Thoroughbred Brief has a great post, regarding the NTRA and the problems it faces, trying to implement some much needed change.
Apparently, the problem revolves around money; and how the multi-millionaires that control this game, don't have enough of it.
Everything would be much better, if only the money were there. So I ask the question: where does the money come from?
I would suggest, sponsors.
Post Parade had a post, back in October-when the Dow was way up at 9300, regarding this very issue. Now, nobody in their right mind is going to jump into the cesspool of horse racing and attach their name to a diseased product. The corruption, the drugs, the mob, the infighting-and that is just IEAH. Bessemer Trust has jumped ship and the NFL is yanking its members out.
So what to do? What about a back loaded sponsorship agreement. Get Home Depot or VISA or whoever you want and guarantee them free advertising for, say, two years, with the understanding that the game cleans up its act and eliminates the drugs and the cheaters.
If at the end of those two years, the game has progressed enough, to the satisfaction of the sponsors, they sign a short term contract to continue advertising, for a fee, in order to give them the opportunity to assure themselves that this is not just a one off. Give them track naming rights. Home Depot at Churchill Downs or whatever the hell else you want. Get rid of the Churchill Downs if you want. In the merry-go-round of stadium names, nobody is going to care if in three years the track changes names four times.
The point being, if the sponsors get a chance to advertise, at no cost; while holding the carrot of future, lucrative advertising deals in front of track execs; those in control might feel more comfortable taking on some radical initiatives and implementing some much needed change.
CDI obviously does not want to be in the track management business, instead they are shifting their efforts to the ADW; so why not sell the track to the NTRA or group of owners; functioning as a 501(c)(6), much like the NFL. Maybe each major track can undergo this type of transition.
These tracks would or could function as host sites for coordinated meets, scheduled within the context of a progressive season, without the scheduling cannibalism prevalent today. The tracks, if they function as one, could negotiate lucrative ADW contracts for their horsemen, with revenues going to the NTRA, after track expenses are taken out.
The game needs an image to sell and what it has going now is ugly. Backstop yourself with some giveaways, it costs you nothing and could return a tidy sum.
They sold the naming rights to the Kentucky Derby, they shouldn't appear to stand on principle now.
13 February 2009
Where does the money come from?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Bid
Greatest horse ever to look through a bridle
Posts
4 comments:
I think they definitely need to find a way to get Visa back into the game, and I'm still in denial that I won't see those oh-so-familiar Bessemer Trust commercials this year (I remember the days when I had no idea what Bessemer Trust could possibly be, but I wanted to be a part of whatever it was!).
It's arguable, at least, that the 'less expensive' first steps of the accreditation process, geared as they are toward image/perception, could also help, to the extent that they can make racing more attractive to potential advertisers.
Thanks for the shout out.
WG nice posts on the NTRA. Might we eventually get the real scoop on the Paulick report?
I am personally a little disturbed at the underlying tone of your posts that various issues you continue to raise are set in stone. Where is it written that national control, accreditation, etc., is beneficial to horse racing as we know it? One contrary viewpoint might be that the potential strength of the sport lies in its diversity (did I just type that), and it's ubiquitous nature. While one arm is trying to save Fort Erie, the other arm, yours, is bellyaching about too many tracks and races. Where I come from there are too few tracks and races. Possibly I see your various analysis resting on a house of cards with unfounded assumptions. Can we first declare underlying facts and actually establish the presumed benefits before we declare an agenda? cheers. rr.
Kerry-Eventually, even I get tired of pissing into the wind.
RR-I think you may have mistaken my blog for someone else's. If you have read my previous posts, you know I am not a fan of the NTRA or their initiative. I think they are tackling the wrong issues and doing it the wrong way. That said, I realize nobody is coming to my door asking me to effect change and I am putting out a suggestion in the context of the given approach.
I would ask you what your resistance to accreditation is, though? How can a standard of safety and service be detrimental to the game? I don't think I read anywhere that the NTRA wants to eliminate diversity. Standards do not preclude individual flavor.
Racing is a commodity and like any commodity it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. People will only pay for the product they believe provides them the best value. The product at the margin will invariably get cut. You say, where you come from there are too few races but I would say there are exactly as many as the market will bear.
GM makes too many cars. Does that mean it should retain all those workers who make the cars nobody wants to buy? It sucks for them and I imagine it would suck for you but I don't see a way to fix this without hurting anyone.
If you have one, I would love to hear it. Declare to me your underlying facts and establish the presumed benefits.
I am never unwilling to listen to a convincing argument.
txs for response. naaahh. first thing i read in the morning, Gathering Wind. lol! but, maybe i misread as i thought i was reading a lot about "national control", national accreditation, shrinking race dates, eliminating tracks," etc. Only asking to state the basis of all that is what we really want, and putting in contrast our present system of democratic participation that is uncontrolled by any central authority. I think the question needs to be asked before jumping pelmel off the cliff of national control. Noone said anything about "accreditation" being a bad thing. Yet, "accreditation" in terms of cost for a small track, or in terms of limiting access to the sport, disturbs. You probably know my position WG. Quit fighting over a shrinking pie, market and expand betting, and figure out how to give owners control over their horses, market to owners that enjoy sport instead of ripping off the sport. Meanswhile gadflying the NTRA does have my support. Agreed, probably. Wrong issues, wrong way.
Post a Comment