- This topic has 76 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Cavelino,
Please do not keep on repeating the hoary chestnut that punters pay for the sport. Regrettably they pay less than £90 ( through the levy) million out of the total cost of £400 million of keeping horses in training. This figure is falling because it is raised through the levy which is falling.
The big funders of the sport are the owners and always have been long before off course betting was legalised roughly 50 years ago.
That is not to say that racing should not be straight for everyones benefit – not least the owners.
This really makes my blood boil. Punters pay £90 million out of £400 million to keep horses in training. How much do people who but yachts get their pleasure subsidised by? Or people who spend their spare cash on prostitutes, champagne, fat cigars or eat at Marco Pierre White’s? Nothing! Owners are on an ego trip, which i have no problem with, but if they can’t afford to write off the money that they have spent, then they shouldn’t be in the game.
£90 million is a hell of a lot towards funding a sport – the reason most owners are losing money is because they are prepared to pay ridiculous amonuts of money for moderate animals at the sales. I am quite in favour of a state controlled monopoly of horse race betting in this country, always have been, with profits going back into subsidising racing, but I hate the ingratitude of owners who are essentially having their fun subsidised at someone else’s expense.Welsh Wizard,
I quite agree with you that owners should not expect subsidy but your comments equally apply to punters who are not forced to bet! So let us forget emotion and stick to facts – that was all I was asking Cavellino to do. Given that punters want to back (despite not being forced to) it is a common principle in every other sport eg football pools etc that the bookmaker pays the sport for the right to lay odds on it. If this is subsidising owners then so be it but no worse or different to subsidising football clubs. Nor do I hear outrage every time a footballer makes a mistake thereby costing fixed odd punters money.
Fist Of Fury,
First of all the winner was not odds on.
The winner was Arbuthnott’s Lavender Track which was joint fav at 5/2 with the Nicholls horse Taralina which looked in need of a race.
There was little money in the ring for any of the runners.Ashleys Petale was 4th favourite
I dont know how the race looked on ATR but to those who I watched the race with from the members stand it looked very poor indeed.
The jockey made no visible attempt to put the horse in with any chance of getting at least placed at any time during the race.
It looked like it was going as good as any down the far side but the jockey decided to race alone.
I note the connections are not complaining about getting fined and the horse getting a ban they are appealing about the severity of the ban.Richard Rowe and Nick Giffords father Josh often used to bring lots of horses to what is their local course and have a run round the track after racing perhaps this would have been a better option as not many stay behind to watch so if it run around well no one would have even known the name of the horse and the horse could have gained experiance of visiting a racecourse for the very first time.
The spectator funds every sport, and that is the bottom line, no ifs or buts.
Where would Man Utd be without the paying customer, the same customer that pays millions each year for over priced replica gear.
There is an arrogance within racing that somehow owners really run the show, "codswallop". Punter stops going racing, the racetracks can’t survive, racetracks close no places for trainers to run their horses jockeys are unemployable, no trainers no owners, no owners no breeders, no breeders no racehorses."The punter is only a nuisance" it would be nice if these arrogant owners trainers & jockeys looked at the real picture instead of sticking their heads in the sand when the punter has a genuine gripe, and give punters the respect they deserve for making a lot of them stinking rich.
Of course the racing authorities give us very little protection if any, so we will always be thought of as an neccesary nuisance that will go away when the dust settles.
Punter stops going racing, the racetracks can’t survive,
Disagree with you there Madman. Tracks like Southwell, Lingfield, Kempton and Wolves have minimal crowds, which cannot be cost effective. French racing thrives yet courses are frequently deserted. Similarly most US courses I have visited have been ghost towns. Admittedly the funding is diferent is those countries
"Punters" do not need to go racing, as long as the courses can get the corporate money which provides more money through the door than day to day puunters. Punters will always bet off course and this will still feed the money into the system.
it would be nice if these arrogant owners trainers & jockeys
A rather sweeping statement there Madman – rather a general statement tarring all owners, trainers and jockeys with the same brush. Do you know them all?
give punters the respect they deserve for making a lot of them stinking rich.
I think you will find most owners derive their main income from areas other than racing.
You state you think it is "codswallop" that owners run the show. I could argue its "codswallop" that punters should have the rights you seem to be advocating.
Just because you buy a product it does not give you the right to dictate how the money you spend on it is spent.
You state you think it is "codswallop" that owners run the show. I could argue its "codswallop" that punters should have the rights you seem to be advocating.
Just because you buy a product it does not give you the right to dictate how the money you spend on it is spent.
Oh no? What about if we continued to pay Income Tax, VAT, Council Tax etc., and had no say in how that money was spent?
"No taxation without representation" was the mantra of the brave colonists of Boston who stood up to the arrongance of the Crown and eventually threw off the yoke of English oppression and formed the world’s greatest democracy, the USA.
Punters pay one quarter of owner’s costs and you are saying that they have no rights?Oh no? What about if we continued to pay Income Tax, VAT, Council Tax etc., and had no say in how that money was spent?
"No taxation without representation" was the mantra of the brave colonists of Boston who stood up to the arrongance of the Crown and eventually threw off the yoke of English oppression and formed the world’s greatest democracy, the USA.
Punters pay one quarter of owner’s costs and you are saying that they have no rights?There is no comparison between taxation and a commercial transaction with a business.
Punters do not pay a quarter of the owners costs – check your facts before making such rash statements.
