turnovers

[the galah]

i just watched a bit of the box seat and at one point greg o'connor was asked about turnovers.

he said  to a question about turnovers for the most recent weeks- "turnovers are looking really strong.Turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the  equivalent last year,particularly derby night"

so when he says  turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent to last year.

is it as good as he makes out.

The previous year,in the 3 weeks after show day the club had 2 friday and 1 low key, 8 race wednesday meeting.(29 races in total)

This year they had racing every friday night,in other words  3 friday meetings.(32 races in total)

so is he giving figures comparing the turnovers from those 3 meetings,i guess thats what he meant.

but if he is,which it sounded like,then hasn't he created a misleading perception,as there were 3 more races run this year, low key wednesday meetings don't generate the turnover of a friday night normally and we also know they pay higher stakes on a friday than they would have for the wednesday meeting last year.

again,isn't it another statement where the context is lacking.

maybe he had context but simply chose not to go into detail for some reason.

there needs to be more detail befoe people can be convinced they aren't being given spin.I don't think mr o'connor is into deliberately giving spin,but he didn't appear to compare apples with apples.

Edited 2 hours ago by the galah

[Brodie]

Think of how much extra turnover they would have if they let the punters on?

[Chief Stipe]

18 minutes ago, the galah said:

i just watched a bit of the box seat and at one point greg o'connor was asked about turnovers.

he said  to a question about turnovers for the most recent weeks- "turnovers are looking really strong.Turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the  equivalent last year,particularly derby night"

so when he says  turnovers are $600,000 ahead on the equivalent to last year.

is it as good as he makes out.

The previous year,in the 3 weeks after show day the club had 2 friday and 1 low key, 8 race wednesday meeting.(29 races in total)

This year they had racing every friday night,in other words  3 friday meetings.(32 races in total)

so is he giving figures comparing the turnovers from those 3 meetings,i guess thats what he meant.

but if he is,which it sounded like,then hasn't he created a misleading perception,as there were 3 more races run this year, low key wednesday meetings don't generate the turnover of a friday night normally and we also know they pay higher stakes on a friday than they would have for the wednesday meeting last year.

again,isn't it another statement where the context is lacking.

maybe he had context but simply chose not to go into detail for some reason.

there needs to be more detail befoe people can be convinced they aren't being given spin.I don't think mr o'connor is into deliberately giving spin,but he didn't appear to compare apples with apples.

Does it matter?  If turnover is UP then that is a positive and should be celebrated.  

 

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Think of how much extra turnover they would have if they let the punters on?

Not if that turnover contributes to negative revenue.

[Brodie]

41 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not if that turnover contributes to negative revenue.

Not sure how many punters are restricted by the TAB in NZ?

However they would be far better off allowing the punters on for reasonable amounts than turning away business and therefore restricting the turnover!

How do they know that the restricted punters currently are not going to be losing punters in the future?

At least let everyone on to be able to win a reasonable amount in this day and age as a few hundred dollars is pathetic, when OTG are allowed to win tens of thousands!

[the galah]

52 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Does it matter?  If turnover is UP then that is a positive and should be celebrated.  

 

 

51 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not if that turnover contributes to negative revenue.

you seem confused, as haven't you just said 2 contradictory things.

 

bedsides,Isn't the most relevant thing whether race meetings are generating profits or losses.

Turnovers are a good indicator,but turnovers can be down but still generating profits and turnovers can be up but still generating losses.And doesn't it matter most these days just how profitable,or not,the ff betting is per meeting..

Obviously its all a big picture thing in  the end,but their doesn't seem much transparency about the big picture.Thats the point i try to make,when i talk  about the need for context.

Edited 56 minutes ago by the galah

[Brodie]

There is no transparency whatsoever and very little out of HRNZ.

They concentrate on yield when it needs to-be turnover.

 A lower yield on a bigger turnover is a far better option!

You restrict turnover and it has bad side effects.

Edited 46 minutes ago by Brodie