- This topic has 161 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
In one of those Racing post Sunday pieces, David Evans said the one thing he’d change about racing was to get rid of all these ex-coppers that don’t appear to achieve anything at all. Who could argue with that?
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
Where are all the ideas to make cheating less rewarding and playing straight worthwhile? They’re nowhere. Instead we’ve ported in this ludicruous, time-consuming justice system of endless police style investigations and legal arguments. Who benefits apart from Scotney and his mates and me learned friends?
I can’t say I’ve seen any of The Rabble working for the greater good for a long long time. The game is dead and the stage we’re at now is where the corpse is getting looted. The insider looting in the gambling markets has been dealt with
ad nauseum
, but the primary looters here are The Rabble themselves.
The Levy has even been plundered to make up the deficit in the pension funds at the BHA (and it’s predecessors).
I must have missed that astonishing fact. Do you have a link?
The rest of your post is also very well observed. Despite not yet feeling the compulsion to come up with a fix of my own, it seems clear to me that one of the first points to be considered when discussing "what are the alternatives to the Levy?" is "what is the Levy being spent on at present?"
Pru,
You can download the Levy Board annual report for 2008/9 from their website http://www.hblb.co.uk.
It includes the following figures for 2008 :
BHA Pension Scheme Contribution £6.45M
BHA Pension Scheme Future Provision £2.94M
There is also signigicant detail about the separate pension scheme maintained for Levy Board staff.
AP
I think this piece by Howard Wright from the Post on June 22nd, was the one that alerted me to the pension support:
LEVY BOARD Bookmakers’ Committee member Warwick Bartlett has turned his firepower on the board, accusing members of spending money badly and before it had been earned.
Betting industry consultant Bartlett, a one-shop operator and former Bookmakers’ Committee chairman, said: "Over the years the Levy Board has been involved in various schemes that have done nothing to improve the breed of horses and the racing product, and had more to do with fanciful projects with little chance of success."
He cited two racing pension projects for particular criticism.
"The Levy Board’s Rolls Royce pension scheme was in deficit for £30 million and kept open to newcomers for too long," he said. "The shortfall was made up by levy payers to the loss of horseracing. In addition, the Jockey Club pension scheme was running a deficit of over £30m.
"The Labour government decided racing needed to be modernised and turned it into the BHA. So, who was to help out with the pension deficit? – the Levy Board, which has given a guarantee for the deficit. You couldn’t make it up!"
AP
Astonishing, absolutely astonishing. Other eye-openers are provided by the various remunerations, such as Douglas Erskine-Crum’s £220k pa salary and the fact that non-board employees (of which there were 18) averaged salaries of £65k pa and remuneration of £99k pa.
Ever wondered if you were in the wrong game?…
Methinks the drinks are on my mate Paul when we get around to holding the wake.
Given he does a 2 day week, you might have trouble finding him, Glenn.
Money for old rope.
Hang on…. 51 million went into prize money for that year and 9 million went into BHA pension provision????
Have I got that right?
"Modernisation" of racing I presume is adding extra layers of directors, middle managers and spreading the cash a bit more thinly.
You think the owners and trainers who are constantly moaning about prize money and the like know what’s going on with the Levy Board?
Be interesting to see if Roy and co sit on any owners boards (being that most of them seem to own a high profile horse or two)?
Surely if they do there’s a mass conflict of interest – trying to get the best deal for owners whilst creaming whatever they can off the top.
The BHA’s integrity department needs clear reign to enter any racing orientated establishment, 15-20 expert race readers (think Timeform, Sportsman, Racing Post style journalists) and 50-60 exchange guru’s. These people would know what do do, spot an interesting drifter.
There seem to be enough of us on here who know what’s going on yet the BHA are utterly clueless on the matter.
Martin
I’m amazed that no one addresses the issue of how the "offshore" bookmakers are allowed to sponsor races on British racecourses. Worst of all sponsorships are permitted advertising other sports’ betting options and the BHA think they have a right to whine about the lack of levy paid by the same companies?
A Tote monopoly i would love very much for Irish Racing.
However will never happen here or across the irish sea either.
Not sure how the levy can be manipulated to bring in bigger returns.
The BHA’s integrity department needs clear reign to enter any racing orientated establishment, 15-20 expert race readers (think Timeform, Sportsman, Racing Post style journalists) and 50-60 exchange guru’s. These people would know what do do, spot an interesting drifter.
There seem to be enough of us on here who know what’s going on yet the BHA are utterly clueless on the matter.
