- This topic has 214 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Forget looking at the aggregate levy figures when trying to work out what’s going on. There are too many factors at play and people just use them to support whatever their particular hobby horse is.
A better method is to look at the cold snap around the turn of November as the perfect natural experiment. We had a few days with single meetings, a few with two meetings, a few with three and a few with four. They were all very similar in most respects save for the Saturdays with tererrestrial TV coverage, Saturday punters etc.
The relationship between amount of racing and turnover is very clear: for every doubling of the number of meetings, 30% extra turnover was generated. So the more meetings you put on the more turnover you get but with diminsihing marginal returns.
When people talk about the umpteenth fixture of the day being levy generative they need to realise that it nets very little. It takes away almost as much turnover from the other meetings as it adds from its own meeting.
Glenn I take that point on board.
However i don’t think anyone can argue that reducing the amount of racing would somehow increase the levy, so you’ve still got the same number of horses getting fewer runs but on average, in theory earning the same amount of money.
A 60 rated sprinter runs 10 times this year, has a good year winning 2, netting say £5,000 and placing twice earning another £1,000
Due to less, but more competitive/valuable racing and getting ballotted out more that sprinter races only 7 times next year, winning 1 (remember the races are more competitive) and placing once, but still earning the same £5,000
It’s obviously a massively complicated subject, but as I’m sure you’ve guessed by now, my answer wouldn’t be to slash fixtures.
I know it can’t be done because sponsors put up the money etc, but I think a lot of the top races actually have too much prize money. Would there be much uproar if a group one on the flat was worth £75,000 to the winner instead of £100,000?? Let’s face it most of them are won by the Sheikhs or Coolmore and winning these races is more about the commerical value for their studs/broodmares rather than the prize money. If the National carried £500,000 in value instead of £900,000 would it lessen the race at all? I’m sure by trimming here and there you could take a few million from the top races and add an extra £1,000 each to the added values of the low grade races.
It’s obviously a big issue, but it’s not all doom and gloom, point to pointing is thriving, and your lucky if you get £100 for winning!
I think the answer to the posed problem of there being fewer more competitive races is that the current economic climate (by that I mean the general state of the economy coupled with falling prizemoney to make ownership less economically viable) combined with the current collapse in mare and foal numbers will inevitably lead to lower numbers of horses in training so that the number of fixtures will have to be reduced just to keep average field sizes at the same level.
Glenn I take that point on board.
However i don’t think anyone can argue that reducing the amount of racing would somehow increase the levy, so you’ve still got the same number of horses getting fewer runs but on average, in theory earning the same amount of money.A 60 rated sprinter runs 10 times this year, has a good year winning 2, netting say £5,000 and placing twice earning another £1,000
Due to less, but more competitive/valuable racing and getting ballotted out more that sprinter races only 7 times next year, winning 1 (remember the races are more competitive) and placing once, but still earning the same £5,000
I think the point Glenn was trying to make using fact rather than hearsay and opinion is that increasing the number of fixtures by say 10% does not lead to a commensurate 10% increase in levy i.e the graphed plot of fixtures v levy is not a 45 degree straight line
Only the most optimistic would claim a reduction in fixtures would lead to an increase in levy, but a cut of say 10% in the former would not result in a 10% loss of levy: which follows naturally as an inverse consequence of the statement in the paragraph above, if you choose to believe that
My contention, and it is only ill-founded contention admittedly, is that a significant (upto 20%) cut in fixtures would result in an all but negligible drop in net levy return
It’s a question of cause-and-effect, supply-and-demand open to debate but in my opinion the bloated fixture list we’ve had to put up with in recent years has been responsible for the over-production of racehorses, rather than the latter demanding the former. As Tuffers points out the breeding bubble has been pricked and is deflating steadily, so it is likely a cut in fixtures will be forced anyway, rather than enforced
Incidentally, regarding the likelihood of more competitve races being the result of fixture cut with the consequence that those with poor horses fail to win much (any) prize money. Tough-titty, why should the connections of bad, maybe cheaply-bought horses expect some sort of return for their money? Racehorse ownership, particularly at the lower end is above all else a hobby isn’t it?
A hobby for those in the fortunate position of being able to throw away a significant chunk of disposable income in order to enjoy indulging in a trivial pursuit: the racing of horses
Most of the suggestions here are just minor alterations to the periphery and not really combatting the root cause of the problem which is racing does not receive what it should from the betting and the bookmakers.
eg Fred Done has made hundreds of millions off the back of which sport in particular? A lot of that money should have been going to the sport not Fred Done.Drone
Nowhere did have I said that I think a % rise in fixtures leads to a % rise in the levy, of course that isn’t the case.
