- This topic has 28 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
cjboy, I’ve nothing personal against the people running THG, it is their blundering, foolish boycotting strategy I thoroughly dislike and their way doing business.
Fortunately their members frequently make an @rse of those at the top by completely ignoring this daft policy when it suits them:
From today’s RP:
REDCAR appears to have had the last laugh after being given the only "unclassified" rating by the Horsemen’s Group in its latest tariffs initiative.
Monday’s feature, the Come Racing Again on EasterMonday Handicap, falls £1,300 under tariff but the increased £5,000 pot, upmore than £1,000 from last year, has attracted the day’s biggest field of 15.
The other six races tie tariff levels and Redcar’s first meeting of the year has 64 runners on watered ground that is still firm in places.
A few months after the tariffs were announced I think that racecourses had agreed to put an extra £7m into prize money in 2011 because of the said tariffs. At the end of 2011, racecourses had increased their contribution to prize money by £15m compared to 2010. In a recession year, that is to be applauded. Didn’t they do well! I do not know how much of that amount was due to pressure created by the tariffs, but I think it might have been significant. People may wonder where that money would have gone if there had been no pressure from the tariffs. Perhaps to the shareholders.
The Horsemen’s Group policy of wanting more prize money for horse races may be daft in your eyes, but obviously not in theirs. Their strategy, which may be blundering and foolish in your eyes, has persuaded racecourses to spend more on prize money. If you can find a wise policy, with a stable and judicious strategy, to meet their aims and objectives I am sure they would be pleased to hear from you.
The Horsemen’s Group stated at the very beginning that they would not be organizing a boycott, and that owners within the group were perfectly free to run their horses where they saw fit. They wanted to publish a list of what they saw as the minimum prize money for races, and to encourage owners to think carefully about their options before entering.
I’ve nothing personal against the people running THG, it is their blundering, foolish boycotting strategy I thoroughly dislike and their way doing business.
Then why start a thread asking if it’s legal, when anyone can see it is?
As you say, the racehorse owners sometimes ignore the position of the Horsemen’s Group. so how can the law have anything to do with something that you believe to be empty rhetoric and most reasonable people perceive as advice?
As an owner, anyone managing to get increases in prize money is a welcome ally. No bugger else is really trying that hard and I don’t understand how anyone can interpret an incentive as a cartel. It’s more akin to a trade union is it not?
As an owner, anyone managing to get increases in prize money is a welcome ally. No bugger else is really trying that hard and I don’t understand how anyone can interpret an incentive as a cartel. It’s more akin to a trade union is it not?
Well it would be akin to a ‘closed shop’ if THG had its way.
What galls me is that they don’t see the big picture. Strict observation of THG policy would see tracks steadily going to the wall as support was withdrawn.
That leads to fewer tracks, more competition to win races, fewer chances for the smaller owner to offset some costs, decreased media rights income, less racing to bet on, higher costs for surviving courses leading to increased demands for more media rights cash, meaning extra costs for bookmakers, leading to more of them closing, mostly independents, reinforcing the monopoly strength of the major bookmakers giving them more power to negotiate on media rights and levy replacement, putting TurfTv on the back foot, weakening their bargaining position, diminishing their income, therefore reducing revenue to tracks and ultimately to racing.
THG’s short-sighted grab-what-you-can-while-you-can boycotting approach is about the daftest business strategy I’ve come across. They have little or no consultation with courses – they simply try and bully them in public.
Disgraceful and, in the long term, self defeating.
Bear very closely in mind that evidence strongly suggest that owners are not in racing for the prize money.
From an earlier blog post:
In the 56 months from January 1st 2007 until August 31st 2011, 47,163 horses contested 44,584 races in the UK (443,352 runners). Total win prize money available was £376,181,583
8,750 horses won one race: 18.6% of all horses contesting
4,497 won two races: 9.5%
6,224 won three or more races: 13.2%
27,692 horses failed to win: 58.7%So just over 40% of horses who raced in the UK during this period of almost five years managed to win. Well, at least they garnered £376,181,583 in win prize money among them. But of those winning owners, the ones who arguably most needed an equitable share didn’t get it.
36% (£135,738,280*)of that win prize money went to 771 horses who raced in the UK; just 1.6% of horses contesting.
