the_cat
12-12-2008, 03:01 PM
Compare to online poker, and racing just needs online players to survive.
I think you're way, way off there... only if the ADWs gave the same percantage to the race track as on-track handle does, otherwise... you would be wrong with that statement as far as an overall statement of the industry.... HP showed they could run with out online revenue for some time, they couldnt run without on track handle... they would be crippled...
and the writer of this article is making up his own definition of a "fan"... I guess its up to the reader to buy into it or not... but I still take the word "fan" literally...
ezrabrooks
12-12-2008, 03:17 PM
What we need is a track designed just for off track wagering. No fans, just an oval, backside and booths for stewards.. Run them 24/7...with no overhead..
Ez
DeanT
12-12-2008, 03:20 PM
Horseplayers are not the most important factor.
Of course they are Al. They are the ones with a choice. They are the customer.
Flip it to Wal Mart. Ask Sam Walton who the most important person is. He can build a store, he can line up suppliers, but if no one buys anything he has no business. He has the option of building a different store, moving online, or selling his store for a parking lot, but without customers he is nothing.
Once again, as Beyer says "the racing business is one which thinks the rules of capitalism does not apply to them." It is not more apparent than this argument, imo. No business in this entire world would ever say that distributors or suppliers are the most important part of it. But in racing this fallacy is repeated without repudiation, like it is somehow fact.
CincyHorseplayer
12-12-2008, 03:23 PM
Racing needs both fans and horseplayers.Without new blood the game will die off.To me fan and horseplayer are one and the same because I'm both.But racing needs to recognize the needs and implications of both.
It seems as if racetrack executives would be bubbling with enthusiasm if there were 200 people on track on a weekday card that were "Fans",spending $20 on concessions and making $2 win/place bets on 10 races for a handle of $12,000.00 and they want to bend over backwards to attract this crowd to the game so they'll become "Horseplayers".
Then the metamorphosis occurs.A fan becomes an ardent horseplayer.Then is promptly ignored,underappreciated,and frowned upon in some cases as a "Degenerate Horseplayer".
Yet back to the weekday card scenario.If for every 200 fans you have another 100 horseplayers,what is their handle??I'm a $20-30 bettor and will bet about $100-$150 a day but I know players who are $200 bettors and will bet about 3 races on a card for $600 a day.If you have 50 of each the handle is $36,250.00.
So racing has to figure out where it's priorities are.They should be both to varying degrees.If they want to cater to hot dog eaters and beer drinkers there's nothing wrong with that.But they just have to remember that the 33% in attendance who make for 75% of the handle need to be a priority too and in general shown some respect to and for.
OTM Al
12-12-2008, 04:21 PM
Of course they are Al. They are the ones with a choice. They are the customer.
Flip it to Wal Mart. Ask Sam Walton who the most important person is. He can build a store, he can line up suppliers, but if no one buys anything he has no business. He has the option of building a different store, moving online, or selling his store for a parking lot, but without customers he is nothing.
Once again, as Beyer says "the racing business is one which thinks the rules of capitalism does not apply to them." It is not more apparent than this argument, imo. No business in this entire world would ever say that distributors or suppliers are the most important part of it. But in racing this fallacy is repeated without repudiation, like it is somehow fact.
This is a bad comparison because there is a separate type of customer in racing, the owners of the horses. Racing happened for a very long time without tracks getting a cut of betting. Certainly racing couldn't be going on at 30 different tracks at a time with such a model but there's a place over in England called Newmarket that's been around a lot longer than parimutual wagering with takeouts.
Look, I'm not arguing that bettors are not important. With the way racing is now run, they are absolutely needed. But so too are the other elements. To call one element the most important means that the enterprise could not survive without it moreso than any other factor, so if you want the historical arguement, it would state then that the horseplayer is the least important element. Now I wouldn't say that either and trying to rank one as more important than any other to me is a waste of time as well as meaningless. All the elements are important and all are needed. The job is to make them work together in the best way to give the best possible outcomes to all involved.
DeanT
12-12-2008, 04:41 PM
it would state then that the horseplayer is the least important element.
People have players ranked fourth on the pecking order for the last 100 years, so I would say that is in tune with racing.
