- This topic has 219 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Eclipse, you are entitled to your opinion, but it’s that type of thinking and belief that has got the autocratic BHA management into trouble with levy funding, fixtures, racing integrity and more recently the whip debate.
If the punters walk away and bet on another sport, professional horse racing would die within a few months.
And before anyone says the BHA are democratic and run by committee, ignoring the interests of your clients and key stakeholders is hardly good management. The BHA are effectively in an honorary position whose number one priority is to safeguard and respresent the interests of the sport and ALL those in it. Horseracing is not a private hobby horse to be used and abused for personal gain and / or career progression (eg Nic Coward), it is one of the largest industries in the country and its "rulers" are accountable if they fall below the standards expected of good management.
My opinion is that horse racing in its present form is unsustainable. While we all debate the issue, it is becoming increasingly out-moded and less deserving to survive.
Admittedly my view of punters is that they are simply there to finance the bookmakers, if only they knew it. Perhaps if each betting shop had one of their staff running a "Find the lady" stall just inside the door then punters would actually realize where they sit in the food chain.
One wonders whether punters in other countries where racing is run more professionally have a voice, or feel they need to have a voice.
Unfortunately for the BHA British punters have much more choice than their overseas counterparts – if racing had a monopoly on sports betting (as the PMU had in France until recently) it would be much easier for the BHA, the determination of the levy etc.
Punters seem to be unable to grasp that they do have the right not to bet.
I’m still reasonably sure that betting shops are still not allowed to have their employees standing in the thoroughfare enticing unsuspecting members of the public into their dens of iniquity with false promises of easy money.
Admittedly my view of punters is that they are simply there to finance the bookmakers, if only they knew it……
One wonders whether punters in other countries where racing is run more professionally have a voice, or feel they need to have a voice.
Would largely agree with your views, Eclipse, though punters not only contribute to the profits of bookmakers, but also to prizemoney (which is shared between not only owners, 80% I think?, but percentages also go to trainers, jockeys and their agents, and stable staff)
No idea what the actual cake is, but if say £100 is bet on a race in the UK, then on average £90 goes back to winning punters, £7-8 to bookmakers and £2-3 to the levy / prizemoney
Whereas in France, USA etc with tote operations, probably £75 goes back to winning punters and £25 straight back into racing authority coffers including administration and prizemoney.
Very different business models and why the clear way forward for the BHA and Paul Bittar is to promote a racing-owned exchange facility from which they can finance British Horse Racing rather than having to go cap in hand to the bookmakers and Betfair every year.
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.
Not at all mate. Govt has no obligation to give a damn what the people think, they are at liberty to do whatever they please ‘for the good of the country’ once democratically elected by the populous.
BUT
, it is
politically expedient
to sometimes give the electorate the impression that their voice carries some weight. Lest you would want charges of totalitarianism and police-stateism laid at your doorstep as well as general public disquiet.
It hurts nobody to give the public a forum in the game that they support and provide life blood to.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.
Not at all mate. Govt has no obligation to give a damn what the people think, they are at liberty to do whatever they please ‘for the good of the country’ once democratically elected by the populous.
BUT
, it is
politically expedient
to sometimes give the electorate the impression that their voice carries some weight. Lest you would want charges of totalitarianism and police-stateism laid at your doorstep as well as general public disquiet.
It hurts nobody to give the public a forum in the game that they support and provide life blood to.This is a public forum where anyone has a right to express an opinion sweetie.
My understanding of the thread title was that punters somehow warranted a place on some imaginary committee that would no doubt get bogged down in procedural niceties and never actually achieve anything. This forum has more chance of producing relevant ideas because of its diversity and freedom from restraint than any voice within might. Having served on various committees myself for diverse organizations, the effectiveness of that committee is dependent on its members sharing a common interest. Unfortunately too many of the interested parties in racing place self-interest above the common good so any body made up of such counter-productive elements is most likely to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
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.
Not at all mate. Govt has no obligation to give a damn what the people think, they are at liberty to do whatever they please ‘for the good of the country’ once democratically elected by the populous.
BUT
, it is
politically expedient
to sometimes give the electorate the impression that their voice carries some weight. Lest you would want charges of totalitarianism and police-stateism laid at your doorstep as well as general public disquiet.
