PAULICK LIVE BLOGS BC STRATEGIC PLAN TELECONFERENCE
Beginning shortly after 2 p.m. (Eastern), Ray Paulick will be live blogging the Breeders’ Cup teleconference where the organization’s new long-term strategic plan will be outlined by Cup president, Greg Avioli; Satish Sanan, a member of the board of Directors and chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee; and William Field of Value Partners, the international consulting firm that developed the plan in conjunction with the committee.
Nominators to the Breeders’ Cup program will be allowed to ask questions about the plan, as will members of the media.
2:05 p.m. … Greg Avioli, Breeders’ Cup president, says the Breeders’ Cup "has experienced tremendous change in just the past three years" after few changes in the first 20 years, then outlines the changes: two days instead of one, higher purses, more races, the Challenge Series, and increased betting handle in a down market. Sanan and the board, he said, decided this was not a time "to rest on our laurels," and then introduced Sanan, who was named chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee last August.
2:08 p.m. … Sanan said racing and the Breeders’ Cup has been "outpromoted by other sports" and said the long-range plan (and he emphasized long range) was developed to help the Breeders’ Cup and the industry grow. "It’s one of the most comprehensive projects undertaken by Breeders’ Cup" and credited management, the board of Members and Trustees and industry stakesholders worldwide for bringing input into the process. He then introduced Field to outline the plan.
2:10 p.m. … Field said the process included four workshops, a detailed survey of the Trustees, a shorter online survey of nominators, interviews with international industry leaders. "What we tried to do here is look at the Breeders’ Cup at a slightly new way." Field said he was struck by the affection people have for the Breeders’ Cup and that it truly is the world championship. "It is something that is recognized by many people around the world as the pinnacle of world racing." That’s not to say there’s not more that can be done to make it better, Field said. "We certainly think there are many markets in the world where racing is facing challenges similar to what you are facing in North America, but there certainly are opportunities." He said there is no other "brand" like the Breeders’ Cup internationally.
"North America is the No. 1 priority, but you have a great international aspect," Field added, citing more participation and increased international handle.
Field said there is a proposal for a new mission and vision for the Breeders’ Cup. Mission: to support breeders by promoting the growth of the Thoroughbred racing industry through the staging of the Breeders’ Cup competition. The vision is to be the most prestigious and popular competiton in world racing, reflecting in the quality of the horses, the event as well as total wagering.
A third point Field wanted to make is that the BC has to serve a lot of different groups in the industry. "We think it is very important that the Breeders’ Cup needs to refocus more on the customer" — the horseplayers, casual fans and television viewers.
Related to that, the Breeders’ Cup "is a great brand name" said Field. Great recognition in sports, though not necessarily with the general public, he added. Streamlining of the brand might help with the general public recognition. Building on the Challenge Series and creating races that will determine which horses will run in the championships, he said was one way. "We would like to see that whole process be reinforced…so we are not just thinking about the event in November."
Strengthening the Challenge Series would promote the brand and help increase betting, he added.
Alongside the Challenge Series, Field said, was an opportunity to build some strong alliances with racetracks across the country. "There is an opportunity to work (with the tracks) as partners," he said, citing the fact that racetracks are looking for ways to increase their business.
"We would love to draw some of the major tracks into long-term partnerships," something he said is much more difficult if done on a short-term basis.
The road to the Breeders’ Cup (Challenge Series) and the championship itself has to be promoted as one brand, Field added. "We need to reach out through partners if we are going to reach the customer."
Avioli said the recommendations delivered to the board have been given to management to take to racetracks and come back to the board by the end of the year with an "actual working document" that will explain exactly how the Challenge Series will look.
2:25 p.m. … Sanan reiterated that it will be a long-term plan and that once management reports back to the board there will be more details to be made public: He then repeated the four key points of the plan:
1) the new mission and vision of the Breeders’ Cup
2) unified and enhanced BC competition to run throughout hte season
3) improve and build long-term strategic relationships with racetracks to put together a framework for long-term relationships
4) redefining our customers and putting our customers at the heart of everything so that we have an unyielding focus on the customers.
2:30 p.m. … The teleconference is open to questions. First, Bill Landes asks why only 80% of Members and Trustees responded to the surveys and asked who the 20% were that did not fill out the surveys. He added that he wants more disclosure from the Breeders’ Cup on meeting attendance and other issues that are not shared with nominators or the public. In response, Avioli began by explaining who the boards are and that 100% of the board of directors responded to the survey. Landes wasn’t happy with that, saying there are still 10 Members and Trustees who didn’t reply to the survey and thinks their names should be published.
