- This topic has 39 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
If you don’t want to race for the prize money on offer don’t enter horses in those races where the prize money ‘isn’t worth it’!
If I go into Tescos and something is too expensive then I don’t buy it.
You don’t need a strike to sort that out.
Am I being too simplistic?
There’s no shortage of horses, no shortage of owners, no shortage of horses being produced by breeders, no shortage of trainers willing to train them, no shortage of entries for low grade/poorly funded races.
What IS a problem is providing funding for Novice Chases, etc, where you end up with three/four runners!
Not bad if you want to see more and more poor quality racing, not good for British racing though is it? Our tracks are packed a lot of the time, the entrance fees are sky high and millions are bet on the sport but we are racing for an absolute pittance.
France tracks are almost empty and its peanuts to enter yet there prize money is great, there is something badly wrong here.
If someone has a decent horse here are they going to keep it to run for a pittance or sell it abroad, how many horses have we missed seeing running that have been sold to Hong Kong, America etc.
What racing needs here is for people like the Maktoum family to not put up with it any longer and pull out of the sport in Britain.What exactly are the aims of this strike?
Where do they want the money to come from?It is French punters who should be on strike.
They are the ones being skrewed.Value Is EverythingFor ‘no shortage’ read ‘too many’, and therein lies the problem: most of the too many are getting too small a portion of too small a cake; a cake that itself is now less fattening than it was
What a strike hopes to achieve I don’t know; as you say simply not entering their horses in races they deem aren’t to their pecuniary advantage seems logical and ‘lawful’
The Horsemen’s time would be better spent devising a replacement for the Levy which they and all must realise is on its deathbed in its current incarnation
Striking for more money as things stand at present in the racing ‘industry’ is as futile as it was when the workforces of British Leyland, British Steel and all those other old-industrial dying megaliths tried the same
A declining market cannot supply more money, only less
Simple innit
As for Novice Chases, they’ve always tended towards small fields and in my opinion that’s no bad thing, nor does it reduce the enjoyment. Ideal races to judge a young horse’s attitude to fencing, jumping ability and temperament unhindered by the close proximity of other horses. ‘Notebook’ races in a nutshell and for me very much add to the mix of the chasing year’s intrigue.
Being ‘introductory’ races in the main I see no reason why they should be well-endowed outside the later season Graded events
Betting-wise they may not contribute much to the Levy but hey,
I said to myself…is that all there is…to
a race?
I amy be a simple deluded soul but I still believe that we need to rid ourselves of the bookmaking industry. Have a national PMU style system where all the profits are channelled back into the sport itself rather than into the pockets of the shareholders of the bookmakers. A portion of this can go toward the prizemoney pool.
I take your point Cormack re novice chases, but think that we need to aim for a happy medium. I wouldn’t like to see large fields in novice chases in the same way I don’t want to see 4 runner affairs in which 2 are always no-hopers anyway. The balance would need to be that the fields are competitive but give the horses the chance to feel their way into chasing
Action by owners and trainers have worked very well in the past, though there have been few instances of them. Back in 2003(?) at Sedgefield there was a move to protest at the planned reductions in prize money by the BHB and the Levy Board. Basically one race was massively entered up, all but one or two were declared. Unsurprisingly, Peter Saville/Levy Board/Bookies suddenly discovered that there was more money available.
At Yarmouth a couple of years back the same tactic was employed because Northern Racing refused to discuss their levels of prize money with the NTF. As I recall, the meeting was abandoned but as a result of the proposed action Northern Racing did meet with the NTF and lo and behold, Northern Racing upped their prize money contribution.
So selective, targeted action does work.
As to owners voting with their financial feet (if I may thus paraphrase your opinion Cormack) this is happening. The number of HITs, owners and trainers is already in significant decline. Given the general economic situation and the devastation of prize money due to the betting operators finding more ways of not paying their full whack to the levy, next year is likely to see a dramatic decline in HITs and owners in GB.
