frank stronach tosses a bomb...

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by highnote

It is more complicated than that. I can think of scenarios where horseplayers are harmed. Let's say a horseplayer owns a local pub that is frequented by horseplayers after the races. If the track closes down, the pub goes out of business. Many of the horseplayers will be affected in many different levels. There is a ripple effect throughout the community. You can invent a lot of plausible scenarios.

Being affected and financially harmed are 2 different things. I am a golfer and a local course recently closed down. I am affected but closing the course did not cause immediate financial harm to me.

Does it really matter whether or not the pub was owned by a horseplayer? Clearly the pub owner benefited from the racetrack but did the racetrack benefit from the pub? I doubt that the existence of a pub near the track increased the track's business and I doubt that the pub owner would be sharing profits with the track. If you are piggybacking your success on something that you don't pay for are you a stakeholder? Not in my eyes.

[JustRalph]

Great thread, for Andy C.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney

If you think that the $$$ bet at the window does much of anything to keep trainers and others on the backside going, then you clearly have never owned a racehorse.


If you want to soapbox about the customers importance solely to tracks, maybe there is some meat on the bone. But the industry as a whole is very dependent on other revenue streams.

Then horsemen should have reason to argue with lower takeouts.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Being affected and financially harmed are 2 different things. I am a golfer and a local course recently closed down. I am affected but closing the course did not cause immediate financial harm to me.

Does it really matter whether or not the pub was owned by a horseplayer? Clearly the pub owner benefited from the racetrack but did the racetrack benefit from the pub? I doubt that the existence of a pub near the track increased the track's business and I doubt that the pub owner would be sharing profits with the track. If you are piggybacking your success on something that you don't pay for are you a stakeholder? Not in my eyes.

Like I said, it is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Just because you were not financially harmed by your golf course closing down does not mean you are not a stakeholder.

Customers are stakeholders and important ones at that. But all you who believe otherwise just keep on believing and see if you get better results for your tracks.

[davew]

Originally Posted by highnote

Like I said, it is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Just because you were not financially harmed by your golf course closing down does not mean you are not a stakeholder.

Customers are stakeholders and important ones at that. But all you who believe otherwise just keep on believing and see if you get better results for your tracks.

I can't decide if I am a bigger stakeholder in McDonald's, Burger King, or Carl's Jr. I do know if the local one closes, or national chain closes it will not affect me and I do not have hundreds of thousands at risk.

[airford1]

So what did Frank say? How about the food? Open bar and finger food? or did he treat the press like the President and serve Burger King?
This is killing me I wanted to go.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Before going any further with this discussion can we agree that if a racetrack went out of business that a (non-professional) bettor would not be harmed financially? Their livelihood, existence or income does not rely on whether or not they are able to bet on a horse race. If racing ceases they have lost no "stake" other than time spent learning about the game. Accordingly if they have no "stake" to lose they are by definition not a "stakeholder".

Any business without customers is out of business! Racing is not unique. It has a product and customers either buy it or go elsewhere.

Most people have their retirement investments in S&P 500, Russell Small Cap index funds that hold many public gaming companies which some control racetracks.

I own both of the aforementioned investments

[highnote]

Originally Posted by davew

I can't decide if I am a bigger stakeholder in McDonald's, Burger King, or Carl's Jr. I do know if the local one closes, or national chain closes it will not affect me and I do not have hundreds of thousands at risk.

If one closes it may not have a big effect on you but it might have a big effect on the people who work there. Same with racetracks. No customers means declining revenue. They probably won't be in business very long. Take care of your customers and your business will thrive.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by highnote

Like I said, it is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Just because you were not financially harmed by your golf course closing down does not mean you are not a stakeholder.

Customers are stakeholders and important ones at that. But all you who believe otherwise just keep on believing and see if you get better results for your tracks.

Define "stakeholder". By the way you are writing a person is a stakeholder in everything that their life remotely touches. So let's use your definition. A bettor is a "stakeholder" at a racetrack. So what should that mean? Should they be able to hire and fire people? Should they set the prices for bets, food, admissions, etc? Should they negotiate labor contracts or lease agreements? What should be the responsibility of these stakeholders and what exactly are they putting up as a stake other than the possibility that they may or may not bet on some of the races in the future? Clearly it's not good enough for you to have someone just be a customer. Personally I find being a customer empowering. If I don't like your product I go elsewhere, that's my stake, no more no less.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by highnote

If one closes it may not have a big effect on you but it might have a big effect on the people who work there. Same with racetracks. No customers means declining revenue. They probably won't be in business very long. Take care of your customers and your business will thrive.