Avioli said he would begin publishing the list of attendees of future meetings.
2:35 p.m. … Landes was the only nominator with a question. I began the media round with a couple of questions, one on the past programs that might have been more short-term than long term in strategy, and the other on what will be different now about how the BC and tracks work together. Field said he preferred not to focus on the past, although he had studied the various programs (special stakes, stakes supplements, challenge series, etc.).
On the second question, Avioli said that one of the recommendations from Value Partners is to try more of a collaborative approach. "In the past, they’ve said, ’Here’s our series, would you like to participate?" Avioli said. "The mindset is going to be different. we’re not going to develop something and try to sell it. We want to first identify tracks that want to work with the Breeders’ Cup on a number of levels (including being a host site)," and then work with those tracks to develop the programs. Field said one of the big challenges is fragmentation and that there will "always be and always have been issues and niggles between tracks and Breeders’ Cup, but I was very surprised to hear the enthusiasm the tracks have for the Breeders’ Cup. If we can approach it on the basis that Greg just described, I am certain that a lot of tracks are going to be very keen on this."
Sanan said "In any business, if you are going to be successsful and form long-term relationships, the word partnership means you must be willing to risk long-term risks and rewards…your goals really have to be aligned…I think all of the conflicts you hear about really will go away, particularly if it is an all encompassing partnership. There is a big strategic difference in how we have done it and how we plan to do it in the future."
2:40 p.m. … A question about the budget and the current year operating deficit. Sanan said he hopes the long-term plan will reduce the heavy reliance on nominators, that increased wagering and sponsorships are part of the plan moving forward.
2:45 p.m. … There is a question about holding the Breeders’ Cup overseas. Field said there were a number of suggestions that the BC consider being held internationally. "We wouldn’t absolutely rule it out forever but we don’t think it is the desirable thing to do." Field said there were a number of suggestions in the plan about the rotation. There isn’t any urgency to doing anything other than North American tracks, he said, "though you never say never. …. It’s not part of the plan we propose." Sanan said it was discussed and debated but felt the consensus was that it needed to be perfected at home first before looking overseas. "Take it slowly, perfect it North America…and maybe we will revisit it a few years from now. If it makes good business sense perhaps we would undertake it."
2:50 p.m. …. Another question from a nominator: What will BC do to encourage new nominators and get old nominators to return? Does the BC only want the "heavy hitters?" Avioli said the BC wants as many nominators as possible and cites the current stakes supplement program as a reason for their participation….he said the strategic plan includes the continuation of stakes races but that there will be more of an emphasis on quality in the future. "I don’t think you will see any decrease in the amount of money the Breeders’ Cup puts out there for nominators. I think there will be an increase in the money for nominators," said Avioli.
2:52 p.m. … Will future championship purses be decreased, Avioli is asked. He said the plan did not take a position on that. "What we’re trying to say is we don’t know what the appropriate level the championship purses will be until we have a better idea of what the entire program will entail." Sanan said Avioli wasn’t the question, but that the answer won’t be known until the strategic plan develops into an implementation plan and financial plan. "When we have that,, that’s the only point at which we can make a decision: do we increase or do we decrease." Avioli and Sanan confirmed that there will be no change in 2009 championship purses.
2:55 p.m. … Are there any more specific recommendations you can detail at this time, one media rep asks? "Regrettably, the answer is probably ‘no,’" said Avioli, "because what we’ve been given is a very high-level strategic plan." There are broad concepts but no specifics. "They don’t exist right now," said Avioli, who said he hopes to have details in December.
3:00 p.m. … Will the Breeders’ Cup consider reducing the number of races or drop back to one day? Field said "the issue of how many races is a tactical issue and not one we focused on as part of the long-term strategic plan. We didn’t want to be distracted by issues such as that. The important thing that the event in November is regarded as the event (horse owners) want to bring their horses to." Avioli said it will be hard to get the general sporting public to focus on 14 different divisions. "It doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have a full complement of races on championship day but that you wouldn’t focus" on all of the divisions on the series throughout the year. Sanan said: "It’s largely going to depend upon when we start the series, how many tracks and how many days. … It may just be limited to what we used to have." Avioli said: "To clarify, the concern is how do we lead into 14 different races, 14 different divisions." He said there will not be a series focusing on 14 different divisions leading up to the championships.
