- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Prufrock and Glen,
The number of horses in training, owners and trainers are declining. Smaller studs are struggling to make a profit. Judging by the recent sales results and the very significant decline in the breeding of foals in the UK, there are going to be significantly less horses in training in the UK in the next couple of years.
In other words, racing is going to hell in a handbasket as the Americans would say. Without owners and horses in training, there ain’t no racing.
So, my question is: both of you seem very quick to make smart remarks ,but what would you specifically do to remedy the situation? Again specifically, what would you suggest as a means to arrest the decline in HITs and ownership and what would you do to encourage an increase?
richard
Richard, we have found something on which we agree. Like you, I think British racing is going to hell in a handcart. Unlike you, I think it is too late to turn the handcart round, so I think you are asking the impossible of me.
My comments are not intended to be "smart" – well not many of them – but they have become increasingly desperate. I have followed racing for over 30 years and have spent the last five of them using various public platforms to suggest how I think things should be done differently. To no great surprise, I have made not a jot of difference.
If there is a future for British racing, I hope it might involve: a financial settlement that does not rely solely on racing parting punters from their money with indecent haste (see Paul Struthers’ perceptive comments on this matter on the recent televised debate); a much reinvigorated Tote, either owned by racing or being a body from which racing benefits much more; a greater emphasis on the intellectual challenge that racing presents; owners being able to take small stakes in entire yards, so that they feel they are supporting a "team" rather than just paying the bills for one money-losing horse; fewer races (and racecourses, and trainers, journos etc); less costly administration; and rulers who are fit for the job and who do not fabricate for their own purposes. To name but a few.
In the meantime, the smelly stuff seems likely to hit the fan, and you don’t need the benefit of hindsight to see where many of the wrong steps were taken.
Prufrock and Glen,
The number of horses in training, owners and trainers are declining. Smaller studs are struggling to make a profit. Judging by the recent sales results and the very significant decline in the breeding of foals in the UK, there are going to be significantly less horses in training in the UK in the next couple of years.
In other words, racing is going to hell in a handbasket as the Americans would say. Without owners and horses in training, there ain’t no racing.
So, my question is: both of you seem very quick to make smart remarks ,but what would you specifically do to remedy the situation? Again specifically, what would you suggest as a means to arrest the decline in HITs and ownership and what would you do to encourage an increase?
richard
Well, there’s nothing like over dramatisation. Racing is not ‘going to hell in a handbasket’
On the contrary, if there are significantly less horses in training, then by association that means there’ll be less lower quality horses which means there won’t need to be an endless stream of Class 6 handicaps on a cold Wednesday night in Kempton which means the supply of Levy money won’t need to stretch as far.
Less horses = less races = what half the members of this forum appear to have been screaming for for years.
Not to mention that a less lucrative stud market might mean owners aren’t in such a rush to pack their horses off to the farm because they happen to have won a listed race or two.
I’m so sick of the greatly exaggerated rumours of racing’s death. Every other walk of life in the UK has been learning the hard way that the good times can’t go on forever. Racing is going through nothing more than an overdue adjustment of it’s overblown opinion of it’s own importance.
Richard,
You’ve got two groups here:
Owners – an oversupply, particularly at the bottom end. Horses balloted from all the class 6 races at Kempton tonight. Things have got so bad that horses are being imported from abroad to get into these races – note the winner of the last tonight running for a tiny fraction of what he was in Italy. For all the bluster from Citizen Dixon et al about sending horses abroad, the traffic seems to be coming the other way, if anything.
Punters – an undersupply. turnover down circa 30% in the space of a year.
The answer is surely to cater to the latter group, but they never get a mention. All we hear about is ways to extract more money from them.
Owners threatening strikes is beyond parody.
One of the many elephants in the room is the amount of owners who are hanging about by the exit door. I know of plenty of trainers making "arrangements" and doing deals to keep boxes filled. Unfortunately if the rose tinted glasses brigade knew how many owners were well behind on training fees then they would see the writing in 8′ high letters like the rest of us.
Prufrock and Glen,
The number of horses in training, owners and trainers are declining.
….
