- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Paul, you would probably be right if you had said that "most" or 95% of punters don’t deserve to be involved in the running of horse racing because they are not informed enough of the subject.
That is a fair statement
I dont agree that the punter should have no voice Paul. Do you also think the electorate should have no voice in how the country is run?
Interesting stuff Paul. I, like you, am more a fan of the sport than a punter as such. I can see where you are comming from. However,I do feel while I’m not sure that punters should be involved in running the sport, they at least be consulted to some degree. Any sensible business consults it’s customers. Yes, you can always say they don’t have to remain customers but any business needs customers to survive and doesn’t want them just to walk away.
The problem with most punters, and here I mean the general betting shop punters, is they can only see as far as their next bet and not at the long term.
"The only way punters could have an indirect influence is by boycotting the product.
The trouble is, of course, it would never happen – well not to the extent it would have a significant impact."The reality is that punters are "boycotting" racing, so are terrestrial TV channels. In a decade, racing has gone from 90% of a bookies takings to around 45%. Levy has decreased sharply and races are cut and prize money remains unattractive. It has already happened.
"Punters are only indirect consumers of the racing product either via bookmakers or betting exchanges. "
So if you attend a racecourse or share in a horse you are an indirect consumer? You are either a consumer or not – an indirect consumer is meaningless.
"In truth your average betting shop punter couldn’t care less about how the sport is run, if racing is there, they will bet on it."
I think the average betting shop punter knows and cares more about racing than that. That punter is also keenly aware of the image racing has for cheating and the authorities doing little to change that image. Any sport that does not make itself squeaky clean puts off punters in droves. No punter wants to run racing – he/she does though want someone to take care of his or her interests and give at least a voice to them.
"Look at the proliferation of bookmaker supported all-weather racing, which is nothing more than the horse racing version of a BAGS greyhound meeting.
Why is it bookmakers support this low grade fare?
Because it is racing in its purest form?
Of course not, it is because it is the type of product the mug punters, who provide most of their profits, lap up and it boosts the bookmakers profits. Who can blame them for encouraging it?"Racing introduced AW racing for the benefit of trainers and owners. Bookies turned to S African racing in times of cancellations. Racing offered wall to wall racing to bookmakers to increase the levy. No punter had anything to do with it.
Very few punters lap up AW racing – many hate it with a vengeance."It needs to be remembered the Levy is only 50 years old and racing existed long before it was supported by a Levy. It would still exist, even if punters money were to dry up.
It would exist in a leaner, arguably, purer form. There would be much less racing at the lower grade but would that be a bad thing?"Racing started in earnest with betting by the aristocracy. They funded it until their estates were wasted or taxed into non-existence. No one will take up the slack if the remaining sheik royalty disappears. No levy and trainers will go abroad or pack it in and bloodstock will be sold abroad. All racing would then be at the lower grade – whatever that really means.
"So I have no sympathy, no time, for the punter who thinks he has some God given right, by virtue of being a punter, to tell the sports administrators how to run the sport."
No sympathy is called for, as no punter thinks that nor wants that nor has ever asked for that. Any citizen is permitted free speech to comment on things that effect him/her.
- Total Posts 17716
I have too read the article but can safely say that I disagree with everything he has posted.
Will have to schedule time later on in the week to discuss why I find the report disturbing.
We have a democratic right to vote because we live in a country that purports to have a democratically elected government. That we are citizens of this country means we are subject to its rules and regulations.
No one is forced to have a bet. One might sensibly argue that those in the population who refrain from so doing are infinitely more wise than those of us that do. To compare gambling, which is optional, to having a government run the country on our behalf, which is compulsory, is ludicrous.
The reality is that punters are "boycotting" racing, so are terrestrial TV channels. In a decade, racing has gone from 90% of a bookies takings to around 45%. Levy has decreased sharply and races are cut and prize money remains unattractive. It has already happened.
Yes prize money has reduced but the number of fixtures remains relatively stable – so the "boycott" is having no impact on those who "run" the sport. Now that says more about the mentality of those who purportedly run the sport than anything else.
Very few punters lap up AW racing – many hate it with a vengeance.
Yet they still bet on it. Bookmakers are not altruistic, their only concern is the bottom line.
That they will fight tooth and nail to ensure the continuation the twilight AW meetings says a lot.
