- This topic has 19 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Another ‘racing’s on it’s last legs’ piece from Alan Lee in today’s Times. Lee, Lydia Hislop and Julian Muscat seem to take it in turns to paint the bleakest possible picture of our sport.
It’s like a bloody stuck record.
Take it from me, racing has been in ‘crisis’ ever since Diomed nailed the Derby in 1779. It will continue to be in ‘crisis’ long after me and you are dead and a **** sight longer than when journo’s at The Times learn to write about something else.
Slipping standards? Well, a couple of pages later the following is tacked on (as if it is news) to the end of a report about the forthcoming NFL NY v Miami game at Wembley on Sunday:
"Sky Sports shows more than 125 live games per season including HD coverage of the Giants v Dolphins on Sunday."
The Times, of course is owned, like Sky, by Murdoch’s Newscorp.
Pathetic.
Mike
Racing may have been around since King Charles time, but its never had to compete for the punters shilling like it does now. And while it continues to pander to insiders and incompetence as it does punters will continue to take their shilling elsewhere.
The way its funded at present no punters = no sport. The Times through its excellent journalists are making joe public of aware of that.
Long live credible sports journalism
Agree with most of that Carv. I think they have the best journalists by far but would disagree with original post and suggest that they also paint a positive picture whenever they can too.
Another ‘racing’s on it’s last legs’ piece from Alan Lee in today’s Times. Lee, Lydia Hislop and Julian Muscat seem to take it in turns to paint the bleakest possible picture of our sport.
It’s like a bloody stuck record.
Take it from me, racing has been in ‘crisis’ ever since Diomed nailed the Derby in 1779. It will continue to be in ‘crisis’ long after me and you are dead and a **** sight longer than when journo’s at The Times learn to write about something else.
Slipping standards? Well, a couple of pages later the following is tacked on (as if it is news) to the end of a report about the forthcoming NFL NY v Miami game at Wembley on Sunday:
"Sky Sports shows more than 125 live games per season including HD coverage of the Giants v Dolphins on Sunday."
The Times, of course is owned, like Sky, by Murdoch’s Newscorp.
Pathetic.
Mike
Great post Mike. If you read the much debated ‘Racing In Decline’ thread, which I think started because of an article wrote by Lyida, you will se that I kept throwing up the question, "What Decline?".
Granted, I am only 34, but I remember when I first visited a betting shop at 18, first visited a track at 12, watched racing on tv since I was a youth etc, and believe me, I don’t think Racing has ever had it better than it is today, and I continue to be amazed when I read about "Racing’s decline".
Now I am not disrespecting anyone who thinks racing is in decline, becuase they put up some very valid points, but from what I want from racing, it has never been better.
Mike
Whatever the state of racing (and I’m inclined to agree with betlarge that it’s always been in “decline” – anyone remember Jack Logan’s Friday articles in the rLife 30 or so years ago?) the punter has never had it so good
Internet betting, betting exchanges, blanket satellite/tv coverage of races both here and from Ireland, smoke-free betting offices! Punters from the 1950’s would think it paradise..I don’t know how anyone who likes racing cannot be worried, even a little bit, about the on-going debacle over funding and the extra charges being levelled at the bookies. These are the main problems, as I see it.
We’ve got too much racing, for the amount of money there is in the pot, thanks to Saville pandering to the bookies.
We’ve got a fiddled SP system that will sap the pocket of any shop punter quicker than an fotb, thanks to Lord D.
The government are being forced to sell the Tote because the EU says it breaks their competition rules, foriegners interferring in our sport. Instead of money going to the levy, the tote will soon have to make a profit, which can only be bad for punters.
TurfTV, want an extra £50M a year off the bookies, if the bookies are to be believed, for something they are already paying for.
These feckers seem to think that there is an endless line of punters with unlimited amounts of money to throw at racing and keep the show on the road .. there isn’t.
Today, I was watching a bit of racing on ATR and I thought I would press the red button and see what was going on with that. To my amazement, when I pressed to see results, it tried to charge me for a call. What a lot of greedy ba**ards !!
In some ways it would be funny to see the whole thing come falling down around their money grabbing ears. But its only the genuine fans that would suffer, they’d just move on to rip the ar$e out of something else.
The next 12 months will show us what type of sport we are going to have for the next 10 years. Its a pity they just couldnt have left things as they were 7 or 8 years ago, instead of constantly conniving to eek more out and putting the future at risk.
The Guardian need to start telling it the way it is and naming and shaming those involved in this unfolding disaster which is happening right now. How much have these greedy people made out of screwing the racing public over, personally? Should they have to pay it back?
The government are being forced to sell the Tote because the EU says it breaks their competition rules, foriegners interferring in our sport.
I was under the impression that the government want to sell the Tote but that the EU’s problem is that selling it off below market-value would equate to illegal state-aid.
As for "foreigners interfering in our sport", do you not think the sport has benefitted massively from foreigners?
Prize money for a standard 0-85 handicap at Lingfield –
January 2005 £11,000
January 2006 £10,000
January 2007 £7,500
January 2008 £6,500
No decline ?
Depends on where you’re looking from I guess. In fact in the program just published for 2008, Lingfield have changed the 1M handicap that I’ve used for this example from a 0-85 to a 0-75, so the prize money is only £4,000, but £6,500 is now the official minimum value for a 0-85.
I’m aware that cut hasn’t produced a drop in the number of horses in training, nor will it have any noticeable impact on prices at the Newmarket sales next week – although that’s mainly due to overseas buyers.
But it’s hardly the sign of a boom is it?
