- This topic has 196 replies, 52 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
robert,
i’ll stick with Phil Bull’s analysis that the only two groups that put money into racing are
a) owners and
b) punters.
a) The BHA would get his money mainly from his contribution as an owner since (best i know) they don’t get anything from the Levy Board (except I guess recycled owner prize money by way of registrations, entry fees, etc).
The BHA in its accounts to 31 December 2009 says that it had two material sources of income in the period, yielding GBP 34.1 million turnover (2008 – 34.3m):
– "GBP 33,227,000…from registrations, entry fees and fixture fees collected on its behalf by Weatherby’s Ltd"
– "GBP 937,000 …. from subsidiary Racing Enterprises Ltd commercialising the Database…severely reduced since a court case in 2005 involving William Hill".
b) If he subscribes to the RP / RUK / ATR I guess he’ll contribute as a punter that way to that GBP 937k figure.
If he net-loses punting on the horses (as I thought was the claim at one point?) then he’ll be funding some of his prize money receipts which he’ll give back into the GBP 33.227 figure via the entry fees, etc.
so in effect he is at least in part funding his own prosecutor, judges, etc ?
or am i missing something ? (if irony, i fear its gone over my head).
thanks.
In the generality, horse owners and losing punters do contribute most into racing. Winning punters less so as they remove some of the money that would otherwise be recycled by losing punters into racing. HF has no obvious sources of income since leaving prison except betting or his mum. So any money he has, apart from the latter, would presumably be at the expense of other punters.
The Levy do fund BHA but indirectly as the Levy funds racecourses who in turn pay BHA for integrity services and fixture fees so that racing can operate under regulation at the courses. BHA do not receive any portion of prizemoney.
http://www.hblb.org.uk/document.php?id=31
The other BHA income is from licence fees to pay for the regulation of the sport. Presumably HF has paid for his horses and fees from past gambling winnings at the expense of other punters – who knows his actual current financial circumstances. He is being prosecuted for breaking rules which protect the integrity of other punters and racing.
If that sum for fees paid were taken out it cannot be argued that HF is in any meaningful way paying for his prosecutors anymore than an embezzler can claim so in that he once paid taxes. If HF was not in racing then the BHA could still undertake any required prosecutions in full.
he was also an owner putting-in.
and, as he acknowledged, he took out:
– through Timeform and
– as a breeder
(he reckoned breeders got their price when they sold their product and shouldn’t subsequently be taking percentages of prize money away from owners)
…….it cannot be argued that HF is in any meaningful way paying for his prosecutors anymore than an embezzler can claim so in that he once paid taxes. If HF was not in racing then the BHA could still undertake any required prosecutions in full.
the embezzler has no choice about being part of society and abiding by the law – the State decides who is within its jurisdiction and can force itself onto people.
by contrast, if Harry was not in racing – ie if he had not contractually submitted himself to BHA jurisdiction – the BHA absolutely could NOT prosecute him for not observing BHA rules.
the BHA’s writ runs against those who voluntarily get themselves licensed by it, and nobody else.
Wit the BHA can warn off a non licensed person.
yes, though as i understand warning-off isn’t actually a sanction on them – its telling licensed persons (ie the folk within BHA jurisdiction because they have consented to be) to have no dealings with them ?
=========
8. Accordingly, the Panel ordered that, with effect from Thursday 22 April 2010, Mr Colin Craig and Mr Daniel Craig be excluded from all premises licensed by the Authority for a period of 2 years (until 21 April 2012) and that Mr Tim Connock and Mr Edward Toller be excluded for a period of 12 months (until 21 April 2011).
9. The Panel records that it has also asked the BHA to bring this decision to the specific attention of all betting exchange operators in the UK and to the attention of ABB, in order that they can inform their members of it.
10. All people subject to the Rules of Racing should also be aware of the terms of Rule (A)30.3 which requires them not to associate with Messrs. C.Craig, D.Craig, T.Connock and E.Toller in connection with racing during the period of their exclusions.
============
so if not observed, its only licensed person(s) involved in the non-observance that the BHA can hold to account ?
I would regard it as a sanction as it means a warned off person cannot attend a race course unless you are McCracken.
yes – its just like being "banned" by a private club of which you’ve never been a member.
leaving aside race/ sex/ disability/etc discrimination, the reason they "ban" you is irrelevant.
they can say its because they think you have acted against their rulebook.
they can say its because they don’t like the cut of your jib.
their rulebook is irrelevant to you because you’ve never agreed to be bound by it, and they can’t impose their rules on you – all they can do is tell their members to shun you.
their members do not include the RP, RUK, ATR, or any of the bookie chains or the exchanges.
where they have a "memorandum of agreement" with a bookie or an exchange, and seek through such agreement to prevent that bookie or exchange from entering into a wagering contract with you, interesting legal issues could arise as to whether that would be unlawful interference with your economic interests.
though Betfair’s reported reaction to the ruling against Harry suggests that in practice even their state-of-art "memorandum of agreement" does not go so far as to say that they automatically will shun the business of every (or even any) person warned-off by the BHA.
Alan Lee in the Times
Harry ends association with Nicholls. Big Fella Thanks going to Ferdy. Beshaber to Vaughan.Denman now owned 100% by Barber. Rest of horses going to sales.
Nicholls not shown enough support.
Looks like the toys have well and truely come out of the pram.
I do think it is a bit harsh on Paul Nicholls, Findlay, by the sounds of it, wants Paul Nicholls to possibly put his professional integrity on the line by coming out and stating that Findlay has done nothing wrong, something which Nicholls shouldnt be expected to do in my opinion.
Ferdy Murphy will be getting a good horse in Big Fella Thanks, Ferdy knows how to train them for long distance trips, so will be interesting to see how the Big Fella goes.
Agree entirely Gaz – think HF will be better suited to having horses with Murphy and Vaughan too mind so it’s a win/win situation.
Agree entirely Gaz – think HF will be better suited to having horses with Murphy and Vaughan too mind so it’s a win/win situation.
Wont have Ruby on board anymore though.
If you shout something loudly enough does it suddenly become true?
IF I WAS TO NAME TWO TRAINERS THAT ARE THE SALT AND MUSTARD OF THE EARTH, FERDY MURPHY AND TIM VAUGHAN WOULD BE TOP OF MY LIST. I ALWAYS HAVE SUPREME CONFIDENCE WHEN BACKING THEIR DRIFTERS AND ALWAYS DOUBLE UP MY BETS EVERY TIME THEY DRIFT 20% IN THE BETTING. MY RECENT BETS OF SIXTEEN BANKS ON GULF PRECEDENT AND THIRTY TWO BANKS ON MAGGIE ARON HAVE LEFT ME WITH NO COMPLAINTS.
What a sad day for racing. A ruling faction that cannot resolve a simple issue like Harry Findlay ,in a fair way. A character like Harry ,that any sport would relish,castigated and cast aside. Prize money going to nothing. Normally from a mercenary point of view I would be interested in buying the horses they sent to the sales. Not now I don`t think. What a bleak prospect for the industry.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.