That 36% of prize money was on offer in 2,231 Group and Graded races contested by 4,846 horses (24,227 runners).
97 horses won three or more of these Group/Graded races.
140 horses won two races each at this level.
534 horses won one race each.
4,075 horses (84%) attempting Group/Graded victory failed to win at that level(*A slice of that £135.7m would, of course, have gone overseas).
So those who probably needed it least as an incentive shared 36% of win prize money. Of the remaining cash, 58.7% of horses won nothing of it for their owners, though the vast majority stayed in the sport. So, if prize money is not the incentive for the owners of 60% of horses, it is unlikely that the remaining 40% view it differently.Most owners are in it for personal reasons: it’s a passion, it’s prestigious, it’s a glorious pastime, not least, I believe, because of our sport’s history, hard won, countrywide, on many fine racecourses. Some love Kelso more than Cheltenham, Bangor above Ascot.
But where will we be if The Horsemen find the Kelsos and Bangors ‘not compliant’? I’ve watched racing for 45 years and can recall only a handful of course closures. If The Horsemen pursue their ‘strategy’, how many ‘non-partners’ will be left to die in the next decade?
It still amazes me that people make such a fuss about what amounts to a price comparison service. If I want the best deal on insurance or savings or mortgages or any number of other things then I visit a price comparison website to see which company is offering the best deal.
The Horsemen’s Group is merely providing owners with the ability to directly compare the prizemoney on offer by different courses.
If I have the choice of running our horse at Redcar or a course that meets the tariff then of course I’ll run where the prizemoney is higher – it’s simple common sense.
To categorise the Horsmen’s approach as one of boycott is as absurd as suggesting price comparison websites advocate boycotting those companies who feature at the bottom of their rankings.
Let’s make it absolutely clear. As a result of the Horsemen’s efforts there is only one racecourse in the whole country that is ‘unclassified’ and only a handful that have yet to achieve full partner status. The vast majority of courses meet the tariff and are entitled to be well supported by owners for their efforts.
If it results in fewer tracks, fewer horses in training etc because the market cannot support them then that would be a good thing. The "product" is unsustainable in its present form and 40 racecourses in this country is a more realistic figure.
Tuffers, taking your Go Compare argument, supposing you want to change electricity supplier. You find a list of retailers of electricity all of whom are, for the sake of argument, sourcing their product from the National Grid and re-selling to you at a price they think they can get.
Now if the NG were getting its ‘wholesale’ supply from say, 5,000 small providers (comparing with the equivalent of a group of racehorse owners) and the the NG said to those owners, "OK, We want you all to get together with us and set a minimum price at which we will sell on the product to retailers. Any retailer refusing to pay that price (or unable to do so) we will deprive them of the product and put them out of business".
1 Would that be a legal approach?
2 How does the strategy of THG differ from the fictional one proposed above?
The word boycott was frequently used when the tariff system was set up, everyone seems to be denying that now. "Boycott? What boycott? Who ever suggested such a thing?"
Call it what you will, if the approach of THG as the sole wholesaler of a product is setting up, partner, non partner, non-associate webs, or however else they want to dress it up, the driving principle behind that is to deter/discourage owners from providing a product (which cannot be got elsewhere) to certain racecourses.
A boycott by any other name would smell as bad.
Call it what you will, if the approach of THG as the sole wholesaler of a product is setting up, partner, non partner, non-associate webs, or however else they want to dress it up, the driving principle behind that is to deter/discourage owners from providing a product (which cannot be got elsewhere) to certain racecourses.
THG isn’t the ‘sole wholesaler’ of anything. The racecourses are the sellers and owners are the purchasers. I can see now why you’ve taken the view you have – you’ve confused the buyer and seller in this transaction.
THG isn’t the ‘sole wholesaler’ of anything. The racecourses are the sellers and owners are the purchasers. I can see now why you’ve taken the view you have – you’ve confused the buyer and seller in this transaction.
The racecourses sell as retailers. The product they sell is horse racing. The providers of those horses (the product) are owners. THG tries to persuade all owners to sell to courses at a minimum fixed price (the tariff).
The racecourses sell as retailers. The product they sell is horse racing. The providers of those horses (the product) are owners. THG tries to persuade all owners to sell to courses at a minimum fixed price (the tariff).
