- This topic has 87 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
But do you have an even worse opinion of our 50 to 35 rated horses than I do?
Surely even Southwell can not be described as the worst standard of racing in the World?
I’ve no idea what the ‘standard’ is of run-of-the-mill racing in small racing jurisdictions or if Southwell has the "worst standard of racing in the world"
Do the International Classifcations encompass all racehorses, in the manner of the 0-140 UK Handicap, or just those with Black Type?
I don’t have any particular opinion of lowly rated horses other than they’re not so good as higher rated ones
Off at a tangent but I’m sure you remember the fairly short lived experiment with Regional Racing and its menu of Banded Stakes, which were if memory serves were essentially a type of Classified Stakes and not Handicaps
Again, if memory serves these races solely for lowly rated horses generally met with derision from the cognoscenti on message boards; but in light of the current attitude on TRF to ‘poor’ handicaps and their being a suitable vehicle for ‘coups’ and nefarious practice do the ‘AW is dross’ brigade believe that a reintroduction of Banded Stakes for the lowest of the low would reduce temptation to pull a sharp one as they by their nature cannot be manipulated in the same manner as handicaps?
I’ve heard of horses being sold to Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey and other Eastern European countries
Well I couldn’t possibly see any problems with that, eh?
Mike
Low(est) grade racing – rightly or wrongly synonymous with All-Weather racing – adds a sizeable chunk of economic activity to the sport.
Leaving the betting aside – and no doubt many on here do! – every run of every horse to some degree pays the wages of trainers, jockeys, stable hands, vets, farriers, betting shop staff, TV presenters, journalists etc etc.
The idea that this should be greatly diminished whilst owners are driven out of the game because their horses aren’t good enough seems completely irrational to me. The ultimate baby-and-bathwater scenario.
There seems a sort of patrician view that we would somehow all be morally nourished by not having to see those
ghastly
40-rated animals gallumping around the sandpit. This may have a wonderfully effete 18th-century charm about it, but that really is about all.
Mike
There seems a sort of patrician view that we would somehow all be morally nourished by not having to see those
ghastly
40-rated animals gallumping around the sandpit. This may have a wonderfully effete 18th-century charm about it, but that really is about all.
What melodramatic claptrap.
The single biggest issue facing British racing (apart from its reliance upon the Levy) is poor prize money. Owners and trainers are forever complaining about how derisory the sums offered are. If there were less AW racing, especially during the summer when we don’t need it at all, that slice of the pie could be invested in boosting prize money in general.
It really is that simple; sadly, there are too many factors in the racing industry over complicating the issue.
The idea that this should be greatly diminished whilst owners are driven out of the game because their horses aren’t good enough seems completely irrational to me. The ultimate baby-and-bathwater scenario.
Mike
Simply won’t happen.
Doesn’t have to be done overnight. Say
gradually up the figure
by 1 each year from say 40 the first year to 50 the tenth year, so that owners
do not need to get rid of their current horses
and not alter breeding markets in one go either.
In future, owners would know where they stand.
Either buying a
better horse
or
part of one
, but where horses prove not good enough to win… then
sell
. Just as those at a
lesser level
(not good enough to win) are
sold today
.
To say owners wil be "driven out" is "completely irrational" Mike, it would happen "gradually" with no owners forced out…
But if bookmakers really do want crap racing, then come to an arrangement they pay 100% of costs and prize money, with absolutely NO Levy involved. Let bookmakers keep profits too.
Value Is EverythingWhat melodramatic claptrap.
Yes, yes if you like, but the substantive points were quite obviously in the three paragraphs above that!
The single biggest issue facing British racing…is poor prize money.
Not for most punters it isn’t. Anyway, that will always be the case as British race betting is controlled by private companies rather than a public pari-mutuel.
Owners and trainers are forever complaining about how derisory the sums offered are.
Leaving aside the patently ludicrous notion that predominantly wealthy owners should somehow expect to have their hobby funded, both they and trainers are perfectly at liberty to discontinue their association with the sport. Thousands have. Thousands of others have come in. It’s the way things are, have been and always will be.
If there were less AW racing, especially during the summer when we don’t need it at all, that slice of the pie could be invested in boosting prize money in general
No, that ‘slice of the pie’ will disappear altogether as their would no longer be any entry fees, course funding and largely bookmaker-based sponsorships that this type of racing attracts. Furthermore, the yield from the Levy would likely go down as there would be fewer meetings. I would be highly surprised that removing these meetings released a single penny in extra funding.
However, my main point concerns the endlessly repeated canard that there is "too much racing". This phrase is bandied about as some form of panacea to racing’s ills as if a bit of self-flagellation and cold showers is what the sport really needs! The market will decide the size of racing – removing a lower layer of it altogether based on some messianic and opaque concept of ‘improving quality’ is pointlessly self-destructive in my opinion.
Such a move would surely only lead to a number of owners, trainers and associated trades who operate at the lower level leaving the sport for good. It will reduce the employment capacity of racing and give it a smaller footprint both economically, geographically and socially.
I don’t see how this benefits anyone.
