January turnover:stakes data

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes but I showed some restraint in saying what I thought of it.  I'm disappointed that you think this graph has any meaning.

You would get the same line if you put Marketing Expenditure vs Turnover on the axis.  Or Turnover vs Expenditure.  

Well if you have better data or analysis on the correlation between turnover and stakes supporting your view that they are unrelated, please post it.

At this point your restraint appears to be due to you having no evidence to the contrary.

Edited 1 hour ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, hesi said:

Racing has to make sure it uses the money it does get wisely and putting it into races that generate a higher turnover is one avenue.  Yes, there are many others.

Focusing on Stakes vs Turnover is doomed to fail.  The focus should be on the fundamentals - providing safe tracks and facilities for horses to train and race on.  

[hesi]

Not so much a focus just on stakes/turnover

But stakes are the biggest cost to the industry and turnover is the biggest effective income to the industry, so it has to be the main focus.

Less money allocated to stakes would mean more money for infrastructure, just as higher turnover would

[Chief Stipe]

26 minutes ago, hesi said:

Not so much a focus just on stakes/turnover

But stakes are the biggest cost to the industry and turnover is the biggest effective income to the industry, so it has to be the main focus.

Less money allocated to stakes would mean more money for infrastructure, just as higher turnover would

Stakes have been the main focus for decades.  Increasing them has resulted in a loss in participation NOT an increase.  Perhaps @curious can post that two variable graph.

A bit like Clubs focussing on the Party rather than raising money to maintain their infrastructure.  They now expect the Industry to fund that instructure but the pot isn't big enough!