Paulo, Racetracks benefit greatly from Bookmaker cash injections all for the bookmakers self interest of course, its self explanatory by doing so the Bookmaker is giving the punter the product he wants, while the punter is betting the Bookmaker gets richer and the tracks are grateful for this as there will be no end of bookmaker cash to keep their product up and running, but it all comes back to the punter again.
As for the Pari Mutual in French Racing, its all recycled back into their product, but who uses the Pari Mutual ? "Is that the punter I hear you say"
Paulo, Racetracks benefit greatly from Bookmaker cash injections all for the bookmakers self interest of course, its self explanatory by doing so the Bookmaker is giving the punter the product he wants, while the punter is betting the Bookmaker gets richer and the tracks are grateful for this as there will be no end of bookmaker cash to keep their product up and running, but it all comes back to the punter again.
As for the Pari Mutual in French Racing, its all recycled back into their product, but who uses the Pari Mutual ? "Is that the punter I hear you say"
As you point out the bookmakers are investing for their own interest, as are all race sponsors. Bookmakers couldn’t give a toss about punters interests, all they care about is maximising profits and why not? They are a business at the end of the day .
Despite what you may wish to think, the punters contribution is irrelevant. When you have a bet you are striking a transaction with a bookmaker on the outcome of an event, which may or may not happen to be a horse race. The contribution to the levy is a business negotiation between the bookmakers and the industry, mediated by the HRLB. Like any good business the bookmakers will want to maximise their profits and consequently pay less to the levy.
The reality is most punters are not sophisticated and most could not give a toss about the levy or funding of racing. You are right, bookmakers are giving punters what they want, they are giving them fixed odds machines.
There is no comparison between taxation and a commercial transaction with a business.
Punters do not pay a quarter of the owners costs – check your facts before making such rash statements.
Not my statement – Galejade – in supporting owners and denying punters any rights – stated that punters pay £90 million towards the £400 million of keeping horses in training.
There is no comparison between taxation and a commercial transaction with a business.
Punters do not pay a quarter of the owners costs – check your facts before making such rash statements.
Not my statement – Galejade – in supporting owners and denying punters any rights – stated that punters pay £90 million towards the £400 million of keeping horses in training.
Apologies if I wrongly attributed the comment to you, however to quote the levy figure in its entirity as going to owners is misleading.
Based on the HRLB’s own figures 61% of the levy goes to prize money, the remainder goes to the industry generally including 32% towards integrity services as well as a contribution to racecourse improvements in the form of loans.
Even if all of the £90m (an ever-diminishing figure) went towards prize money, it would still be a pitifully inadeqaute contribution from the gambling industry who IMO have been allowed to get away with murder.
Gamblers are not forced to gamble, and to hear some of them whining that their losses are in some way "subsidising" racehorse owners is so risible that I’m not sure whether to laugh or vomit.
Gamblers are not forced to gamble, and to hear some of them whining that their losses are in some way “subsidising” racehorse owners is so risible that I’m not sure whether to laugh or vomit.
Owners are not forced to own racehorses and to hear some of them whining that their losses are in some way “subsidising” gamblers is so risible that I’m not sure whether to laugh or vomit.
Ah! Special interest groups. Somewhere you can hear an off course bookmaker laughing into his Chablis.
Owners are not forced to own racehorses and to hear some of them whining that their losses are in some way "subsidising" gamblers is so risible that I’m not sure whether to laugh or vomit.
I obviously missed this one – which owner(s) are you alluding to here?
Although I do agree with the sentiment that owners also have no right to complain. Like punters, they are not forced into racehorse ownership and they have no right to complain if they make a loss.
Welsh Wizard,
At no stage did I ‘ support owners and deny punters rights’ I merely pointed out that Punters do not , nor ever have done, finance racing in its entirety as Cavellino suggested and indeed pay in a fraction of what owners do.And hearing punters say that they finance racing makes my blood boil just as much as owners pointing out that their stake in racing is larger than punters makes your blood boil! Punters support bookmakers paying to the big 3 alone over 10 times what they pay to racing. That is their choice as owning a racehorse is an owners choice. These are facts and not an emotional rant. In France all punting losses( except the tax going to the Government) comes back in to the sport to the benefit of spectators, racing employees, retired and injured jockeys and stable staff etc etc. I prefer that system you apparantly do not. As an owner I race my horses there more and more because I find it more enjoyable and I get more bangs for my buck. I am pleased that other UK owners are happy to continue to support British racing despite the cost to them and the lack of control they have over a sport to which they are the major contributors and the paucity of amenities that they enjoy when they go racing.
Timmy Murphy is the total finished article as far as jumps racing goes.
His heir is now Denis O’Regan.
Graham Lee not far behind.
Jockeys like these do NOT abuse horses.
Timmy got in trouble when younger for excessive use, but as soon as he got the right mentoring his talent shone through.
I would rather watch jockeys like these take care of horses than some of the abuse less talented jocks mete out on their mounts. Remeber, there is always another day!
I obviously missed this one – which owner(s) are you alluding to here?
Sorry Paul. The second sentence of my post was the key. The first was a reversal of but two key words written by member highflyer in the post above.
What I was trying to say is that owners and punters are the two main interest groups which really need to stick together against the common enemy – which is the off course bookmaking industry. You can do without them quite easily – and it appears, from their public progniostications that they can do without racing – but owners cannot do without punters and vice versa. It’s a symbiotic relationship.
Unless owners wish to race for match purses up hillsides as in the late eighteenth century.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.