Wright or Wrong on Attendances ?

S

stodge

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
206
Location
Sutton
I've noted Howard Wright in his last two columns in the RP talking up attendance numbers as evidence that all is well with racing and that the doom-sayers are wrong.

As I'm well aware the Devil can quote the scriptures for his own purpose, I thought I'd do some research of my own based on a couple of days from early in July:

On July 2nd 2009, 18,049 people attended the five meetings at Epsom, Haydock, Newbury, Perth and Redcar while on July 1st 2010, 21,207 attended the same five meetings, an increase of 17.5%. All well and good except that only Epsom showed an increase in attendance, up from 6,369 to 11,182 while all the other fixtures showed small declines in attendance though Redcar went from 2,399 to 1,811 which is a fall of nearly a quarter.

On Saturday, July 4th 2009, 51,569 attended the six meetings at Beverley, Carlisle, Haydock, Leicester, Nottingham and Sandown. On July 3rd 2010, 47,542 attended the same six meetings, a fall of 8.5%. Again, one meeting only bucked the trend and that was Carlisle which went from 7,469 to 10,993 while both main meetings lost attendance - Haydock from 15,355 to 12,575 and Sandown from 13,520 to 10,352. The sharpest fall was Leicester which went from 3,115 to 1,986.

The point seems to be that individual meetings can and are increasing numbers but the occasional big jump in numbers masks a wider decline across the board. There's a lot more research to be done but if Howard Wright is allowed to make a snap judgement based on selective use of numbers, so can I.
 
I believe that overall attendances are up about 5% or so, compared to the same period last year.

That doesn't of course mean that the sport doesn't have issues to address.
 
Attendance Facts and Figures

The overall numbers hide some huge variations and belie the positive nature of the numbers slightly.

Some more numbers - the third Saturday in July (17th this year, 18th last) had six meetings - Haydock, Lingfield, Market Rasen, Newbury, Newmarket and Ripon. The total attendance was 59,037 this year, up from 50,824 in 2009 (that's 16.1%), However, Haydock more than doubled their crowd from 8,048 to 16,789 while Lingfield, Newbury and Newmarket all had lower numbers in 2010 than 2009.

On to Wednesday 21st July (22nd in 2009) and the five meetings were Catterick, Leicester, Lingfield, Sandown and Worcester. In 2009, the total crowd was 20,962 but in 2010 this fell to 18,247, a fall of nearly 15%. The big loser was Sandown which went down from 15,724 to 12,231. If memory serves, Girls Aloud were at Sandown in 2009 and I can't recall who were there this year.

The other meetings did better numerically - Leicester, Lingfield and Worcester were all up on 2010 from 2009.

Conclusions - there's a lot going on below the numbers. Better weather should mean more racegoers but it seems to be patchy. Over King George weekend, Ascot did well on Friday and Saturday but the Sunday crowd was well down.
 
Lingfield was a building site throughout 2009 and was anything but lovely to visit. As we've ground over this before, this year was World Cup year, and attendances at racecourses showing high-profile matches would be vulnerable to lower attendances. Good weather doesn't necessarily mean better attendances as there are then so many other competing 'good weather' pursuits, such as managing to get the barbie on at the weekend, going to the beach/leisure park/theme park/zoo with the kids, and so on.

Take a look at what else racing was competing against on certain days, Stodge. Also, whether some courses changed their format in 2010 from 2009 - for example, shifting from what are often dead Monday fixtures to more attractive Thursdays. Fridays aren't particularly good racedays attendance-wise, since people are gearing up to travel for the w/e or even go racing during it - the w/e being the most popular for celebratory attendances like birthdays/stag and hen parties, and that ilk. Some courses dumped Mondays and could well see an upturn in fortunes as a result. There are quite likely some changes in the 2010 planning which have benefitted some courses in this way. And with the reduction in fixtures for 2011, there will probably be further prunings of less-attended meets.

