- This topic has 52 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
There’s some misapprehension here. On this occasion, for once, many non-racing fans were tuning in to see The Derby. They were doing so simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite.
The publicity for this year’s race was massive
because of this fact
, and its profile correspondingly higher than usual.
Are you absolutely certain about these two points you make?
Attendance at Epsom was 120,000, up 16% on the previous year.
Fact.
Interviews with many punters at the gate produced the "We’ve come to see the Queen’s horse win" response.
Fact.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … bymeeting/
The Derby, not the England/Switzerland football qualifier, was top of the bill in every sports segment in the morning news programmes, on terrestrial, Sky and Radio 4.
Fact.
So yes, I am absolutely certain of those
facts
. The viewing figures for BBC1 will make interesting reading too, I have no doubt. For once, after decades of trailing in the Grand National’s wake, The Derby was a real focus of general public interest yesterday.
Quite how you think Fallon’s absence might have
increased
attendance baffles me, as that absence wasn’t decided until after most people would have set out for the course. Bizarre idea!
Curious how so many Racing fans (on TRF and elsewhere) seem determined to diss the importance of the event, none the less.
Do you do this on purpose Pinza?
Please, please, please. I’m begging you mate, I really am begging you. Please will you STOP twisting things that I actually said. Please stop responding to something that I didn’t actually say. It does my head in mate.
Where did I say Fallon’s absence increased attendance? Come on, please show me. And if you can’t find it (and you won’t), then can you actually give a response to something I actually do say in the future.
What I actually did do is question your two statements. Your first statment was about non-racing fans tuning in because the Queen’s horse was favourite, your second statement was about publicity.
You then gave an excellent response, which I accept. But you then also go on to talk gibberish about something I didn’t say. Why?
I never once mentioned attendance.
What I actually said was, that in the 48 hours leading up to the race, the Fallon story received more publicity than the Queen’s story.
I NEVER said that Fallon’s absence increased attendance.
So please Pinza, stop responding to something that I didn’t say. Stop twisting what I and others say. You’re a clever man, so please have the decency to reply to what people actually say rather than what they didn’t say.
It would be nice if you could reply with some sort of acknowledgement that I never once said Fallon’s absence would increase attendance.
Many thanks.
- Total Posts 17716
What I actually said was, that in the 48 hours leading up to the race, the Fallon story received more publicity than the Queen’s story
You actually said this:
"But was the publicity massive just because the Queen’s horse was favourite? I’d say that the ‘Fallon’ story outweighed the ‘Queen’s horse’ story ten to one in the 48 hours that immediately preceded the Derby."
You seem to agree that the massive publicity given to the race boosted attendance on course and on the box. You also say here that in your opinion the Fallon story outweighed the Carlton House story "ten to one" in the 48 hours run up to the race.
It is therefore logical of your readers to conclude that you believe that the Fallon story not the Queen angle was responsible for the rise in attendances and viewing figures, a notion which you sensibly refute. So why are you arguing with me about it in the first place, except for the sake of locking horns?
No. We all need to get Racing in perspective, and look at the wider publicity picture – not what hits the headlines in the Racing Post or Sporting Life website, with their limited general interest. Alas, the great majority of the populace don’t have a clue who Kieren Fallon
is
, let alone a burning interest in any minor legal shenanigans over his Derby mount.
Fact!
- Total Posts 17716
deleted. cormack15
Clare Balding did what all good broadcasters are able to do, she verbalized the thoughts and feelings of the vast, vast majority of people who watched the race yesterday.
Top notch as always.
Clare Balding did what all good broadcasters are able to do, she verbalized the thoughts and feelings of the vast, vast majority of people who watched the race yesterday.
Top notch as always.
Any chance of whatever these links that Jjm sports followed this comment ( above) with being distilled into a couple of interesting points rather than paragraphs and paragraphs of whatever……….or am I the only one who doesn’t even read posts beyond a certain length.
……….and also ones that go totally off topic into personal abuse
yawn!..who on earth would want to read what amounts to a transcript of aN off topic personal row between people who don’t even know each other?- Total Posts 17716
The nag wasn’t good enough…..and that’s official!!
The nag wasn’t good enough.
True.
I love this sentence on the BBC Sport website;
– The Queen’s horse Carlton House may have won the 2011 Derby if the race had been run differently, her team said.
Well so might every other horse in the race
Many of the people who are classing Carlton House as unlucky, or ‘didn’t get the run of the race’ etc, are failing to mention that the winner Pour Moi came from much further back, also had to race wide, hung left in the final furlong, yet won with the jockey stood up in the saddle crossing the line.
If the two – Pour Moi and Carlton House – ever met again over 12f, I know who I’d be backing. And it wouldn’t be the Queen’s horse that’s for certain.
Why does everyone assume the world wants the Queen’s horse to win? It’s all biased rubbish as usual. I can’t stand The Royals and what they have done in the past, and I’m delighted she didnt win. The best horse won. Tough potatoes Balding.
I think the BBC go too far in their efforts to make the sport appeal to this ‘wider audience’ we speak of.
The most amusing moment of the Derby coverage was when (and I’m paraphrasing), Claire Balding said
"the
whole country
have been looking forward to this race right through the year,
the nation
is gripped by the Carlton House story."
Are you kidding?
Clare Balding did what all good broadcasters are able to do, she verbalized the thoughts and feelings of the vast, vast majority of people who watched the race yesterday.
