- This topic has 58 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
The owners of the BHA are:
– Racecourse Association Ltd
– Racehorse Owners Association Ltd
– Thoroughbred Breeders Association
– The Licensed Personnel Member (being jointly the National Trainers Federation, the Professional Jockeys Association, and the National Association of Stable Staff)and therein lies the problem!!!!
hmmm, maybe the head of William Hill was misquoted:
R
acecourses
O
wners
B
reeders
L
icensed Personnel
ROBL
rather than Rabble ?
Reducing prize money for Grade 1’s is not an option, quality will soon suffer. We are lucky to have Sheikh Mo and Co supporting British horse racing. True, it’s not the money that keeps them coming back for more. It’s their great respect for our racing tradition and history. Yet this will only last a certain amount of time. We’ve already seen an increased internationalisation of top owners. Godolphin have a far greater involvement in Australia and USA than they did just 10 years ago. If we are not careful successful worldwide enterprises will only send their second eleven to our shores. This may spiral out of control and lead to a collapse of racing as we know it.
In my opinion, Class 6 racing (flat) brings so little to the game, it doesn’t deserve the benefit of Levy money. It’s evident from comments made by trainers in yesterdays Racing Post, most don’t want these animals. Prize money is so poor, it’s not worth travelling to the course.
As I understand it, racecourses like putting on crap racing because they don’t need to contribute much prize money. Provided racegoers come through the gate, they often make more money on “smaller” rather than “bigger” meetings. So if they don’t need to contribute much anyway, why not let them put on crap racing without Levy funding? With solely handicaps and punter fodder on offer. This could entice bookmaker sponsership and help funding at a lesser level.For Class 6 races only: All off course bookmakers with a licence could get together and put money in to a prize money pool; percentage input dependant on percentage share of last year’s horse racing betting. One with a 20% share needing to put 20% of money in and getting their name on 20% of race titles. Could it work?
The way off course bookmakers work out SP’s these days has led to a bigger over round figures. But there is a far greater difference in this grade. Believe in one case a bookies SP of 4/9 returned, with betfair SP of 11/10. That is a difference of a staggering 21% for just one horse. Often at Kempton only four bookmakers turn up. When there’s an uncompetitive market (few bookmakers), with limited money going around (few punters); on course bookmakers will bet to a far greater over round figure. Offering say 4/1 about what normally is a 5/1 chance (nothing to do with size of fields). It can not be put down to how bookmakers work out SP’s. Barry Dennis said get more punters to Kempton and more bookies will turn up. Kempton should be in a good position to attract a large crowds from London for evening racing; but it doesn’t, even with such good facilities. Unless things change punters will continue to be short-changed when betting on Class 6 races. If punters don’t want to turn up why put racing on? The Levy is subsidising this stuff, we are all subsidising this stuff.
Southwell serves a purpose, it’s fibresand and some horses won’t go on polytrack. “All weather” racing in general is safer than turf (firm or heavy). Although I do not bet on any AW racing, there is no reason others should be denied the pleasure. Just improve the over all quality, please. Not against AW racing, it’s all poor Class 6 stuff that should be axed from the Levy.
With a supposed sell off by the Government of the Tote, racing seems to have lost the chance of increasing levy from that source. Why did / do they keep to such a high take out? 13.5% is too much (was I believe 16% prior to 2003). Reducing it by half would compete much better with betfair. They’d get a far bigger share of betting turnover and bookmakers on and off course would find it hard to keep in business. Not that I am one who wants a Tote monopoly, but currently their uncompetitive markets mean I seldom get involved. Any reduction is better than none at all.
There are some within racing who believe the Government does NOT own the Tote.