As to overproduction, that occured primarilly in Eire, mostly due to the massive subsidies from the EU which created loadsa rich people largely in the construction industry.
And of course Irish racing is subsidised by Irish taxpayers but now foal production has now dropped majorly.
In summary, targeted action does work and IMHO whatever action owners and trainers take to try to improve prize money is worth supporting because if prize money doesn’t start to recover, racing as we know it will go into a very steep decline.
richard
- Total Posts 17716
In summary, targeted action does work and IMHO whatever action owners and trainers take to try to improve prize money is worth supporting because if prize money doesn’t start to recover, racing as we know it will go into a very steep decline.
This mantra is repeated so often, but is there any evidence whatsoever to support it?
Prize money is spread thinner because there are many more races and many more horses than there were 20 years ago. Reduce the number of races if you like to up the average prize money, but that won’t make the pie any bigger.
Most owners can still see, if they are being honest (and not speaking in public) that they get pretty good bang for their buck. Jim McGrath might well have been thinking of the Horsemens’ Group when he talked about "liars" on yesterday’s Sunday Forum: they are at least as economical with the truth, and as partial with their selection of evidence, as any other group in racing.
Whilst Godolphin are happy to race their stock in Wolves Maidens, I think we can assume that prize money is fine. No decline is in prospect on that score at least.
Earlier, I mentioned the Redcar race where the 4th placed finisher received the princely sum of £96 for his sterling efforts.
Unless you use the services of a back street lock up merchant with a Poundstretcher socket set, you can’t get your car serviced for ninety quid.
That race – a Class 6 6f handicap contested by the unsing heroes of the racing game; the family pets, the ex-cripples, the exasperating maidens and thorough jades we see every day – probably generated between half a million and a million pounds worth of interest overall just on Betfair alone.
How can that be right?
Whatever your position on prize money distribution, this is hardly sustainable financing. There’s something wrong about this, something that’s like biting on tinfoil.
While the likes of Bradley, Howling, GL Moore and SC Williams, the four trainers interviewed last week about upcoming potential protests, are thought to be shrewd and active participants in the fixed odds and exchange betting markets available in the UK, this doesn’t in any way negate the common sense behind the message.
The fact is that the guardians entrusted with stewarding horse racing in this country have consistently failed in their task and the bookmakers and Betfair are tearing them to pieces.
In an environment like this, getting off one’s collective backside is the only way to influence the debate and hopefully effect real change. A horsemen’s strike is worth a try.
The fact is that the guardians entrusted with stewarding horse racing in this country have consistently failed in their task and the bookmakers and Betfair are tearing them to pieces.
Bookmakers and Betfair get all their money from punters.
If you want more money from Bookmakers and Betfair, what you are really saying is, Punters should pay more in to prizemoney. More money going from the comparitively poor to the comparitively well off.Robin Hood in reverse.
Value Is EverythingHow does horse racing in Britain actually benefit from having bookmakers? As someone once said they wont lay 2 bananas to one banana and waste no opportunity to rip punters off on course.
Getting rid of bookies is a pipe-dream that will never happen. Racing needs to take them on at their own game.
You have to undercut Betfair, and offer a much more competitive product than the High Street can. A low-margin/high-turnover Tote Exchange with an across-the-board 2% commission rate (and appropriate incentivised rates for seeders) is what’s needed.
Robin Hood in reverse.
That’s true, Ginger. Like every horse racing model on the planet. Except Britain and Ireland are two of the only nations who allow their key funders to take a
higher
percentage of the swag to fund non-British horse racing products in areas like the US, Australia and Europe.
Hotels chains, casinos, card rooms and US TV channels are just some of the ex-party factors my bets have helped purchase in the past twenty years. Ours is a fantastic model for the betting companies and a pretty poor one for our sport.
As Ricky said in possibly the most apocalyptic message I’ve read here in five years, if Betfair move abroad to save the eight million levy contribution, we really will be in bother as, it seems, large numbers of people prefer to play the game through exchanges than through bookmakers. Time to intervene before that happens.
