- This topic has 214 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Regarding the horsemens abandonments of Races;
If I was an owner of horses rated below 60 then I’d be targeting these 1/2 runner fields, makes sense don’t it?
- Total Posts 17716
More power to the group’s elbow, imo.
For too long now, consortia such as Arena and Northern Racing have had things their own way, and it’s refreshing to see that someone is at last taking them on, and visibly making a difference.
More’s the pity that other interest groups don’t show the same balls.Regarding the horsemens abandonments of Races;
If I was an owner of horses rated below 60 then I’d be targeting these 1/2 runner fields, makes sense don’t it?
You wouldn’t even cover the cost of getting there – that’s the whole point. We’ve raced seven times this year, winning 6 and finishing second in the other one and we’ve done no more than cover our costs. If prizemoney for Class 6 handicaps was high enough to make them worth winning then you wouldn’t have nearly so many instances of the sort of cheating we’ve seen on the AW this winter where runners which have patently not been run on their merits in early runs pop up when the money is down. I cannot for the life of me understand punters being outraged by the cheating but not wanting to support the one thing that would make running a horse on its merits more attractive. The BHA must spend a massive part of its integrity budget policing the lower end of the sport.
That’s why the tariff is much more important at the lower end than the upper end. No-one’s trying to work down the handicap mark of a horse running in a G1.
The majority of flat horses are rated below 80. In my opinion there is too much racing in this bottom grade. Owners are cutting their losses with this type of horse and as Tuffers says, unless you can win with your horse every 3 weeks the prizemoney does not even cover expenses. If there are less horses in the bottom bracket, there will have to be less races, if the courses that only put on races for this type of horse don’t upgrade their racing and prizemoney then they will go out of business.
In ten years time, I think British racing will have changed a lot. There will be less horses, less racing, less courses and less corruption. I can see courses challening the Tote monopoly ruling, and would expect there to be more pool betting companies around. There will be race meetings where there won’t be any traditional bookmakers, you will have exchange booths or pool betting.
Courses will have to evolve, and find other ways of generating income. Too many racecourse owners are stuck in the dark ages, I applaude the Horsemans group for taking the game to them. The ones that can’t up their game will fall by the wayside. In any walk of life it should be the strong that survive, and this creates progression and not regression. I don’t think anyone on this forum can say that British racing is progressive, that is why changes to the system need to be made.
The sore Horsemen of the Apocalypse: mount your high horses at Leicester, slip off quietly at Newbury
Trainer
Andrew Balding stoutly refused to declare his runner for tomorrow’s controversial Leicester race worth £7,000 less than it was ‘supposed to be’ according to the Horsemen’s tariff. Yet Mr Balding’s strong feelings about defending the tariff seem to have been set aside at declaration time for tomorrow’s Totescoop6 Spring Cup at Newbury where he runs Brick Red in a race offering almost £14,000 less than the tariff level.
Mr Balding said, “I’m pretty strong on the tariffs, but we have to judge every race on its merits. It’s still a £30,000 race and it’s just down the road. It’s tough for older horses with the programme. He missed the Lincoln and we’ve got no options to get him handicapped for races like the Hunt Cup at Royal Ascot.”
Is there a more staunch advocate of tariffs than Mark Johnston? Yet Mr Johnston has Greyfriarschorista in the Spring Cup explaining it away on the basis that by his reckoning the race is the equivalent of a normal 0-105 which would have a much lower tariff.
So Mr Balding is toeing the tariff line except when the track not meeting tariff is ‘just down the road’. And Mr Johnston has his own personal tariff menu based on his opinion of the race conditions.
The Horsemen set out on this tariff project with the zeal of crusaders. It appears the only time they want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder now on it is to quietly cook up a walkover.
Those who are sticking to the tariff structure no matter what – at least you deserve praise for consistency. Those who wriggle their way in and out of the tariff maze as it suits might want to consider checking in their principles when they pick up their badges at the racecourse entrance. They can always quietly collect them again on the way out.