If punters really hated AW racing with a vengeance and did not bet on it then the bookmakers would be the first to turn their backs on it.
Any citizen is permitted free speech to comment on things that effect him/her.
and is that not what I effectively said in the third para from the end?
I think we need to remember the BHA are the Regulators of Horse Racing and not Gambling.
So, as the Regulator of Horse Racing it is correct that they take representation from those they either directly regulate; jockeys, trainers, racecourses etc. or interest groups such as the RSPCA as the BHA regulate on issues of Horse Welfare with racing.
Therefore, if you own a horse you can be represented by the ROA. If you are a jockey the PJA, if you are involved with racecourses the RCA etc.
If ‘punters’ are to be represented it would be with the Gaming Commission and not the BHA or the running of the sport.
There’s enough money there to run 8500 races for £8500 each.
Gosden and his ilk want to kill 5 & 6. Lets kill 1 & 2.
Strange kind of business that calls it’s customers, non opinion losers. Wonder how many successful business’s operate on that ethos?
Funnily enough the opportunistic losers are taking their non opinions elsewhere, which seems of great concern to the purists, if their whinging about prizemoney is anything to go by.
Pompete
02 Nov 2011, 10:35
I think we need to remember the BHA are the Regulators of Horse Racing and not Gambling.
So, as the Regulator of Horse Racing it is correct that they take representation from those they either directly regulate; jockeys, trainers, racecourses etc. or interest groups such as the RSPCA as the BHA regulate on issues of Horse Welfare with racing.
Therefore, if you own a horse you can be represented by the ROA. If you are a jockey the PJA, if you are involved with racecourses the RCA etc.
If ‘punters’ are to be represented it would be with the Gaming Commission and not the BHA or the running of the sport.[/
quote]
Pompete, you are incorrect on two counts:
1. The BHA do regulate gambling, as can be seen by their restrictions on who can lay and back on the exchanges.
2. in your own words, the BHA not only regulate, but also run or administer / manage the sport. Because they are incompetent in the latter administration (levy, whip debate, integrity etc), is why many interested groups (or stakeholders), including trainers, jockeys…. and in question here, punters….. are having to demand a greater involvement in not only regulation, but management too.
Off-course punters are customers of bookmakers and/or exchanges, who provide a tertiary service based upon a number of other businesses. They are not direct customers of the horse-racing business.
Racegoers are direct customers, who depending on their own tastes, choose where to spend their money based on the service an individual course offers.
While forums such as this may give people the right to express their opinion about an issue which they have chosen to take an interest, we cannot expect to be granted an arbitary right in the decision making process. Most people have an opinion on how the national football team should be run but they do not have the right to be involved in the decision-making process, regardless of whether they have a good idea or not.Most people have an opinion on how the national football team should be run but they do not have the right to be involved in the decision-making process, regardless of whether they have a good idea or not.
Eclipse, I think you will find that type of high-handed management style died years ago and so did the companies / organisations / businesses that maintained them.
Modern day good practice makes customer / client service paramount above everything including how to win over all the stakeholders or interested parties in your business / activity (though whether this happens in reality is another matter, as many in a monopoly position, such as the BHA, do not have to worry about competition or accountability to survive).
Paul Ostermeyer’s analogy that a consumer of pork can’t tell a pig farmer what to do is typical of the old, small minded approach. The pork consumer will just go elsewhere given other pig farmers exist in the market and the pig-headed pig farmer will go to the wall because he did what he wanted and didn’t respond to the needs of his customer.
…. and by the way, the FA have consistently failed to appoint the best person for the England manager’s job since probably 1970.
Just because they are in an official position to appoint the manager does not qualify them as the right persons to do so.
Someone or bodies appointed Paul Roy to be chairman of the BHA. Would that appear to be a wise decision now and does it again bring into question the ability of those in positions of authority?
As pointed out earlier, 95% of CEO’s are probably incompetent, and the opinion of the man on the street which you appear to deride, is probably no less valid.
The incompetence of those in charge isn’t the issue. The fact remains that punters are not direct customers of horse racing.
If as some suggest the BHA are not regulators of gambling etc. why should they receive levy payments?
Surely if they don’t consider punters to be customers or bookmakers to be customers etc. then any prize money should come from race sponsorship and as such from the current list of "stakeholders" the BHA use ie. owners, trainers and racecourses?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.