- This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
======================
Breon Corcoran, Betfair CEO, highlighted the significant journey of growth that his company has been on since facilitating the first wagers between customers in 2000. One of the recent international highlights has been the purchase of TVG in America, which broadcasts high definition racing coverage into 30 million homes across the country.Under Betfair’s ownership, TVG has now become the leading online betting operator in the USA and has also recently concluded a commingling deal with the HKJC, allowing American customers to bet into the Hong Kong pools and watch Hong Kong racing.
=======================Betfair positioning itself for the 2018 expiry of the UK tote monopoly ?
=======================
Paul Bittar, CEO of the British Horseracing Authority highlighted the significant challenges faced by a racing jurisdiction that has the most heavily deregulated betting industry in the world, combined with an industry that, compared with the Hong Kong model, is “non-vertically integrated”. He said that this means that the BHA has a tough job to ensure that those who provide the racing product get a fair return for their contribution.On a more optimistic note, Mr Bittar mentioned that there is now a realistic prospect in the UK of a genuine commercial replacement to the Levy system of funding, which has changed very little since the 1960s. “We are looking to get into a position in which the government has no direct involvement in the funding of racing.
======================What is this realistic prospect of a genuine commercial replacement to the Levy ? Is it a second run at Savill’s IP model ?
Is it still on the continuum of "we’ve had a notion that we’re looking to turn into an idea with a view to developing a concept that we can work up into an outline that……" – or are there any actual proposals ?
Here’s the BHA statement, but as you’ll see it’s no more than a vague promise of consultation at some distant date. Not a hope of getting any leegislation through in this parliament and whatever the outcome of the 2015 election, there will be other priorities for the next government.
many thanks AP.
that link led me to this in HMRC’s Budget 2014 document:
================
2.149 The horserace betting levy – The government will consult shortly on extending the horserace betting levy to offshore bookmakers. Later in 2014 the government will go further
and consult on wider levy reforms. This consultation will seek views on a range of options which are likely to include developing commercial arrangements, modernising the existing levy and a horserace betting right.================
which i take to mean:
"we know we don’t want to remain here, but beyond that……"
"……except we know we’ll remain under the current set-up long enough to make it worth extending it to new payers of levy"
[and doubtless also new payers of betting duty, collected-at-the-same-time-by-the-same-HMRC].
The majority of delegates at the 35th Asian Racing Conference have thrown their support behind certain races being declared "Super Group I races" around the world.
The issue was raised during a presentation given to the conference by Brian Kavanagh, chief executive of Horseracing Ireland and chairman of the European Pattern Committee.
A live vote of delegates attending the conference returned 59.6 percent in favour of the creation of Super Group Is and 40.4 percent against the idea.
Kavanagh told the conference that in 2013, 146,649 flat races were run worldwide with 3.3 percent of those classified as pattern races (4,889), 1.3 percent as Graded/Group races (1,895) and 0.3 percent as Grade/Group I races (459).
Hong Kong Jockey Club’s Executive Director of Racing supports the concept of Super Group I races to bring racing in line with other major world sports.
"I think it is a good idea because there are 459 Group I races which is a big number. If you look at other sports and see how many tennis and golf tournaments there might be, we know which ones are the big occasions," he said.
"We certainly know that in racing too and it is a question of recognising the elite races.
"Certainly, the 459 are not equal (in terms of quality) – we all know that. So it would good to recognise Super Group Is, until we can really get the house in order by bring the number of Group Is down by 10 percent or 20 percent over time.
"Whether we highlight 20, 50 or 100 races, we have a pretty good idea which ones those are and I believe they should be recognised."
Kavanagh on the other hand is not in favour of the "Super Group I races" concept but did concede a "system of quality control is very important" to the future credibility of racing’s Group I events.
"The European Pattern Committee exercises strict quality control over European racing," he said.
"In recent years, the Committee has tightened its rules and made more downgrades than upgrades. Next year, a total of 46 races, including a number of Group I races, will be reviewed by the Committee, representing more than 10 percent of Group races run in Europe."
"We get asked why we don’t identify a subset of races which reflect the elite races worldwide.
"While that is understandable, it would create practical difficulties. The Committee believes the focus should be on the world’s elite horses instead."
Kavanagh also highlighted the innovative developments of major race days in recent years, such as "British Champions Day, Irish Champions Weekend and The Championships in Australia, along with the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe meeting and the Breeders’ Cup".
He said that he believes the Pattern system accommodates these events appropriately.
What do you think?
Andrew Hawkins, SCMP reporting further on the "Super G1" debate:
===========
…Nader agreed that global support may be hard to come by, judging on the responses of other panellists.
"It’s only the beginning of the debate," he said. "There are basically three blocs – Asia, Europe and the United States – and while Asia is likely to be supportive, on what we saw from Brian and Carl [Hamilton, the Jockey Club, United States], it may be a struggle to get worldwide approval. It might be something we raise at the International Grading and Race Planning Advisory Committee (IRPAC) meeting in Paris in October, just to get the discussion moving."
He did, however, admit that there would be difficulties in determining what would constitute a Super Group One race.