Joe McNally
http://wp.me/p1o7dN-poThere are a couple of oddities of the tariff which may need looking at over time. This race is a good example. The tariff for an ordinary class 2 event on a Saturday is £20,000 so it would be well above tariff were it not for the fact that there is a separate tariff for open class 2 handicaps of £43,800. The gap between the tariff level for the two different types of class 2 race seems to be too high IMHO.
The sore Horsemen of the Apocalypse: mount your high horses at Leicester, slip off quietly at Newbury
.
.
.
Those who are sticking to the tariff structure no matter what – at least you deserve praise for consistency. Those who wriggle their way in and out of the tariff maze as it suits might want to consider checking in their principles when they pick up their badges at the racecourse entrance. They can always quietly collect them again on the way out.Joe McNally
http://wp.me/p1o7dN-poThe objective is: “Increase prize money for these races”. The action is: “If I boycott this, this one and this one, but not that one, that one or that one, I will have the biggest effect for the least amount of difficulty”. Merely the tactics of winning a war. It has nothing to do with principles or morality. If they started lying, cheating, stealing or using violence, that would be unprincipled and immoral.
Punters and owners put money into the racing industry. Racecourses’ shareholders and employees, bookmakers’ shareholders and employees, regulators, breeders, trainers, jockeys, stable staff, and associated suppliers of goods and services take money out of the racing industry. We should all be really disciplined in understanding the distinction between these two groups, because it matters in the long term. In any industry, if the receivers of money treated the suppliers of money with the disdain that is shown in the racing industry, that industry would be in great decline.
We have all been in the situation of writing a cheque to some supplier who couldn’t give two hoots about us. Or perhaps they didn’t understand that the cheque in their hand was their only income, and if the cheques stopped coming in they would be bankrupt or destitute. It is a very frustrating position for the cheque-writer to be in.
I’m sure some great person once said that the lessons of history have be learned again, and again, and again. You cannot treat any group of people with disdain indefinitely. There will come a point when they will rebel. I can imagine the bookmakers, racecourses and the BHA all saying “It will never happen”. Right up to the time … when it happens.
Some might say they are cheating racegoers of value and the Levy of cash. And wasn’t somebody lying over the Leicester walkover?
Mr Balding and Mr Beckett claim today they engaged their runners ‘only in error’.
Yesterday’s quote from Mr Dunlop?
"We all have our views regarding the tariffs and I very much support them," said Dunlop.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
- Total Posts 17716
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
If this was an Auction, Mr. Dunlop would be admitting to running a Ring, and be liable to a criminal prosecution. Interesting legal position, when the other trainers have denied it.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
If this was an Auction, Mr. Dunlop would be admitting to running a Ring, and be liable to a criminal prosecution. Interesting legal position, when the other trainers have denied it.
Hence the rapid volte-face today. How much more ducking and diving is there going to be before the tariff lies in tatters?
Ill-conceived, poorly executed, inconsistent: a strategy it most definitely is not. It’s a ransom heist where the perps keep changing the rules.
Joe,
Can I ask what you think an owner like Tuffers (who has horses that are winning this year but he is still struggling to cover his expenses) should do?
Imo he either:
1) Shuts up and accepts the status quo
2) Supports the tariff and boycotts those races that don’t meet it
3) Decides enough is enough and spends his leisure pound elsewhere.Or is there an alternative that I’ve missed?
No doubt there will be mistakes made and divisions re the tariff but at least it is an attempt to redress the balance and give owners, trainers and their staff a better return. If some races fall by the wayside does that not tell it’s own story about how attractive they are to O&T’s?
I’ve said it previously: Redistribute some of the prize money from the top tier to the middle to lower tiers.
One final point, if bookmakers wish to continue to push for dross meetings like we’ve seen on the a/w why should owners and trainers subsidise these meetings. Again redistribution of the funds to make the racing more attractive to all stakeholders is the only way forward or these meetings will slowly but surely disppear in any case.