If you are making widgets for $20 a piece and taking care of your customers by selling them for $15 a piece would you have a thriving business?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Personally I find being a customer empowering. If I don't like your product I go elsewhere, that's my stake, no more no less.

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Isn't this what customers have been doing for the past 30 or more years as racing has declined.

You use semantics and hypotheticals to try to make your point or ask absurd questions about whether or not a stakeholder/customer should have the ability to hire or fire.

Earlier in the thread I defined what a stakeholder is in the generally accepted business definition. My point was that Stronach did not mention customers as being stakeholders. That spoke volumes about the importance of people who help fund his operations.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Tom

Without the customer, there are no stakeholders.

No kidding. Just like every product made and service offered.

Without the producer of the product or provider of the service, the customer has none to buy either.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by highnote

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Isn't this what customers have been doing for the past 30 or more years as racing has declined.

You use semantics and hypotheticals to try to make your point or ask absurd questions about whether or not a stakeholder/customer should have the ability to hire or fire.

Earlier in the thread I defined what a stakeholder is in the generally accepted business definition. My point was that Stronach did not mention customers as being stakeholders. That spoke volumes about the importance of people who help fund his operations.

You're just looking for another opportunity to bitch. This is exactly why handicappers are often tuned out. It seems as though many won't be happy no matter what. The result of gambling.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You're just looking for another opportunity to bitch. This is exactly why handicappers are often tuned out. It seems as though many won't be happy no matter what. The result of gambling.

I'm not bitching. I'm telling it like it is and I'm offering solutions. You just are too old to get it.

It's the youth who push the envelop and create change. Oldsters like Stronach (and FagerFan) and other racetrack owners are too old get it. Their time has passed and they watch as technology has passed them by.

Youngsters are not interested in betting on horse racing. They're smart. They know a bad deal when they see one. 20% takeout just to place a bet? Hell, you can day trade on robinhood.com for ZERO commissions. Let me say it again. Robinhood.com charges ZERO commissions to buy and sell stocks. They hope you'll upgrade to premium services, but they let you trade for free.

There has been a huge technology revolution in the past 30 years and oldsters don't know how the software works. Sure old people can send email or post a picture of their dog to facebook, but that has nothing to do with helping racetracks attract new customers. And the youngsters are biased against what the oldsters are selling. Young people don't give a shit about horse racing and the way it is presented. But the young are the future. Boomers are trying so hard to hold on to what they've got that they've shut out the youngster from upward mobility. How many young racing executives are there?

Oldsters want to go back to the past and hold on to it as long as they can. Youngsters want no part of it.

The great ideas will come from the young. Or from the visionaries with experience. The young have great ideas that can change the world, but they often don't know how to manage it -- facebook and google come to mind. Even Steve Jobs couldn't handle Apple the first time around. He went away. Came back with experience and then built it into the biggest company in the world. Google's motto was do no evil. They have done a lot of evil. Same with facebook. You can't trust either one of them. But they were visionary.

Where are the visionaries in the racetrack industry?

I had the idea of a betting exchange in 1997, but couldn't get a foot in the door. All the oldsters in the industry were afraid of it. It took 20 years before exchanges were legalized in the U.S. And they're still not widely available.

So you oldsters go on thinking the old days are coming back and that you'll live forever. Neither is gonna happen. The sooner you hand over the keys to the next generation the sooner the racetrack industry will come back to life.

Or keep doing what you're doing and watch your industry spiral down the toilet like its been doing for 30 years.

You've heard my ideas. Now let's hear yours. Or are you too old to have any new ideas?

[Some_One]

The racing industry in North America is basically a welfare/subsidy program for owners (and to a lesser extent trainers). Every decision over the last 30 years was a short sighted decision to benefit owners. What probably needs to be done is get rid of the claiming system and go to all handicaps but trainers and horsemen love those 5 horse fields with 3 layers of conditions so their horse can go off at 1-5 and collect 40K like they are entitled to it. Anything that makes field sizes larger and tougher for owners to collect a win to pay for their purchases with consistency will be fought hard, because f*** the horseplayers and public