-
Available Subscriptions
The Rest of the World
80,456 topics in this forum
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 92 views
-
-
- Journalists
Weekly National Regulatory Rulings, July 24-30
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 64 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 76 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 170 views
-
-
- Journalists
How I Got Hooked On Racing: Christina Bossinakis
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 209 views
-
- Journalists
Still Reeling from Arlington Closure, Illinois Racing Sees Fairmount Evolving as Source of Optimism
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 191 views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Nowornever · Posted
That is a complete copout and also a load of horse shit. A monitoring and review group can’t meaningfully assess the turnover performance without full access to race by race turnover data. They should be able to give a very accurate assessment of everything turnover related and if they can not then the report is a waste of time. -
By Special Agent · Posted
Absolutely Murray. I think you will find many Racecourses were gifted to Racing Clubs by someone, a family or group in their community. That's where the property should go back to. -
-
huh.i explained why .No point picking out bits Again,that ain't neccassarily so,even probably so. i explained why if you read my whole post. but for you again. if you run x amount of races and those amount of races are not generating enough income from wagering to cover the stakes paid.And then you increase the amount of races from x to y,and you generate the same turnover per race on the y races as you had on the x races,then what you have done is maintained turnover but increased the deficit between turnover and stakes paid,because you have run more of them. you just miss the points i made,i can't help that. -
-
-
Topics
-
