Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
John,
Simply put, the tracks' revenue model doesn't work with lower takeouts.
Yes, I know all about how the player gets to play longer, and ultimately, bets more. But you see, that is part of the problem from the tracks' point of view - "the speed of money."
So, the player will get to play longer on his bankroll. Let's say that he gets to play 15 days instead of 10. That means that the track makes "a little more" in 15 days than the used to make in 10 days. Well, they're going to have to make 50% more to justify that, which is probably not going to happen.
Now, I realize these figures are arbitrary - and perhaps there are better stats to compute - but the bottom line is that the tracks cannot afford anything that even resembles less revenue.
So, until they can generate other revenue sources, the customer is forced to pay all the bills.
Understand, I am not siding with the tracks. I am simply being realistic.
You know, the tracks have complained for years about on-track attendance being one of the reasons that their revenues are in decline. And they are, of course, right. I contend that it is more than the $4.50 hot dogs, $10 parking etc.
Horse racing, like football, is no longer primarily an in-person game! Way more people are going to be interested if they can watch the game via TV or the web. Horse racing needs to change their business model to one that works.
Seems logical that the easy answer comes from making money from the video signal. However, the tracks' general position is that this video signal should be paid for, once again, out of the customers' wagers. Instead, they should be looking at ways to broaden the base of the sport so that people really want to watch it on TV.
If they watch it on TV, then there is another source of revenue: advertising. Look at Breeder's Cup day. ESPN isn't giving those ads away. They' generating big-time money from them. So, what we need is a Breeder's Cup a month, or a mini-BC each week, or enough following to justify any sort of every day channel.
Even if some of the cost is born by the customer, it is not "betting dollars."
So, in a simple answer to your question, "Yes, there is honest justification."
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
|
Dave
yes all that is nice, but to "broaden the base" you can't get that with the take in effect.
I don't even think it's about "broadening" anything , just a slow bleed out that hopefully this gen of track mgmt will be out before it blows, the heck with the next one, if there is a next gen of track guys.
The only way it works out is less , many less tracks.
That is underway and isn't going to stop soon.
everyday channels are not going to happen on a mass appeal level
most cable systems don't want them, they can do better running 1940 movies and selling ads to that than any type of horse racing.
Espn makes more off reruns of poker/pool tournies i expect than racing.
The only way a couple of mass everyday racing channels are going to go is if the industry feeds it the cash no matter the cost to start up.
That is the only hope I can see.
if the "industry" is not willing to bet on that then why should I bet with their standard take?
imo anyway.