Mike
To say owners wil be "driven out" is "completely irrational" Mike, it would happen "gradually" with no owners forced out…
You can cut it any-which-way you like, any business that raises the bar to entry will always suffer a reduction in customers.
Mike
I appreciate what you are saying I used to quite like watching the 0-30 Banded races, they had a sort of morbid fascination as on paper the horses were so dreadful they were either perennial tail off merchants on all surfaces and distances or were has beens from the 0-60 ranks who had dropped to a lowly mark as age caught up with them.
I think they were done away with as they were seen as even more crooked than run of the mill AW racing although I’ve no idea if that was the case. There is a lot of prejudice surrounding AW racing. Personally I wouldn’t have a problem with 0-30 races being reintroduced to the racing calendar.
With regards to selling horse overseas to race I don’t see that this necessarily any worse than horses being caught in the "auction spiral" over here.It will reduce the employment capacity of racing and give it a smaller footprint both economically, geographically and socially.
I don’t see how this benefits anyone.
I suggest that you visit Hong Kong, then. They only race twice a week (generally on Wednesday and Sunday) and their racing appears to be in rude health. Both economically and socially,racing is doing very well over there.
It seems as though you, like many others, confuse quantity with quality. I would rather see much less racing but of a higher standard.
To say owners wil be "driven out" is "completely irrational" Mike, it would happen "gradually" with no owners forced out…
You can cut it any-which-way you like, any business that raises the bar to entry will always suffer a
reduction in customers
.
Mike
May be we should drop it still further then Mike? Current marks of 35 or 40 Grade 7 obviously far too high for you; forcing a
"reduction in customers"
to what it would be if having Grades 8, 9 and 10 (even cheaper, lower quality animals)?
Ownership caters very well for syndicates these days Mike. Nothing stopping owners who could no longer afford a 100% share easily buying 75% or whatever share they like of a slightly higher grade horse.
Value Is EverythingI suggest that you visit Hong Kong, then. They only race twice a week (generally on Wednesday and Sunday) and their racing appears to be in rude health. Both economically and socially,racing is doing very well over there.
That’s because vastly more money is returned to racing via Hong Kong’s pari-mutuel betting operation. Just no comparison with the UK’s private bookmaker system.
(One could also reasonably point out that Hong Kong has one tenth the population of the UK which enjoys vastly higher wealth per capita and has a massive propensity to gamble!)
It seems as though you, like many others, confuse quantity with quality.
No. I am arguing for a strong base of moderate/low-quality racing. I don’t confuse that with higher quality racing at all.
I would rather see much less racing but of a higher standard.
But this precisely what you
won’t
get!
You’ll just see the
same
amount of higher quality racing that we have now, but none of the low-grade stuff.
Who does that benefit?
Mike
May be we should drop it still further then Mike? Current marks of 35 or 40 Grade 7 obviously far too high for you; forcing a
"reduction in customers"
to what it would be if having Grades 8, 9 and 10 (even cheaper, lower quality animals)?
I’m not suggesting anything in particular, I’m just trying to point out that if there are enough owners willing to fund and run low-level horses and enough tracks willing to frame races for them, why on earth would anyone want to stop this? As it is, there is clearly a market for low-grade racing and it provides opportunity for all those involved at the lower level of the sport.
Ownership caters very well for syndicates these days Mike. Nothing stopping owners who could no longer afford a 100% share easily buying 75% or whatever share they like of a slightly higher grade horse.
Thus diluting their spend.
It’s got to the stage where people endlessly parrot that there’s "too much racing" to accompanying sage nods all round. I’m yet to hear any concrete any reasons why less would be beneficial. It won’t improve prizemoney elsewhere (due to the Levy system it could possibly even reduce prizemoney) nor would it improve the standard of the racing that remains.
It would just remove a whole section of racing’s lesser-lights leaving less horses, less owners, less training/riding opportunities, less ancillary trades and so on and so forth.
Again, who benefits??
Mike
Interesting debate , some good posts
How about this as an added extra …..in the next 5 yrs we will have 3 more AW tracks , Chelmsford City , Catterick . and Newcastle
its a fair bet most of the racing in the above proposed venues will be class 5 , 6 . and 7
At What stage will the saturation of low grade racing cease to appeal to the punters who bet on it , and more importantly, will we have the population of horses and owners prepared to race for the future equivalent of 1941 pounds for winning , when fees for the month is around 2000…
All other arguments for and against fade to nothing unless the answers to the 2 questions posed above are a resounding yes .
The only benefeciaries will be the bookies , plus to a lesser extent funding of racing
Last point , what sort of racing do we expect from a track owned by a major high st bookie ???
imo
I appreciate what you are saying I used to quite like watching the 0-30 Banded races,
they had a sort of morbid fascination as on paper the horses were so dreadful
they were either perennial tail off merchants on all surfaces and distances or were has beens from the 0-60 ranks who had dropped to a lowly mark as age caught up with them..
