ruk subscribers

In a country which has a population of over 60 million 44200 subscribe to RUK

shows in a nutshell how popular horseracing is.

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?

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.

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

elise, they will imo be far more profitable re. capital expenditure than this exchange is.

maybe, i might have a look at the whole rmg set up just for a bit of fun

They get extra income from selling pictures abroad.

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.

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

Is R uk now on a par wtith Turf TV? It seems to have quickened up recently?

yes so should help get people back/ onboard

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.

Kempton ?

absolutely no need for willo today

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.

Needs the work ..... Saving up for some teeth!

how much is RUK these days ?

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 .

I seem to remember them saying when they started that they needed 30,000
subscribers to break even.

and that of course was before they became an advert channel.

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

ATR  which is  free  to  view
1  million  viewers

ATR  which is  free  to  view
1  million  viewers


but 28000 viewers when maplepoof is on

On a Monday at Southwell ?
2800 more like.

when do ruk get ascot, is it early next yr?

ruk is well worth the money,atr delayed races are disgraceful,great morning programmes on atr,ruk could learn from atr on that

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.

ease
April  1  is  gone

The reason  ATR got more  viewers is  because   its   free
Which is good for racing
more punters

Apr 17, 2013 -- 3:55PM, ease wrote:

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.

Correct.

More tracks  to go to ATR
would mean more levy
Good for racing  imo

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.

I  see your point

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?

the adverts on atr is enuff for anybody to reach for the noose

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

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

Does IR  bets mean any money for  racing

no but a delay of up to 7 secs is shameful

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.

So just to get this right - you had Sky installed, watch no (or very little) of anything else on it, don't use any of it's other services just to watch atr?

Whether he/she does or not, it's appalling that you are forced to pay a minimum of ca 26.50 to get the channel

The point is if he wants to watch atr,thats what it will cost him.Regardless of wether he watches anything else.

Lampus • April 17, 2013 4:31 PM BST
Does IR  bets mean any money for  racing

Well yes.
Before IR no money was placed during races, so anything that encourages people to get involved, like as close to level a playing field would mean more people betting

I pay Sky £22.pm.which includes ATR.

can I just say that I think that was a great point made by me at 5.24

Both Free via Betfair

I take it he and all you that complain about this are fans of atr and watch for the pundits as obv you all know there are many 'legal' and 'illegal' ways to watch the races from atr tracks? So it's appalling to get atr as part of a pack but not appalling to pay for 1 channel in RUK (for which the vast maj have to have sky or virgin anyway!)? How does Sky solve this to your satisfaction then - stick it on freeview  and make it the only sports channel that isn't paid for? Fair do's they prob can do that so why can't RUK as that is now available on (paid) freeview?

Earlier it was mentioned ATR free to air I can assure them it is not

I'm with Blunders comments on this subject, if you can't afford £20 a month perhaps you should not be gambling on horses.I go to a lot of the Club days which are tremendous days out. You get to meet some of the presenters some of their tipping leave a lot to be desired but you do get the odd bit of inside info. Good value for money and all the back office people are really helpful if you ever need to contact them.

I've said this before but a neighbour of mine says that if you have Vermin broadband you can buy a box and receive all channels without paying a penny more.