I am a horse owner as well Al. I am just not delusional enough to think I am more important than the people who supply the purses I race for. If we supply our own purses, and bettors bet the product with zero takeout, then I am important. Until then the customer is.
A car company does not say the steel company is most important.
A steel company does not say the iron mine is most important.
The people who supply them with revenue are most important.
Somehow I am supposed to believe me shelling out $12000 for a claimer and racing next week for a $12000 that bettors pay for is important. It is nonsense. If I dont buy that horse someone else will, but there is only one bettor and supplies me with the only revenue I receive.
point given
12-12-2008, 05:10 PM
A great article by Moran. The race track executives just don't get it. NYRA is 10 years too late with giving free parking and admission at Aqueduct. I assume NYRA will probably charge for parking and admission at Belmont where they average attendance during the week is 3000. Gulfstream ruined a great race track.
I like live racing,but it is so much easier betting from home or from a local otb. I used to go to the track 3-4 times a week,now I seldom go.
The only way players might be brought back to the track is to have a lower take out on track. In other words if you bet thru your account on track you get a take out reduction. This could be programmed into computers on track in the same way the additional takeout is programmed into computers at otb.
I've seen many big bettors leave the track in the last 10-15 years. Most of them are still betting. They are betting offshore or thru otb's so the track's take becomes significantly less.
Aaron - Thank you, finally I hear an echo in the canyon. I 've been espousing a lower takeout on track for years now ! The only reason bettors bet with rebaters is $$, so take the rebaters out of the equation and return the $$ to the live player and your own coffers, if you are an intelligent CFO. How many people on this board would go to the track more often if the takeout was 5-10% less ? The ontrack rebate programs are mainly for whales who bet a minimum of $50K per month. At what point does it make sense for them to offer lower wagering horseplayers a break ?
Imriledup
12-12-2008, 05:32 PM
Of course they are Al. They are the ones with a choice. They are the customer.
Flip it to Wal Mart. Ask Sam Walton who the most important person is. He can build a store, he can line up suppliers, but if no one buys anything he has no business. He has the option of building a different store, moving online, or selling his store for a parking lot, but without customers he is nothing.
Once again, as Beyer says "the racing business is one which thinks the rules of capitalism does not apply to them." It is not more apparent than this argument, imo. No business in this entire world would ever say that distributors or suppliers are the most important part of it. But in racing this fallacy is repeated without repudiation, like it is somehow fact.
Racing is running itself like a monopoly, sort of how Vegas is running itself as a monopoly.
There's a lot of racetracks and very few owners. Why won't a major racetrack, such as NYRA (for example), just lower their takeouts drastically, to 10pct across the board? Do they not think that almost every big bettor will start betting their races? If NYRA decided to slash their takeouts to 10pct, would you transfer your allegiances to that place?
Its almost as if all these racetracks are in bed with each other and no one will budge their takeout rates and try and get customers from other tracks.
I agree with you, tracks basically tell fans take it or leave it. Problem is, most are leaving it.
DeanT
12-12-2008, 05:53 PM
Racing is running itself like a monopoly
That is correct.
A business depends on a customer to survive; a customer does not depend on a business to survive.
Until racing learns that simple point that we all use in our everyday lives we will continue to be in trouble (imo)
Indulto
12-12-2008, 05:55 PM
This is a bad comparison because there is a separate type of customer in racing, the owners of the horses. Racing happened for a very long time without tracks getting a cut of betting. Certainly racing couldn't be going on at 30 different tracks at a time with such a model but there's a place over in England called Newmarket that's been around a lot longer than parimutual wagering with takeouts.
Look, I'm not arguing that bettors are not important. With the way racing is now run, they are absolutely needed. But so too are the other elements. To call one element the most important means that the enterprise could not survive without it moreso than any other factor, so if you want the historical arguement, it would state then that the horseplayer is the least important element. Now I wouldn't say that either and trying to rank one as more important than any other to me is a waste of time as well as meaningless. All the elements are important and all are needed. The job is to make them work together in the best way to give the best possible outcomes to all involved.I agree, OA.
