- This topic has 60 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What a shocker! (You can tell that I last read a tabloid back in the 1980s)
From the Racing Post:
“LEADING betting industry figure Nick Rust is poised to replace Paul Bittar as the next chief executive of the BHA, the Racing Post understands.
Rust joins the BHA from Ladbrokes where his latest role has been managing director in charge of the bookmaker’s retail operation.
The fact that British racing’s governing body has appointed a bookmaker to lead the organisation will surprise some within the sport and dismay others given the often troubled relations between the two sectors.
Rust is however an avowed racing fan, having owned horses with Micky Hammond as well as being a keen punter.”No mention of it on the BHA website.
After all the talk about bookmakers virtually running British racing, and setting the agenda for the sport in the UK, reality hits us all in the face.
So someone with zero CEO or racing administration experience and from the most mismanaged bookmakers in UK is being put forward as a BHA CEO. Were BHA impressed with the offer to introduce BAGS racing at Newmarket?
Hardly expressed much faith in any future for racing in the recent past:
"Says Mr Rust: "Since the National Lottery launched, these people have grown up with a level of comfort with gambling. They think that sports betting is fun to do. It also coincides with Sky.
"There is now so much more live sport. It has became far more of a part of British culture, and from that comes betting. It provides a better way to get involved, and we are seeing a lot more growth than through horse racing. We see lots of people coming for a fiver or a tenner, sometimes 20 quid. They’ll then stay and watch the match."
"This, it is hoped, might cut down on the number of people using the shops to view events, while using their mobile phones to bet with competitors such as Betfair." (Betfair being the only place you can actually get an actual modest sized bet layed)
It is thanks to younger gamblers that the gross win through machines (FOBTs) in Ladbrokes shops grew. Over-the-counter bets remained flat, despite the tough economy, and that was helped by the continuing growth in football betting and the boom in punting while events are running – or "in play". This is another favourite of the more youthful punter."
I know Nick well. He’s taken on the toughest job in the industry, in my opinion (the reason it’s a tough job, is because the BHA don’t own all the fixtures, that’s why so many fingers are in the pie).
I’ll say one thing: you won’t find a straighter man in any industry. He’s come all the way through from the level of betting shop manager in the 1990s, and not once has he forgotten his roots.
Hopefully, Nick will find a way to regain all fixtures and restore some sense of proper order to the industry (I haven’t spoken to him recently, so don’t take that as any hint of his intentions – it’s more my wish).
The lunatics have taken over the asylum….
If anyone ever doubted who runs British racing , there can be no doubt now …its the bookies , so roll out more AW dross . less small field races ., much more of competitive impossible handicaps , as much racing on a Saturday as your eyeballs can handle (sorry Ray )
Yep the future is not so bright ….the beginning of the end for the diverse racing that made British racing unique is about to unfold ,
We can look forward to a 50 / 50 split of AW and turf as soon as is possible
What a disaster , what a legacy Bittar leaves behind …complete crap ….nothing achieved whatsoever , except a cosy up to the bookies , w
ho pay the minimum to achieve the maximum profit for themselves
How was this ever agreed , surely we can find someone to run and fund our sport without the interference from the bookies
Imo etc
The lunatics have taken over the asylum….
Those practicing the sport of
bookie bashing
from within the asylum are the
"lunatics"
imo.
Value Is EverythingAn appropriate choice by the BHA, as my dictionary states:
"Rust is a commonly used metaphor for slow decay due to neglect"
Apart from the obvious benefit that Rust never sleeps, it’s hard to see where the BHA are going with this appointment.
Most stakeholders in the industry simply don’t trust the bookmakers (not that those stakeholders ever look past their own narrow interests anyway) so this is bound to be divisive from day one.
As Robert99 hinted, Ladbrokes’ performance since Rust joined has been spectacularly ordinary with it’s shares still mooching along some 10% lighter than they were three years ago. And it’s telling that in Ladbrokes’ press statement they announced that there were ‘no immediate plans to replace Rust’s position in a like for like role’. Hardly a ringing endorsement!
