- This topic has 161 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Copyright the races – the course name, the card, the name of the race and the result – and allow businesses using this information for commercial gain to reproduce the details under license for a fee.
– bookmakers and exchanges have to pay to list the runner, rider, number and draw; and the result. How can they operate without providing these details?
– breeders have to pay to use the name of race and result in their future promotions. So if they don’t pay their byline looks like "did really well in a big race in June" instead of "Impressive Derby winner"Aji,
Racing tried to do exactly as you suggest a few years back by putting the data (racecards, entries etc) under copyright and charging a fee to use them.
William Hill (them again) took the issue to court and won.
Here’s a link to a report on the case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s … 678771.stm
The comment by BHB head honcho Broughton that this was ‘not a crisis’ looks well wrong now.
AP
You could stage races with no advertised prize money
(outside stakes and course generated sponsorship)with the placed runners receiving a fixed percentage of what the on-course books, Tote, betting shops, bookmaker call centres, internet outlets, betting exchanges and offshore parasites generate for each race.
What would 1% of a Yarmouth 0-60 gnerate anyone care to guess?
You wouldn’t have to base it on 1% though with Betfair around. But, whatever it is, is whatever it is. If it’s a small amount, so be it imo. Symbiotic relationship as Roy claimed should be just that.
Prufrock, I think you’re right regarding the DCMS response. They’re not impressed but nothing will change. As much as I wonder what the BHA are playing at as per usual, it’s always good to read that the rest of the groups listed happily approved the pension and salary costs. As long as Douglas Erskine Crum eats well…. racing will survive.
Latest numbers from the Levy Board as reported in the Post:
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … gbusiness/
No suggestion there that Erskine will be reduced to eating the Crums from the table.
Not much suggestion of any savings in the exorbitant integrity budget either.
AP
- Total Posts 17716
Simple answer :-
A levy of 1p in the pound onall
horseracing bets – backs or lays, exchanges and bookmakers.
This throwaway sum would generate more cash than racing has ever received from the present levy, and would serve the much more important purpose of allowing racing to be run as a sport, rather than the animated lottery it’s become under its current funding – not to mention providing a level playing field for all who contribute to it.
No levy on-course,and pool betting only for users outside the UK and Ireland.
Sorted!The levy is an embarrassment. The racing authorities are an embarrassment. and their power(less) structure is shambolic. Whilst we have a levy system in place , I believe the offcourse bookmakers should be held to pay what is due , loopholes should be closed and wherever in the world you take a bet on British horseracing , that turnover should be levyable.
However , the question has to be asked – just how much longer can this system of funding be expected to work? It is normal business practice for bookmakers to attempt to reduce their expenditure and this will continue for as long as this system is in place. How embarrassing that the racing industry needs to lobby the government for legislation to ensure that funding for the sport is collected , as some very large employers continue to uproot and move abroad in order to avoid payment .
I really don’t want to go too far down the route of comparing racing to football, clearly they are very different creatures but it has to be said that the old div1 turned itself into the multi million pound monster that is the Premiership by placing the correct value on the sale of it’s media rights. Their sport seems to me to be funded by gate money , shirt sales and tv rights. Racing is in the enviable position whereby the horses are provided by the owners who also pay the jockeys, trainers and transport costs. The bookmakers can not operate without the pictures of British racing , make them pay the correct value and scrap the levy once and for all. Mr Roy says that , although he has heard this suggestion before , noone can make the figures add up…..so be it , I’m afraid , this is the way that the sport should be funded and racing will have to make do with the revenue it is able to generate , personally I think the media rights are worth a hell of a lot more than their projected value at the moment and will certainly generate revenue of a similar level to future levy payments , which are clearly moving rapidly in one direction.
Racings authorities have constantly danced to the bookmakers tune for as long as I can remember , the vast increase in racing fixtures over the last 10-15 years is in no small part due to lobbying from offcourse bookmakers for more, more, more racing. Now that they have as much virtual racing and numbers games and as many gaming machines as they need to fill the gaps between racing , they have turned to concentrating on reducing levy expenditure. The offcourse bookmakers have refused to dance with the girl they brung and it’s about time they got slapped in the face for it. The ‘rabble’ as I believe it is customary to call them , should wake up to what an incredibly desirable product racing is , take back control of the funding and put an end once and for all to the tail wagging the dog. Now would be a good time to announce a gradual cut back in fixtures over a 5 year period , in order that breeders trainers jockeys and racing industry staff in general , can have an adjustment period to the reduced workload. The last thing to be considered in deciding which fixtures should be axed , is what the bookies want .The last thing to be considered in deciding which fixtures should be axed , is what the bookies want .
The bookmakers are racing’s biggest customer. Why on earth would you put their requirements last?