IMO it will take a coalition of horsmen and horseplayers to really address racing's ills. I'm still convinced it will take coordinated handle-withholding to get the ball rolling and horseplayers a seat at the table, but as I commented on the site, a fair game for all involved should be the objective.
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 08:46 PM
This is a bad comparison because there is a separate type of customer in racing, the owners of the horses. Racing happened for a very long time without tracks getting a cut of betting. Certainly racing couldn't be going on at 30 different tracks at a time with such a model but there's a place over in England called Newmarket that's been around a lot longer than parimutual wagering with takeouts.
Look, I'm not arguing that bettors are not important. With the way racing is now run, they are absolutely needed. But so too are the other elements. To call one element the most important means that the enterprise could not survive without it moreso than any other factor, so if you want the historical arguement, it would state then that the horseplayer is the least important element. Now I wouldn't say that either and trying to rank one as more important than any other to me is a waste of time as well as meaningless. All the elements are important and all are needed. The job is to make them work together in the best way to give the best possible outcomes to all involved.
Horse racing in North America would not exist without bettors.
Bettors may prefer horses, but don't need horses to bet on.
We can bet poker, football, cockroaches, etc.
Track owners are next in importance.
Without them, horses would have nowhere to run. Yet owners could invest in casinos or just have slots if laws permit, or they can own another business altogether non gambling related. But without gamblers, they go broke in the gambling business.
Horsemen are least important in the scheme of things. They are totally dependent on betting monies.
That is just reality. No offense to the horsemen at all.
Cangamble
12-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Aaron - Thank you, finally I hear an echo in the canyon. I 've been espousing a lower takeout on track for years now ! The only reason bettors bet with rebaters is $$, so take the rebaters out of the equation and return the $$ to the live player and your own coffers, if you are an intelligent CFO. How many people on this board would go to the track more often if the takeout was 5-10% less ? The ontrack rebate programs are mainly for whales who bet a minimum of $50K per month. At what point does it make sense for them to offer lower wagering horseplayers a break ?
As far as Woodbine and HPI is concerned, it is more cost efficient for the home market player to bet over a computer from home.
Horse racing in North America would not exist without bettors.
Of course it would.
Steeplechase “exists” largely from corporate sponsorship for example. Dubai couldn’t tell a mutual clerk from a port security guard and they still “exist”.
Without us (the gambler) the game changes completely in size and scope, but it still continues in a limited fashion. Without owners however; we would all be in a cut throat dice game in the parking lot.
Imriledup
12-12-2008, 10:24 PM
Horse racing in North America would not exist without bettors.
Bettors may prefer horses, but don't need horses to bet on.
We can bet poker, football, cockroaches, etc.
Track owners are next in importance.
Without them, horses would have nowhere to run. Yet owners could invest in casinos or just have slots if laws permit, or they can own another business altogether non gambling related. But without gamblers, they go broke in the gambling business.
Horsemen are least important in the scheme of things. They are totally dependent on betting monies.
That is just reality. No offense to the horsemen at all.
Good point about the cockroaches. Bettors are betting on BETS not horses. What 'game' they present us doesn't mean all that much, all we care about is takeout rate, pool size, etc. If bettors have to indirectly 'feed' thoroughbred racehorses, well, that's not going to work too well.
chickenhead
12-12-2008, 10:29 PM
This is a bad comparison because there is a separate type of customer in racing, the owners of the horses.
Owners aren't customers, they are vendors.
And of course vendors are important, in any business. But a business doesn't exist to give vendors business, it exists to fulfill customer needs. At the end of the day, you are paying the vendor to do something. The customer is paying you.
Now here we are in racing, where the customer interest is declining. There is increased competition. It's a classic margin squeeze. The world has changed, and margins will never be the same as they were in a monopolized world. This is something racing needs to come to grips with.
Margins will never be the same.
Hence, the vendors are hurting, they aren't getting paid properly. There are really only two solutions, either increase the demand, or cut the supply. Wishing for higher margins isn't going to get it done. Coming up with a game plan to prosper in a new, competitive, and hence lower margin world, might.
Now here we are in racing, where the customer interest is declining. There is increased competition. It's a classic margin squeeze. The world has changed, and margins will never be the same as they were in a monopolized world. This is something racing needs to come to grips with.
