- This topic has 39 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Typically excellent article from Lydia in the Grauniad today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 … -the-derbyUntil racing starts to embrace exciting, modern ways to make that connection, it will remain confused about whether it is failing or being failed.
‘The other side’ is represented by Des Lynam in the Telegraph.
The BBC’s coverage of the sport and the people providing it are abysmal. As Dave Mitchell points out "The BBC’s Epsom coverage was heavily stacked with the populist approach – it often resembled "Breakfast Time" without the sofa – and racefans turned off in their droves.
The BBC prefer to have people talking rather than showing the stars of the show (the horses) in the paddock and going to post, in certain races it was less than 60 secs to the start of the race before we even saw a horse.
"eddie case":2tn1qvob wrote: Interestingly enough on the other thread Rob North stated that the only way to judge the success of a sport was "bums on seats".
I suppose, Eddie, it depends how you define success. I define success in terms of financial viability.
I’m a bit puzzled why you think a Tote monopoly would be ideal but because we haven’t got one you consider racing should receive absolutely nothing from bookmakers betting on it.
That is not what I said Eddie.
What’s your suggestion for funding the support then?
It should be self-funding. Prize money coming from, stakes, sponsorship, rights management, gate receipts and investments. If there is not sufficient funding to support the current program, then the cloth should be trimmed to suit.
If, for example, the bookmakers want, for want of a better expression, the betting shop fodder racing then let them fund it themselves.
The Tote should be handed over to racing as a funding mechanism and it would then be up to racing to make it financially viable and competitive.
If it does not have the wherewithal to manage it properly then, like any other business, it does not deserve to survive.
Racing is still incredibly badly managed, it seems it is still run as if it is an amateur sport, not a multi-million pound business.
It is “run” by disparate groups, all with different vested interests. Until racing is “united”, as per the Hong Kong model for example, it will struggle. In any other business the arrangement would deservedly fail.
I was chatting to a friend the other day who had just come back from France, and he said that racing is on in all the bars and cafes over there.
Are you seriously suggesting that there were at least 900,000 more people than last year watching the Derby on RUK and the net?
I don’t know what the RUK / Internet figures were, and nor do you. I am suggesting that given the satellite-internet diaspora, these terrestrial viewing figures are increasingly meaningless.
Unless you can prove that there is an
overall downward trend
in
total
viewing figures, at home and abroad, sustained
over a decade or so
, then your doom-saying is firmly in the Cassandra camp – and I’m talking Frankie Howerd’s
Up Pompeii
lady rather than the rather more accurate Trojan original!
Here are the peak UK viewing figures in millions for most of the last 10 years:
2001 3.6
2002 3.0
2003 Don’t know
2004 Don’t know
2005 3.2
2006 4.1 (immediately after England football match)
2007 3.0
2008 3.0
2009 2.8
2010 1.92003 Don’t know
2004 Don’t knowFor the sake of completeness, 3m and 3.1m respectively.
OCD outbreak, sorry.
Makes you wonder just what is going on the hallowed halls of The Jockey Club these days. First Epsom has a new Managing Director, then he goes quickly to be followed by another. Now Andrew Gould, who jocked off the last Chief Executive, gets kicked out himself. What goes around comes around, but what a mess.
- Total Posts 17716
Venusian, thank you for the peak TV figures, which look very much in line with my hypothesis that interest in The Derby is holding up pretty well – once you take into account the fact the growing number who watch the race on media other than the terrestrial channel.
This year – with no strong "talking horse" beforehand, added to the exceptional weather – can’t be interpreted as the Doom Scenario, as several other posters have also pointed out.
The British free-to-air TV figures also perforce ignore fans watching live and/or betting abroad, all over the world, not least I fancy in the Far East.
The "nobody in charge" theory is the same problem over here. The failure to deal with the surface and course for next year and future years BC points out that the fighting to own racing is destroying it.Everybody wants to own racing nobody wants to work at it.
Venusian, thank you for the peak TV figures, which look very much in line with my hypothesis that interest in The Derby is holding up pretty well – once you take into account the fact the growing number who watch the race on media other than the terrestrial channel.
This year – with no strong "talking horse" beforehand, added to the exceptional weather – can’t be interpreted as the Doom Scenario, as several other posters have also pointed out.
The British free-to-air TV figures also perforce ignore fans watching live and/or betting abroad, all over the world, not least I fancy in the Far East.
If the facts get in the way of your hypothesis, why not just invent nigh on a million RUK subscribers glued to their screens?