Joe,
Can I ask what you think an owner like Tuffers (who has horses that are winning this year but he is still struggling to cover his expenses) should do?
Imo he either:
1) Shuts up and accepts the status quo
2) Supports the tariff and boycotts those races that don’t meet it
3) Decides enough is enough and spends his leisure pound elsewhere.Or is there an alternative that I’ve missed?
No doubt there will be mistakes made and divisions re the tariff but at least it is an attempt to redress the balance and give owners, trainers and their staff a better return. If some races fall by the wayside does that not tell it’s own story about how attractive they are to O&T’s?
I’ve said it previously: Redistribute some of the prize money from the top tier to the middle to lower tiers.
One final point, if bookmakers wish to continue to push for dross meetings like we’ve seen on the a/w why should owners and trainers subsidise these meetings. Again redistribution of the funds to make the racing more attractive to all stakeholders is the only way forward or these meetings will slowly but surely disppear in any case.
I believe the first thing owners should do is find themselves representatives who have a coherent and plausible long term strategy which does not alienate the public and the theatres in which their horses ply their trade.
There seems to be some natural, unreasoned, assumption that if pressure is put on courses, the shockwave will eventually hit the off-course bookmakers.
The reality is that hundreds of betting shops are closing each year (others are opening but most are owned by the big four whose economies of scale, allied to the changes in the ‘demand’ criteria brought about by the Gambling Act 2005 (in force from September 07) allow them to dart in and bite from a ‘market-cake’ which is getting no bigger.
Bookmakers have been ‘educating’ punters in the charms of FOBTs and virtual racing in preparation for racing self-immolating. Courses will close and will not be missed by the bookies (no Levy to pay, no media rights for pics – huge cost savings = massive rise in profits: happy days).
Fewer courses mean fewer opportunities for horses to run and, naturally, further reductions in Levy. Media rights values will drop too as courses close meaning less prize money while, at the same time the Horsemen will be under pressure to ‘build on the success of their tariff policy’ by increasing tariffs further, which will exacerbate the vicious circle.
Don’t the Horsemen realise that the bookies are p1ssing themselves at this self-righteous campaign which is cannibalising the future?
When racing is dead, betting shops will still be full of punters – they might be talking about the good old days – but they’ll be betting on something else.
RIP the tariffs or RIP racing – take your pick.
The idea the tariff was going to apply for races that are worth £20k+ was always an amusing one.
For such races you’re often dealing with around 60% of that going to the winner and, from what I know, that is nearly half of what it costs to keep a horse in training for a year.
For example, if Dixon’s mob kept the original tariff values, Newbury would be £33,489 short per race on the Greenham, Fred Darling and John Porter Stakes tomorrow. So really, Newbury are £113k short of the tariff tomorrow. Conveniently, regardless of the top class mathematical skills that created the tariff, that no longer matters.
Now the races that provide occasional interest with some decent horses – Class 2-4 races at lesser courses – look set to suffer. Did I say suffer? I meant disappear. So the "in-between" horses might as well head off to Dubai, America, Australia, Hong Kong now.
I might be "out of date" with this comment, as I’m taking my information from the ROA website, but I’m not impressed that JCR can fund the "top" races way and beyond the tariff while still leaving Wincanton and Carlisle below. Not impressed as it doesn’t do anything for anyone. Never mind, as long as they can top-up Mr Waley-Cohen’s Gold Cup pot in 2012.
But how long can that ‘impact’ be sustained, Tuffers? Have the racecourses been squirrelling away enough to cover the demands of the Horsemen indefinitely? Or are they supposed to run themselves in to the ground so Paul Dixon and his mob can have their fill?
A few years ago "media rights income" didn’t exist. Currently Arena Leisure collect about £10 Million a year. From 2012 their deal is worth over £20 Million a year.
THATs where the money can come from.
Arena provide about 25% of all racing in the UK. If the Media Rights are pro rata for the rest of the industry that’s £80 Million a year coming to the racecourses which didn’t a few years ago. If the courses coulsd exist at the time when media rights were zero, they can afford to put a part (not all) of it into prize money.
