- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It was highly disappointing that two group 1 races, The Tattersalls Gold Cup and The Prix D’Ispahan went off within five minutes of each other on Sunday. They were from different countries but surely an awareness that benefits punters on a worldwide scale could result in a gap bigger than 5 minutes in the schedule between two Group 1 races?
Such awareness would benefit the purists but not necessarily the punters who, sadly, would sooner bet in a domestic contest at Wolverhampton, Ballinrobe, Strasbourg than in a foreign Group 1 at Ascot, Leopardstown, Longchamp. Which suits the bookies/pmu fine as they’re happier with the punters chucking their money at 15 runner low grade handicaps.
Sadly, punters, as with so many humans, are not a particularly internationalist species.
Well I should probably have said
discerning
punters.
Mind you most of my punters back in the day would have been much more likely to wire into an Even money shot and an 8/13 hotpot than risk their cash on a race where the fav was 5/1 or whatever. I don’t think I ever saw a betting office where so many backers got palpitations at 6/4 or bigger.
I suppose they have to pander to the dross that keeps the fires burning and many punters were probably unaware that Olympic Glory was back out so soon after the Lockinge.
Oh well, perhaps Lee Pricks Dell Larch Dee Triumph will get more than a two minute slot in October and cause annoyance to those looking for the cartoon race at Foreskin Downs or whatever it’s called.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Excellent letter in the RP from James Toller about the BHA
"I am sorry to see BHA chief executive Paul Bittar and the bookies are worried about small fields. If ever there was a case of reap what you sow this is it, and they only have themselves to blame, along with racecourses, which have jumped on the bandwagon by putting on very low-class races and making a profit on picture rights.
The BHA, for all its fine talk, should realise the bookies are not racing’s friend and never have been. They have pushed for more racing to increase their turnover, but have never been prepared to pay anything approaching a fair price for the product, and owners have been getting a very bad deal for years.
You need only read the recent article about retiring William Hill chief Ralph Topping to get an idea of the bookmakers’ attitude. He sneers at racing in a particularly nasty way, but for all that is probably only echoing the views of those in the betting industry who are slightly more diplomatic.
If the bookies and Bittar want better fields they should put up decent prize money, organise the programme properly, revert to 24 hour declarations and get the racecourses to act less selfishly over when they stage their meetings.
Virtually all the changes we have seen in recent years have made the situation worse, not better, but I have yet to hear anyone say, "We got that wrong" – even though they obviously have.
The BHA are not producing the goods. Good racing without the ridiculous clashes we have had recently, produces more betting – and always will. You do not see many small fields at Royal Ascot or the Cheltenham Festival".
Good post, I read the letter this morning. It all reminds me of greyhound racing now, owners get ‘tiddlysquat’ and are providing a ‘product’ which is so top heavy it has to fall. How many trainers are championing the cause of the owner? Non from what I can see, they have their heads firmly stuck in the sand. Charlie Mann did some good work early on but was soon stamped down. Just how long does the industry think that some plonker will pay anything from 10k to millions for a racehorse, then pay 20k per year to keep it and receive "B all’ in prize money? 25 miles across the channel it is a very different story.
I like small fields – I tire somehat easily of picking a horse for a handicap, seeing it beat over 20 horses and still finish unplaced.
If Tanya Stevenson loves something you can be sure I hate it – and that goes for this massive field handicaps like the new Balmoral Handicap.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"So Mr Toller believes the bookmakers should pay more and this should go to owners. As all bookmakers get their money/profits from punters – then Mr Toller should be truthful. What he’s really asking for is the punter to pay more to owners. Robbing the comparitive poor to pay the comparitive rich.
Value Is EverythingGood post, I read the letter this morning. It all reminds me of greyhound racing now, owners get ‘tiddlysquat’ and are providing a ‘product’ which is so top heavy it has to fall. How many trainers are championing the cause of the owner? Non from what I can see, they have their heads firmly stuck in the sand. Charlie Mann did some good work early on but was soon stamped down. Just how long does the industry think that some plonker will pay anything from 10k to millions for a racehorse, then pay 20k per year to keep it and receive "B all’ in prize money? 25 miles across the channel it is a very different story.
