- This topic has 214 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
A bad joke just got worse CR
What does Dixon think he’s playing at?
Your list of tariff-breakers must be a near-exhaustive list of NH trainers: who’s missing?
Furthermore, one presumes their horses were run with the owners’ consent
The tariff doesn’t come in on the flat till April, hopefully it will kick in well then. Mark Johnston has had plenty of runners recently in below tariff races, he has stated he will be having none from April.
I don’t understand C-R’s point here.
There are so few races with sufficient prizemoney it is impossible to have a black and white view on this. The Horseman’e Group is not asking for a boycott of all races below thw tariff, they are asking people to use the tariff to guide them.
If a horse of mine had a choice of 4 races of which one was above and 3 below the tariff I would ask the trainer to enter in the above tariff race. If we had a horse that hadn’t run for months and was rated 135 the choice would be very limited and we wouldn’t have the luxury of choosing.
That luxury comes when we consider replacing a horse that’s retiring; we won’t unless the prizemoney increases
Godolphin backing the tariff. Boycotting The Lockinge by the looks of things and sending more runners to France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ma … ey-boycott
Why wouldn’t a big racecourse like Newbury be able to come up with another 56 grand? They were also well below tariff for their big races during the jumps season as I recall.
The entries for "the Big Kick Off at Catterick"
on Wednesday look a little thin to me, ranging from 14-23, particularly as Good early-spring going is likelyAre the races under-tariff, and if so being purposely boycotted?
Other than those fleeting few minutes ‘twixt trap and line which will always please and entertain, I have a feeling this coming Flat is going to be rather unpleasant
POLITICS
and
?
Yes, all Catterick races are under tariff, hopefully they will get small fields but the tariff doesn’t come in till next Saturday on the flat.
I see that the BHA have published a list of races for the rest of this month where prizemoney has been increased from the prizemoney officially stated when the racing calendar was published. 63 races in all have increased prizemoney. I think it’s reasonable to assume that this is in response to the Horseman’s Tariff. The courses that have increased prizemoney are:
Thirsk
Wolverhampton
Folkestone
Southwell
Newbury
Haydock
Bath
Musselburgh
Warwick
LingfieldIt will be interesting to see whether this continues in May and June.
Increasing, or redistributing ? Of course they’ll publicise the races for which the money has been increased, but what about the ones that have been decreased?
I mentioned Musselburgh on another thread, in particular a £70,000 handicap staged on Derby Day. But the same race is advertised on page 67 of the current issue of Owner and Breeder as an £80,000 prize.
This is the problem with setting minimum targets, whether it’s the BHA doing it or the Horsemen’s Group. You end up with the vast majority of races offering the tariff, only the tariff, not a penny more than the tariff.
When I last looked through the second quarter race listings, the prize money on offer for 0-85 handicaps ranged from £4,000 (Leicester, Redcar) to £10,000. So owners and trainers are offered a choice – go for the best money, or settle for less knowing that the competition will probably not include the big stables. This was a radical change from last year when the BHA minimum values applied, and almost every 0-85 offered the same prize fund.
Imo, better to let racecourses compete for runners and leave it to connections to decide what’s acceptable and which tracks to ‘boycott’. If the Horsemens Group feel that tracks are short changing owners on prize money, then publicise that, and if you want to set targets, set them on the basis of total amounts offered over the season, not race by race.
AP
Ripon today provides a perfect example of the sleight of hand discussed on the fourth page of this thread.
Their 3-y-old maiden race is run as a Class 5 contest, with total prize money of £4,000. As it’s Class 5, that is enough to satisfy the Horsemen’s tariff. So the likes of Gosden, Johnston, Channon et al can run their horses in this race and still claim to be sticking to the boycott.
Call it a class 4 race and they’d all have to avoid it and go elsewhere – and who decides whether it’s a class 4 or a class 5. The racecourse, that’s who!
But even though it’s run as a class 5 and has the prize money of a class 5, if the winner turns up in a conditions race next time, his win will be treated as a class 4 for penalty calculations. Here’s the relevant rule:
2.3 For the purposes of determining any penalty to be carried, a horse which in Great Britain wins an Open Maiden Race or a Novice Flat Race shall be regarded as having won a class 4 flat race, regardless of the class of the race that they have won.
Lewis Carroll could hardly improve on this set up …..
AP
Call it a class 4 race and they’d all have to avoid it and go elsewhere – and who decides whether it’s a class 4 or a class 5. The racecourse, that’s who!
AP
I suppose that’s covered by the rules of racing?
What an odd arrangement. It’s news to me.
Ripon today provides a perfect example of the sleight of hand discussed on the fourth page of this thread.
Their 3-y-old maiden race is run as a Class 5 contest, with total prize money of £4,000. As it’s Class 5, that is enough to satisfy the Horsemen’s tariff. So the likes of Gosden, Johnston, Channon et al can run their horses in this race and still claim to be sticking to the boycott.
AP
But the Ripon race has been a Class 5 for several years so they can hardly be accused of downgrading to avoid the tariff. It was originally a Grade 4 many years ago with considerably more prize money but was no doubt downgraded to pay out less prize money.
Today’s race also qualifies for the RP yearling bonus.
Who benefits from the winner being classed as a class 4 for conditions races afterwards?