We need to grow teeth. Sharp teeth.
Ideally we’d have a tiered racing structure:
Group 1’s – £500,000
Group 2’s – £250,000
Group 3’s – £150,000
Listed/Conditions – £80,000
Premier Handicaps – £50,000
Class 3’s – £40,000
Class 4’s – £30,000
Class 5’s – £20,000
Class 6’s – £10,000
Class 7’s – £5,000Maidens/Novices – £20,000
As things stand you can win more money when rated 85 than if you’re rated 110 and racing in a Group 3. How does that work?
Take Southwell last week for example – we have a horse rated 104 (Captain Dunne) racing in a conditions event for a first prize of £9,146 whilst elsewhere on the card we have a horse rated 65 (Elusive Warrior) racing for £2,388) – it’s hardly fair given their respective levels of ability and the respective differences in prize money will do nothing for the straightness of racing nor anything else for that matter.
The current handicap system and the make-up of British racing ie. £25,000 Group 3’s and £100,000+ handicaps encourages cheating, stopping horses, achieving very low handicap marks etc. as does the low levels of prize money – you need to be able to make £3,000 backing your horse to make it worth stopping him, ie. £200ew @ 16/1 should cover it, not a massive bet and nor is it that hard to get on (call it a Class 5 race).
Under the structure I’ve outlined above you’d need to get £500ew at the same price (10k first prize), which though still relatively easy providing you know what you’re doing would take more effort.
The abundance of races stems from various owners complaining that "there’s no races for my horse" or "we keep getting ballotted out", normally from those with a horse rated below-60. The answer is to stage more of these races and divide the current ones thus spreading the pie a lot more thinly.
The bookmakers provide a service and as such are entitled to want some kind of reward for this ie. they are risking their money so why shouldn’t they keep the profits?
Increasing prize money won’t result in more money staying in racing it will just result in it exiting via a different doorway, going into lining owners pockets rather than bookmakers shareholders.
Action by owners and trainers have worked very well in the past, though there have been few instances of them. Back in 2003(?) at Sedgefield there was a move to protest at the planned reductions in prize money by the BHB and the Levy Board. Basically one race was massively entered up, all but one or two were declared. Unsurprisingly, Peter Saville/Levy Board/Bookies suddenly discovered that there was more money available.
At Yarmouth a couple of years back the same tactic was employed because Northern Racing refused to discuss their levels of prize money with the NTF. As I recall, the meeting was abandoned but as a result of the proposed action Northern Racing did meet with the NTF and lo and behold, Northern Racing upped their prize money contribution.
So selective, targeted action does work.
As to owners voting with their financial feet (if I may thus paraphrase your opinion Cormack) this is happening. The number of HITs, owners and trainers is already in significant decline. Given the general economic situation and the devastation of prize money due to the betting operators finding more ways of not paying their full whack to the levy, next year is likely to see a dramatic decline in HITs and owners in GB.
As to overproduction, that occured primarilly in Eire, mostly due to the massive subsidies from the EU which created loadsa rich people largely in the construction industry.
And of course Irish racing is subsidised by Irish taxpayers but now foal production has now dropped majorly.
In summary, targeted action does work and IMHO whatever action owners and trainers take to try to improve prize money is worth supporting because if prize money doesn’t start to recover, racing as we know it will go into a very steep decline.
richardRichard,
Courtesy of the Sporting Life here is the backround to the Yarmouth boycott- think it was a year or two ago. Also recall that Dunnett got some stick from Gosden and other big Newmarket trainers.
Yarmouth clerk of the course Charlie Moore was left despondent after their Bank Holiday Monday fixture was decimated for a second year by a boycott over prize-money.
Just 34 horses were on Saturday declared for six races, including the Christine Dunnett-trained Southwark Newsboy, the sole runner in the toteplacepot Maiden Stakes.
Although 83 horses were initially engaged across all six events, several big yards from Newmarket scratched their entries.
Moore said: "It’s obviously disappointing that we’ve ended up with one race as a walkover on Monday.