Early indications for Brighton's three-day event are that the Wednesday and Thursday are very well pre-sold, well over budget, while the Friday remains good but not spectacular. So far, so normal.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the 'official' attendance figures are bollocks - obviously made up or very much massaged, at best. Take Goodwood for example - they claim attendance was up this year but I've not known it so quiet there. Many people were baffled by the claims since everyone was of the same opinion as myself that there was relatively no-one there this year.
 
Would the better weather this year not have had some influence on the figures, with regard to 'one off' visitors ?

You would almost expect attandances to be better for those cheaper racing events, if the downturn is really starting to take effect.
 
Last edited:
Attendances

Thanks for the comments. Jon as usual tries to muddy the waters somewhat so I'll merely say that I picked days with the same meetings on last year as this. I picked days with no World Cup matches on involving England - yes, the third/fourth place playoff match might have had an impact, who can say ?

The overall point I am trying to make is an increase at one or two venues which might be related to a post-race concert or it might not, is masking an overall decline at the bread-and-butter meetings and indeed at some of the larger ones.

I noted the RP was quiet on Goodwood attendances after mentioning that the first day crowd was down 5%. The RP is far from being an honest broker on racing issues as we all know.

2010 has so far been a decent summer - arguably the best for three or four years. I know how bad it was back in 2007 and 2008.

The impact of post-race concerts can't be underestimated - Sandown lost 75% of its crowd from the 2009 concert last week while Epsom nearly doubled their crowd from the equivalent 2009 attendance.

Ascot's Sunday after the King George was a third down on 2009 but other meetings during Goodwood week held up well and were comparable to 2009.
 
A lot of the 'official' attendance figures are bollocks - obviously made up or very much massaged, at best. Take Goodwood for example - they claim attendance was up this year but I've not known it so quiet there. Many people were baffled by the claims since everyone was of the same opinion as myself that there was relatively no-one there this year
Click to expand...

Doubt it, unless they want the tax authoroties asking questions

In the old days of turnstile cash, many clubs in football understaed attendances for this very reason
 
I think they can massage figures, though, by choosing to include/exclude non-paying as well as paying, participants as well as spectators, complimentary tickets distributed whether used or not used, etc etc.
 
But I've been through all that before with Stodge, too, Grey! I'll be accused of muddying the waters again if I do, I suppose, but 'attendance' does not mean 'paying customers'. It's just the number of people who came through with a ticket. For example: 2-for-1 deals - two people attend, but only one pays. Therefore, while your attendance is X, the income is Y. Disabled: carers go free - not a helluva lot overall, but it still means two people are on course, of which only one has paid.

At Lingfield, for example, the management has decided that everyone must have a ticket to show entry. That's now been rolled out to include the Press, in spite of them wearing their lovely metal PRESS badges. Not yet jockeys and only trainers if they want a cuppa, because the voucher for the cup of tea is inextricably attached to an entrance badge! Thus, 12 trainers want a cuppa - 12 entrance badges. But no money. 10 Press - 10 entrance badges, no money. Jockeys' guests (2 per jock is the allowance): 20 entrance badges, no money. Owners: 150 badges, no money (Arena gives up to 6 complimentary badges per horse, Northern Racing up to 8).

Bookies also count as 'entrance' as they pay their and their workers' fees and both are issued badges. Saturday night example at Lingfield: 24 bookies, 8 workers. All have paid, true, but while they will be counted in the 'entrance' number, they aren't punters.

I've accounted for 300 badges at Lingfield through Press, jockeys' guests, owners, trainers and sundry officials' guests - all entry, no money. Roll that figure out to places like Ascot, Goodwood, et cetera, with their much higher overall intake, and perhaps some 700 plus God knows how many bookies/workers, and you can probably take the best part of 1,000+ non-punting off the total entrance figures.

The real figures which count are your paying customers. The rest can be made up of a Health & Safety-inspired headcount of total badged people on course, and that can be quite considerable.

If courses give separate TOTAL headcount and PAYING TOTAL headcount figures, then you'll know if the paying public is truly up, or not.
 
