Breeder's Cup - Still no Belmont

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by the little guy

In the "more lies about NYRA" category....Belmont is nowhere even remotely close to a dump...and it also features far and away the best turf courses of the tracks chosen for the BC.

Telling lies like they are the truth is like an infectious disease around here.

I don't know to what sporting venues that you have been lately. But there has been a revolution over the last 10-15 years. It recently took a cosmic leap with the advent of college football reorganization, dedicated TV channels or big contracts, and league revenue sharing agreements.

Forget all of the pro palaces or newer golf courses for a minute. Where would Belmont Park fit in among the college football stadium arms race players, when it comes to modernization, fan amenities and lavish corporate sponsorship perks on site? Be honest.

I'll give you an example that even shocks me. One of the lowliest bottom feeders among all of the major conferences (Washington State) just spent $130 million dollars to upgrade their plant that already had seen incremental improvements over the years. Simply to barely stay in contact with those of their own league members, forget about the Big 10 or SEC.

Pick out the best pro baseball, football, or basketball/hockey buildings. How many of them resemble a sterile, soulless mid-60s barn? (Similar to the 70s facilities that saw the wrecking ball because they were already behind the times a decade ago) If you were to ask the average corporate attendee to any of the bigger American events, what would you expect for an answer about how things compared? I happen to have a relative in the athletic gear industry who gets comped around the country to boxes, sideline passes or seats, you-name-it regularly. He's been to Belmont once, and he just shook his head at it. Even Dodger Stadium sorta sucks.

If legendary places like Yankee Stadium or Pauley Pavilion finally gave into modern realities, then a dump like Belmont had better do so also, and soon. Because it's not on the same planet when it comes to present public attitudes.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by clocker7

I don't know to what sporting venues that you have been lately. But there has been a revolution over the last 10-15 years. It recently took a cosmic leap with the advent of college football reorganization, dedicated TV channels or big contracts, and league revenue sharing agreements.

Forget all of the pro palaces or newer golf courses for a minute. Where would Belmont Park fit in among the college football stadium arms race players, when it comes to modernization, fan amenities and lavish corporate sponsorship perks on site? Be honest.

I'll give you an example that even shocks me. One of the lowliest bottom feeders among all of the major conferences (Washington State) just spent $130 million dollars to upgrade their plant that already had seen incremental improvements over the years. Simply to barely stay in contact with those of their own league members, forget about the Big 10 or SEC.

Pick out the best pro baseball, football, or basketball/hockey buildings. How many of them resemble a sterile, soulless mid-60s barn? (Similar to the 70s facilities that saw the wrecking ball because they were already behind the times a decade ago) If you were to ask the average corporate attendee to any of the bigger American events, what would you expect for an answer about how things compared? I happen to have a relative in the athletic gear industry who gets comped around the country to boxes, sideline passes or seats, you-name-it regularly. He's been to Belmont once, and he just shook his head at it. Even Dodger Stadium sorta sucks.

If legendary places like Yankee Stadium or Pauley Pavilion finally gave into modern realities, then a dump like Belmont had better do so also, and soon. Because it's not on the same planet when it comes to present public attitudes.

We get it, you're a pedantic lecturer.

You also have absolutely no understanding of situational facts, nor any interest in learning about them.

But, hey, keep up the lousy work. I'll be fine....as soon as I join everyone else here in putting you on ignore. I'm only embarrassed that it has taken me this long.

So long.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by clocker7

I don't know to what sporting venues that you have been lately. But there has been a revolution over the last 10-15 years. It recently took a cosmic leap with the advent of college football reorganization, dedicated TV channels or big contracts, and league revenue sharing agreements.

Forget all of the pro palaces or newer golf courses for a minute. Where would Belmont Park fit in among the college football stadium arms race players, when it comes to modernization, fan amenities and lavish corporate sponsorship perks on site? Be honest.

I'll give you an example that even shocks me. One of the lowliest bottom feeders among all of the major conferences (Washington State) just spent $130 million dollars to upgrade their plant that already had seen incremental improvements over the years. Simply to barely stay in contact with those of their own league members, forget about the Big 10 or SEC.

