Tabcorp Park Menangle prizemoney increase

[Triple V]

I actually very liberal in a family of socialists but given the current state of play in both the industry and the economy perhaps some socialism is in order. Jeff Gural at the Meadowlands has introduced 2% of stakesmoney to unplaced runners in an attempt to increase field sizes and as they say over there increase the "handle". I also recall Peter V'landy's intended to increase the prizemoney for 5-10th from the race fields revenue to increase field sizes, and the gallopers already get floating, shoeing and stablehand subsidies to go the the races. I don't think I need to say which administrators I'd have more faith in.

[VVV] Geeze Dot. @ Menangle the basic $ are 22k M0's and 7k C0's on a world class track with the promise of so much more and for the life of me I still can't fathom why you or anyone else would be talking things down. There's no pleasing some people. If it were raining Gold bars I fear some would still seek to complain about the weather.
The NSWHRC are kicking the tin THEMSELVES here. It is not from $ snapped up by them that was due but never delivered to other NSW based Clubs. Other Clubs will get their piece and they can choose to follow the leader or otherwise use it to fund whatever it is they want to fund at their own tracks.
You guys at Bankstown might want to get a bloke with a pressure cleaner in and blast all the Pigeon crap off the steps of the grandstand & surrounds.

There are rumours that stunning Roman era Mosaics may well lie beneath the countless layers of Guano.

[Mitch]

Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes, so taking a socialist approach wouldn't really increase competition in my opinion.

This increase is another positive step forward and should be welcomed by all.

[David Summers]

Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes, so taking a socialist approach wouldn't really increase competition in my opinion. This increase is another positive step forward and should be welcomed by all.

Alas for Dot , the glass continues to be "half empty" , no matter what the topic , in all her posts in the forum.

Dot , how about surprising us all with at least one positive post in this harness forum ? However I am not really holding my breath waiting for that to ever happen :-(

[aussiebreno]

Brendan, you may have missed this one:

http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=18341

Thanks Adam and congrats on Baby Blings win tonight.

[dizzy]

Mitch with respect I suggest you take another look at Menangle Tuesday meetings with regard to field sizes, you may then wish to revise your claim that Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes. And before someone jumps down my throat Menangle is not the only place where there aren't full fields.

As there is a direct correlation between field size and turnover, our major income stream, then due diligence needs to be done at both club and state administration level to use extra money from the racefields legislation to further maximise the return to the industry from turnover. I have an opinion on how that should be done but my opinion is not what counts, what counts is a properly done business study on whether increasing returns to already successfull ie winning and placing, starters, or subsidising unsuccessfull or unplaced starters is more effective for maximising field size and therefore turnover.

Gee David do you read all my posts? I'm sure I said in Brennos post about betting $$$$ it would be nice if we had $25 billion in turnover, cant be more positive then that can I? Rest assured David for the most part my glass is half full at worst regardless of the content, it's just that my feet always remain firmly planted on the ground.

Jamie not so long ago you were gripping about getting nothing for your fillies at the sales yet the planned prizemoney increases for Menangle had been well advertised at the time. I guess the higher prizemoney didn't translate to extra income for sellers at the sales. Likewise only those that are winning anywhere are getting better incomes, the rest continue to get nothing yet costs continue to rise. Just how much was that bag of the wonder stuff Livamol these days Jamie? Can you really afford it from the return that you got at the sales? Menangle is a world class track in your opinion why? Because they run the fastest times? How does running markedly faster times at one particular track generate more income directly for the industry? Do punters bet more on races that are run faster or do they bet more on well handicapped races with maximum field size regardless of time? In my opinion in the modern era a world class track, indeed a world class facility, is what Kevin Seymour has planned for the Albion Park site in Brisbane, not what we have out at Menangle.

Do you intend to grace us at Bankstown with your presence Jamie, if so I'll show you to the lounge and you won't need to worry about the pigeon crap using that entrance to the grandstand, the Chubb boys keep it pretty clean.

[David Summers]

Congrats to all the owners Adam. Good to see her back to her best again. Do you have anything special in mind for her after next weeks final ?

[Mitch]

Mitch with respect I suggest you take another look at Menangle Tuesday meetings with regard to field sizes, you may then wish to revise your claim that Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes. And before someone jumps down my throat Menangle is not the only place where there aren't full fields.