Margins will never be the same.
Hence, the vendors are hurting, they aren't getting paid properly. There are really only two solutions, either increase the demand, or cut the supply. Wishing for higher margins isn't going to get it done. Coming up with a game plan to prosper in a new, competitive, and hence lower margin world, might.
You’re much too rational Chick.
DeanT
12-12-2008, 11:20 PM
I read an article a few years ago, which as an owner I found nasty, but as a bettor I found interesting.
In essence: most tracks have scores of land and a backstretch, so the thought was for a track to buy up 1000 horses, and pay trainers to train them. No incentive with wins and losses, no vet work done without approval, the barns are all under scrutiny - so no customer moaning aboutr drugs. The classes are written for those horses and those horses only, so full fields are assured. The horses are not allowed to leave the grounds.
The track gets all the revenue, all simlucast cash, everything. No fighting with a horseman group, no scheduling of racedates and all that jazz; none of that.
I wonder if it would work? It is not dissimilar to Hong Kong.
DeanT
12-12-2008, 11:37 PM
Hence, the vendors are hurting, they aren't getting paid properly.
We're getting paid very well, especially in slotsville. But our costs have doubled. Don't kid yourself, there are people getting very rich in this business.
Nice post, tho. :ThmbUp:
I just thought about the 1000 horse place above. I would bet it. I would be able to model it well, I would know the horses, I would not have to figure how far a horse might fall if claimed off a Catalano, I would not have to deal with him off the claim too. Horses would not race lame because the vet would not allow it as he knows all the horses being an employee. It would be more formful, and I would probably have to watch very few breakdowns. Fields would have ten horses and be filled to be competitive, because there is no crazy trainer dropping a horse into something because they know no one will claim off them and the race office would make it so.
I would bet that place.
bobbyb
12-13-2008, 07:56 AM
Why would NA Racetracks model themselves after Hong Kong or Australia for that matter? Perhaps there were concerns about where to put 40 to 50 thousand people :bang:
bobby
rastajenk
12-13-2008, 08:28 AM
That model sounds like dog racing.
I would take the current format, flaws and all, over that any day.
Cangamble
12-13-2008, 09:38 AM
I read an article a few years ago, which as an owner I found nasty, but as a bettor I found interesting.
In essence: most tracks have scores of land and a backstretch, so the thought was for a track to buy up 1000 horses, and pay trainers to train them. No incentive with wins and losses, no vet work done without approval, the barns are all under scrutiny - so no customer moaning aboutr drugs. The classes are written for those horses and those horses only, so full fields are assured. The horses are not allowed to leave the grounds.
The track gets all the revenue, all simlucast cash, everything. No fighting with a horseman group, no scheduling of racedates and all that jazz; none of that.
I wonder if it would work? It is not dissimilar to Hong Kong.
Sounds like video racing to me. No wonder Instant Racing does so well where it is allowed.
OTM Al
12-13-2008, 10:18 AM
Owners aren't customers, they are vendors.
They are vendors from the bettor's perspective but are customers from their own. They pay entry fees, stall fees, etc. Track management must recognize both bettors and owners as customers.
Horse racing in North America would not exist without bettors.
Bettors may prefer horses, but don't need horses to bet on.
We can bet poker, football, cockroaches, etc.
Track owners are next in importance.
Without them, horses would have nowhere to run. Yet owners could invest in casinos or just have slots if laws permit, or they can own another business altogether non gambling related. But without gamblers, they go broke in the gambling business.
Horsemen are least important in the scheme of things. They are totally dependent on betting monies.
That is just reality. No offense to the horsemen at all.
This attitude is why you will not get a seat at the table and why I can't support the advocacy group that you do. Get into the discussion and start pushing others around because you think you are the most important and all you have is just another power grabbing player. All are needed and all need to find common ground if anything is to be of benefit to all.
In essence: most tracks have scores of land and a backstretch, so the thought was for a track to buy up 1000 horses, and pay trainers to train them. No incentive with wins and losses, no vet work done without approval, the barns are all under scrutiny - so no customer moaning aboutr drugs. The classes are written for those horses and those horses only, so full fields are assured. The horses are not allowed to leave the grounds.