AP
Gareth foriegners are always welcome as guests, not dictators. The government didnt even own the Tote when they eyed it up to sell it. This is a bad deal for racing, because someone will be taking out a profit after its privatised and the money wont stay in racing, as it does now. Did you know the Germans are having to privatise their railways and postal service, even though they all know its a less for more deal?
AP – why do you think things are going backwards, particularly with prize money and who is responsible for it?
Those figures really are shocking AP.
Also, I wonder if the average wage for Stable Staff reflect these ‘Racing’s Never Had It So Good’ times we live in?
Dave – the other way of looking at it is that the EU is trying to ensure that the UK taxpayer isn’t ripped off by a cosy deal involving a below market-value price, i.e. a bad deal for racing but a good deal for the taxpayer.
nine out of ten punters from the fifties would be disgusted that they can no longer smoke in the bookies
Also, is the Terrestrial TV coverage any better? I think not, midweek has almost disappeared, as for the BBC, they’re a disgrace, must average about once a month, if you’re lucky.
Dave – the other way of looking at it is that the EU is trying to ensure that the UK taxpayer isn’t ripped off by a cosy deal involving a below market-value price, i.e. a bad deal for racing but a good deal for the taxpayer.
The government (tax payer) don’t even own the Tote, it’s owned by the board of the Tote, the government has to ‘take ownership’ of it first before they sell it off. The Tote is a trust, set up in 1928 to finance horse racing and give it an independant income, so the taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidise racing. The Tote works fine, the way it is.
Initially the OFT, set up to look at monopolies and mergers looked at the way the Tote operates and advised the Government that it was operating as a monopoly (because of the rules involving pool betting and its priviledge market position, betting in bars and restaurants, etc) and told them it would have to be privatised, or they would fall foul of EU competition rules.
The Tote contributes around £8M a year to the levy, makes a profit of around £6M and has around 5% of the market share. The £6M profit that the Tote makes does not get paid out to shareholders, it stays in racing because there is no where else for it to go.
The government know that the system works and don’t want to wreck it, but still see that there is capital there that they can sell by making a few dastardly legal moves. That’s why the Tote isn’t for sale to the highest bidder.
The Tote is valued at being worth £500M. It is only worth this amount because of its priviledge market position. When it becomes a private company then it losses these advantages, so what is it really worth? Hence the low price and the delay in the sale.
The Tote is an asset that belongs to the racing public, in my view, paid for by punters since 1928. Its a valuable contributor to the Levy and provides income for all of the courses in the UK. Like I said before its foriegners and Capone style politicans, interferring in racing.
But this is just one problem of many caused by greed, driven by unrealistic market projections made after they abolished betting tax.
But Dave, it’s not "foreigners interfering in racing" – it’s the Tote sell-off being forced to adhere to the rules of modern business. If you’re just looking to have a pop at the EU for dictating to the British Government what it can and can’t do, that’s another thing entirely. But just because this deal affects racing, it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be subjected to the usual scrutiny. The "foreigners" are way down the list of people to blame for this shambles.
Dave,
I’m sure it would be possible to write a hundred page report on prize money, such is the complexity of the politics and economics involved. But surely the main reason for the fall is the reducion in the total from the Levy.
Of course, we can also argue about the reasons for that – is it loss of market share, narrow margins (before the SP changes anyway), or simply the bookies making sure that they pay the minimum possible and employing the best lawyers and accountants.
I’d suggest that the tracks also share part of the blame, although it’s hard to knock a track like Lingfield as it’s obviously difficult for them to generate much income from most of their meetings. You can’t hope to sell out the corporate facilities three times a week in the middle of winter!
Other tracks have used the published minimum values as being the norm rather than a minimum, and directed money into developing their facilities rather than into prize money. A good example of that would be one of my local tracks, Newbury, where £5000 0-70 or 0-75 races have become part of their staple diet. The money is being spent on improved road access, which might look a luxury if nobody is turning up for most of their meetings.
I’m not, and never have been, a campaigner for higher prize money, as I’ve always recognised that the authorities and racecourses only ever looked to punters to produce the extra funding. If I choose to own one or two horses as a hobby, it’s up to me to decide whether I’m happy with the prize money and act acordingly. I do believe that much more could be done through sponsorship and that racing has never really worked that hard to find long term sponsors.
I found out the hard way (by sponsoring a race or two myself) that a sponsor is only helping the racecourse – if I go along to a track and offer to put up £1000 for the Golden Anorak Handicap, the track will leave the prize money for the race unchanged and pocket my grand, so the owners don’t see any benefit at all. I’d like to see the rules changed so that any contribution from a sponsor has to be declared and has to be added to the published minimum value for that class of race.
Only 99 pages to go ………
AP
Gareth you might not like it but it’s true. The whole shambles surrounding the Tote starts with the EU and their legislation imposed on us, I don’t see how it’s not relevant to any debate surrounding the sale of the Tote. This is the reason why this is happening. If the proposed deal was open to proper scrutiny/debate our government would be telling the EU that they can’t sell it because it doesn’t belong to them in the first place, and any money coming from the sale of the Tote should be given back to racing and not go to the Treasury. You seem to be caught up in the lies and deciept that the government trots out when they impliment EU legislation and pretend they are acting of their own accord, when in fact any semblance of choice that they had was given up years ago. Thats why things happen in this way and we don’t have proper debates because the government don’t want one. Like you say foriengers are way down the list, about 3rd, in my opinion.
I’m only writing this because I feel it’s always important to know why things are being done and who’s interest it is being done in. If you don’t know what motivates change, I don’t believe you cant understand if something is going to be good or bad for you in the long term.
Interesting point about sponsoring races AP .. I didn’t realise the course pocketted the cash, looking forward to the next 99 pages ..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.