Pick out the best pro baseball, football, or basketball/hockey buildings. How many of them resemble a sterile, soulless mid-60s barn? (Similar to the 70s facilities that saw the wrecking ball because they were already behind the times a decade ago) If you were to ask the average corporate attendee to any of the bigger American events, what would you expect for an answer about how things compared? I happen to have a relative in the athletic gear industry who gets comped around the country to boxes, sideline passes or seats, you-name-it regularly. He's been to Belmont once, and he just shook his head at it. Even Dodger Stadium sorta sucks.

If legendary places like Yankee Stadium or Pauley Pavilion finally gave into modern realities, then a dump like Belmont had better do so also, and soon. Because it's not on the same planet when it comes to present public attitudes.

no offense, but you must be mixing up Belmont with some other place that you might have been like Beulah Park. the place that you are knocking is probably the nicest race track in the land. there is no place like it that puts the horses first. the track itself is taken care of by very professional caretakers. the place has lots of plants and flowers. the indoor facilities are well taken care as well. i go to lots of tracks and cannot find a better one.

[Tom]

no offense, but you must be mixing up Belmont with some other place that you might have been like Beulah Park.

that is so funny, lambo....

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by the little guy

We get it, you're a pedantic lecturer.

You also have absolutely no understanding of situational facts, nor any interest in learning about them.

But, hey, keep up the lousy work. I'll be fine....as soon as I join everyone else here in putting you on ignore. I'm only embarrassed that it has taken me this long.

So long.

C7 took the time for a nice long writeup and this is all you can respond with?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

no offense, but you must be mixing up Belmont with some other place that you might have been like Beulah Park. the place that you are knocking is probably the nicest race track in the land. there is no place like it that puts the horses first. the track itself is taken care of by very professional caretakers. the place has lots of plants and flowers. the indoor facilities are well taken care as well. i go to lots of tracks and cannot find a better one.

I'm here in California and I love Belmont Park. Might be my favorite racetrack. I have some minor issues with the maintenance and the food, but in general, it has great sightlines, the track itself is spectacular (partly just because of its immense size), the paddock is beautiful, landscaped, and just a wonderful place to look at the horses up close.

I don't see how anyone could bash on the place. It's really just a great place to see a horse race. (I would definitely not go there again for a TC attempt, but that's not NYRA's fault-- just way too many people show up!)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Arguing over the individuals that had the concept is irrelevant. The original concept was ROTATION. Go to the website and check the history. The event used to surface at different tracks around North America. It was never meant to be at 2 or 3 tracks. The two years on the poly track were a complete failure for the dirt horses, not even fair and a complete joke. Not being in NY for going on 10 years is a disgrace. Every year a majority of the real contenders race here during the crucial summer months. Its even one of my angles. When it has been on actual dirt, the NY based contingent cleans up almost every year. But they are expected to ship EVERY year? What about the other tracks that used to host it too? Belmont isn't the only one getting the shaft. The Breeders Cup lacks credibility, fairness and sportsmanship. Many times I feel like it is now crap that people just try to market.....sorry. I have even wished that Belmont moved their championship series back to end it. Because without the Saratoga and Belmont horses. What would it be?...garbage. Yet, NY never gets a sniff? Other tracks get shafted too.....the originators NEVER had this monopoly mentality. This thing has been a "butcher job" for years. It hurts the game in certain ways and failure would not be the end of the world IMO.

I don't think it really matters what the original intent was. The original intent was 7 races over 1 day, too. Things evolve. The BC had some very compelling reasons to make California a semi-permanent home for the event. But I also strongly suspect that if NYRA and the powers that be in New York really wanted this event, they could probably get it. I suspect NYRA really doesn't care that much.

But in the end, the Breeders' Cup belongs to Breeders' Cup Limited, not to you. They can hold the thing in Dubai and run on moondust if they think they can make more money doing so, and the only remedy you have is not to watch. You don't get a say.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Do you even know how or why the Breeders Cup was created and WHY all racetracks originally agreed and bought into it?????

What you said just shows how ill equipped you are to even comment on a subject matter like this. I'm all for free speech and everyone voicing their opinions but I'm sorry, you should not speak on this matter. You're statement was THAT ill founded...

Racetracks didn't buy into it. Breeders and owners did. The only racetrack that contributed any largesse at the start of the thing was Hollywood Park (in the form of improvements to the track). NYRA contributed nothing. This isn't a knock on NYRA. They weren't asked to. The BC's creation had nothing to do with any particular racetrack.