"The Melbourne Cup is a good example," he said. "It is an aspirational race, every owner wants to win it. But breeders and purists would argue it shouldn’t be elevated because it is a handicap.
"Age-restricted races like the Kentucky Derby would also be a question mark, but they are historic. I think we’d just have to get locked in a room to hash it out."
It may also trigger further global pressure on the United States, which is already under fire for its relaxed stance on medication rules.
"I think it would be part of that discussion," Nader said. "This is new ground – it can be stipulated right from the get-go that all races with the new status would have to be on the same playing field in regards to medication."
==========For UK, elite races whatever they are called is certainly not the issue. These remain attractive and successful. It is the endless wall to wall racing 7 days a week of absolutely no interest to the public that are the problem for racing. These are run not for the spectator but the bookmaking industry and to give employment to a bloated horseracing industry of hangers on for the levy hand-outs. Take anything from them they have no hope of competing in, or travelling horses vast distances and they will squeal big time.
Group 1 races have more than doubled over the years at the same time as the number of true Group 1 UK horses have dwindled to less than 10 in a good year. The major UK Group races such as the Derby and guineas are now regularly won by horses of Listed standard a few years ago. Of course the ratings still get vastly inflated because of the races they win, rather than any intrinsic ability.
…. It is the endless wall to wall racing 7 days a week of absolutely no interest to the public that are the problem for racing. These are run not for the spectator but the bookmaking industry…
the ARC kind of approached things from the other direction, though maybe to the same conclusion:
Chair…pointed out the differences between horseracing and other major sports, which gain their revenues from sponsorship, merchandising, broadcast rights and event-day contributions.
He stated that racing brings in only about 15% of its revenue from those streams enjoyed by other sports, while on average 65% of racing’s revenue comes from wagering.
[comment: so that adds up to 80 per cent…………]
“Wagering revenue is the lifeblood of racing. If we want to have a sustainable business model, if we want to make sure our sport is competitive, we have to grow our wagering income.”
“We have to invest heavily in racecourse facilities to meet customer demands; we have to invest in customer services, in marketing programmes and technology in light of the significant increased competition we face. We have to realise we are not only competing in a wagering market, in the end we are in the entertainment market.
“We are competing for the attention, time and entertainment dollar of our current and future customers,” he said, before observing that “racing is losing market share in the global gaming market and as a result becoming less relevant not only to customers but to independently run wagering operators.”
With race betting set to remain flat through to 2017 and sports betting turnover set to exceed that of horseracing for the first time this year, Mr Engelbrecht-Bresges forwarded two major factors “critical” to the development of the racing industry: “regulatory environment and governance” and “value creation”.
“Racing providers have to be aware that we have to conduct our sport on the basis of fair competition and integrity,” he said.
“We have to ensure that issues like animal welfare and substance-free racing, not only regionally but on a global basis, have to be addressed and that we don’t have any fundamental issues with what I would like to call the hygiene factors. It’s an absolute must for customer confidence and for acceptance of our sport, especially among the younger customers. Furthermore for stakeholders, like sponsors and governments, they don’t want to see these issues.”
He outlined three main areas for the sport’s organisers to address: “We have to create an attractive value proposition, for people and owners to invest in the sport,” he said “Then we have to provide world-class racing sport entertainment, which is an essential value proposition if we are to grow the interest in the sport; to grow the customer base, especially among those who have a wagering propensity. Thirdly we have to design the racing product in relation to the fixtures, race programme, field size, quality of the sport and fairness of the competition to maximize the wagering potential.”
Mr Engelbrecht-Bresges also reminded delegates that IP (intellectual property) and copyrights must be protected as “the content we create and produce is our major asset.”
In UK, racing also gets about 40% income from the long suffering owners whose money goes straight down the drain.
The ARC comments are how things should be going to compete and thrive.
In UK, we are going completely the opposite way, with BHA in bed with bookmakers to increase the fixture list to breaking point. Betting turnover is hurtling downwards as bookmakers refuse bets from the 40% of public who have the slightest appearance of "shrewdness".
Their profits are falling in parallel – so levy will inevitably reduce.
Over 72% of TRF "fans" surveyed are not even bothered about betting. BHA still actively refuse to communicate with or even recognise punters.
I bet the UK man never told it like it actually is – only as it was once decades ago.I bet the UK man never told it like it actually is – only as it was once decades ago.
You mean the good old days when we all paid 9% on stakes or winnings.
I bet the UK man never told it like it actually is – only as it was once decades ago.
You mean the good old days when we all paid 9% on stakes or winnings.
It was 10% for many years and being optimistic, I generally paid on the stake.
I bet the UK man never told it like it actually is – only as it was once decades ago.
You mean the good old days when we all paid 9% on stakes or winnings.
What an irrelevant comment.
It is to do with the horses and the way racing was then structured. There were far fewer meetings, Sundays off and flat racing only slightly overlapped with jump racing. You looked forward to races with traditional names throughout the season.
Shops were packed and the banter flowed.I would willingly pay 10% again if bookmakers would take the size of bets they took in those days. The days of a carrier bag full of readies are long gone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.