Mind you a lot of the bigger meetings have been quieter this year - Epsom, Royal Ascot and Goodwood have all been far less busy this year.
 
There was plenty of space around at Glorious on the Wednesday and Saturday, for sure, Shadz. Easy to see the races by standing on the grassy knoll by the horsewalk, dead easy to squirt back to the enclosure to give the winner a round of applause. In the past, it's been a scrimmage, but not this week. I was surprised by how pleasant it was on Saturday. The restaurants were full, as I was told was their hospitality, but I guess the walk-ups on the day were down. Be interesting to know the figures since the recession kicked in in 2007.

I forgot that at Lingfield, there's also a very generous local residents' free entry policy, too, where local residents can apply for up to 40 free badges per year, each.

I also wonder whether children are now being included in the entrance numbers, as they are, for example, at all Arena Leisure courses, due to the 'headcount' ticketing system? In fact, I'm wondering whether this system, recently introduced at Northern Racing, Ascot, Epsom, and presumably many other courses, is accounting for 'higher' levels of entrance, when there isn't, in fact, such a difference at all? We used to have manually-issued numbered badges (as are still used at Plumpton) - but these were never issued to under-16s, as they were coming in free with an adult anyway. So, for example, on family days, you could have 400 kids from 16 to babes-in-arms not accounted for. Now, with the new automated ticketing systems at so many tracks (most of which have only been operational for two years), CHILD tickets are being issued. It's all down to courses gradually adopting more stadia criteria for safety reasons, that is, knowing how many of the public they have to get off-course in the event of an incident like a fire or bomb threat.

In order to make sense from the stats, though, the first thing is to determine whether these were paying customers, or whether the figures are just an overall headcount, which wouldn't necessarily point to a rise in income. What would show the differences would be the annual accounts, detailing the numbers by type: Members Enclosure, Grandstand & Paddock, Silver Ring, whatever the courses call them, bearing in mind that many courses have been offering loads of special deals to lure people in over the past three difficult years. 2 for 1, group discounts, endless voucher schemes with railways, newspapers, Nectar, Tesco, and other promos. The Tesco promotion proved hugely successful at Fontwell Park, for example, bringing in hundreds more than usual - but FREE, so while the numbers were good, it made sod-all difference to income!
 
Last edited:
How Do We Know ?

So what we're saying, in effect, is that we don't really know the true attendance at some meetings because of the plethora of compliementary tickets, vouchers, special offers etc.

The "official" figures are a start, a guide perhaps and on that basis we can make some broad assertions as to how courses are doing.

The point for racecourses (especially those with so to speak a finger in the food and drink pie) is that one they get someone through the door, they can get them spending on the scoff and quaff.

The figures I quote include "Paying Public, Members and Complimentary Badges" so if everyone has a badge, that should be pretty accurate. It should mop up hospitality, Owners and Trainers, Bookies, etc.

I appreciate children may not be fully included everywhere.

We will see when Goodwood submit their figures just how they've done compared to 2009 but my point remains that, with exceptions, attendances are at best static or marginally up. Meetings with after-race concerts continue to pull in the crowds as do some big Saturdays though other big meetings are not faring as well and neither are the bread-and-butter midweek cards.

I'll keep an eye on the figures through the next couple of months.
 
It shouldn't include bookies, Stodge, as they can't be called 'paying public' at five times the entry fee! They're also including turnout by Annual Members, where the cost per meeting is, of course, miniscule compared to the gate fee.

No, we the public won't know the true attendances at meetings at all. I find it's as much as the Accounts and Marketing offices to come up with correct figures, let alone release any for 'outsiders' to know!
 
stodge said:
I've noted Howard Wright in his last two columns in the RP talking up attendance numbers as evidence that all is well with racing and that the doom-sayers are wrong.
Click to expand...

Where did he say "all is well with racing"?

His article contained this: "Yes, these are troubled times compared with recent years, and racing's take from betting is sliding...racing's voices of doom seem to be outshouting those who are not blind to reality, but can still see a silver glow in the darkness."