On you final point I do actually agree with you, it is a hobby, if you own a plater you shouldn’t in anyway expect to get much of a return from prize money from winning a bad handicap or a seller every season if your lucky. But if you own a horse of any description and it wins 6 races in a year it should be covering the costs of keeping it in training surely.
If as Tuffers points out, the economy at the moment dictates that less horses are in training, then of course a cut in the fixtures would be the way to go.
The last post above me is completely right, all of this is just slight tinkering anyway, and isn’t going to make all that much difference, whether you agree with a reduction at the moment or not.- Total Posts 17716
A 60 rated sprinter runs 10 times this year, has a good year winning 2, netting say £5,000 and placing twice earning another £1,000
Due to less, but more competitive/valuable racing and getting ballotted out more that sprinter races only 7 times next year, winning 1 (remember the races are more competitive) and placing once,but still earning the same £5,000
A trip to the races invariably invovles expenses paid out to the farrier, vet, transport etc. The obvious advantage to owners in the above scenario is three less days racing equals significantly less expenditure for the same return. This would make ownership somewhat more viable.
I take it you mean "the same £6000" from the underlined section.
The old quantity/quality argument has been played out in so many industries over the years. The truth is both sides can gain decent returns if they do the job well. McDonalds is a quantity game that makes millions feeding the masses. Some three star Michellin restaurants are also cash cows but they play the quality game serving far fewer customers. So how can we translate the successes of the food industry to racing whether we go down the quality or quantity path? It’s ultimately about professionalism and producing a product or concept that’s better than what the next guy has to offer.
Racing has a great product. It seems that poor management and short sighted innovation is letting the game down. How can anyone solve problems created by so many different groups and their self interest? It’s hard for any company or enterprise to get back on course when there’s no strong leadership. It’s hard to see where such leadership will emerge from under the current system.
Racing is full of toothless administrators occupying the head and body of the sport while vested interests occupy the tail that’s wagging the dog. Of course they do so while syphoning off as much money from the sport as possible. Until the situation is reversed somewhat and the sport builds from the stronger foundations of solid leadership it will continue to sink.
I’ve just noticed a headline on the RP site ‘Top trainers turn backs on Lingfield over tariffs’ but I don’t subscribe so couldn’t read the article. Anyone know the details?
- Total Posts 17716
Here’s the first couple of paras, which gives the gist of it. Better not reproduce the whole article.
BRITAIN’S leading jumps trainers signalled their unity in the campaign for higher prize-money levels on Tuesday by adhering to the principles of the new Horsemen’s Group tariffs and not making a single entry in races that fall below the set figure at next Monday’s Lingfield fixture.
On the first day the tariffs are applied not one of the leading names in the jumps trainers’ championship will saddle a horse in the four events that fail to meet the horsemen’s recommended minimum prize-money levels, with champion trainer Paul Nicholls, Nigel Twiston-Davies, Philip Hobbs and David Pipe ignoring the fixture entirely.
Morning all
As I’m intending to be at Lingfield on Monday, I can’t say I’m that bothered not to see a Nicholls, Henderson or Pipe horse running. Such horses usually make races woefully uncompetitive from a punting angle.
On the wider issue, a number of thoughts – first, winter Flat racing was brought in for a number of reasons but one of which was to keep the shops busy during a protracted spell of winter weather. With the advent of fleeces, meetings have been saved which would have been lost just a few years ago.
That said, there aren’t enough horses in training to maintain an extended schedule of two winter Flat cards a day for say two or three weeks. The advent of the bumpers for jumpers cards was a response to that but as betting mediums, they probably don’t generate that much.
The key commercial equation is that bookmakers currently pay racecourses to stage races. This is why seven and eight-race cards proliferate and are often stocked with small fields. The courses are happy – they get raid to stage them. Of course, we see more overseas racing (Meydan, South Africa etc) so ATR is only interested in showing races and the betting shop punter is overwhelmed by a constant gluttony of racing.
The law of diminishing returns is kicking in but from the racing side, fewer races means a little more cake for fewer people while more racing spreads the crumbs more evenly round the table. We are seeing established trainers and owners leave the sport and the economic consequences of even a 10% reduction in fixtures are made to sound apocolyptic.