The track gets all the revenue, all simlucast cash, everything. No fighting with a horseman group, no scheduling of racedates and all that jazz; none of that.
I wonder if it would work? It is not dissimilar to Hong Kong..
Honestly, it sounds bland and drab. No incentives to win. The animals will be nothing more than meat. No storylines that would make people pay attention. I'd rather have all the problems now than that. And frankly the problems now are no worse than they ever have been while there are more options now open than there ever has been. Growth of a fan/horseplayer base is needed more than anything and nameless faceless product has no hope of doing that. Might as well take away names like The Santa Anita Handicap, The Arlington Million, The Travers, The Kentucky Derby, etc and just label them generic race #23, #56, #134,....
Cangamble
12-13-2008, 11:23 AM
:1:They are vendors from the bettor's perspective but are customers from their own. They pay entry fees, stall fees, etc. Track management must recognize both bettors and owners as customers.
:2:This attitude is why you will not get a seat at the table and why I can't support the advocacy group that you do. Get into the discussion and start pushing others around because you think you are the most important and all you have is just another power grabbing player. All are needed and all need to find common ground if anything is to be of benefit to all.
:1: In the Wal Mart example, the owner of the race track are the Waltons. The horse owners are equal to the suppliers who fill the shelves with goods. They are the goods manufacturers, and sure they have their own infrastructure to deal with, but Wal Mart is out to put the most efficient products on the shelves so CUSTOMERS will buy them and buy often.
CUSTOMERs are the number one thing. Without CUSTOMERs Wal Mart is dead. Without Wal Mart, CUSTOMERS can still go to another store (another form of gambling).
:2: I'm stating FACT. CUSTOMERS are what makes the racing economy exist. Of course, there is common ground that can be had. But again the reality is that if horse racing doesn't satisfy CUSTOMERS we will not be so eager to keep their economy going. And it has already started to happen.
jballscalls
12-13-2008, 11:44 AM
dude, your obsessed with Walmart!! LOL If you've been to the Walmart's by my house, you would not want ANY racetrack modeling their plan after them LOLOL
So Cangamble how do u make customers happy?? In my experience in working horse racing, poker, and casino's, we gamblers would complain even if you gave us all our money back and threw in a night with Bunny down at the Dancing Bare.
So what can the tracks do?? bigger wagering menu?? smaller wagering menu? better video?? better beer prices?? more comfortable chairs?? Friendlier Tellers LOL
Notice I haven't said the one thing that you and I as bettors really want. After talking to numerous racetrack folks around the country, gov't people, HBPA people, It doesnt sound like the takeout is going down anytime soon.
DeanT
12-13-2008, 12:33 PM
why I can't support the advocacy group that you do. Get into the discussion and start pushing others around because you think you are the most important
As is your right Al, but please do not mischaracterize the group. From day one the whole vision is about growing handle and growing the game. If you look at the mission statement it is not about any sort of grab, only making the sport more mainstream, and hopefully getting pool size, and purses up. What we have tried the last decade by infighting has clearly not worked.
Cangamble
12-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Notice I haven't said the one thing that you and I as bettors really want. After talking to numerous racetrack folks around the country, gov't people, HBPA people, It doesnt sound like the takeout is going down anytime soon.
There are only two ways for racing handle to grow and for new customers to become regulars, and that is either reducing takeout considerably or rebating just about everyone.
Doesn't matter what the gov't., racetrack folk or the HBPA won't let happen. It is just reality. Plain and simple.
jballscalls
12-13-2008, 01:41 PM
There are only two ways for racing handle to grow and for new customers to become regulars, and that is either reducing takeout considerably or rebating just about everyone.
Doesn't matter what the gov't., racetrack folk or the HBPA won't let happen. It is just reality. Plain and simple.
Our handle at PM has grown every year substantially over the past 4 years. 22 percent last year and up like 30 percent this year. On track is up a ton as well.
This was done by more effective marketing, bigger field size, changing our schedule around, remodling our facility, and making customer service our #1 priority.