3:05 p.m. … The participants are asked how the Breeders’ Cup plans to bring horseplayers and customers into the process. Avioli mentioned that there have been panels with large bettors or "whales" that have been consulted with, and Field said focus groups have been conducted and will continue. "We also have the benefit of a large bettor who leads this committee," Avioli said of Sanan, who is known as a big gambler. Sanan said Breeders’ Cup has not done a good job taking care of horseplayers in the past but said he is recommending between now and the end of the year when the plan is finalized that a workshop with handicappers/horseplayers be included to get their feedback.
3:15 p.m. … Final comments from the participants. "What I’d like to leave you with is that we are just beginning the process," said Avioli. "We know the challenge we are facing here. We are cognizant of the various attempts to organize alliances in the past. We are confident we are going to come up with something that is well received."
Sanan said the Breeders’ Cup had a choice to be defensive or be "bold and creative and innovative and help management develop a long-term strategic plan …. to look into our crystal ball and see what’s going to happen five years from now and capitalize on that."
Field emphasized that this plan was not written by "just a group of consultants,", that industry stakeholders played a big role.
3:15 p.m. … That’s it from the Breeders’ Cup teleconference. It will be interesting to see how this plan unfolds in the next six months, what tracks will be brought onboard as partners, how the stakes supplements and Win and You’re In Series is altered or consolidated, and whether or not the strategic plan, which obviously will be an ambitious effort to create a meaningful series of races, will have an impact on the structure of the year-end championships.
My own comment: From the standpoint of someone who has been following the Breeders’ Cup closely for many years, I think this approach is the most significant and it is hoped the most effective strategic process the Breeders’ Cup has undertaken since its inception. There have been many programs introduced, given a short-term chance to make a difference, and then modified or allowed to linger without any meaning or impact. If the Breeders’ Cup commits to the strategic plan, develops an implementation and financial plan along with significant track partners, this could be a significant boost for the Breeders’ Cup and the sport of racing and business of breeding. I congratulate those who brought the plan to this stage and encourage management and racetracks throughout the country to find a way to make this work.
If it fails to do so, the long-term strategic plan for the Breeders’ Cup will join the scrap heap of so many other well-intentioned efforts of the past, from such things as the American Championship Racing Series, the national office of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations, the creation of a "league office" at the National Thoroubhred Racing Association, the merger of the NTRA and Breeders’ Cup, and the Thoroughbred Championship Tour, among others
Let’s hope for the former. The Breeders’ Cup and racing needs something horseplayers, casual fans and industry stakeholders can understand, support and participate in.–Ray Paulick
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: Breeders' Cup, breeders' cup strategic planning committee, Greg Avioli, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, satish sanan, value partners, william field
July 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Scrap the 2 day thing. It is a debacle.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Comparing what we’ve read today, the overall approach compared to other sports presentations such as ABC’s Indianapolis 500 or the Super Bowl, the comments are extremely narrow and disappointing. The quality of the events and the presentation of same was never mentioned and appeared to be overshadowed by the gambling aspect. Their is lots to be done to make this a BIG stage, yet the assumptions appear to mediocre in nature. The sizzle is gone! Put a fork in them….they’re done!
July 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
twenty years plus and the leadership of the breeder’s cup has the extraordinary vision to recommend a business plan that intends to “develop long-term working relationships with the tracks.” did they say that with a straight face. (it’s hard to tell out here in the blogsphere.)
these guys are clueless,
who’s running the breeders cup? sounds like casey jones
and the train is just about to leave the tracks.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
OK, so they want to bring the horseplayers into the discussion ….
1) Get rid of the purple saddle towels.
2) Drop Day 2
3) Stop running on synthetic tracks.
4) Make tickets affordable.
Of course, it doesn’t take a focus group to figure those out, they are all common sense.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Unless I missed something the consultant’s report is not yet public. So why have a press conference without anyone other than the board having read it, if they have at all. It’s easy to write a nice-sounding “strategic” plan with four key points, #4 being, as Sanan reported with a straight face, “putting our customers in the heart of everything…” Seems like I’ve heard that mantra before.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
A vote for Tom Horn, he has rhe right Idea.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
A vote for Ron Turcotte.