Martin
Their handicappers – a number of whom worked at Timeform – include some very accomplished racereaders, but their input seems to be peripheral rather than central.
The Integrity Department already includes individuals who know the time of day regarding markets, not least on Betfair.
Not sure that I would be advocating a big increase in the scope of the Integrity Department, more a better use of what they have got already.
Please don’t take offence with this, but I think it needs asking — unless, of course, it’s one of those community facts that’s just so obvious:
What’s the ill you’d like cured by having more money in Racing?
What part(s) of Racing exactly should have more money and in what proportion?
How much more?
With some answers, you could then maybe see how measures would be effective. Without knowing the aims, it looks a bit … well, aimless
and to just say ‘more money, please’ lacks credence as a reasonable request.Methinks the cat is out of the bag..well posted Alan
Glenn I believe your bat phone is red hot!!!
All that cash wasted on pension propping and fat cat salaries …..so why is nobody from the bookies spelling this out to Head honcho and all his mates
The cost of integrity is massive , still let the good times roll , while the industry burns
Shocking
Ricky
Alan, thats a bewildering post. I’m stunned.
Perhaps a forum favourite (Greg Wood, Alan Lee or Lydia Hislop) might pick it up. That would do some good.
Other eye-openers are provided by the various remunerations such as Douglas Erskine-Crum’s £
220k
pa salary and the fact that non-board employees (of which there were 18) averaged salaries of
£65k
pa and remuneration of £
99k
pa.
Equally depressing from Prufrock.
What’s the ill you’d like cured by having more money in Racing?
What part(s) of Racing exactly should have more money and in what proportion?
How much more?
It’s a perfectly good question, and one that should concern the well paid men that supposedly run the sport.
The answer can’t be short, so bear with me. More money for racing principally means more prize money across the board. It’s a straightforward fact that the levels of prize money for all but the very biggest races have fallen over the last four years. To give a simple example, I part-owned the runner up in the ladies race at Ascot on todays card four years ago – the prize money then was £14,000, today it’s £9,700.
At the same time, obviously, costs are rising, whether it’s training fees, transport, jockey fees, vets bills etc.
There are two sides to the debate that follows on from this – the first is that if rich people choose to own racehorses, they shouldn’t expect to be subsidised by punters, which is effectively what the Levy does.
The opposing view is that prize money affects more than just owners, in that jockeys, trainers and stable staff take a percentage of all prize money won by an owner (in the proportion 10%, 10%, 2.5%), and that higher prize money also encourages owners to re-invest in more horses, hence boosting the sport/business overall.
Supporters of the first argument will state that the number of horses in training shows no sign of falling, thus the second argument is false. In fact, there are signs of decline, with the number of horses sold at bloodstock sales falling and field sizes on the flat dropping this summer. I’m personally one of those that has opted out of ownership on the flat, retaining just an interest in one NH horse, and the falling prize money was a key factor in my decision.
In effect, I’ve concluded that the pleasure I get from owning horses isn’t a sufficient reason for me to provide the material for racecourses to stage their meetings and bookies to have races for punters to bet on. Going to Wolverhampton to race for £5,000 seemed OK four years ago, going there now to race for £2,400 doesn’t. You have to draw a line somewhere.
This co-dependency between tracks, bookies and owners is why the finances and politics of the sport are so complex. They can’t operate with the horses, so they need the owners, but equally owners need the tracks so they have somewhere to race. The bookies need both and it sems reasonable that they should pay – which brings us full circle back to the question of how, and how much!
AP
To back up Alan’s point about the decline in onership, these figures are taken from the BHB Statistical Bulletin for June 2010 comparing 2008-2010.
The number of owners (joint and sole) fell from 9483 to 8777 – down 6.1%
The number of trainers (excl. permit holders) fell from 621 to 576 – down 7.2%
The number of named horses in training (excl. Hunters) fell from 14825 to 14199 – down 4.2% But I think a more interesting statistic is the change in the number of horses available to run under either code.
Combining flat only and dual purpose horses the number fell from 11287 to 10140 – down 10.2%
Combining jumps only and dual purpose horses the number fell from 4855 to 4077 – down 15.5%
The BHB did change the definition of dual purpose horses in 2010 (how I don’t know). Their numbers dropped significantly and it looks like the flat only category benefited most from the re-classification.
The re-classification apart, these are significant declines. The worrying thing is that the effects of the economic downturn probably have not yet fully fed through into horse and owner numbers. Prize money declines will cause an additional exodus.
richard
and to just say ‘more money, please’ lacks credence as a reasonable request.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.