- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
According to today’s RP foal production in GB has fallen by 21% 2007-2010 In Ireland the decline is 41%.
I’ve read statistics that foal crops have declined in America and Australia to almost record lows. A British and Irish problem or a global problem? The Irish statistics do look to be a sign of a bigger problem imo.
British horse racing needs to change in a big way, and not in the way those at RFC think. Whilst I’m no fan of 16 runner handicaps, (just the way I am) the removal of them for bookmakers benefit just adds to the whole problem.
We have a hopeless handicapping system – definitely designed to hurt punters.
We have no professional stewards.
We are given factually incorrect information by the likes of Kirkland Tellwright, both with the ground and
RACE DISTANCES
. He shouldn’t be in a job.
Just a question quickly veering off topic, does anyone know what the profit and loss situation is with ATR, or maybe where I could find out?
- Total Posts 17716
We have no professional stewards.
Well, we do have the "stipes"; and the amateur panels generally do as they are advised by that (more often than not) highly skilled professional.
Reading the letter in today’s RP from Paul Roy it would appear that ‘racing’ as in ‘racing united’ doesn’t include those whose involvement in the sport is in a non-professional capacity (i.e punters, racegoers and others with a non-professional interest, collectively I suppose you could term this group ‘racing’s customers’).
I suspect that Paul’s view is that what is right for ‘racing united’ is, by definition, what will be right for racing’s customers but that’s not always the case.
In fact many of racing’s existing customers have been quite vehement in their opposition to some of the proposals which were put forward by ‘racing united’ as being in racing’s general interest.
I’d be interested in Paul Roy’s definition of ‘racing’. Does he include racing’s ‘end’ customer’s in the term and, if so, how are they represented within ‘racing united’?
The suggestion in the letter that the Racing Post should, unquestioningly, get behind the ‘racing united’ group seems naive. The Racing Post should challenge where it sees fit and not quiet it’s voice at the behest of someone who thinks they know better.
Racing <b>ISN’T</b> ‘united’ as far as I can tell. Ask Jim McGrath. Or the 95% in the recent TRF grass-roots straw poll who no longer have confidence in the man at the helm.
Pruf started a lengthy topic on this a month or so back Corm.
"Racing United" seems to be the take-out merchants – those who take money out of racing ie. the BHA employees, the owners (who won’t be putting their prize money back into buying horses, paying staff etc) and trainers who will use the money to fund a no doubt lavish lifestyle with a £1.25m house or an estate somewhere.
The people I feel sorry for who do come under this "Racing United" banner are the stablestaff who should be getting paid more and without whom the whole training system would collapse and the smaller trainers who are renting boxes, not getting paid for 6 months by owners etc. and who racing seems to do little to support.
As for the non-takeout merchants I’d say these are the punters – at an estimate 95% of punters will lose money, yes there are those who win and you can bracket them in with the BHA, big trainers, breeders, racecourses etc. in taking money out of the sport but they are the minority.
I read with interest that the attendances at British racecourses are on the up in 2010 – this should mean more cash in the racecourses pockets and hopefully an increase in prize money
Martin
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that IS and I have no problem with the BHA/Racing United looking after the interests of owners/trainers, etc, that is and should be part of their role.
The bit that’s missing, in my view, is that there seems to be a policy of non-inclusion when it comes to the man in the street, who, via their levy contribution, keeps the whole shebang afloat.
People forget that it is NOT bookmakers money that pays for the levy, the levy originates, and depends upon, the money that PUNTERS feed into the industry.
at an estimate 95% of punters will lose money, yes there are those who win and you can bracket them in with the BHA, big trainers, breeders, racecourses etc. in taking money out of the sport but they are the minority.
Winning punters who bet with bookmakers (is that an oxymoron nowadays?) are indeed "take out merchants" as they drain levy by eroding the books’ gross profit; but those who bet with Exchanges are "non-takeout merchants" as they contribute to gross profit and hence levy by paying commission and in some cases the premier charge
So the lesson is clear: if you make a long term profit and want to contribute to the game that provides that profit then bet with the exchanges and the exchanges only
That simple innit
As for Roy believing the RP should be some unquestioning propaganda sheet for ‘Racing United’ (whatever that is) well that’s just the sort of thing Joseph Goebbels would have approved of and is no more than than another serving of arrant, arrogant nonsense from a man who specializes in it
"The two main groups in racing are the trainers, jockeys, owners and breeders and then the racecourse owners and I believe we now have all of these people on the same page, speaking with one voice."