If owners are paying too much for their horses, then how is that not the owners fault Obi?
Value Is EverythingOwners are the "Golden Goose"of horse racing.The are the only ones who contribute money directly to the industry.Owners are why people raise thoroughbreds.Owners are why trainers stay in business.Owners are why tracks run race meetings.Neither the gamblers nor the bookies need go near the race track.Small time betters take their wives and kids to the track for a day out.They are easy pickings but who cares? They have a day out.
Good post, I read the letter this morning. It all reminds me of greyhound racing now, owners get ‘tiddlysquat’ and are providing a ‘product’ which is so top heavy it has to fall. How many trainers are championing the cause of the owner? Non from what I can see, they have their heads firmly stuck in the sand. Charlie Mann did some good work early on but was soon stamped down. Just how long does the industry think that some plonker will pay anything from 10k to millions for a racehorse, then pay 20k per year to keep it and receive "B all’ in prize money? 25 miles across the channel it is a very different story.
If owners are paying too much for their horses, then how is that not the owners fault Obi?
Well maybe its the greedy trainer/agent! Ok, then lets surmise that one can get a racehorse for a £1.00 it still has to be trained and that is 20k per horse per year. No-one makes someone buy a horse and spend money on it, but it would be naive to think that without the horse and the owner there is no product.
Good Post Eddie
Bittar should have a good look at what happened to Greyhound racing …how long will Horse racing be immune to the same death ??
as Pinza used to say ….Ostriches welcome to the sand
Bit of a silly thing to use Royal Ascot and Cheltenham as examples.
I get a bit fed up with trainers continually complaining about poor prize money when we get many cases of races offering pretty good prize money and not being supported by trainers. Tomorrow we have a £300k race which only had 5 runners declared and two of those were from Ireland.
Prize money in France, for instance, where a "Tote Monopoly" exists, far exeeds the prize money levels in this country.
The chances of a Tote monopoly in this country, whereby all of the net profit is reinvested into racing, disappeared with the sale of the Tote to Betfred.
The Tote, under Betfred ownership, is now run by former high ranking SIS senior managers, such as Phil Siers and Brent Dolan. SIS was set up in 1987 to provide live pictures into Betting shops and is to all intents and purposes a bookmaker owned company to this day.
There was a brilliant interview with Andy Stewart on ATR a couple of months back where he described in great detail the fight between the Fred Done bid and the bid of his group of non-bookmaker investors.
If anybody believes that the current model is designed to benefit anybody other than bookmakers (as opposed to owners, for instance) they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Racing in the UK is like a fledgling seagull which never has the courage to allow its "parent" (the bookmaking industry) abandon it. If only it did, the sport in this country would become far heather.
Just been announced that Paul Bittar is to step down from his role at the helm of the BHA in early 2015.
Has he been good/bad/indifferent? And has he lived up to his promise to look out for punters?
Yep , off to pursue another opportunity
Verdict
Better than Roy
Worse than most
Good luck Sir
Question is , will the Zarooni report ever see the light of day
Will his successor publish and be damned ??
Will the Morphine reveal be brushed swiftly under the carpet ??
Will the bookies get their man , or will it be back to good old trench warfare ….
Lovely questions
answers on a post card to Gamble c/o the Lounge ….he will surely make sense of it all
In with a bang, and rarely out of the spotlight, out with a whimper, barely heard a squeak for months.
Presumably there is greener grass elsewhere?
PB in 2011
"My priority on taking up the role will be to work with the board and stakeholders to secure a sound business footing for the industry, whilst further enhancing its world-leading racing programme and standards of integrity and welfare."
On that basis he has hopelessly failed in all his ambitions.
It is idiotic though to ever think that one man can change things around in a short time.
CEO for BHA is a low status post with a salary of £100k.
I suppose he did his best but was clearly not up to the job nor were those who appointed him in the first place.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.