I’m afraid no matter how hard you hit that square peg it’s not going to fit into a round hole.
You’re trying to create an analogy with a retail supply chain that simply doesn’t fit.
Owners do not get paid to enter their horses. In fact quite the reverse, owners have to pay an entry fee to enter their horse.
The closest anology to the relationship between owners and racecourses is that of an entrant and the provider of a prize draw. If there are two prize draws that you could enter and each has the same entry fee then common sense dictates that you will enter the one with the biggest prize.
I cannot imagine how someone choosing not to enter a prize draw because another draw offered a bigger prize could be described as ‘boycotting’ the draw with the lower prize.
Tuffers, would you really enter the prize draw with the biggest prize, or the one which offered you the best chance of winning?
On your analogy, everyone would be avoiding those offering the smaller prizes (Redcar) and therefore competing at a more difficult level, making the winning of any prize money tougher. At the same time Redcar has no product so it closes.
Let us say that Leicester then replaces Redcar at the foot of the prize money pile and everyone avoids that too, once again increasing competition and decreasing their chances of collecting prize money.
So Leicester closes, etc etc. The owners’ desire to always aim for the highest prize draw makes winning harder for everyone while leaving a trail of closed courses (or prize draws if you like) behind.
As tracks go to the wall, fixtures drop away (no bad thing some will argue) but with the fixture reduction goes a fall in betting turnover and media rights money so prize money inevitably takes a hit and the whole whirlpool spins faster towards doom.
We obviously see the whole THG policy in different ways:if everyone adhered to it, it would be a slow but certain suicide for the sport. If owners are simply going to carry on pretty much as before and ignore THG policy when it suits, then what is the point of having that policy at all?
Racecourses will very soon see it as a toothless tiger and revert to running their businesses as they wish. How much more bad blood will have boiled up by then remains to be seen, especially between two organisations responsible for making a commercial success from the fixture list. Old wounds will not easily be healed – those who once held the whip hand and used it to try and bully the weak will not be forgotten.
The sport and its image will, as usual, be the main victim.
Tuffers, would you really enter the prize draw with the biggest prize, or the one which offered you the best chance of winning?
I would say that if the prize falls below a certain level then its not worth entering due to the cost of entry.
On your analogy, everyone would be avoiding those offering the smaller prizes (Redcar) and therefore competing at a more difficult level, making the winning of any prize money tougher. At the same time Redcar has no product so it closes.
The fields would certainly be more competitive but surely that’s a good thing as increased field sizes increase the TV rights payments from the bookmakers?
Let us say that Leicester then replaces Redcar at the foot of the prize money pile and everyone avoids that too, once again increasing competition and decreasing their chances of collecting prize money.
Owners are only likely to avoid below tariff races. If the prizemoney is at or above tariff then they have nothing to worry about. In theory, the strict adherence to the tariff would mean that all courses are in the same position in that there isn’t any one course offering worse prizemoney than any other (taking the grade of race being run into account of course).
So Leicester closes, etc etc. The owners’ desire to always aim for the highest prize draw makes winning harder for everyone while leaving a trail of closed courses (or prize draws if you like) behind.
As tracks go to the wall, fixtures drop away (no bad thing some will argue) but with the fixture reduction goes a fall in betting turnover and media rights money so prize money inevitably takes a hit and the whole whirlpool spins faster towards doom.
Simply won’t happen for the reasons I’ve outlined above. You’ve created a straw man to knock down.
We obviously see the whole THG policy in different ways:if everyone adhered to it, it would be a slow but certain suicide for the sport. If owners are simply going to carry on pretty much as before and ignore THG policy when it suits, then what is the point of having that policy at all?
Racecourses will very soon see it as a toothless tiger and revert to running their businesses as they wish. How much more bad blood will have boiled up by then remains to be seen, especially between two organisations responsible for making a commercial success from the fixture list. Old wounds will not easily be healed – those who once held the whip hand and used it to try and bully the weak will not be forgotten.
The sport and its image will, as usual, be the main victim.
I’m certainly more concerned about the decline in the horse population than the decline in the number of racecourses as one is actually happening and the other isn’t. The worst thing that could happen from the point of view of maximising income from bookmakers is too many fixtures with small field sizes that fail to maximise the TV rights payments.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.