The racetracks basically had no choice. Once the BC plopped its fat butt down on the racing schedule, the racetracks learned very quickly that they had to arrange their racing schedules accordingly.

The BC owes the racetracks nothing. Nothing whatsoever. They have a product, it's worth a fair amount of money, and they can get racetracks to host it on their terms. If they never come back to New York in a million years, no injustice will be done, because owners of valuable intellectual properties are not required to act "fairly" towards particular potential customers. They can sell, or not sell, to whomever they want.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I'm here in California and I love Belmont Park. Might be my favorite racetrack. I have some minor issues with the maintenance and the food, but in general, it has great sightlines, the track itself is spectacular (partly just because of its immense size), the paddock is beautiful, landscaped, and just a wonderful place to look at the horses up close.

I don't see how anyone could bash on the place. It's really just a great place to see a horse race. (I would definitely not go there again for a TC attempt, but that's not NYRA's fault-- just way too many people show up!)

i went to Santa Anita for the Breeder's cup week last year, hung out 1 day in the Eddie Logan room and that place is pretty impressive as well. i was backside there as well and that's good too.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i went to Santa Anita for the Breeder's cup week last year, hung out 1 day in the Eddie Logan room and that place is pretty impressive as well. i was backside there as well and that's good too.

Santa Anita and Del Mar are both very nice places to see a horse race (though stay off the third and fifth floors at Del Mar). I'd probably rank them 2 and 3 behind Belmont, of the tracks I've been to in the US. (Sha Tin in Hong Kong is amazing, though.)

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

no offense, but you must be mixing up Belmont with some other place that you might have been like Beulah Park. the place that you are knocking is probably the nicest race track in the land. there is no place like it that puts the horses first. the track itself is taken care of by very professional caretakers. the place has lots of plants and flowers. the indoor facilities are well taken care as well. i go to lots of tracks and cannot find a better one.

If you think that Belmont Park stacks up equally with the cream of sporting facilities around the country, then I don't know what else to say. Storm off in a hufff like the little guy if you can't handle the truth.

Corporate America determines many of the choices that are made for the biggest national sporting events. If some facility doesn't stack up with what they've recently experienced elsewhere around the country, then the negative aftertaste will play in heavily in their future decisions.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clocker7

If you think that Belmont Park stacks up equally with the cream of sporting facilities around the country, then I don't know what else to say. Storm off in a hufff like the little guy if you can't handle the truth.

Corporate America determines many of the choices that are made for the biggest national sporting events. If some facility doesn't stack up with what they've recently experienced elsewhere around the country, then the negative aftertaste will play in heavily in their future decisions.

Well, there's a difference between the interests of the average fan and the interests of corporate types.

The Los Angeles Lakers used to play at the Forum. Now they play at Staples Center. The Forum was optimized for basketball (a lot of seats had to be removed and some weird sightlines and obstructions created for hockey), with 70 percent of the seats between the goals and no seat more than 120 feet high or 150 feet from the court. Staples Center was designed by the LA Kings (who own it) and was optimized for hockey, and contains three levels of luxury boxes (the Forum had none), placing the upper deck 175 feet off the floor, which is fine for hockey (a sport that is fun to watch from high off the ice) but terrible for basketball. It also has the majority of its seats behind the baskets in its basketball configuration.

On the other hand, if you are a corporate VIP, at Staples you not only get a private box, but your own private concourse with private restrooms and concessions, and special lounges where you can hang out with players, coaches, executives, and celebrities. The Forum had none of that, except for one small lounge (the Forum Club).

Now, which is the better place to go see a basketball game? It really depends on who you are.

I'm not much of a fan of Churchill Downs. From the average fan's standpoint, Churchill is a disaster of obstructed views, dilapidated stands, narrow passageways, and cramped concourses.

But if you are a VIP, Churchill's amazing.

For the average fan, Belmont is a wonderful racetrack. It obviously is 45 years old and shows its age. But it still has everything an average racing fan would want or need.

I don't think the question of whether Belmont Park stacks up to the standard set by, say, Staples Center or MetLife Stadium is at all the issue. Those places don't host horse racing four days a week 20 weeks a year, they don't have accommodate the Belmont Stakes and Triple Crown attempts, and they don't have to serve as stables and simulcast facilities for most of the year. Belmont Park is extremely good at what it is designed to do.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by clocker7

If you think that Belmont Park stacks up equally with the cream of sporting facilities around the country, then I don't know what else to say. Storm off in a hufff like the little guy if you can't handle the truth.

