There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
racing uk's subscriber base grew to 44,200 in 2012, showing "stabilty in numbers" according to rmg chairman simon ellen.
wonder what this years figures will be after the price increase?
wonder what this years figures will be after the price increase?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 52
|
By:
In a country which has a population of over 60 million 44200 subscribe to RUK
shows in a nutshell how popular horseracing is. |
|
By:
do those numbers include their online subscriptions, pubs, overseas etc or is that just home satellite users
if it's the whole lot that sounds almost unsustainable? |
|
By:
elise, why unsustainable? running costs wont be a fortune there will be a bit
coming in from ads and around 10 million a year from subscribers does not seem too bad, which I was running it. |
|
By:
i'd be interested to see a p&l
i know they have taken more advertising over the last 12 months and that might have been a necessity , 44000 x the subs alone doesn't feel like it's enough to run a tv channel / outside broadcasts, multi platforms etc |
|
By:
elise, they will imo be far more profitable re. capital expenditure than this exchange is.
|
|
By:
maybe, i might have a look at the whole rmg set up just for a bit of fun
|
|
By:
They get extra income from selling pictures abroad.
|
|
By:
I would not be surprised to hear or read that their biggest expence is the paying
of the fees they pay the frontmen and pundits on their channel, give 50% of them the chop and RUK would be quids in and would have done us viewers a good turn. |
|
By:
i've found the annual return for march 2013 and the sept 12 annual accounts, i'll perhaps have a look later if i get bored with the sport
|
|
By:
Is R uk now on a par wtith Turf TV? It seems to have quickened up recently?
|
|
By:
yes so should help get people back/ onboard
|
|
By:
With Newmarket and Cheltenham on today there is no need to pay Willo to analyse Beverley. I thought I had seen the last of him until Meydan 2014 aswell.
|
|
By:
Kempton ?
|
|
By:
absolutely no need for willo today
|
|
By:
I hoped his appearance at Kempton on Saturday was his swansong until Meydan. Then again he didn't wave at the camera in a bizarre fashion from what I saw. After checking I didn't realise how often Kempton race over the summer so I suppose it's no surprise he hasn't retired again.
|
|
By:
Needs the work ..... Saving up for some teeth!
|
|
By:
how much is RUK these days ?
|
|
By:
Just about £1 a day to my mind is excellent value . I used to go racing almost ever day around the midlands ,and my petrol costs were greater than my mortgage ,never mind entrance fees .The presenters are not all to my taste ,but then again I use my own judgement ,and don't rely on them for tips.I turned down a free day at the Cheltenham Gold cup because I would rather watch it from the comfort of my own home .(I went to most of the previous 20 Gold Cups).If you can't make £22 a month out of your punting in order to pay the subscription ,perhaps you should find something else to bet on .
|
|
By:
I seem to remember them saying when they started that they needed 30,000
subscribers to break even. |
|
By:
and that of course was before they became an advert channel.
 |
|
By:
Never any need for willowbee.
Just because their are only 44,200 subscribers it does not show how popular horse racing is. Some peeps who love racing are too tight to pay for it  |
|
By:
ATR which is free to view
1 million viewers  |
|
By:
ATR which is free to view
1 million viewers but 28000 viewers when maplepoof is on |
|
By:
On a Monday at Southwell ?
2800 more like. |
|
By:
when do ruk get ascot, is it early next yr?
|
|
By:
ruk is well worth the money,atr delayed races are disgraceful,great morning programmes on atr,ruk could learn from atr on that
|
|
By:
ATR is not free-it costs £26.50 a month on sky's minimum package, and every race has a scandalous six second delay. The more courses that switch to RUK (as recently Exeter,Perth, and Ascot to come), the better.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
ease
April 1 is gone |
|
By:
The reason ATR got more viewers is because its free
Which is good for racing more punters |
|
By:
|
|
By:
More tracks to go to ATR
would mean more levy Good for racing imo |
|
By:
If I want to have the ATR I have to pay sky £26.50 a month on their entertainment extra package-I don't particularly want the rest of the garbage that goes with it so I call it expensive. At £20.80 a month RUK is light years in front for value and product.
|
|
By:
I see your point
 |
|
By:
Would the sport be better off if RUK were free to air? Would there be an significant upsurge in the popularity of the sport, attendances and betting turnover in the long term?
Aren't they getting enough out of Turf TV? Are they really upping the subscription? |
|
By:
the adverts on atr is enuff for anybody to reach for the noose
 |
|
By:
Lampus • April 17, 2013 4:12 PM BST
The reason ATR got more viewers is because its free Which is good for racing more punters Pre IR theory Things change Everything being equal it would have been better for all the take out merchants getting their fill somewhere else, but as it is RUK from an IR (modern) perspective is fantastic value |
|
By:
why have a 12 month tie in though.
i refuse to subscribe for 12 months so wont be having it...may just go online when the racing hots up |
|
By:
Does IR bets mean any money for racing
|