Joe vouches for him as a person, which is fair enough, but he doesn’t sound much of a catch to me. Like the winding-up of the British Empire, maybe a state of reasonably managed decline is the best racing can wish for.
Mike
According to the link below, he’s a director of 7 other companies and has resigned from 27 others. Generally betting related.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/9112 … -JOHN-RUST
Seems obvious to me anyway, his brief will be to exploit betting shop levy yield.
I can see a lot more 12 to 14 runner all weather handicaps. The practical end to bad each-way races. An endorsement of the current going and distance reporting system. Probably some changes to BHA handicap mark allotment in a bid to increase randomness.
Very disappointing that the BHA have gone further down the road of attempting to screw a higher percentage from a decreasing mug yield.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum….
If anyone ever doubted who runs British racing , there can be no doubt now …its the bookies , so roll out more AW dross . less small field races ., much more of competitive impossible handicaps , as much racing on a Saturday as your eyeballs can handle (sorry Ray )
Yep the future is not so bright ….the beginning of the end for the diverse racing that made British racing unique is about to unfold ,
We can look forward to a 50 / 50 split of AW and turf as soon as is possible
What a disaster , what a legacy Bittar leaves behind …complete crap ….nothing achieved whatsoever , except a cosy up to the bookies , w
ho pay the minimum to achieve the maximum profit for themselves
How was this ever agreed , surely we can find someone to run and fund our sport without the interference from the bookies
Imo etc
Spot on ricky, it’s thoroughly depressing. A future for the the sport permanently attached to scumbags who wont lay a bet to anyone with the slightest intelligence.
That betting lab on RUK last night was a laugh, where do these geezers get their bets on? Even Willo picked up the so called betting guru (Richard Thomas) on his glorious aftertiming. And there was absolutely no mention of bookmakers restrictions.
We only have to refer to Panorama last Monday to see bookmakers couldn’t care less what corruption or welfare issues there are in a sport as long as they can get their grubby hands on 237 million a year. And of course we have FOBT’s that should never have been allowed in shops in the first place.
Not only have they the sport in their pocket but the two racing channels and the sport’s national daily paper.
I never thought I’d say this but after a lifetime following the sport I’m seriously considering following Paul Ostermeyer’s example last year.
I ask this with genuine sincerity: who, if not Nick Rust, would posters rather have been appointed BHA Chief Executive? If Rust is an unpopular appointment, then it follows that there must be better out there that you had in mind.
For what it’s worth I can’t envisage the 50 : 50 split of turf and synthetics racing proffered in an earlier post arising for as long as the input of horsemen remains a contributory element to the construction of the fixture list. All concerned were adamant that the prevailing 40 : 40 : 20 ratio of turf jumps to turf Flat to synthetics had to be upheld as part of the 2015 fixtures process, and even with the readmission of the former Great Leighs into the fold that ratio was duly upheld. ARC or JCR’s specific-issue concerns aside, no-one is riding completely roughshod over everyone else in the fixture list process yet, much less trying to.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
I ask this with genuine sincerity: who, if not Nick Rust, would posters rather have been appointed BHA Chief Executive? If Rust is an unpopular appointment, then it follows that there must be better out there that you had in mind.
No offence meant but frankly it’s a daft question, how many posters had heard of Rust prior to his appointment, let alone who was available for the job and who he was up against, according to Harman the field he was up against was one of highest-quality chief executive fields he’d ever come across.
Posters can tell you who should ride Toast of New York next but not who should be the next CEO of the BHA without all the facts etc.
I ask this with genuine sincerity: who, if not Nick Rust, would posters rather have been appointed BHA Chief Executive? If Rust is an unpopular appointment, then it follows that there must be better out there that you had in mind.