The reason Saturday is so popular is undoubtedly the fact it’s the most profitable day for both off course bookmakers and racecourses. Sunday could receive a greater share of fixtures. I’d particularly like to see a better standard on Sunday. When I go racing “on the Sabbath” you get a totally different racegoer. Once a year family crowd. Trouble is when racecourses have a “family day” it seems an excuse for putting on poor quality racing. Where racecourses are concerned; their success in getting a large crowd underpins poor quality racing. They think, why increase quality if Joe Public turns up for “Rubbish Racing” anyway? Majority of Sunday crowds wouldn’t know a Group 1 from a Seller. Size of fields is (in mug-punterland) all that matters. Presumably, poor quality Sunday racing does not bring in so much Levy.
Summer Jumping should be banned, nothing to do with levy, just safety. Faster the going the faster a horse jumps. If he falls, the harder ground and speed can easily amount to injury or worse to both horse and jockey. Watering only goes so far, it is often impossible for racecourses to prevent firm going. Not convinced summer good ground is actually “good” anyway.
Jump racing should start in October with Cheltenham and Aintree on the same weekend. Ending in the middle of April on “Whitbread” day. Don’t mind AW Flat going on throughout Winter. However, there’s far less chance jump racing waterlogged (abandoned) in mid-March, so less need for AW racing. AW should stop just before the Cheltenham Festival, with a few weeks off before Doncaster, the start of the Flat proper. As an 18 year old looked forward to the start of the Lincoln meeting with anticipation. Now it goes by without a second glance. The idea of putting the Lincoln meeting back to the weekend before the Craven and Greenham seems a good one. Turf season should end with a bang on Champions Day with Racing Post Trophy on the previous Saturday.
Really depresses me when there are calls for bookies to pay a greater percentage of profit to the levy. In that case even more will go abroad. Bookmakers don’t pay anything anyway; all their money comes from the punter. Bookies can easily get it back by working to a bigger over-round. More bookmaker percentage profit going in to the levy / prize money means robbing poor punters to pay rich owners. Crazy at the best of times, let alone in hard times.
Value Is EverythingThe way off course bookmakers work out SP’s these days has led to a bigger over round figures. But there is a far greater difference in this grade. Believe in one case a bookies SP of 4/9 returned, with betfair SP of 11/10.
These days, if backing shorties at the front of the market punters would more likely be better off doing so with bookmakers rather than on Betfair.
The way off course bookmakers work out SP’s these days has led to a bigger over round figures. But there is a far greater difference in this grade. Believe in one case a bookies SP of 4/9 returned, with betfair SP of 11/10.
These days, if backing shorties at the front of the market punters would more likely be better off doing so with bookmakers rather than on Betfair.
Depends when and where you back them Pompete.
My point was really about where SP’s are taken from uncompetitive markets. At a meeting where few bookmakers and punters turn up, I very much doubt if most bookies SP’s will beat the betfair SP on favs.
Value Is EverythingRather than dramatically cutting the number of fixtures which, we are told, will lead to the closure of some tracks, why not just cut the number of races instead?
A standard six-race card at every meeting could be an answer. Take today, there were 41 races at six meetings – cut that to 36 and you have effectively reduced the day’s racing by one meeting without the tracks suffering.
I don’t believe for one minute that people look at a card and say "only six races, I’ll not bother going today". The vast majority of afternoon cards have seven races now, with plenty having eight. Insisting on six races per meeting could knock 15% off the number of races – and demands on prize money – at a stroke.
I realise there are costs in holding a meeting – like ambulances, stewards, officials etc, but racecourses should cover the costs of this from admission and other commercial activities.
This could be a fair compromise that reduces the demands on the levy without decimating the courses’ revenue.Rather than dramatically cutting the number of fixtures which, we are told, will lead to the closure of some tracks, why not just cut the number of races instead?
A standard six-race card at every meeting could be an answer. Take today, there were 41 races at six meetings – cut that to 36 and you have effectively reduced the day’s racing by one meeting without the tracks suffering.
I don’t believe for one minute that people look at a card and say "only six races, I’ll not bother going today". The vast majority of afternoon cards have seven races now, with plenty having eight. Insisting on six races per meeting could knock 15% off the number of races – and demands on prize money – at a stroke….Presumably, this reduction from 7 to 6 races would also be accompanied by a 14% reduction in admission, car park and racecard charges?
