- This topic has 13 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hello,
I have seen a couple of threads here about NEW racecourses, etc.
I am, and so is my father, who was 80 something this week, remember clearly that after the demise of Manchester Racecourse which was actually in Salford, and part of the Main Stand is still at the back of the University, was closed because of a "Council" dispute*, a new place had to be found for THE LANCASHIRE OAKS and the NOVEMBER HANDICAP.
As we know the November went to Doncaster, the Oaks lingered…then some bright spark said,
" Let’s build a racecourse between Manchester and Liverpool?"
So, it began, they planted a racecourse, not for any advantageous reason other than, it was neart the East Lancs. Road and the M6 whatever.
When it was constructed, basically they marked out a track, and built a stand next to it.
The land it was built on is more or less on sea level.
There WAS NO trees, hence any rain could not go away, if any of you find that last statement puzzling consult your nearest Irish man or posh gardner.
So, without thinking clearly about the actual mechanics of "a racecourse", the local track for an encapturement area of 6 million people was a disaster. Well, not a disaster, I am personal about it, it has probably worked…
Yes, Haydock has battled through, with going invariably "choppy", but once the blind investment was made, we have to go with it.
Last weekend, probably no need to tell you the OAKS from Manchester and the Newton Cup [actually raced at a course called Newton], was lost.
You cannot drain into a bog.
But more frighteningly, was the Sunday Meeting on the 15/07 was poorly attended.The point I am making here is Haydock was one of the first placements for cash ONLY, and in some respects, it may be considered a success, but, building new racecourses’ on completely unsuitable ground just for CASH should not be tolerated again.
Bear in mind, Haydock’s top rider is REDGRAVE..
* I have actually contibuted to the "Salford Racecouurse" Book, available at all good newsagents now!!…next to Harry Potter…
regards,
doyley
Hello,
Yes, but we have an early edition, that actually names names…but not here I am afraid.. but you have a grip of what I am saying, I will PM you tomorrow..
regards,
doyley
The question is do we really need another racecourse we’ve got 60 is it Manchester saying we cant be left out must have that. Is Manchester going to be all weather, turf or both
Hello,
I am, and so is my father, who was 80 something this week, remember clearly that after the demise of Manchester Racecourse which was actually in Salford, and part of the Main Stand is still at the back of the University, was closed because of a "Council" dispute*, a new place had to be found for THE LANCASHIRE OAKS and the NOVEMBER HANDICAP.
As we know the November went to Doncaster, the Oaks lingered…then some bright spark said,
" Let’s build a racecourse between Manchester and Liverpool?"
So, it began, they planted a racecourse, not for any advantageous reason other than, it was neart the East Lancs. Road and the M6 whatever.
So, without thinking clearly about the actual mechanics of "a racecourse", the local track for an encapturement area of 6 million people was a disaster. Well, not a disaster, I am personal about it, it has probably worked…
The point I am making here is Haydock was one of the first placements for cash ONLY, and in some respects,
??? I’m confused – are you saying that Haydock was built in the 1960’s because it’s near a motorway, to host the Lancashire oakes?
I’ve no idea how old Haydock Park is, but I thought the last course to open was Taunton in the 1930’s.
But more frighteningly, was the Sunday Meeting on the 15/07 was poorly attended
Why are you frightened ? This is the football day is it not ? It works for young kids but doesn’t work for many more. The racing is typical Sunday stuff – poor quality, and the majority of racegoers have given the day a swerve as the focus isn’t really on the racing.
Haydock’s crowds are generally healthy, I’ve been to the majority of their Friday night/Saturday fixtures and I think the track is on an upward curve personally.
According to this Haydock Racing is 250 years old but started at current venue in 1899
Haydock opened in 1899, but racing in the area started at Newton Common in 1807. The Old Newton Cup started there in 1825.
The Lancashire Oaks dates from 1939.
Info from John Tyrell’s book ‘Racecourses on the Flat’.
AP
Haydock’s crowds are generally healthy, I’ve been to the majority of their Friday night/Saturday fixtures and I think the track is on an upward curve personally.
As a Flat and Friday evening venue, perhaps. The jumps fixtures have been increasingly poorly patronised and are now being thinned appreciably (and relegated to a single strip of turf with portable obstacles) as a consequence. Bah.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
i amazed that given what haydock are doing the the jumps track and are going to be using trolly fences like you see at southwell ,that they are still being allowed to stage the grade one betfair chase
Why are you surprised runandskip?
Nobody complains about Cheltenham staging the 3m 3f flat race Stormez won a couple of years ago or about 5f run-in’s that even the blind could see coming at the November meeting etc.
Haydock is one of only a handful of truly Grade 1 tracks (that stage both jumps and flat G1’s). The facilities are top class for the customer and the only thing that you could fault is the parting blow of the former clerk of the course (her name escapes me, Lisa…) to the locals by attempting to plant conifers all up the straight to prevent any decent viewing.
Nobody complains about Cheltenham staging the 3m 3f flat race Stormez won a couple of years ago or about 5f run-in’s that even the blind could see coming at the November meeting etc.
That’s a rather peculiar statement given that it was the only subject of conversation for ages after it happened (again) last November. Anyway, I don’t know what the problem of low sun at Cheltenham has to do with the total desecration of one of Britain’s premier National Hunt tracks.
the parting blow of the former clerk of the course (her name escapes me, Lisa…) to the locals by attempting to plant conifers all up the straight to prevent any decent viewing.
I’m not sure what you’re thinking of here, Kirkland Tellwright has been clerk of the course at Haydock for years. Lisa Hancock was there back in the day but that must have been a decade ago.
It certainly wasn’t a decade ago HJ, they’ve only been there about 6 or 7 years (ok it’s nearly a decade – time flys).
My point is Runandskip was criticising Haydock for the use of portable fences (which for all intents and purposes are the same as the previous ‘drop’ fences) whilst Cheltenham manage to take a number of them out of the equation totally. Surely they could see that running a ‘chase at 4pm on a Saturday afternoon in November would more than likely result in a low sun?
I’m not totally certain of the exact circumstances of the Stormez race circa 2003/4 but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was due to low sun which meant that being pretty much tailed off 6f out due to his trademark poor jumping he managed to stay on to win.
I’d prefer to see the old fences back at Haydock as i’ve been going there since I was young (my first visit to any course being for Dom Samurai’s Greenalls National Trial) and they should at least keep the only natural water jump in the UK (if not Europe).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.