Why should other NH courses suffer a drop in their revenue because Cheltenham runs a Festival, Stodge? How does that make any commercial sense for them? And if we think that prize money's poxy now, it'd be a lot poxier if revenues dropped. It mightn't have been a big turn-out, but there again, if it had been, would you consider the money well spent? The quality horses are always kept for Cheltenham, while those who aren't entered continue to provide the country with the bulk of the NH fare they've had throughout the season, and I don't see what the problem is. They ought to be rewarded for keeping betting and viewing prospects going, not penalised because they're not going to Cheltenham!
Jon, I disagree with almost every word you've written
Racecourses which decide to put on meetings in close proximity to Cheltenham either have to have a non-Cheltenham USP or have to accept that in terms of quality and possibly quantity they are going to suffer.
As commercial organisations and perhaps with a view to maximising income generated by the racecourse, they might take the not-unreasonable view that IF they cannot offer the usual quality and/or quantity yet want to attract customers they might attempt the commercial practice of offering prospective racegoers an incentive or two to attend.
As for "keeping things going" they are the ones offering to race - there was plenty of other racing on yesterday and I venture to suggest that had the meeting not occurred turnover would not have been adversely affected.
The other side of the commercial equation and the reason why this ludicrous situation is allowed to perpetuate is the money racecourses are paid by broadcasters to show races. This is commercial stupidity of the first order and perpetuates uncompetitive midweek fare at all levels.
IF we had a more sensible situation in which broadcasters could choose which races and which meetings they wanted to pay for, we would see a fundamental and commercially-positive transformation in the way racecourses operate.
At the moment, however, the betting shops in particular are governed by the adage that the more opportunities there are for punters to lose their money, the better and that's why we get SA racing, Virtual Racing etc, etc. It suits racecourses to be part of this system as they get paid no matter what drivel they put out.
Of course, more meetings means more for everyone involved from casual staff up the line and that means the poor racegoer ends up footing the bill.
It angers me that this has been allowed to happen and that no one is prepared to question it but passengers on the gravy train rarely want to get off, do they ?