Top notch as always.
Any chance of whatever these links that Jjm sports followed this comment ( above) with being distilled into a couple of interesting points rather than paragraphs and paragraphs of whatever……….or am I the only one who doesn’t even read posts beyond a certain length.
……….and also ones that go totally off topic into personal abuse
yawn!..who on earth would want to read what amounts to a transcript of aN off topic personal row between people who don’t even know each other?I thought it was the only two worthwhile sentences in the entire thread to be honest, so thought it should be highlighted.
There’s some misapprehension here. On this occasion, for once, many non-racing fans were tuning in to see The Derby. They were doing so simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite.
The publicity for this year’s race was massive
because of this fact
, and its profile correspondingly higher than usual.
Are you absolutely certain about these two points you make?
I don’t know one non-racing fan who tuned in to watch yesterday’s Derby simply because the Queen’s horse was favourite. Ok, there may have been some, but relatively speaking, ‘many’ is an exaggeration in my opinion.
So I don’t think it’s ‘fact’ that this was the case do you?
And to your second point, you say the publicity for this year’s race was massive, again referring to the Queen’s horse as your reason.
But was the publicity massive just because the Queen’s horse was favourite? I’d say that the ‘Fallon’ story outweighed the ‘Queen’s horse’ story ten to one in the 48 hours that immediately preceded the Derby. And before that I didn’t notice any publicity that I wouldn’t have seen in any year ahead of the Derby – Queen’s horse or no Queen’s horse in the race.
Without wishing to enlarge the arguement futher. I have to stick up for Pinza here.
One Eye,
You made a commentsuggesting
very few people tuned in to watch purely because of the Queen’s horse. Yet as Pinza points out, the Derby Day attendance was up significantly. It is
illogical
to think very few people tuned in to the BBC coverage purely to watch the Queens horse – when so many people turned up on Epsom Downs for that very same reason. If it is illogical not to think something, then you can presume it a
fact
.
You then put forward an arguement that
suggests
the Fallon Affair
gained more publicity
than the Queen’s horse. Which
seems
to
strongly imply
the reason for the far greater iterest than normal – was (in your opinion) the
Fallon factor
and
not Queenies quest
.
Whether you like it or not One Eye, we
all
have to
analyse
each other’s posts to
try
and understand the person’s opinion. In this very thread, Corm misunderstood my own ramblings.
NOT
his fault, my words were as confusing as ever.
I
suggest
that the vast majority of people came to the same conclusion about the meaning of your words as Pinza and I did.
I implore you to take another look at what you wrote and think of what others might
believe
your words to mean, not what
you actually meant
.
There was no reason to accuse Pinza of….
Mark
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
deleted – cormack15
To be fair to Chiswickian thought it best if I delete this post.
Thumbs Up.
Value Is EverythingGinge, do me one favour please, and I will bow down and agree to you both.
Please show me where I said that Fallon not riding on Saturday increased the Derby day attendance. And also, please show me where I agreed that the TV attendances were up.
From my original post, these are the two things that Pinza – after his analystic process – thinks I said. Please show me where I said them.
If you can’t find them, then my advice to you both is not to assume what I say, but rather take what I type in black and white as what I say. You’ll both be on safe ground then.
I don’t give a toss what people think of me, never have done and never will do. I make a living out of being controversial; I express my opinions and thoughts in a very simple way, it’s the only way I know how. What I do give a toss about is people twisting what I do say and debating something that I actually didn’t say. I express opinions in a very simple way, in black and white, without the need for analysis. I don’t know how to write in riddles mate.
So if I say the best way to get to the number four is by adding two plus two, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that the best way to get to the number four is by dividing 80 by 10, taking away five, and adding one.
So if I say that the Fallon story received more publicity (in my opinion) than the Queen story, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that Fallon’s absence increased the Derby Day attendance.
So if I say I don’t know one non-racing fan who tuned into watch the Derby just because the Queen’s horse was fav, then that’s exactly what I mean. What I don’t mean is that I agree that TV audiences were up because of the Queen publicity thing.
Whether I’m right or wrong I don’t give a toss. Remember, you can always debate an opinion, but you can’t argue a fact.
It could easily be – and very likely is – that all the folk on here are too clever to simply read what is written in black and white, that’s maybe too simple for them. So the solution is to read what is written, analyse it, and come up with an assumption that they think is correct, but in fact is wrong.
I on the other hand just prefer to read what is written in black and white, and take it for what it says without the use of analysis.
But then should I be surprised with how intelligent people think they are on here? When you get dozens and dozens of pages about a horse’s rating, everyone thinking they are correct and everyone else must be wrong, and then I start a thread to ask how a 70 rated animal beats a 110 rated animal of level weights, and I don’t get one reply. Then that tells me everything I need to know about the folk on here.
It’s like a playground for you all to try and out do each other with your use of words and opinions. There’s hardly ever a light-hearted moment shared or a smile raised; the most important thing about this forum is analysis as it seems – either trying to analyse what people write, or trying to analyse a horse’s rating. No one does it well, because quite frankly, neither needs analysing.
That’s me done on this thread, I won’t read it again so if there’s something you want me to see then I suggest a PM. So go ahead, twist away, just don’t get into a fight with Pinza when you’re trying to analyse which one of you is Chubby Checker
And yes, that is light-hearted.
yawn!..who on earth would want to read what amounts to a transcript of aN off topic personal row between people who don’t even know each other?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.