He’s very perceptive.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Last summer I received a call from someone representing the Breeders’ Cup and they asked me if I would like to participate in a phone survey. I always love talking horse racing so of course I said yes. I assumed the discussion would involve questions about the Breeders’ Cup event, yet it was all generic questions asking me what I liked and didn’t like about racing, new ideas, etc. Nothing to do with the Breeders’ Cup itself, although I managed to squeeze some BC thoughts into the conversation. The most encouraging thought I see in the above teleconference blog is that the BC wants to put more focus on the fans. It’s about time, all I have to say is don’t forget us $2 bettors, there’s your strength in numbers. Hey call me again and we’ll talk Breeders’ Cup!
July 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I am with Tom and Ron, bullring and all.
Equine welfare, safety and dope prevention were ignored. They shouldn’t be if Field and the BC want to successfully market the BC, and attract new sponsors and fans.
We were just served a manure soufflé. Stick a fork in it…
The pièce de résistance was served at 3:00 p.m. …
“Will the Breeders’ Cup consider reducing the number of races or drop back to one day?
Field said “the issue of how many races is a tactical issue and not one we focused on as part of the long-term strategic plan. We didn’t want to be distracted by issues such as that. The important thing that the event in November is regarded as the event (horse owners) want to bring their horses to.”
“Avioli said it will be hard to get the general sporting public to focus on 14 different divisions. “It doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have a full complement of races on championship day but that you wouldn’t focus” on all of the divisions on the series throughout the year. Sanan said: “It’s largely going to depend upon when we start the series, how many tracks and how many days. … It may just be limited to what we used to have.” Avioli said: “To clarify, the concern is how do we lead into 14 different races, 14 different divisions.” He said there will not be a series focusing on 14 different divisions leading up to the championships.
“To clarify”… thanks for nothing.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
C’mon …. did anyone expect anything except a lot of hot air? The air was not even hot.
BUT, do note Sanan’s expressed hope the long term plan will reduce heavy reliance on nominators …… ….. that increased wagering and sponsorships are part of the plan ….. !!
That may be Nuspeak for , “”Let us get those annoying mare owners out of the process”.
He seems to ignore fact wagerers are complaining all the time and sponsors appear to be very hard to find.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Ray,
Since you raised such a fuss earlier in the year about BC suplemental stakes being scrapped to right the financial ship, can you explain to us why it is so important to the growth of the BC? I can’t fathom how a horseplayer or core fan gives a crap about BC spending six million on these races, much less some other stupid challenge series.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Aunt Bea….
Nominators have supported this program since its inception to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars…and I think the BC recognizes it is important to continue to offer a reason to nominate; very few breeders feel as though they have a realistic chance of producing a championship day(s) winner. The nominators are customers of the Breeders’ Cup in the same sense that horseplayers and casual fans are. The Breeders’ Cup needs to try and deliver value to all three constituencies.
Do the core fans give a crap about the stakes supplements? Probably not, ,but I think they do care about betting on quality races with big fields, and it’s hoped that’s what an improved Challenge Series would bring through the use of those supplemental stakes funds.
What may happen, or at least Greg Avioli alluded to it, is these special stakes supplements, instead of being spent in drips and drabs, would go into races that are part of big days leading up to the championship, at various tracks at different times of the year. If the BC can convince racetrack partners to consolidate some races into big days, that are relevant to different divisions (and not all 14 divisions, as Avioli said), that stakes supplement money could help lead to days that attract more attention from fans and media, because the racing would be outstanding, and increase handle to the benefit of the tracks and Breeders’ Cup. So the nominators would still feel they have a chance for the horses they bred to win stakes supplement money and the Breeders’ Cup might feel like that money would have more impact than if spent on a standalone stakes race that is not part of a special Challenge Series program.
Ideally, and I am only guessing here, the goal would be to have “mini” Breeders’ Cups at different times of the year for specific divisions.
If you have an idea on how that money could be better spent, I’m sure Breeders’ Cup officials would be interested in hearing about it. Big multi-stakes days generally attract bigger crowds and higher handle; the goal I think will be to use those bigger days to enhance the Breeders’ Cup brand on the road to the championship.
It hasn’t done much to help the brand in the past, in part because I don’t the “big days” were parallel to the championship day in terms of the divisions.
Again, not having seen the plan, I’m only speculating based on the general information that was presented today.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Yeah, I guess I’m old fashioned, but I feel cutting costs is a pretty good thing when going broke. Breeders, especially, know how to cull the herd.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Okay, I do have an idea to put forth to the Breeder’s Cup. They have a new mission, here’s a new Mission Statement:
” We believe in the incredible and awesome power and grace of the Thoroughbred racehorse, as it has provided countless millions with pleasure and awe over the course of over two centuries. Out of respect for the love of the racehorse we will strive to provide fans of our sport with the most comprehensive one day spectacle of racing we can achieve, through a sound, transparent, and wise governing system that will address one simple fact: that those millions of fans will be entertained by an industry able to figure out and solve it’s serious integrity issues.”