So, my question is: …. what would you specifically do to remedy the situation? Again specifically, what would you suggest as a means to arrest the decline in HITs and ownership and what would you do to encourage an increase?
richard
The number of horses in training has been on an increasing trend for decades, and seems to correlate more with the FTSE 100 than the competence of the racing authories. There are roughly 8% more horses and 10% more trainers than in 2000 (Source: Raceform). In 2009 there were more horses in training than ever, so it was not hard to understandand a decline in 2010 (about 4.3%) given the economic situation.
What should we do about this awful situation? Put our shoulders to wheel and our noses to the grindstone to increase the national GDP. More people with more money tend to want to buy racehorses. It’s a luxury of huge social status and a lot fun for your money. The owners currently spend nearly £300 million every year having their horses trained and raced, and about £100 million on acquiring new ones at the sales or their own breeding operations (Source: BHA). This seems to apply whether we have race meetings run the way they were decades ago (eg. the brilliant Cartmel), or with all the bells and whistles of super-duper championship races (the brilliant Ascot).
In many commercial sectors, and I suppose non-commercial arenas also, there is a theory of the threshold of competence. Employing people below the performance threshold negatively affects the performance of the organisation. Employing people above that level does not appear to add greatly to the performance of the organisation on average, and can have a detrimental affect – Nobel prize winning chemists, physicists and economists tend to do what they are interested in rather than what the company wants them to do. Not all sectors are like this, especially rapid growth new-industry sectors. Depending on whether we want an industry/sport like the NFL or the Premier League, or an industry/sport like horse racing in Ireland, France and Germany, perhaps we should populate the seats of the Board at the BHA with members of the Jockey Club. Slightly more competent in some ways and somewhat less competent in others. You pay your money, and you take your choice.
It was interesting looking at the BHA website for various bits of information. There is a section called “What we do”.
Nowhere does it mention anything about money.
That is, no mention of their role in acquiring funds from outside sources to pay for all their activities, or prize money, or the pension funds. It may be hidden in the nether reaches of the website, but strange that it is not mentioned as a primary function.
Employing people above that level does not appear to add greatly to the performance of the organisation on average, and can have a detrimental affect – Nobel prize winning chemists, physicists and economists tend to do what they are interested in rather than what the company wants them to do
Assuming you put Coward and Roy in the "above that level" bracket, their performance at the BHA thus far would certainly back up your statement, MV.
- Total Posts 102
Interesting article by Andrew Beyer on the crisis in the states, note that "Less Racing" crops up again
It would be interesting to know what proportion of debt-ridden post-graduates can afford to either attend race meetings or even dream of owning racehorses.
Following yesterday’s news of increased student fees some students can now look forward to a lifetime of debt. It remains to be seen how many of them will choose to get involved in the luxury that is racing. Very few I suspect.
The traditional income generating sources for racing are on an inevitable decline and the prospect for change is bleak.
The point no-one can understand is how the sport has been completely out manoevered by the betting industry. Maybe racing’s glorious leaders have been guilty of non trying. With all the money involved how can we not guarantee £10K prize money minimum. does anyone really believe that Betfair, Lads and the like can exist without horseracing. Why not let them try it. the majority of LBO’s are sustained by FOBT’s anyway so they are not a longterm proposition.
Why was Betfair not allowed to sponsor RUK and make it FTA. Answer because punters would have stayed at home where they can’t fling the odd tenner into the crack cocaine gambling bots. Simples innit. I suppose maybe Mark Davies will tell us what he knows one day.
The point no-one can understand is how the sport has been completely out manoevered by the betting industry. Maybe racing’s glorious leaders have been guilty of non trying. With all the money involved how can we not guarantee £10K prize money minimum. does anyone really believe that Betfair, Lads and the like can exist without horseracing. Why not let them try it. the majority of LBO’s are sustained by FOBT’s anyway so they are not a longterm proposition.
10k minimum per race? So with at least 9000 races per year, with the Levy having to cover other costs including Douglas Erskine Crum’s pension, integrity costs, that will be a minimum of that number there 90,000,000 on the "minimum" in prize money.
Not even the BHA lunatics with their £130m would aspire to £10k minimum per race.