You’re right about Hong Kong though. More money was bet on Epsom there than at Epsom itself. No surprise when they didn’t follow the geniuses running the sport here by offering the delights of the 3.50 at Hexham or the 3.55 at Doncaster on their betting menu. Only five races at Epsom were available for betting that day there. Less is more.
- Total Posts 17716
If the facts get in the way of your hypothesis, why not just invent nigh on a million RUK subscribers glued to their screens?
What about the "fact" of internet viewers, added to RUK subscribers and pubs? We simply don’t know: but we do know that the terrestrial figures no longer tell the whole story.
Thanks for your far from surprising additional data about Hong Kong. Talk of "catastrophe" is clearly out of order.
Are those, like me, who chose to video-record the BBC’s coverage for subsequent mass-editing of the guff included in the ‘live’ viewing figures?
The drop to 1.9 million does seem substantial. Can’t believe this was the only Derby this century to be run on a truly flaming June day, nor can I believe the numbers watching on t’net or elsewhere can account for all of the terrestrial drop, increasingly popular that alternative media are undoubtedly becoming
What was the programme on the beeb that preceded the Derby coverage this year? As is obvious by the 2006 figure a popular ‘shoulder’ prog will always beef up the numbers watching the next one, planned viewing or not
Has it been usual in other years to broadcast another sport prior to the Derby, and if so did the Beeb blow it this year by showing a B&W Gary Cooper Western or somesuch?
Someone mentioned that there was little other sport of any note vying for the Derby’s attention this year: ‘good’ may be the gut reaction but counter-intuitively might it not be the case today that such is the disinterest of the public-at-large in the ‘Blue Riband’ languishing as it does lost on just another summer sporting Saturday that it actually needs to be simulcast with a more popular sport – Indoor Bowls for example
– to get bums on sofasWhen I hear the word tradition I reach for my gun
may be a generally sound principle, but it does have its time and place
Nobody would be daft enough to move the Grand National to a Wednesday would they?
Maybe this is too simple, but?
Can we agree that regular TV racing fans would tune in to Ch4 on a Saturday afternoon, knowing they will always find their sport.
If so, could one key to the size of the BBC audience for the Derby be the finish time of the Ch4 coverage.
Two years ago, the Derby was at 4:00 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:20.
Last year, the Derby was at 3:45 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:35.
This year, the Derby was at 4:00 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:55.
How many regulars were still watching the Ch4 replay of the Doncaster 3:55 when the Derby started?
And how many of them just assumed that the Derby would be on Ch4, because, as we all know, the BBC no longer shows any racing.
AP
If so, could one key to the size of the BBC audience for the Derby be the finish time of the Ch4 coverage.
Two years ago, the Derby was at 4:00 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:20.
Last year, the Derby was at 3:45 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:35.
This year, the Derby was at 4:00 and the last Ch4 race was at 3:55.
How many regulars were still watching the Ch4 replay of the Doncaster 3:55 when the Derby started?
AP
C4 didn’t show the 3.55 at Donny, the last race they showed was the 3.40 at Musselburgh.
The fall off of viewing figures this year does seem dramatic however I would guess there are any number of combining factors behind it none of which are definitive.
For my part, I chose not to watch it live this year (I listened on the radio) but did so in the knowledge that I could watch it any time I choose too on the RUK website, Sporting Life Website or in the next seven days on the BBC iplayer.
Interesting point Drone, as you say seemingly counter-intuitive however I believe there maybe some truth in it. Personally I couldn’t imagine sitting down and watching a whole afternoon/day of sport but I do know many people that like too
It is not often a serial killer goes
on the rampage in the UK.
The life of Derek Bird
had infiltrated the mass psyche and
was on most people’s mind,
right up to the Saturday.
I would imagine many derby hating women got
their men folk to drive them
as far away from the crowded snipertowns
as possible.
Lands End was doing a brisk business
by 4 pm and there were more far out bathers
reported than usual when Workforce
was thrilling on the hill.Most women also knew it was the last
Rooney free Saturday for a long time
and another good reason for a last escape.My condolences to the peole of north Cumbria
SIR , your post has made me grin uncontrollably , but the truth is , racing viewing figures are down because folks cannot be bothered to watch it
Razzle for change should have made this his number one priority , instead we got first name Jocks , bigger saddle clothes , and then the killer blow ….decimal odds
Razzle is being interred somewhere as we speak , and we await the next messiah with maximum disinterest
cheers
Ricky
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.