So there are ways to grow the sport, we've proven it here on a small level.
chickenhead
12-13-2008, 02:31 PM
They are vendors from the bettor's perspective but are customers from their own. They pay entry fees, stall fees, etc. Track management must recognize both bettors and owners as customers.
Sure, but they aren't a "net" customer. The tracks pay out more than they get paid in return, many times more.
I really don't understand why people get squeamish, or think it's untoward, for it to be suggested that the primary revenue source of a business is the most important relationship in business. Even if I had never played the horses, or planned on playing the horses, I would have the same opinion. It's not self serving if it's true.
Finding people to pay you money, is much harder than finding people to pay money too. I have found this to be a universal truth, and I hold it to be self evident.
DeanT
12-13-2008, 02:44 PM
I really don't understand why people get squeamish, or think it's untoward, for it to be suggested that the primary revenue source of a business is the most important relationship in business. Even if I had never played the horses, or planned on playing the horses, I would have the same opinion. It's not self serving if it's true.
It is odd. I don't go into Mcdonald's and thank a cattle company for supplying me with beef, they thank me for buying a burger.
I don't know why I am supposed to be fawned over for buying an horse. So what, I made an investment and I race for a purse. The customers pay for me to exist. Without purses I would not buy a horse.
Anyway, I don't think paying attention to the customer is a radical thing, but in racing it seems to be. Maybe it is because we think we're a monopoly, maybe it is just the way it is. But I think we can all agree that we better start paying attention to them.
Cangamble
12-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Our handle at PM has grown every year substantially over the past 4 years. 22 percent last year and up like 30 percent this year. On track is up a ton as well.
This was done by more effective marketing, bigger field size, changing our schedule around, remodling our facility, and making customer service our #1 priority.
So there are ways to grow the sport, we've proven it here on a small level.
I bet Prairie Meadows this year for the first time. I was partially responsible for the increase in handle I guess even though I only bet a few thousand.
But I wouldn't even know the track existed if I didn't get rebated on it.
jballscalls
12-13-2008, 04:25 PM
I bet Prairie Meadows this year for the first time. I was partially responsible for the increase in handle I guess even though I only bet a few thousand.
But I wouldn't even know the track existed if I didn't get rebated on it.
Interesting you've never heard of it til now, its been there for more than a few years.
Cangamble
12-13-2008, 05:24 PM
Interesting you've never heard of it til now, its been there for more than a few years.
I was sort of being sarcastic. What I meant was that I wouldn't even think about opening a form for Prairie Meadows if not for rebates.
jballscalls
12-13-2008, 05:31 PM
I was sort of being sarcastic. What I meant was that I wouldn't even think about opening a form for Prairie Meadows if not for rebates.
I know i was being sarcastic as well LOL See i wouldnt play Prairie cause they often have small fields. I'll take bigger fields and no rebates anyday, but thats just me. I definately see your point and have been enjoying discussing this topic.
There are no fans, only horseplayers:
http://paulmoranattheraces.blogspot.com/2008/12/blind-lead-blind-deaf-and-dumb.html
Funny, just received a survey from NYRA.com.
First question:
1. What is your relationship to the horseracing industry?
Journalist
Fan
Owner
Trainer
Other (Please Explain)
There you have it, there are no horseplayers, only fans. :mad:
Indulto
12-17-2008, 04:47 AM
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/36038699.html (http://www.lvrj.com/sports/36038699.html)
Sport's problems aren't going away
BY RICHARD ENG Dec. 12, 2008… Every segment of racing believes it is indispensable -- the horsemen, the racetracks, the simulcast bet takers, the fans, the horseplayers.
And they're correct. They all are indispensable, and that's what makes the problems facing horse racing so vexing.
All parties involved want to be treated fairly and get an equitable slice of the revenue pie. Fifteen years later, the only difference I see is that pie is shrinking.
… Meanwhile, horsemen's groups, racetracks and simulcast companies keep tearing into each other like starving animals. Trying to do what's best for the entire industry is looked upon as a sign of weakness.
I wish somebody could lock the parties in a room and not let them out until they resolve the who-gets-what dispute. After 15 years, I still wait for common sense to prevail.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.