I fear that as the economy recovers, there will be a temptation to get back on the merry-go-round of more racing and more meetings.
Incidentally, regarding the likelihood of more competitve races being the result of fixture cut with the consequence that those with poor horses fail to win much (any) prize money. Tough-titty, why should the connections of bad, maybe cheaply-bought horses expect some sort of return for their money? Racehorse ownership, particularly at the lower end is above all else a hobby isn’t it?
A hobby for those in the fortunate position of being able to throw away a significant chunk of disposable income in order to enjoy indulging in a trivial pursuit: the racing of horses
As a racehorse owner despite having some good horses and one very good one, I have never made any money out of racing. It is my choice to own horses, and my choice will soon be to own less horses than now due to the prize money.
I find it breathtakingly hypocritical when punters come up with the sort of tripe I quote above. (This is just an example not a go at the author of those words in particular). One question to all those saying the same:
Why should racehorse owners subsidise YOUR hobby, i.e. Gambling???
Rather inflammatory
in extremis
words from me admittedly, essentially an over-simplified exaggeration to drive home a point.
So here’s an attempt at conciliation between me the punter and you the owner, each of whom couldn’t survive without the other. I pay levy on the bets that contributes to your prize money, you supply the ‘product’ that enables me to bet in the first place; a circuitous recycling of wedge not dissimilar to the dog chasing his tail
Let me say straight away that I’ve long been of the belief that the disparity between prize money at the top with that at the bottom is far too large. In general those winning big bucks at the top level don’t need the prize money while those earning small dimes at the bottom do, or at least those at the bottom deserve a somewhat larger slice of the levy cake and those at the top a somewhat smaller mouthful.
What we have seen in recent years is a significant increase in bad races catering only for bad (not-so-good if you prefer a less pejorative term) horses resulting in bad horses winning prize money they wouldn’t have done when the fixture list was smaller and contained fewer low-grade races
As Robert Gibbs points out above with prize money for winning these races being so paltry, winning one or even several doesn’t return enough money to cover ownership costs anyway
So what is the answer? Would we the punters miss these burgeoining numbers of bad races that you owners so kindly run your charges in for our betting entertainmnet? Nope in my opinion, hence a cut in fixtures concentrating on a cull of those races at the lowest level would be welcome, replacing them with fewer still-modest races with funding boosted from the pot of discarded races. Replace 20 dire races with a cumulative pot of 50K with 10 not-so-dire races with that same pot of 50K. They will likely be more ‘competitive’ with bigger fields and those horses at the lower end of the handicap who won peanuts for winning bad races will inevitably win even fewer nuts (if any at all) if forced to run in these better races.
You mention CJBoy that you are the owner of good horses but are still going to cut back due to erosion of prize money. Surely this erosion is due, in the main, to the over-preponderance of bad races at the bottom draining still-diminishing levy reserves
In an ideal world trickle-down from the over-endowed top towards the large middle ground would be preferable but isn’t trickle-up from the bottom actually more feasible? By getting rid of the worst races
There will always be a need for some bad races for bad horses, such as Sellers, but should we really encourage the production and purchase of ever-more bad horses by supplying them with ever-more races they can both run in and win?
At present the distribution of prize money resembles a tall, broad isoceles triangle. What it should resemble in my opinion is a shorter, narrower one i.e less at the top, more at the bottom with perpendicular height reduced by the elimination of the broad basest bottom
Finally, just to reprise my words from an earlier post. Betting-wise, racing-day-out-wise and in many respects spectacle-wise I prefer run-of-the-mill gaff fayre, so no elitism should be construed from my words. Simply that we shouldn’t have too much of the ‘bad-getting worse’ stuff, just sufficient for the punter not to be overwhelmed and for the owner to be adequately rewarded for winning/placing
You want less racing? More prize money spread less thinly? Then there needs to be less owners.
It’s alright blaming the BHA & the bookies for everything but you could have prize money of £50 plus a packet of crisps for the winner, if there are still hundreds upon hundreds of crap horses being entered when by rights they shouldn’t be seeing the gates of a racecourse, less races isn’t going to help.
Imagine how many races over unsuitable distances, with jockeys that aren’t really trying, you’d have to have to enter a horse in to get down to a winning mark if every race had sixteen horses in it instead of seven.
Less owners & less trainers = less horses = less fixtures.
