- This topic has 161 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Apologies, Glenn. I agree, though. It costs £1,500 a month give or take to have a horse in training. Entry fees would have to quadruple before it began to affect our decision to enter a horse.
If The Rabble really want to stick it to the offshore books, they should forget about strikes and blackouts and simply institute the following policies:
1) 16 runner fields with reserves for all Kempton handicaps
2) a revamp of the condition race programme with appearance fees for all bandit rated horses.Glenn raises a good point regarding jockey’s fees – are we the only country in the world that pays jockeys so well even when failing?
French jockeys are paid less than 10 Euro’s per ride and are given 10% of any prize money they make. When/if prize money increases markedly we should adopt the French system rather than a situation where a jockey could have 10 rides per week, finish unplaced on all 10 and pick up £1,200 less expenses in the process.
That said it would seem to fit in with the current handicapping system we have of rewarding what some see as failure.
MAX , sadly business doesn’t work like that , so forget all that stuff of no pictures , it just is not an option
Glen , like your idea , providing the tote can get loads of terminals outside the bookies domain , it has real merit
Both in the short term nothing will change , handbags will be flying , but the masquerade will continue , and racing in the Uk for 1200 quid will become the norm , for the dross thats normally on offer , good races might have 5k and 8k , nothing will change until racing has a vibrant flexible tote , with a competitive take out and refunds /cashbacks for the bigger players , then and only then can Uk racing make plans for expansion
Let the warring factions continue ……
Ricky
Ricky, you say business doesn’t work like that, but in the Post today, Lord (Michael) Howard of Northern Racing talked about licencing offshore parasites before they can bet on UK racing. He believes they would pay it in order to market their services in the UK. He said that if they threaten to scrap betting on UK horse racing…"we’ll call their bluff."
I think that’s the first time I’ve read that attitude. I’m no fan of him or his organisation, but good on him.
http://www.hblb.org.uk/scheme50/Deloitt … ct2010.pdf
Hmm, "Racing United," Mr Roy and Mr Coward etc have not done a good job imo. Anyone have any different opinions on recent Levy board files uploaded having read them?
F.6 FOCUS OF PRIZE MONEY
F.6.1 With a potential reduction in Levy there may be a need to fine tune which fixtures receive prize money, the value of that prize money and the races on which it is focussed. Racing and Bookmakers have very different views on this focus which reflects their views on the type of racing they prefer. Bookmakers believe that quality racing (by their definition – large fields, close finishes) should receive greater Levy support at the expense of the premier race fixtures (quality as defined by Racing) and expressed the view that a 10% reduction in premier prize money for example would support many smaller races.
My favourite section. How is that £3m race-day going at BHA towers given the costs will apparently be stood by the racecourse (Ascot)? It sort of relates to point F.6.2.
Paul Roy is back with the "we want money on non-British racing products too" line again in todays Racing Post.
The racecourses should pay levy too on profits made on racing and non-racing days (ie. weddings, conferences etc). Though funnily enough they’ve kept rather quiet on this subject.
Mr Roy still doesn’t "get it" either then? There’s a shock.
Maybe Mr Roy would like to explain the basis on which "racing" argued their case? Stuff like wanting FOBT money, overseas racing money, virtual racing money, suggesting owners transport costs have increased because of bookmakers.
The only thing I’m surprised at is that he hasn’t asked for profits from burger vans and royalties from the likes of Westlife because they performed at a British racecourse, therefore they furthered their career.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ … 147635.ece
“It’s also complete nonsense that bookmakers do not pay levy for showing foreign racing in their shops. It means that British racing is being actively discriminated against. Then there are issues with offshore business and betting exchanges. All work against racing receiving its due.”
I never saw this quote at the time.
Erm, Mr Roy, have you ever thought that the fact football doesn’t receive its 10% ensures British racing is already discriminated against? Just a thought…
So after the demise of Roy and Coward …eventually , racing will have to face up to going back to a much slimmer programme, and not the bloated beast it has become
Non racing days will be the norm and will soon be accepted , we have to get used to the idea that we cannot fund 1500 race fixtures on a broken levy system
Maybe in years to come the tote will be able to fund racing , but not for a good while yet
In the meantime tighten your belts as the whole BHA gimme money theme is about to implode and come to nothing !!!