It would be morbidly fascinating to watch so dreadful an athlete as me running around a track but 0-30 racehorses are just relatively poor trained and fit athletes. A fairer analogy would be a comparison with teams in the Football Conference: no earthly chance of beating teams in the Premiership but pitted against their peers capable of producing an entertaining spectacle. Can’t remember the stats but horses at the bottom of the handicap under full gallop cover a set distance in a time just a few seconds less than those at the top
I think they were done away with as they were seen as even more crooked than run of the mill AW racing although I’ve no idea if that was the case
I think the general consensus was ‘unfathomable’ due to the ‘impossibilty’ of analysing form if their was little form to analyse; though it wouldn’t be any surprise to find that there were punters who specialised in it retorting ‘what rubbish’ to that easily made and lazy assertion
With regards to selling horse overseas to race I don’t see that this necessarily any worse than horses being caught in the "auction spiral" over here.
Overseas to race fine, but the main thrust of my earlier somewhat allusive queries were essentially ‘do we know that they all do end up racing on some distant foreign field out of site out of mind’. It’s fair to say I think that all – or nearly all – those sold on through the "auction spiral" to new homes in this country do continue racing
Just done some in-depth research (circa 10 minutes with Google
) and it would appear that a nice average market price for beef bullocks is 500 Euros, though what that is in Guineas I don’t know May be we should drop it still further then Mike? Current marks of 35 or 40 Grade 7 obviously far too high for you; forcing a
"reduction in customers"
to what it would be if having Grades 8, 9 and 10 (even cheaper, lower quality animals)?
I’m not suggesting anything in particular, I’m just trying to point out that if there are enough owners willing to fund and run low-level horses and enough tracks willing to frame races for them, why on earth would anyone want to stop this? As it is, there is clearly a market for low-grade racing and it provides opportunity for all those involved at the lower level of the sport.
Ownership caters very well for syndicates these days Mike. Nothing stopping owners who could no longer afford a 100% share easily buying 75% or whatever share they like of a slightly higher grade horse.
Thus diluting their spend.
It’s got to the stage where people endlessly parrot that there’s "too much racing" to accompanying sage nods all round. I’m yet to hear any concrete any reasons why less would be beneficial. It won’t improve prizemoney elsewhere (due to the Levy system it could possibly even reduce prizemoney) nor would it improve the standard of the racing that remains.
It would just remove a whole section of racing’s lesser-lights leaving less horses, less owners, less training/riding opportunities, less ancillary trades and so on and so forth.
Again, who benefits??
Mike
But if you believe owners would be put off buying horses if the bottom of the bottom grade were done away with… Then it stands to reason the bottom grade
IS TODAY
putting off ownership by people who can’t afford a 35 or 40 rated animal? Yes or No Mike? There’d clearly be
"a market"
for grades lower than 7 if it were allowed.
I am not proposing doing away with
"low grade racing"
, it would just not quite be as low as today.
"Too much racing, who benefits" from a reduction in fixtures?…
It is true that owners, trainers and jockeys want low grade racing (as low as it is now). But (on the whole) does the customer/punter? How many people turn up at Kempton/Lingfield/Southwell for the poorest cards? Very few and very few on course bookmakers turn up because of it. For sure there are some off course punters, but the worse the racing gets the fewer punters/customers are interested.
Apart from compulsive gamblers – not convinced less racing would mean less money coming in to the Levy. There’s only so much money to spend and customers would just invest/gamble on other races.
Had I started out today don’t think I’d have got so interested in racing
full stop.
Fine for established racing enthusiasts, we know the good stuff is still there, but it’s diluted (percentage-wise).
Far less racing talk in the press these days. If I were a tabloid Editor I’d get p….d off with putting card after card after card in the paper that very few readers are interested in… It must put Editors off racing for one thing and if so much space goes to racecards there’s no room for a fair sized racing column.
If all football matches existed as they are today, only without any leagues (ie clubs would play
only
teams they’d meet in their leagues today but not in an official league, no points no nothing). So Man City would still play Chelsea but just in a one off game. No Champions League, no Premier, no Skrill Conference and no Sydenham Football League Wessex… Every match mixed together in press… Then would football be as popular as it is today?
Racing is too diluted and probably suffers in the press because of it.
Therefore, Racing is probably not getting as much interest with the general public as it could.
Who benefits from a reduction in fixtures Mike?
Answer: Racing.I agree Hong Kong is not a good comparisson, but what about Ireland? They don’t have a Tote monopoly and don’t even have racing every day of the week, yet racing seems popular.
Only way to effectively axe fixtures is to do away with the worst of the lowest grade (both AW
and
Turf).
Value Is EverythingJust no comparison with the UK’s private bookmaker system.
I know. It’s like comparing Travelodge to The Peninsula.
Ginger ,,you are going to have to get over it …..the new tracks will be welcomed by the BHA , more aw equals more levy , they give the bookies everything they want
Its here to stay and in time Grass fixtures will be for the exclusive untouchable grade 1 boys who are and will continue to be financially sound
The rest will be bags . bookie owned or controlled tracks ….unless of course the punters shun it , in which case Racing will be marginalised back to what it was in the 50/60s …but then again that was pretty good , so commercial success is not just something that can be passed …..failure is an option
imo
) and it would appear that a nice average market price for beef bullocks is 500 Euros, though what that is in Guineas I don’t know 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.