If one looks at the total income of Levy PLUS Media Rights then Racing’s funding is not really declining in the way it’s been portrayed.
I have used Arena’s figures for the simple reason that they are easily available, no other.
I believe the first thing owners should do is find themselves representatives who have a coherent and plausible long term strategy which does not alienate the public and the theatres in which their horses ply their trade.
There seems to be some natural, unreasoned, assumption that if pressure is put on courses, the shockwave will eventually hit the off-course bookmakers.
The reality is that hundreds of betting shops are closing each year (others are opening but most are owned by the big four whose economies of scale, allied to the changes in the ‘demand’ criteria brought about by the Gambling Act 2005 (in force from September 07) allow them to dart in and bite from a ‘market-cake’ which is getting no bigger.
Bookmakers have been ‘educating’ punters in the charms of FOBTs and virtual racing in preparation for racing self-immolating. Courses will close and will not be missed by the bookies (no Levy to pay, no media rights for pics – huge cost savings = massive rise in profits: happy days).
Fewer courses mean fewer opportunities for horses to run and, naturally, further reductions in Levy. Media rights values will drop too as courses close meaning less prize money while, at the same time the Horsemen will be under pressure to ‘build on the success of their tariff policy’ by increasing tariffs further, which will exacerbate the vicious circle.
Don’t the Horsemen realise that the bookies are p1ssing themselves at this self-righteous campaign which is cannibalising the future?
When racing is dead, betting shops will still be full of punters – they might be talking about the good old days – but they’ll be betting on something else.
RIP the tariffs or RIP racing – take your pick.
The problem with your argument is it appears to be based on the idea that the levy is the solution. It isn’t. The levy is the problem. In the same way that agricultural subsidies paid farmers to produce vast quantities of things we didn’t need, the way the levy is structured has turned racing into a mass producer of bookie-fodder.
Quite simply, if poor quality racing cannot survive without a subsidy then it should be allowed to die. As we all know, corruption in racing is almost entirely based around the bottom tier. It is low prizemoney for those Class 6 races that causes people to find other ways to make money out of them. I find it ironic that you repeatedly accuse owners of damaging racing’s image but they are trying to solve the issue of low prizemoney which causes the corruption which does more to damage racing’s image than anything else.
Racecourses don’t have a right to be supplied with horses. Just like any other business, they won’t be supplied if they don’t pay the price the supplier is charging. Even then the anology isn’t perfect because how many suppliers supply their goods to a racecourse at a price which is a tiny fraction of what it costs them to produce it?
You rightly point out that bookies are constantly seeking to innovate to keep their business healthy. Racing and racecourses in particular need to be doing the same. The levy has made racecourses uncompetitive and complacent for too long. Racing has to innovate or die but if it dies it certainly won’t be the owners who are at fault.
If this was an Auction, Mr. Dunlop would be admitting to running a Ring, and be liable to a criminal prosecution. Interesting legal position, when the other trainers have denied it.
But it isn’t an auction, and there’s no crime or even "interesting legal position"!
Steeplechasing thinks racing will die out due to the horsemen wanting decent prize money.
It will definitely die out if there isn’t decent prize money.
I have sent 2 broodmares to France now, and the horse I was going to send to a UK trainer has gone to Ireland, where even a maiden hurdle will be worth at least two times more than the equivalent in England. The next one will be trained in France I expect. I doubt I will have any more than one horse in the UK in the next 3 or 4 years unless the prize money turns round.
I am a little man in racing, 4 or 5 in training over the jumps plus a small breeding setup of 2 or 3 mares, but I hear and see this happening a lot in my discussions with other owners, many of the much bigger than we are.
The bookies and many punters don’t care about quality racing, but without the better level there will be no future for UK racing; it cannot survive on class 5 and 6 on the all weather and selling hurdles at Wetherby. I will not be bothering with racing for £1500.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.