Amen.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
I’m thoroughly unimpressed by what I’ve read here and elsewhere describing today’s conference call. What was the purpose of the call? Absolutely nothing substantive was outlined - there were no details whatsoever. So this is what you get when you hire a high-powered expensive consultant to come up with a plan? It’s absolutely laughable that after months of “consulting” they’ve settled on four important points that anyone who follows the sport could have told them in a single frank impromptu conversation.
1. Focus on the mission and vision of the Breeder’s Cup
2. Improve the Challenge Series of races
3. Improve relationships and partnerships with racetracks
4. More focus on the fans and bettors
Duh! And that justified a media conference call? And why weren’t there some actual tough questions from the media? Why is everyone just playing along?
This sport suffers from one massive lack of focus on it’s most important missing ingredient - a clear, comprehensive, focused marketing effort aimed at bringing NEW fans to the sport and retaining existing fans. Where is the damn marketing plan? After another six months of high-powered consulting we’ll have nothing substantive to show for it. We’re more likely to get results by turning these problems over to a few business and marketing classes at universities as term projects. I’m convinced that would yield more useful conclusions and reports.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Agree completely with Bob Hope & Bob Lee. Where is the Major League thinking?
Maybe it’s not the fault of the Breeders Cup people. Their focus is the Breeders Cup. But they talk about “customers” as if they have no clue that FANS are needed.
The fact is that racing is nothing but a collection of minor leagues, with no one in charge, no central leadership, no central focus.
At the end of the day, the Breeders Cup is just another minor league team. Whatever good the Breeders Cup can do for the Breeders Cup, it won’t do much for Thoroughbred Horseracing, because there’s no such thing as Thoroughbred Horseracing. What ought to be “major league racing” is not managed, presented or marketed like major league football or baseball.
Racing is - as was so eloquently said at the June 2008 congressional hearings - a collection of fiefdoms. The Breeders Cup is just one of these - thinking small, thinking locally, like the rest of them do.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Further to my comments above, after this year’s KY Derby, racing had a publicist’s dream story landed in its lap. Mine That Bird was a cheap horse - disrespected, unheralded - a loser who made it to the Derby by a fluke. And then - against all odds - Mine That Bird WON the Kentucky Derby - with every expert against him and all saying it was impossible that he might win.
How great was that? What stories could have been told about this horse? What a wonderful horse he was, no matter how he was judged by the “experts” before the race. How many kids in America could have made a champion of the “little horse”?
So how was the story handled? Badly. From the moment MTB won, all the talk was of Calvin Borel. As if the horse - Mine That Bird - had nothing at all to do with the win. As if Calvin Borel had run the race himself.
Here, in Mine That Bird, racing had an equine “little engine that could’ to promote. Instead, racing gave the story to Borel and threw away whatever good will might have accrued to the sport.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:49 am
There is some very good thinking here. It is interesting that we have some high priced consultants from England touting some high priced BC folks with no mention of a high quality presentation. The way this is going, the Claiming Crown will soon take precedence over the BC. The British consultant only had to look at what happens in Europe to see the difference. Why not put claiming tags on the remaining 5% of the horse herd and get it over with. Then we make it completely classless. Let’s play a game here and apply (overlay)the BC conference(substance) to a meeting of the executives of the Masters, the British Open, the Super Bowl or the Indy 500. Don’t Laugh….its that ridiculous! With 90-95% of US racing content supplying a daily diet of claiming races how in the hell do you effectively fuel a BC ? Intelligent change does matter !
July 11th, 2009 at 9:11 am
horseracing fans,
please, please, please.
instead of all this well-intended venting over mission statements and business plans, why not start with a simple plan of action.
let’s take the breeder’s cup existing business plan (if they can find it) and start measuring the success or relative failure by breeders cup officials to implement it.
seems like a reasonable suggestion.
isn’t that what SERIOUS business excecutives do.
any business plan that dodges accountability is worthless—a sham. (i loved that horse!)
but it ain’t gonna happen is it racefans.
breeder’s cup officials refuse to accept accountability for their own failings and we continually leave them off the hook, elect new players, and foolishly expect that we will see different results.
einstein said you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different outcomes. i think he said “dat’s retarded”, or something to that effect.
what we have learned since the inception of the breeder’s cup board is that they THINK they know best.
we have patiently watched pratfall after pratfall.
these are good men. they mean well,
they are just in way over their collective heads. their arrogance gets a bit tedious too.
the inherent structure of the board was never designed to effect change, or show an appreciation for transparency.
that is not just opinion. after a quarter of a century it has become fact.
wake up horseracing nation.
you are not going to fix this travesty of leadership.