Where has pandering to ‘racing’s biggest customer’ got us so far? It’s time for a reversal of power within the sport , too long have they called the shots. If the racecourses are packed to the rafters on a Sunday , but the offcourse turnover is minimal , then be damned with what the bookmaker wants , keep the Sunday meetings. If the offcourse bookmaker wants a low class fixture at a certain time of week to maintain betting turnover , but there are only 300 people through the gate , then be damned with what the bookmaker wants . The present logic dictates that we pander to the offcourse demands and keep the meetings they want based on the myth of levyable turnover … Which they are doing their utmost to turn into unlevyable turnover by trading offshore. This is madness. Repackage the media rights , and let racing trade as an honest business instead of running it inefficiently , then demanding input from an industry which runs itself efficiently. It really is an embarrassment , the tote should be an industry leader but they couldn’t even make that pay. The bookmakers will continue to promote football and casino betting and will continue to divert trade offshore , all in an attempt to stop contributing to British horseracing. Racing should market it’s product correctly and run itself to develop the sport . Certainly pandering to it’s biggest customer is what has put us where we are today. To continue to repeat something and expect a different result would indeed be madness.
I agree with some of that, and agree that the bookmakers shouldn’t be pandered to or allowed to dictate, but as racing’s major customer you do need to give them what they want to some extent.
Businesses who fail to give their customers what they want generally fail.
I see racing as the wholesaler , the bookmakers as a retailer and the punters and racegoers as the customers. Aside from redefining the balance of power with the betting industry , racing should put it’s own house in order. The allocation of levy money to the racecourses with no stipulation as to how it should be spent , despite it being paid pro rata to races staged , clearly cannot be allowed to continue. If the figures reproduced here and elsewhere on TRF are correct – courses recieving £4-5000 per race staged and allocating £600 for prizemoney – then surely this needs to be thrashed out between the BHA and the Racecourses. It would seem that the ‘family racegoers’ who attend Sunday meetings will attend no matter the fare on offer , and the punters who bet in the shops , for whom the low grade ‘ day / time specific’ meetings are staged , will bet on any fare. Therefore the racecourses can get away with poor prizemoney because their customers are there already. I don’t know the answer to this but I do think that low levels of prizemoney have a detrimental effect on horseracing. The owners can’t pay the bills so skullduggery is rife and British racing fails to compete on the world stage. The sport’s regulatory board should at least be in a position to regulate the funding , from income through to expenditure.
Thought it worth bringing this back to the top, partly as the subject remains one of crucial importance, partly to post this link to a supposedly factual piece written by the racing editor of the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … works.html
Whilst there’s ignorance at that level in the media, the quality of debate on here is worth highlighting.
AP
Before
Betting on racing is not thought to have diminished, but some major bookmakers have moved off shore, and are therefore not liable to the Levy.
Betfair, the biggest of the betting exchanges, is not subject to the Levy.
After
Betting on racing is not thought to have diminished, but some major bookmakers have moved off shore, and are therefore not liable to the Levy.
Betfair, the biggest of the betting exchanges, contributes 10 per cent of its gross profits on British Racing from UK customers on a statutory basis.
This amounted to £6.2m last year, plus a further voluntary levy payment of 1.25m.
Spot the difference!
The Telegraph seems to have picked sides on this issue though. Today’s effort follows Charlie Brooks earlier in the week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … -levy.htmlHe repeats the Coward line
A significant number of individuals are ‘bookmaking’ on the exchanges. They are backing and laying horses, sometimes with the help of computers, and effectively being bookmakers without the burden of overheads that licensed bookmakers face.
These are the individuals which HM Treasury were unable to find. If the BHA knows who these people are perhaps it should send their details to George Osborne.
Charlie Brooks presumably writes his copy longhand with a quill pen and despatches it to Telegraph Towers by homing pigeon.
Hence his belief in the mystical powers of computers ….
AP
AP , its truly pathetic , sadly the guys at the top are being paid massive salaries , for what some would ask ??
The Media to a large extent don’t understand or care , after all racing in the Uk is a minority sport run for a pack of snobs , supported by a load of mugs …that’s the common place opinion ,which probably wont be changing anytime soon
Meanwhile the ruling structure is about to implode and the bookies will laugh , divide and conquer will be the order of the day
Horsemen , limited fixtures , off shore bookies and exchanges , a neutered Tote , it has all the ingredients of a busted flush
Shambolic
Ricky
More from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horser … s-say.html
wwhich includes the following:
Nigel Payne (Chief executive, Horseracing Sponsors Association)
Despite all the Levy problems, sponsorship in racing is holding up remarkably well. A total of £17.5 million is spent on racecourse sponsorship, with only around half of that coming from the betting industry.Andy Stewart (owner)
No, racing is not in crisis. There has been a lot of scaremongering in racing, which has been very unhelpful.If you have a situation where banks are going bust, you do something to rectify it. Racing is not in crisis because it is in the hands of two very able people, my good friend Paul Roy (BHA chairman) and Nic Coward (BHA chief executive), and what will come out eventually will be a stronger way of going forward.
The remarks by Andy Stewart can only be treated with derision – they leave me wondering how the man ever managed to make his fortune?
Payne seems happy with total non bookmaker sponsorship at less than £10M per annum, an amount that top football clubs would want for a name on their shirts, that wouldn’t produce an F1 team to run in last place, and wouldn’t cover more than a couple of tournaments on the USPGA tour.
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.