Celtic Swing was all about soft ground. He was a fantastic 2yo and the fact that the 2000 GNS wasn’t run on soft was all it was about IMO.
As a two year old Celtic Swing did everything his jockey wanted, including going clear of all the rest (Racing Post). At three he had a high head carriage and idled in front. That year Lady Herries announced all her runners would run in a noseband. Coincidence? As has been said, his best form was on a soft surface.
I backed Celtic Swing for the 2000 Guineas @ 5/2 ante-post so remember his defeat by Pennekamp well. Especially because I also had an over-winter ante-post wager on Pennekamp for the Derby.
Value Is EverythingI saw him at Newbury in the Greenham and he had sore and fragile written allover him. I dont blame him 4 racing with his head up
Thank you for the replies. Prufrock, for what’tis worth I agree with all you say. I’d add though that I think the bits of racing’s levy submission about offshore bookies paying no levy, bets on UK racing from overseas similar and the loophole which allows the majors to construct profits from their shops to take advantage of discounts meant for smaller independants need to be sorted. If they were sorted, the levy contribution would increase significantly. What would increase the Levy even more significantly is if there was a proper audit of the major bookies profit from racing. At the moment they can declare whatever amount they want.
Glen, yes, punters do get a raw deal from the majors, but that is between punters and the bookies, there isn’t much the racing authorities can do about that, apart from make a serious integrity effort. Whether one thinks they do that is maybe a matter of opinion and experience.
But on the broader front, here are a few stats which may help to put racing’s problems into perspective.Figures are taken from the latest BHA Statistical Bulletin and are for mid-September
Owners
2077 – 9704
2008 – 9563
2009 – 8938
2010 – 8851
Decline 2007/2010 = -9%Comparing flat and jumps horses isn’t exact because the BHA changed the definition of dual purpose horses, but taking flat only plus dual purpose and jumps only plus dual purpose, these are the declines:
Flat+ DP
2007 – 11316
2008 – 11625
2009 – 10280
2010 – 10124
Decline 2007/2010 = -10%Jumps + DP
2007 – 6244
2008 – 6215
2009 – 5372
2010 – 5216
Decline 2007/2010 = -16%According to today’s RP foal production in GB has fallen by 21% 2007-2010 In Ireland the decline is 41%.
Even the most conservative extrapolation of these figures suggests that in two years time racing will be in a parlous state in terms of owners and HITs so racing is going to hell in a handcart. Unless, that is, the horseman’s group can persuade the likes of Arena Leisure and Northern Racing to divert some of their substantial revenues from media rights and levy funded integrity payments into prize money and the government make the major off course bookies pay for the points mentioned in the first paragraph.
One can only hope…..
richardGlen, yes, punters do get a raw deal from the majors, but that is between punters and the bookies, there isn’t much the racing authorities can do about that, apart from make a serious integrity effort. Whether one thinks they do that is maybe a matter of opinion and experience.
Richard,
If bookmakers and exchanges are made to pay more, all of their money comes from the PUNTER, so the extra money will be coming from the PUNTER. So to say "racing authorities can not do much about" punters getting a raw deal is nonsense.
Value Is EverythingThe Racing Authorities are responsible for much of the raw deal punters get from the majors.
Who do you think sat on the SPRC committee? Ian Barlow – the only guy, along with Citizen Dixon, with the power to show Paul Roy the door.
Why do you think that only 4% of handicaps these days pay four places?
Even with little things, like when a horse bolts for two circuits, the only consideration is towards the owner.
There’s a thread here today where a placepot punter is complaining about late withdrawels, with owners waiting to see if there’s a spot of rain and the likes. This sort of nonsense doesn’t happen elsewhere where the punter is put front and centre and all non-runners (barring genuine medical conditions) have to be announced by a certain cut-off.
It’s a politicians answer, but the answer to the funding crisis is to grow the size of the cake itself. You don’t achieve that with a levy system that rewards racing for punters losing and encourages betting operators to push other products. The GPT-based levy has been a cancer for racing. The only potential bright spot from all this mess is that it will hopefully be discarded and replaced with some sort of flat fee.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.