No offence meant but frankly it’s a daft question, how many posters had heard of Rust prior to his appointment, let alone who was available for the job and who he was up against, according to Harman the field he was up against was one of highest-quality chief executive fields he’d ever come across.
Posters can tell you who should ride Toast of New York next but not who should be the next CEO of the BHA without all the facts etc.
If that is the case Yeats, then the original question was also "daft". Because under your diagnosis nobody knows enough about Rust to know whether he was the right person for the job.
I think both gc and mv asked viable questions. We don’t have to answer if not knowing enough about them.
My own feelings are: Give Rust a chance.
But if not Rust, rather someone who understands every aspect of the game got the job. C4’s Jim McGrath perhaps.Value Is EverythingGrayson , no offence, but you have to wise up
Racing is now in control of bookies , whatever percentage of AW they want they will get
The Horsemen have no power …the racecourses have
Its time to get real . anyone but a bookies rep would have done , anyone would have been better than Bittar …if you cannot see that then you will do eventually
Its a bloody disgrace
Imo
If that is the case Yeats, then the original question was also "daft". Because under your diagnosis nobody knows enough about Rust to know whether he was the right person for the job.
I think both gc and mv asked viable questions. We don’t have to answer if not knowing enough about them.
My own feelings are: Give Rust a chance.
But if not Rust, rather someone who understands every aspect of the game got the job. C4’s Jim McGrath perhaps.Gingertipster,
You must learn to read, there was no original question
It is perfectly valid to pass an opinion on Rust now we know his background and where he’s come from.
If the question of who should be Chief Executive had been asked prior to Rust’s appointment, how many would have put Rust’s name forward, now graysonscolumn says he doubts there’s anyone better out there. Would he have put Rust’s name up for the job prior to his appointment?
Harman said the short list was top quality but who were they? None better than someone from the bookies?
The BHA people are very well paid to find the right man, it’s not up to TRF posters to do the job for them with little information.
If that is the case Yeats, then the original question was also "daft". Because under your diagnosis nobody knows enough about Rust to know whether he was the right person for the job.
I think both gc and mv asked viable questions. We don’t have to answer if not knowing enough about them.
My own feelings are: Give Rust a chance.
But if not Rust, rather someone who understands every aspect of the game got the job. C4’s Jim McGrath perhaps.Gingertipster,
You must learn to read, there was no original question
It is perfectly valid to pass an opinion on Rust now we know his background and where he’s come from.
If the question of who should be Chief Executive had been asked prior to Rust’s appointment, how many would have put Rust’s name forward,
now graysonscolumn says he doubts there’s anyone better out there.
Would he have put Rust’s name up for the job prior to his appointment?
Harman said the short list was top quality but who were they? None better than someone from the bookies?
The BHA people are very well paid to find the right man, it’s not up to TRF posters to do the job for them with little information.
Well if you want to be pedantic about these things Yeats:
Rather than a direct question you can have a question implied. The OP implied a question, implied question being; is Rust the right man for the job?Now you’re suggesting gc should not ask TRFers to name their prefered choice if not Rust. ie You’re saying people should express "an opinion" on Rust, but should not be allowed to express an opinion on who could do the job better. That, to my mind is double standards.
May be it is you who should "learn to read" Yeats, because I don’t see that gc ever said what you claim. All gc is asking for is: If people are going to criticise the appointment of Rust, ie if Rust is not the best man for the job… Then surely they should come up with an alternative. Gc was in no way extolling the virtues of Rust.
Value Is EverythingAll
It depends on the criteria given to the search company to find the right man ,until we know what that is , its castles in the air !!!
However …A bookie rep heading up the Bha is just not acceptable under any circumstances , the governance of racing should have an element of autonomy …under this appointment , there will be no room for that , the bookies have their man , he will do whatever the betting industry wants or needs
T
o believe otherwise is living in cloud cuckoo land
A shambles
imo
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.