Or are you a proponent of the "new size" approach to ripping off the public – keep the price the same but reduce the number of chocolates in the box?
Rather than dramatically cutting the number of fixtures which, we are told, will lead to the closure of some tracks, why not just cut the number of races instead?
Don’t know whether this has been mentioned on this thread before – haven’t been reading it because of the opaque title.
What happened to the proposal of just a few weeks ago that every meeting would be forced to have seven races instead of six???
Presumably, this reduction from 7 to 6 races would also be accompanied by a 14% reduction in admission, car park and racecard charges?
Or are you a proponent of the "new size" approach to ripping off the public – keep the price the same but reduce the number of chocolates in the box?
I don’t think that is a fair comment – it is only in the last year or so the "default" number of races per meeting has risen to seven and there was not a corresponding increase in admission price (apart from the usual annual increase by some courses, and half the courses have not increased admission prices from 2009 – 2010), so reverting back to six races should not automatically mean a reduction in the costs you mention.
Also there are only four courses I can think of where you cannot park for free, so the car parking example is a herring rouge.
- Total Posts 17716
Presumably, this reduction from 7 to 6 races would also be accompanied by a 14% reduction in admission, car park and racecard charges?
I don’t think that is a fair comment – it is only in the last year or so the "default" number of races per meeting has risen to seven
Quite true: what used to be presented very clearly as the "bonus 7th" – if you got it at all – has now become ubiquitous, even some kind of "right". Six race cards are now presented almost apologetically, be they at Royal Ascot, Chester or wherever.
I wonder at which point in history the "bonus sixth" race became
de rigeur
on cards of five or fewer contests?
Raceform 1879
, anyone??
C’est pour brouiller les pistes, apparently.
Bit slow, didn’t realise that the increase in races per meeting is to ameliorate the cut in fixtures.
Personally, I’d get rid of all the Amateur races, Sellers and Claimers, as they add NOTHING to the Sport.
Would like to get rid of Hunter Chases for the same reason, but they help courses have 3 chases per meeting, as chasers tend to die/get injured.
Six race cards are now presented almost apologetically, be they at Royal Ascot, Chester or wherever.
Six races are still a necessity – take the Brighton card this afternoon, there are hardly enough runners to support four races let alone the six scheduled. At the final decs 5-3-9-10-6-6 and the two
bigger
fields now already reduced by one each.
It will be very interesting to see how many racegoers turn up this afternoon and to get their reaction to what is on offer.
I must admit I am sitting here asking myself why I am about to set off on a 250 mile round trip for what is on offer there this afternoon!!!
"I must admit I am sitting here asking myself why I am about to set off on a 250 mile round trip for what is on offer there this afternoon!!!"
I, wish you well as "the whole world and his wife" will be heading for the south coast today!
Brighton, will especially be heaving.
Regards – Matron
6 races per card is ideal – an afternoon/evening racing or punting is meant to be an enjoyable relaxation, not a test of stamina.
I, wish you well as "the whole world and his wife" will be heading for the south coast today!
Brighton, will especially be heaving.
It is – the queues into town were back to the A27 – luckily there is a back way to the racecourse – I can’t find an emoticon for sigh of relief
I was almost going to say that I think all meetings should be seven race cards, it’s better value for money.
Then I remembered that alot of the ‘seventh race’ fayre at jumps meetings is a bumper & I’d be quite happy to be rid of those.
If the flat courses want to add a bit of extra revenue in the winter, how about an ‘all bumper’ card at one of them?
It was put forward many years ago by I think Tony Fairbairn of the Racegoers Club that there should be more races per meeting but less meetings, seems a sensible suggestion to me.
It would not be compulsory to stay for all races and those who just preferred the 6 could have their exit from the track helped by the fact that there were more races to come.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.