– Paul Roy, 2008.
No mention of customers there, which was 2 years ago, so at least he’s consistent.
Chris Cook puts it well in todays Guardian
"…at the moment, it looks as though Roy is presiding over the collapse of racing’s finances and the loss of all hope for the future. Whatever the failings of his predecessors, it will be hard to forgive him for that."
- Total Posts 17716
Hard-hitting interview in today’s
Racing Pos
t, in which McGrath names some names. The summary is here:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … 89270/top/
He feels that these Ascot and Newmarket course executives (self-interested members of the RFC panel) should
"hang their heads in shame"
at what they have done to their Pattern races.
I think the crux of it is that J.McG sees the Ascot Champion Stakes switch as an inside job. He apparently felt confident his committee (race planning) would give it the elbow but the make up of the team (dominated by Newmarket and Ascot men) seems to have been the deciding factor, much to Jimbo’s chagrin.
I’m still not sure what was in it for Newmarket. Turkeys voting for Xmas surely.
I can’t see the benefit for Newmarket either, Corm, apart from a pledge from the BHA not to oppose the decision to move the July Cup to the Saturday.
Unless there was some kind of behind-the-scenes agreement, perhaps revenue share from the Ascot takings perhaps? Who knows.
You would expect that there must be SOMETHING about the arrangement that’s not in the public domain. Otherwise, from a Newmarket perspective, it’s pretty inexplicable.
Perhaps they are trying to turn Ascot into the flat equivalent of Cheltenham. The Ascot executive certainly seem to weild a lot of power.
Stephen Wallis is quoted as saying that Newmarket acted "for the good of racing" when queried by the Newmarket members, Corm.
My heart bled when I read that. This is the man who, without consultation or consideration, erased the two hundred year old Bunbury Cup racetitle in July this year to make an extra few quid from an offshore sports betting portal and casino. Wallis doesn’t do "for the good of racing."
Unless there was some kind of behind-the-scenes agreement, perhaps
revenue share
from the Ascot takings perhaps? Who knows.
I think it’s safe to support elements of your assertion – perhaps you haven’t gone far enough.
Unless there was some kind of behind-the-scenes agreement, perhaps revenue share from the Ascot takings perhaps?
I don’t know the actual details but there was this in the press release:
Commercial structure and funding
A new company will be formed, British Champions’ Series Limited (BCS Ltd), to run the series and finale. The investors in the British Champions’ Series project are the BCS racecourses and REL, which will benefit from equity stakes reflecting their respective investments in the new company.
Silvoir where were you when you were needed? You vanished during the Roy/Betfair saga
some idle thoughts based on nothing in particular:
Jockey Club Racecourses already owns Aintree, Cheltenham, Epsom and Newmarket, among others.
Ascot is the only racecourse owned by the Crown Estate.
According to a House of Commons Treasury Committee Report of March 2010, the Crown Estate "is reviewing what it sees as its core assets", against a background where its whole Windsor Estate is seen as "conspicuously different in scale and character" from its other much larger and more commercial divisions:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p … 5/325i.pdf
If the Crown Estate was ever to determine to dispose of Ascot as a "non-core asset", who as a buyer might be best seen to have a established record in relation to core assets of such a kind, combining commercial aspects with stewardship aspects appropriate to Ascot’s heritage?
If any such future disposal situation did arise, would it be helpful or harmful at such point for any such buyer to be able to point back to past instances of financially-selfless co-operation with Ascot "for the good of racing" ?
who knows – but it will be interesting to see whether the Crown Estate still owns Ascot say ten years from now.
Silvoir where were you when you were needed? You vanished during the Roy/Betfair saga
Choose any one/combo of:
Short-staffed
Busy
Holiday
Staying out of it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.