PS Maybe people would have more sympathy for owners/trainers if some of their number would stop colluding with bookies to have a runner declared ‘non’ when the are eight/sixteen runners time after time after time. (Allegedly)
It’s rather more likely that it’ll be a case of spreading the depleted remains of a once-brimming coffer less thinly
As others have pointed out there are already signs that ownership is decreasing and I have little doubt that that is largely no more than the real world’s straitened economic circumstances manifesting itself in our little world, rather than owners taking umbrage at low prize money and taking their horse home
What has happened to racing in the recent past is, in my opinion, just another ‘bubble’ that mirrors the credit/housing/you-name-it bubble that’s all but brought the Western economic model to its knees (and may yet do so). Unsustainable growth funded by a pot imagined to be infinite but of course actually finite, and now diminishing
What will happen to the "crap horses" ? (your words
). Well ‘natural wastage’ is the euphemism that tends to be coined when there’s excess ‘collateral’ to be rid of, so being cruel and flippant I’d advise folk to sell their Pedigree Chum Futures, as that market looks like hitting the floorRather more constructive is the idea (already suggested by some) of two-tier racing, which NH essentially already has with Rules and Points. So why not a ‘second division’ of Flat racing too? The "crap Flat horses" can race away to their hearts’ content at non-levy funded meets with prize pocket-money put up in the same way as at Points. For those that enjoy betting such events they can turn up on-course and do so, as again is the situation at Points
Given the careful avoidance these days of labelling anything as second-rate perhaps we should christen the two new tiers Premiership Racing and Championship Racing
One solution to the chicanery at the lower end would be to abolish all class 6 handicaps and replace them with claimers. That way connections would have no reason to ‘work down’ the handicap mark of their poorer runners as they could set the weight the horse carries themselves.
The handicapper would only be obliged to give a handicap mark to a horse which achieved a rating of more than 65 and until a horse had achieved such a rating (either in maidens or a claimer) it would be ineligible for handicaps.
This could also help prizemoney at the bottom level if a percentage of the value of any horse claimed was added to the prizemoney.
Rather more constructive is the idea (already suggested by some) of two-tier racing, which NH essentially already has with Rules and Points. So why not a ‘second division’ of Flat racing too? The "crap Flat horses" can race away to their hearts’ content at non-levy funded meets with prize pocket-money put up in the same way as at Points. For those that enjoy betting such events they can turn up on-course and do so, as again is the situation at Points
A good idea. Tuffers’ claimer idea is a good one too. It’s a shame that we don’t hear of the alternative ideas more often.
I don’t want to see a parade of horses going down the knackers yard. Any improvements & changes have to happen over a period of years, it’s not going to happen overnight.
I had an idea a while ago for ‘league’ racing. Lower prize money generally but a bonus available for the most consistent horse (or the most consistent trainer) over the winter period. One point for every pound the horse runs above it’s handicap mark, one point off for every pound less (or something like that)
Racing For Change were going on about ‘a narrative’ when they talked about the ‘Champions Series’ & I think there could be a narrative (and a little more public interest than the class 6 bonanza we have now) for an ‘LDV Vans Series’
One of the main probloems with the opoulation of lowly rated horses and their owners, is that ‘racing’ has never been either willing or able to set out what they will provide for such horses.
In reality, nobody sets out to own a 50 rated horse – you either buy an unraced horse and hope for something better, or you buy a higher rated horse with form and it declines. But at least if there was a statement such as – ‘The BHA will guarantee to provide x number of racing opportunities for a horse rated 50, offering y amount of prize money per race’ – then you could decide if it was worth keping such a horse in training.
I see no reason why this sort of contract shouldn’t be offered for every level of horse from 50 to 120. This is where the Horsemens Tariff that started this thread falls down – it doesn’t matter what the level of prize money is if there are no races available to run in.
As I’ve made in clear is posts over recent years, I also favour a much higher minimum rating and a greater use of claiming races for horses at or below that minimum. But the claimers would need to be properly set up, to avoid the current situation in which high rated veterans that nobody wishes to claim are domnating these races despite the pathetic prize money. At Southwell during the week, the claimer for £2,250 included five of the six highest rated horses at the meeting and the other was in a seller. There were actually two past Listed race winners turning out for the minimum prize fund on offer.
One last comment – Cjboy suggested earlier that owners were subsidising punters. I’d argue that we are actually subsidising racecourses to a far geater extent. Punters can bet on other things, and we know that they do, but the tracks will always need owners to supply them with horses.
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.