I expect the Government to say sort it yourselves and then the fun will really begin
maybe Tuesday should be a blank day …..that would get rid of a couple of hundred fixtures at a stroke ,then start pruning the 12 fixture saturdays , and hey presto we are left with about 700 fixtures , which should be funded by the courses directly , any income from levy/ overseas rights should be used to fund the admin of racing , and no I do not mean prop up pension funds for the toadies that currently feed off racing , but day to day regulation including a security /integrity service that does offer value for money
cheers
Ricky
I’m getting annoyed at how complicated some people are making out pruning the fixture list to be.
Two meetings a day (one on ATR, one on RUK) with northern (not Northern) tracks on Monday, midlands Tuesday etc etc
Job done.
I don’t think the fixture list is quite as simple as 2 fixtures a day, with one above a certain line and one below, but it is not that difficult to find some cuts in different areas straight away.
Why do we over saturate the market on big race-days? Especially big mid-week race-days.
Cheltenham Festival, Aintree, Royal Ascot, Glorious Goodwood, York Ebor "Festival," July Meeting, St Leger "Festival" etc.
Who cares about the Huntingdon meeting during the Cheltenham festival?
And bank holidays? The 2 million races that take place on such days are ridiculous.
Racecourses benefiting from something doesn’t mean "racing" benefits.
Racecourses benefiting from something doesn’t mean "racing" benefits.
Spot on Jose – there seems to be this "in crowd" attitude at BHA Towers, those on the inside being trainers, breeders owners, the BHA and racecourses whilst those on the outside are the bookmakers.
Has the BHA asked for a cut of the profits that the racecourses make on a raceday or any other day?
They seem very keen to listen to what the racecourses want and what will increase their revenue but AFAIK very little of this actually goes back into racing and most of it goes to the holding companies (ie. Arena Leisure, Northern Racing etc.).
Irish Stamp, that’s roughly what I’ve felt all along.
Breeders aren’t questioned, because they are "positive" inside contributors to racing in the view of the BHA. Racecourses aren’t questioned for the same reason.
Of course we will hear the threats about certain racecourses being near closure. Well, we already have, but there are only 60 racecourses in Britain!
So much of "our" racing takes place on a few tracks – Wolverhampton will account for half of the fixture list at their rate of expansion by 2015.
With Arena Leisure and Northern Racing owning however many of these racecourses when combined, I don’t think they would care too much if they sold a few of them off, and "racing" can’t benefit if they sold one of them off tomorrow. I wonder what will happen with those hotel profits at Lingfield.
The BHA (really "racing") can’t justify a single point they have tried to make throughout this process.
The "Racing’s needs" argument, which is what far too much of the reports to date have been filled with, has not been well thought through.
Arguing that transport costs have/will put off owners when we have been sustaining more racing than ever before at the lowest levels of prize money for a very long time is quite something.
And at the higher levels, if Godolphin and Sheik Mohammed haven’t left by now, I doubt they/he will ever leave. We have the Derby worth £700k to the winner – it would probably get the same field for £200k to the winner, but the owners happily fund the entry system year on year. The same with the Cheltenham Gold Cup. Its field wouldn’t change if the race was worth £70k less to the winner.
The quality of racing and horses is not deteriorating either. At some point the "World Thoroughbred Rankings" will have a record number of GB trained horses rated above 115 for 2010.
One minute we have Karl Oliver on our screen rolling out the British Racing is the best in the world line with a £3m race-day; the next the authorities are nearly talking of "racing’s" death if they don’t get a £130 levy settlement. Of course, neither is true.
Just read the whole thread from start to finish. Outstanding debate. Good points raised. Worrying facts. Excellent ideas. Everything that is TRF.
AP for BHA Chairman is what I say.
We need someone who is interested in "Racing", but also understands betting. Not convinced Mr Roy does.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.