It hurts nobody to give the public a forum in the game that they support and provide life blood to.This is a public forum where anyone has a right to express an opinion sweetie.
My understanding of the thread title was that punters somehow warranted a place on some imaginary committee that would no doubt get bogged down in procedural niceties and never actually achieve anything. This forum has more chance of producing relevant ideas because of its diversity and freedom from restraint than any voice within might. Having served on various committees myself for diverse organizations, the effectiveness of that committee is dependent on its members sharing a common interest. Unfortunately too many of the interested parties in racing place self-interest above the common good so any body made up of such counter-productive elements is most likely to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I took from the thread that it was being posed by Paul that the punter should have no say in what the BHA say or do. Like you are not worthy unless you own a hereditary title, or shares in a multi-national corporation. My point was merely that, why should it be so hard to listen to Joe Bloggs? Joe has some relevant things to say amongst the occasional dross. A good plan is still a good plan even if it was thought up by a self-employed carpenter from Acacia Avenue, Willesdon
I wouldn’t be for official ‘punter committees’ but that wasn’t what I took out of the discussion.In recent weeks it has become clear that the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups have a voice in the way that racing is run.
I’m not sure how they fit into the concept of being a ‘customer’, nor how they are any more of a stakeholder in the broader racing family than the punter.
But the reality is that such groups wield more power and influence than punters, and the fact is that punters have little say. Whether they
should
have a voice is a different, but largely pointless debate.
This is the official BHA Mission Statement:
Note the bits about "responsive – listening and consulting, making sure we understand issues
challenging – asking hard questions, of ourselves and others
open – having the confidence to explain what we think, and able to explain why. independent – acting fairly and with integrity in the best interests of racing as a whole (not just trainers)"It was in the terms of setting up the BHA approved by Government that at least one BHA Director represented the punter. They had one that did nothing for the punter and he has now gone and not been replaced.
BHA do already ask punters to inform them of racing irregularities. They do realise at some level there is a mutual interest. On anything else there is zero consultation or consideration.
There are direct issues that effect the punter and that many punters can help BHA with for improvements in racing. These include handicapping, weight for age, going forecasts, watering policy, draw, race overall times, race timing clashes, integrity etc etc
"BHA: It is the British Horseracing Authority’s role to ensure the continued health and successful development of the sport. As both the governing and regulatory body it is the British Horseracing Authority’s responsibility to:
provide the most compelling and attractive racing in the world
be seen as the world leader in raceday regulation
ensure the highest standards for the sport and participants, on and away from the racecourse promote the best for the racehorse
and represent and promote the sport and the industry.
Throughout its work, the British Horseracing Authority will be:
strong – providing leadership, taking tough decisions where they are needed
independent – acting fairly and with integrity in the best interests of racing as a whole
responsive – listening and consulting, making sure we understand issues
challenging – asking hard questions, of ourselves and others
open – having the confidence to explain what we think, and able to explain why
dynamic – professional, innovative and focused, delivering a quality servicerobert, it’s difficult to equate the ethos of that mission statement to the BHA Chairman’s high handed attitude and dismissive contempt of the media (including a poor, sulking interview with Nick Luck on RUK).
Maybe he should be asked to read it before embarking on any further official BHA business.
Say the BHA were serious about listening to the ‘punter’.
And suppose their chosen vehicle was a group of, say, four individuals with enough knowledge of how betting operates, how the serious players go about their business and also, importantly, have a real feel for the man in the street. People who understand the whole spectrum of what are likely to be the punter’s interests and concerns but who also understand the workings of the wider racing industry.
Who would you nominate for inclusion in that group of four?
dream on ….many moons ago Jim Mcgrath was supposed to be representing punters ….right ….in an industry where its funding comes and relies on punters losing , do you think for 1 minute -or second that anyone gives a solitary chuff for Joe Punter
nope
never
dream on
Ricky ….unless of course you play the roulette machines
you get an extra biscuit for reloading into those …..
PPS if the miracle ever happened , my 4 would be
Gamble ….KF ….Glen ….and Paul Bittar
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.