"We’ve had to put that race at the end of the card and it’s disappointing for all our racegoers and supporters.
"But we will of course ensure that those who come racing are well looked after on the day."
The Norfolk venue was one of the worst-hit tracks to have been affected by the Levy Board’s decision to slash prize-money.
Yarmouth’s fall to the bottom of the merit table resulted in a 43.6% cut in the allocation of funds, with Monday’s six-race card dropping to £18,600 – more than £5,000 less than in 2007.
Moore added: "We intend to go and visit some Newmarket trainers as the season goes on and obviously we now have some who are involved in this situation.
"We will see them as a priority."
That Dunnett is guaranteed to win the concluding race by a walkover represents a hollow victory for the Norfolk handler.
Southwark Newsboy finished last on his two starts in 2007 but was the only one of 22 entries to have been declared.
"It’s not what anybody wants and it is extremely disappointing," said Dunnett.
"I’m 100% in favour of trying to do something about the dismal prize-money on offer – not just at Yarmouth – but I don’t think this is the right way of doing things.
"On one hand it will be good to pick up prize-money for the first four home, especially for a small yard like ours, but to send a horse out on its own is just a waste of time and effort for everybody concerned.
"I feel a bit like I’ve crossed the picket-line and that I will be tarred and feathered when I get to Yarmouth on Monday.
"But I’m not going to not run him because of the politics of racing – I’ve got to act in the interests of my owners."
Newmarket handler Clive Brittain did not declare his two entered Yarmouth runners, including Intabih in Southwark Newsboy’s maiden, and is a staunch supporter of the boycott.
He said: "To put on an Easter Monday fixture with that sort of prize-money beggars belief.
"All our staff are on double wages and the lads also have a day in lieu, so to support races under £2,000 is impossible.
"Bank Holiday Monday is like racing at the weekend – there’s got to be a level where the owner can come out of it with something.
"I’m a big supporter of Yarmouth and will continue to have runners there, but if the issue is brought to a head in this way, at least something will be done about it.
"They (Yarmouth) are taking the brunt of it but you will probably find more and more situations like this occurring in time."
I also recall a NH strike over lack of prize money involving Charlie Moore and Barney Curley.Think they told their jockeys (gary was riding for his Dad) to line up but refuse to race.
Problem with boycotts and strikes is that someone always breaks them.
Dunnett hardly has the riches of the big Newmarket boys
- Total Posts 17716
So the irritatingly well off are planning to combat the perceived lack of prize money by refusing to race completely?
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Presumably the trainers who are advising their owners not to run won’t be charging training fees for that particular period?
And what level of prize money would be deemed appropriate? Will we be addressing the issue again in ten years time when the rich have become accustomed to pocketing £10,000 in Class 5 races?
If horses didn’t cost ridiculous amounts in the first place I don’t think we’d have this problem. Rather than making bookmakers pay for the ‘right to bet’, isn’t it about time breeders were made to pay for the ‘right to trade’?
How does Tattersalls, for instance, operate within the boundaries of the sport? Are they associated with it in any way or do they operate solely for profit? How is their relationship with horse racing best described?
[Edited]
In answer to the original point Cormack , people are running their horses for poor prizemoney ….because thats all there is ! We cant just keep them in training without running until there is decent money on offer. So long as the races are oversubscribed as they often are then the racecourses have no incentive to offer more money. Someone said what is a suitable amount of prizemoney … How about as a minimum the amount the levy board provide the racecourse with per race ? As i understand it levy funded meetings get £4000+ per race , its the racecourses who get to decide how much they put up. I dont see why people are so keen to claim ownership of their money after they have spent it , the whole robin good scenario is bewildering to me. Why do punters always claim they are paying the levy when they are simply gambling out of self interest? Its akin to walking around tescos claiming you are paying tescos corporate taxes. Spend your money and its gone , dont try and claim you are the one thats funding the industry, never so keen to claim youre paying the wages of the counter staff in the bookies ….!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.