Corporate America determines many of the choices that are made for the biggest national sporting events. If some facility doesn't stack up with what they've recently experienced elsewhere around the country, then the negative aftertaste will play in heavily in their future decisions.

first off the bat ...i believe that you need to compare apples to apples! Which racetracks in this country do you consider equal to the "Cream of sporting facilities"? I love belmont grew up 5 minutes from there.The track is well maintained the infield impeccably groomed...the backyard area is family friendly ...you should come out there on a summer Sunday afternoon and soak in the block party atmosphere.NYRA as much as they have mismanaged certain aspects of racing in New York,have not cowtowed to the bc's exorbitant demands,both financial and otherwise.My hats off to them on this one!

[alydar]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, there's a difference between the interests of the average fan and the interests of corporate types.

The Los Angeles Lakers used to play at the Forum. Now they play at Staples Center. The Forum was optimized for basketball (a lot of seats had to be removed and some weird sightlines and obstructions created for hockey), with 70 percent of the seats between the goals and no seat more than 120 feet high or 150 feet from the court. Staples Center was designed by the LA Kings (who own it) and was optimized for hockey, and contains three levels of luxury boxes (the Forum had none), placing the upper deck 175 feet off the floor, which is fine for hockey (a sport that is fun to watch from high off the ice) but terrible for basketball. It also has the majority of its seats behind the baskets in its basketball configuration.

On the other hand, if you are a corporate VIP, at Staples you not only get a private box, but your own private concourse with private restrooms and concessions, and special lounges where you can hang out with players, coaches, executives, and celebrities. The Forum had none of that, except for one small lounge (the Forum Club).

Now, which is the better place to go see a basketball game? It really depends on who you are.

I'm not much of a fan of Churchill Downs. From the average fan's standpoint, Churchill is a disaster of obstructed views, dilapidated stands, narrow passageways, and cramped concourses.

But if you are a VIP, Churchill's amazing.

For the average fan, Belmont is a wonderful racetrack. It obviously is 45 years old and shows its age. But it still has everything an average racing fan would want or need.

I don't the issue of whether Belmont Park stacks up to the standard set by, say, Staples Center or MetLife Stadium is at all the issue. Those places don't host horse racing four days a week 20 weeks a year, they don't have accommodate the Belmont Stakes and Triple Crown attempts, and they don't have to serve as stables and simulcast facilities for most of the year. Belmont Park is extremely good at what it is designed to do.

Well said

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, there's a difference between the interests of the average fan and the interests of corporate types.

The Los Angeles Lakers used to play at the Forum. Now they play at Staples Center. The Forum was optimized for basketball (a lot of seats had to be removed and some weird sightlines and obstructions created for hockey), with 70 percent of the seats between the goals and no seat more than 120 feet high or 150 feet from the court. Staples Center was designed by the LA Kings (who own it) and was optimized for hockey, and contains three levels of luxury boxes (the Forum had none), placing the upper deck 175 feet off the floor, which is fine for hockey (a sport that is fun to watch from high off the ice) but terrible for basketball. It also has the majority of its seats behind the baskets in its basketball configuration.

On the other hand, if you are a corporate VIP, at Staples you not only get a private box, but your own private concourse with private restrooms and concessions, and special lounges where you can hang out with players, coaches, executives, and celebrities. The Forum had none of that, except for one small lounge (the Forum Club).

Now, which is the better place to go see a basketball game? It really depends on who you are.

I'm not much of a fan of Churchill Downs. From the average fan's standpoint, Churchill is a disaster of obstructed views, dilapidated stands, narrow passageways, and cramped concourses.

But if you are a VIP, Churchill's amazing.

For the average fan, Belmont is a wonderful racetrack. It obviously is 45 years old and shows its age. But it still has everything an average racing fan would want or need.

I don't think the question of whether Belmont Park stacks up to the standard set by, say, Staples Center or MetLife Stadium is at all the issue. Those places don't host horse racing four days a week 20 weeks a year, they don't have accommodate the Belmont Stakes and Triple Crown attempts, and they don't have to serve as stables and simulcast facilities for most of the year. Belmont Park is extremely good at what it is designed to do.

FYI forum is back in business, its upgraded and hosting events again, Queen and Def Leppard are going to be there in the coming weeks.