- This topic has 20 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
Question 13 (from fourm member Glenn)
A couple of questions:
1) Every autumn I read in the Racing Post how the fixture list is expanding again the following year – primarily the flat and particularly the all weather fixture list. The levy is down, attendances at some of these new aw fixtures often struggle to reach three figures (and Great Leighs hasn’t started yet!), horses being foaled for these races simply aren’t selling any more and everyone, and I mean everyone, that you speak to thinks that there is now too much racing.
What would need to happen for you not to announce an expanded fixture list again in nine months time? Is there anything that could happen to levy, attendences, horse in training etc that will bring a halt to this runaway train? Specifically, could you outline circumstances that would cause a u-turn?
[b:39rkghzt]The Authority has a difficult task in framing the Fixture List. It has to provide opportunities for the horse population at all reasonable levels of ability, maintain the competitiveness of racing and provide a satisfactory product in terms of off-course betting.
Hopefully Glenn would have been pleased with the results of the Strategic Review of the Fixture List, which can be read on our website http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/media/releaseDetail.asp?item=086034. Whilst the proposed reduction might not represent the swingeing cuts some might have hoped for, it does make clear that the expansionist policy has to stop, despite the fact that fewer than 60 fixtures were loss making for the sport.[/b:39rkghzt]
2) Unlike the tote and exchanges, bookmakers profits currently vary from race to race and they do so in a systematic fashion – they win more when results are unpredictable and races have a certain shape (14 runner handicaps, for example). Why has the BHA followed a conscious policy of mutilating the program book, making racing a less attractive spectacle and ‘harder’, to cater for this archaic pricing structure? Surely it is the bookies’ problem to sort out not racing’s.
How far does this pandering to bookmakers go now that levy is directly linked to bookmakers’ gross profits? You made a decision, that wasn’t made public, to use ‘health and safety’ as an excuse to extinguish 16 runner handicaps from the face of the earth at an internal meeting. What else aren’t you telling us about? Have there been memos sent to clerks of the course to water out draw biases? Are stewards under strict instructions to almost never amend the results now that virtually all bookies pay double result?
One of the problems with forums is that people like Glenn can make wholly inflammatory and inaccurate accusations without fear of recourse.The BHA decides Safety Factors for safety purposes. Field Size Limits, which are different to Safety Factors, are set by the racecourses themselves. This was a matter that was considered some time ago by the then BHB Board. In a post-OFT world, the Board received legal advice that it would be anti-competitive to force racecourses to stick to our Safety Factors and that it was a commercial decision for racecourses to take.
Moreover, the fixture list review shows that the Levy generated per race is relatively consistent between 5 and 15 runners.
With regards to his other comments, we haven’t sent memo’s to Clerks regarding ‘watering out draw biases’ nor are Stewards under ‘strict instructions to almost never amend the results’. Indeed it’s quite the opposite – we felt Stewards had gone too far the other way and were not reversing results that they should have been. Accordingly the guidance to Stewards was altered last year and there has been an increase in amended results as a result, although it’s still relatively rare.
There was nothing innacurate in my accusations.
As I say, and repeat, the BHB/BHA have adjudged revenue on 16+ runner handicaps to be insufficient and have made a conscious decision to use ‘safety concerns’ as a smokescreen to get rid of them.
I see the stewards did the sport a big favour at Newmarket this afternoon.
Dear Glenn
I’m really not lying to you.
You might just want to take the time to look at the Fixture List Review in the Information Base section of Inside Racing on our website and look what happens to Levy generation when there are 16 or more runners (page 15).
Kind regards
Paul
Are you serious? That graph doesn’t control for quality of meeting, handicap or non-handicap or before/after the decision was made to drastically reduce four place handicaps!
Take Kempton for example. They made a decision, purely on levy generating grounds though it was dressed up as health and safety, to impose 14 runner maximum field limits on races outside of heritage handicaps and big race days. Of course your graph would show that 16 runner races there are holding their own levy generationwise – taht’s because all the 16 runner races are held at what pass for festival meetings at Kempton. Most of them would be on Channel 4.
It doesn’t alter the basic statement of fact: all other things being equal 15 runner handicaps generate more levy than 16 runner handicaps.
You either realise this and are engaging in dumb insolence in directing me to this silly graph or you fail to grasp even basic betting mathematics. Which is it?
A
You either realise this and are engaging in dumb insolence ?Glenn accusing someone else of being insolent on this forum – ROFFLE
I agree with the original post – these forums shouldn’t be a sounding board for libellous and inaccurate conspiracy theories.
It won’t be long until someone gets the lawyers involved imo, be it here or the betfair forum.
TDK – I seem to recall you were there when a certain journalist enlightened us all about this meeting where the stable limits were introduced and why they were introduced. Are you suffering from amnesia?
Would you kindly withdraw your remark about inaccurate conspiracy theories.
Could you also enlighten us why Corals typically tenth betting limits on 16 runner handicaps?
Would you kindly withdraw your remark about inaccurate conspiracy theories.
No – my comment was a general one about this forum. There have been several posts on this forum which have been inaccurate and certainly verging on being libellous over the years. I’m not the one who should be withdrawing any remarks…
Hmmmmmmmmm, typical bookmaker, no balls or principles.
That of course is a general remark about bookmakers in general, allegedly.
Colin
Yes, a bizzarre weasel worded post.
TDK knows that I have solid grounds for my claims yet he chooses this thread to make a ‘general comment’ about inaccurate conspiracy theories.
Why do you find simply stating the truth as kindly requested so difficult?
That is a pretty pathetic response to be honest, seabird
Anyway, I’m getting tired of this forum as it the same old stalkers churning out the same boring and inaccurate conspiracies.
I’ll leave you all to it….
I don’t think that I can be accused of being "an old stalker".
Old, very definitely, but I would think you would find it very difficult to produce evidence to suggest that I am guilty of "stalking" you.
"That is a pretty pathetic response to be honest, seabird"
I have no difficulty with you believing my post to be pathetic, tdk, it’s you being honest with me I find difficult.
Colin
If you’re referring to me as an old stalker I would point out that it is you that has come on the thread with my name.
You could have posted something constructive, such as educating Paul on bookmaker margins in 16 runner handicaps, instead you mention lawyers and conspiracy theories.
I reminded you of the basis of my claims and ask if you cannot remember the conversation in question. If you genuinely don’t recall it, I have no problems with that. What I don’t appreciate is the sidestepping.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.