The fault clearly lies at the door of the BHA and not the tariff makers.
The Musselburgh handicap you mention with reduced prize money from 80 to 70 grand and the difference re-distributed was obviously well above tariff unless it’s a "Heritage" in which case it would be well under and surely it’s much fairer to spread a bit of it around.
There’s no doubt tariffs have increased prize money, with no tariff lots more races would have been below tariff.
Just a shame a lot more trainers and owners haven’t followed Mark Johnston’s example of having no runners below tariff. Richard Hannon keeps talking the talk but repeatedly fails to walk the walk.At Lingfield tomorrow they have had to reschedule the Channel 4 races because two of them have very few runners. A Class 3 handicap worth £5828 to the winner with only TWO runners, and a Class 2 Handicap worth £8095 to the winner with only FOUR runners, were to be shown on TV but have now been put at the end of the card. Tariffs seem to be having some effect with owners and trainers. Other racecourses announcing in the past two weeeks that they will meet tariffs throughout the year have been given little regard by Lingfield. Right? Wrong? To early to tell?
Trainers and owners have a choice whether they run. They’ve always had that choice and always will do. Just now, they can choose between competitive class 3 races for £6k+ to the winner and Arena Leisure class 3’s for £5k (very nearly 6k).
It’s a rather silly point to point to make but, apart from dead-heat scenarios, only one horse finishes first in any race.
This week (since Monday) we’ve had the following races run on the flat at class 2 and 3 level.
Tuesday 5th April
Pontefract
6f, Class 3 Handicap (3yo) – 0-95 – £6449 – 11 ran
10f, Class 2 Handicap (4yo+) – 0-105 – £7778 – 11 ranWednesday 6th April
Beverley
5f, Class 3 Handicap (4yo+) – 0-95 – £5828 – 17 ranNottingham
5f, Class 3 Conditions Stakes (3yo+) – £5828 – 9 ranThursday 7th April
Ripon
10f, Class 3 Conditions Stakes (4yo+) – £6623 – 5 ran
8f, Class 3 Handicap – 0-95 – £6623 – 8 ranThe Beverley race was worth the least to the winner and got the most runners. It was worth exactly the same to the winner as tomorrow’s race at Lingfield!
Oh, and in order, here’s roughly rounded numbers of the prize money for second for those races above this week. Not one of them was worth half of what the winner will get tomorrow at Lingfield!
£1.9k, £2.3k, £1.7k, £1.7k, £2k, £2k
Jose,
No argument about the validity of your figures, but your points are made with the benefit of hindsight.
The problem for owners and trainers is that nobody has the ability to predict these small fields for decent prize money a week in advance. Because that’s when you have to decide to enter!
I could have run my horse Langley in the 1M 4F race at Lingfield tomorrow, and I’d be delighted to be in a 5 runner race for that money. Langley finished just behind two of tomorrows runners over C+D two weeks ago. But I opted to try him over 2M last weekend rather than wait for this race, because I had no way of knowing the field size, nor could I know that he wouldn’t be out of the handicap in an 86-105 rated race.
I knew on Tuesday that there were only 5 entries and the race had been re-opened, but by then it’s too late – my horse needs a break and can’t be asked to run again this weekend.
It’s clear now I’d have been better off waiting for this race, but there was no way of knowing that a week ago.
AP
Jose,
No argument about the validity of your figures, but your points are made with the benefit of hindsight.
The problem for owners and trainers is that nobody has the ability to predict these small fields for decent prize money a week in advance. Because that’s when you have to decide to enter!
Yes, my points are made with the benefit of hindsight.
From my point of view as a distant outsider, it seems ridiculous that a race is being ‘boycotted’ because the tariff says a race on Saturday must be worth x amount more than one on Monday-Thursday. The same amount was good enough for 17 runners to line up at Beverley. If the race was worth no more than a standard Class 5 maiden I would understand.
With Northern Racing digging into their pockets, Jockey Club racecourses doing the same (ironically) and many independent courses doing their best with prize money, the tariff has the potential to turn into the Arena Leisure boycott, if it is not already. And looking ahead, if Arena Leisure stand firm, Class 2-4 races at Lingfield could continue on a trend of being ‘soft.’
Jose,
I honestly don’t think that the boycott has anything to do with the four runner field in the 1M 4F race tomorrow. Much more likely that a race aimed at a tiny percentage of the horse population, due to the distance, the age group and the 86-105 rating, failed to obtain many entries because most of the horses in that bracket ran for £30k in the Roseberry at Kempton last Saturday.
The Beverley race got 17 runners because it was a sprint, and there are far more sprinters in training than stayers, and they can run every week if required.
Can’t explain the 7F match though!
AP
I see that the BHA have published a list of races for the rest of this month where prizemoney has been increased from the prizemoney officially stated when the racing calendar was published. 63 races in all have increased prizemoney. I think it’s reasonable to assume that this is in response to the Horseman’s Tariff. The courses that have increased prizemoney are:
Thirsk
Wolverhampton
Folkestone
Southwell
Newbury
Haydock
Bath
Musselburgh
Warwick
LingfieldIt will be interesting to see whether this continues in May and June.
Beverley and Newmarket have now increased prizemoney for one race apiece in April and Lingfield and Haydock are the first courses to up their prizemoney for meetings in May.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.