Dot,

I just had a quick look at the field sizes for Tuesday meetings dating back to mid April. Apart from trotters races and some 2yo/3yo races the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time. I'm sure if I had the time to research this even more thoroughly it would further confirm that in general field size is not an issue at Menangle.

I believe the biggest opportunity to increase field sizes would come from centralized programming and some more effective handicapping procedures.

Mitch.

[dizzy]

Dot,

I just had a quick look at the field sizes for Tuesday meetings dating back to mid April. Apart from trotters races and some 2yo/3yo races the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time. I'm sure if I had the time to research this even more thoroughly it would further confirm that in general field size is not an issue at Menangle.

I believe the biggest opportunity to increase field sizes would come from centralized programming and some more effective handicapping procedures.

Mitch.

Theres your problem Mitch, you had to say the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time, not 10 runners at acceptance time, and obviously less again in some instances at post time. Eight runners is not a full field and full fields count for turnover. Melton frequently have 12 horse fields and on some occasions more. Some of us will recall that the field size was increased at Harold Park from 10 to 11 runners except for 2yo to improve turnover. Some even older will recall 12 horse fields as the norm at Harold Park.

Improved programming and handicapping certainly is of benefit to field size and turnover and should constantly be reviewed for improvement but perhaps in this economic climate that isn't enough

[Mitch]

Dot,

I just completed a piece of deeper analysis. From Tues March 6 - Tues June 12 there were 15 Tuesday meetings held at Menangle. The following is fact:
- 39% of races had full fields after acceptances and prior to scratchings
- 75% of races had >8 starters
- There were 127 races run across the 15 meetings
- There were an average of 4.8 scratchings per meeting
- Total average field size was 8.26 (actual starters) or 8.83 (including scratchings)

I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, but unless you can show me current data that suggests otherwise once you have a field of 8 I would be surprised if the turnover increase to 9 or 10 horse fields is in any way significant. I still do not believe distributing prize money further down the placings is the right solution at this point. The above numbers are heavily impacted by small trotting and 2yo (in some instances) fields. I still believe NSWHRC have made the right decision.

What will generate greater revenue is competitive fields with evenly handicapped horses, I still strongly hold the view that centralized programming and improved handicapping measures will have a far greater impact on betting turnover.

I support your comments re some type of study or review, on the condition that it is done in a timely manner and that progress still occurs in the meantime. I'd rather them try things that don't work than not try at all!

[Triple V]

theres your problem mitch, you had to say the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time, not 10 runners at acceptance time, and obviously less again in some instances at post time. Eight runners is not a full field and full fields count for turnover.
[vvv] anything to try and drag down menangle huh dot? Mitch has already done the figures here so there's nothing to add.

melton frequently have 12 horse fields and on some occasions more.
[vvv] melton start 6 across the front with up to 6 trailers, there is no room for more than 12 to score up so the... 'and on some occasions more' thing is just totally incorrect.
menangle starts 10 across the front. No trailers. All silent all done.
it has also escaped you that vic has centralised programming in place...the very thing many including myself have repeatedly stated that we need here in nsw and paradoxically the very thing that you have repeatedly railed against???????
centralised programming is the very thing which produces that which you are lauding here, full fields at melton...because the programing is done in such a way that cetrain grades of horse have no option but to go there...or otherwise, stay at home and not race. Time and time again you've stated on this Forum that you are against such a system but here you are, unknowingly wrapping one of the major benefits of it? Perplexing to say the least. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

some of us will recall that the field size was increased at harold park from 10 to 11 runners except for 2yo to improve turnover. Some even older will recall 12 horse fields as the norm at harold park.
[vvv] geeze. There's a fair old slice of fish can swim, a duck can swim, therefore a fish is a duck about that dot.
what happened or didn't happen at hp is totally irrelevant to the way in which racing is now conducted at menangle.
completely different beasts.

improved programming and handicapping certainly is of benefit to field size and turnover and should constantly be reviewed for improvement
[vvv] couldn't agree more.

but perhaps in this economic climate that isn't enough.
[vvv] there's that old socialist thing creeping in again.
call me a cynic but i immediately read that as 'bankstown will more than likely not have any $ coming to it because the money that would otherwise have been our due from race fields legislation will go towards repaying hrnsw all the money they have outlayed over the last 2 years so to prop the place up...so in view of that, we want another hand out'....but hey, that's just me, dreadful cynic that i am.

vvv