Nowhere did he claim all was well with the sport but he makes the fair point that racecourse attendances are quite healthy in all the circumstances. I can't see much wrong with that.
 
Well, not quite - it was £33 for the Gordon Enclosure, which is probably the most raucously attended, but I didn't see the sort of rough behaviour that even Royal Ascot is now bedevilled by. Maybe it does take place, and perhaps there are punch-ups in the car parks post-racing, but Goodwood for Glorious week is a lovely place to be. Quality horses/riding, loads of charming and/or knowledgeable people, loads of places to eat and drink. I wandered into the Gordon for a tray of chips (I know my fain daining, y'know!), then back to the O/Ts for a sitdown and one of the endless all-day free teas and coffees. There was also free strawberries and cream for all Richmond Enclosure patrons - a nice gesture, and the brilliant Gurkha band to listen to. It's a civilised experience, not like the Terminal 4 ruckus which is now Ascot, Royal or not.
 
Still not a lot of money if you are looking for a very convivial day out with pals, loads of stuff to eat and drink and unsilly prices, quality racing, clean amenities, helpful staff, yadda-yadda.
 
The viewing in the Gordon is pretty poor compared to the Richmond though, Goodwood is one of the worst offenders for giving the Proles a worse view than the Party Members.
 
Mmm, true, but I think there are an awful lot in the Gordon who are more than happy to camp out at their tables for the day, watching the racing on the telly! In fact, that's true of huge swathes of racegoers in the restaurants and hospitality suites at any course, it seems. True, the stands do get filled up, but the bars were absolutely rammed to the rafters when I looked in, and the people seemed very happy to be in there roaring away with their mates, drinking, and quite happy to see the horses televised rather than in the flesh. Which makes me wonder if for some - and this isn't a negative view - regard a day's racing as really an extended betting shop, with chums, regulars, and loadsalager?
 
Must have been £60 for Richmond but that is only open to annual members now isn't it? £36 is expensive for a poor view. I read some carparks were £9 - joke to park on a bit of grass with no security.
 
On Wednesday I parked for free on Trundle Hill and trundled down the road to the main entrance, G-G. It's a short walk, no problem at all. On Saturday, I parked in the O/Ts - as long as your car has an ROA label, you're okay. Fortunately, I'd been given a (free) owner's badge for the Wednesday and the Saturday, so didn't end up paying a dime for my fun, other than for food and drink - although it's free tea and coffee all day in the owners' bar. I had a smashing salad in there on Wed: poached and smoked salmon with all the accompaniments and a nice granary roll and butter for £8, which was substantial enough that I didn't require a dinner that evening.

I suppose it's all about what you're getting out of your visit - I met loads of people I know, had lots of nice catch-up chats, met new people, enjoyed seeing horses in the flesh and not forever on tv, just liked the general buzz. For me, and I recognise that's not for all by any means, it's a cheerful social event more than a reckoning of what this or that cost, and I didn't punt a single horse. I really can't be bothered to bet most of the time when I'm at the races - at the dog races, yes, but not at the horses. If one's main issue is always about the cost of this, the cost of that, then I can see one might find an outing 'not worth while'. To me, seeing people I know and can't always see to chat with is worth the outlay of a few quid now and then. I don't go racing daily, or even weekly - although the ROA card is in for a bit of a battering at Windsor soon! - so I enjoy racing as escapism, or entertainment. If I were interested in betting, I'd set up a room at home with a bank of phones and tv's on every race channel in the world, devote my waking hours to Excel spreadsheets and personal ratings, compare Mordin to Morris's pedigree nicks, and become a recluse bent on world betting domination. Other than that, I just likes me 'orses!
 
krizon said:
If I were interested in betting, I'd set up a room at home with a bank of phones and tv's on every race channel in the world, devote my waking hours to Excel spreadsheets and personal ratings, compare Mordin to Morris's pedigree nicks, and become a recluse bent on world betting domination.
Click to expand...

Have you been spying on me? :blink:
 
Back
Top