The ATC chose the higher risk/higher return alternative did they not.
Don't current realities indicate they got it badly wrong. They won't be judged on good intentions.
Putting that to one side.
Why is it those running the ATC think increasing stakes would result in increased numbers?
For years they have been saying the same thing, and for years that has not happened,so why all of a sudden would a failed strategy work?.
The ATC aims to cater for the higher quality horse. So they would rather programme 8 races and have 6 or 7 in them, rather than programme 10 races with many having full fields. Its all about the quality.
Do they not realize how dumb that sounds, but that is how they think.
As I've asked before,does a full field rating 40-to 45 with a good but lesser stake return the club more or less $ from betting than a 6 horse high quality field,normally dominated by a favorite? And what about the fuller fields contributing to more connections turning up to the races, and the long term positive effect success,at whatever level,will have on future participation.
I actually think the atc has contributed to decreased participation with their high quality approach,and once those participants with horses lower in the ratings give up,,You won.t get them or their horses back.,and they don't get replacement horses...