“brilliant,” creative solutions to our problems will not come from breeder’s cup officials.
changing players will not bring your hoped for results.
instead of grousing about who sits in what chair or leads what committe— do something meaningful that will illicit their undivided attention–stop registering your foals.
see how quickly they listen up then to our views about their excuse making and leadership ineptitude.
make a committment to make the breeders cup what john gaines and others invisioned.
a one year boycott of foal registration should do the trick.
many of us have all ready begun the boycott, we need to reach a critical mass for a successful protest.
the board refuses to acknowledge the sliding numbers of registrations as proof of our commitment to reinventing a successful breeder’s cup.
it is about time they give us credit for having the courage of our convictions.
join up with wilbur and me.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
great comments here and thanks again ray for superb blow by blow coverage we would not normally get. i like satan. he has a stake in the industry, has good ideas and he is trying to shake up a moribund industry. but…but…but….this conference should not have been held. they had nothing to say. seemed held just to justify the expense of hiring field in the first place and examining a report only insiders got a chance to read. i don’t know field or his background, but his comments as recounted here seemed empty and insubstantial, bereft of insight. more bromides we don’t need.
to me, medication is front and center for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that every time there is a break down now, the question arises: should this horse be allowed to run in the first place? what drugs was it on? does this trainer have a pharma record? and this is magnified in tc or bc events. until they ban race-day medication, the industry will be in retreat, with fans leaving in droves and new fans unenthused. the bc could address questions of integrity and confidence by introducing a race-day medication ban immediately. zero tolerance. but, as pointed out in messages above, not a word on medication. it is as if they are tip-toeing around the elephant in the room and re-arranging the cutlery. pointless.
satan has worked hard to shine the light on 2yo in training. he should exert the same effort on the bc and forget consultants who feed us the same tripe, year after year. co-operation with racetracks is not i would call profound!
July 11th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Mr. Ed (#19),
Up to this moment it seemed to me I was the only voice calling for effective action by refusing to nominate foals. Happy to read you are pushing the same policy. Moreover, we need to apply the same pressure to The Jockey Club. Charging $200 to register a Thoroughbred when Quarter Horses can get registration for less than half that, is robbery. Of course, it takes $200 a foal to pay the top executive nearly one million dollars a year. That is correct - $1,000,000.
You write: “Join up with Wilbur and me”. I’m willing. Where is the recruiting station?
July 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Handle is plummeting. Medication is a major perception issue. The simulcasting tank is running dry. Gaming subsidizes purses but brings no new fans. MEC is bankrupt. NYRA just emerged but is still waiting for gaming revenue. Tracks in major US markets are going out of business or holding on by a thread. The bloodstock market is getting killed by the economy and there are those who argue it has been artificially propped up for years by the Maktoums and the Coolmore crowd.
And we’re all worked up over the Breeders’ Cup, its governance and strategic plan?
July 11th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
please exuse my dreadful typing error…i meant sanan - both times!
July 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
yes evertt, your point is well taken but if our high priced leaders can derail the BC that had a $40 million dollar reserve invested with friends of the groupies, how can we rely on the others who were spun off to allow the BC to function with all of the money. Let’s stick to history here and revisit what has happened politically between the NTRA and the BC. Once these folks “join up” they are reluctant
to study the “facts of failure”. It becomes similar to tax dollars and politicians that play with other peoples money. No one is culpable except Bernie Madoff ! Try identifying who the money was invested with. Was it a reputable firm. Did the board know the relationship in the industry. These are easy questions that have never been answered.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Questions that have not been answered. Never will be, unless someone screams FRAUD.
July 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The BC was destroyed when it went to a two-day event.
As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t even exist any longer.
Why get involved in all this when what is obvious is ignored?
“OOOOO - let’s set up a Facebook account. Problem fixed.”
Even major league baseball executives - some of the deadest mental electrical sockets in the country, at the time - figured out that two All Star games in one year was a mistake.
Keep dancing, you wealthy fools. The music you hear is only in your head.