- This topic has 161 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Who cares about the Huntingdon meeting during the Cheltenham festival?
Having worked that Huntingdon meeting the last two years, and surely not standing alone in not thinking the Festival is the be all and end all any more than the Classics are (usually Worcester or Hexham for me on Derby day!), I’m more than a little bit fond of it. As, I suspect, were many others when the Wednesday of Cheltenham was blown into the Bristol Channel in 2008.
And bank holidays? The 2 million races that take place on such days are ridiculous.
However did you cope when Easter Monday held 15 meetings! Contrariwise, the near halving of that figure of fixtures in recent times has left a barely adequate programme on Easter Monday even if the criterion on which to judge is simply geographic spread of those that remain (thank heavens, then, for 13 point-to-point fixtures on the same day to plug the gaps).
Those Rules fixtures that do remain still leave a rather congested programme for the bespoke TV / radio stations and betting shops to have to deal with, granted. However, I think I’d sooner we continue to regard Bank Holidays almost as separate entities in the calendar – days in which the ability to get as many people through the turnstiles of as many courses as possible (on what are, after all, the days of the year on which huge quantities of infrequent racegoers are more predisposed to go racing) holds far greater sway than any wish to have nice five-minute gaps between each race all afternoon in a four- or five-meeting programme.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
ricky lake wrote:
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
Same could be said about our Parliamentary system who feed of the taxpayer. From this government we have cuts in our public services, further privatisations planned, yet the same number of MPs, Ministers, Lords with their perks so far intact.
Asking the government to help out racing is equivalent to leeches assisting each other.Well said Nor , thats exactly how I see it
In the current political climate where austerity is a welcome buzz word , how on earth can any government be seen to favour racing is quite beyond my imigination
put simply it wont happen ….
the wake up call has arrived
Ricky
When we talk about racings parasites I think that Weatherbys deserve an honourable mention. Exactly how much they take out of the sport I don’t know exactly. What I do no is that when I first got into ownership I was gobsmacked at all the charges they raised. Then when computerised entries came in they kindly offered us owners the chance to pay to log on with them! Unbelievable.
Just had a look on their website and it gives no details of their t/o as they seem to eb a private Golden Goose. here’s my speculation. I reckon that for every £1 in prize money they have 20p away for plugging in their Dell workstations every morning. AND you can bet your bottom dollar that as prize money falls their fees certainly don’t.
I would really like to know how bloated this equine Whitehall costs? Anyone know then please put me out of my seething misery.
- Total Posts 170
I have just glanced through the pages – and my view is rather simplistic.
I apologize for this in advance – but would argue that sometimes, a fresh approach provides a simple answer.
The BHA have to play hardball. The way I view it:
1. Racing UK becomes a free to air channel alongside ATR2. The cost to show racing in bookmakers shops reflects the income they derive from the sport. I.e. if they want people to gamble on racing in their shops – they pay the true value of the pictures (equivilent to what is required for the levy).
3. To ensure that they do not use their Sky boxes to show the free view racing channels – like Sky showing soccer, they will have to have a mini horse in the corner. If not there – huge on the spot fines.
4. Assuming bookmakers do not agree with this – they face the fact that their bookies, in the week will not have pictures of live racing. Foot and Mouth, they may have survived – but this was because there was **** all else to bet on and the Britsih public like to bet. I bet dog racing went through the roof. But if horse racing was still happening – it would eventually prevail. The high street turnover on racing (and just as importantly, their footfall in shops) would fall significantly without racing, which would affect gambling on other sports. They are not independent events. I regularly have a flutter on dogs/ first scorer whilst in there but never do at home. No racing and these bets are lost. So pressure has been applied to bookies on the high street and they could decide to play the game or not.
5. Online bookies would still prevail as racing on the tele would not stop people betting with them. How do you counter this?
6. I present Tote-fair. A betting exchange ran as per Betfair – but that provides a levy of 3% and just takes a 2% commission on internet bets so gives back to the industry. It would offer a phone service using the ‘tote-fair’ prices (not industry odds) and this would offer 3% commission and 2% to the levy as there are higher running costs. So all punters would be catered for and they would know that by using this exchange they are giving back to racing and funding better racing.
7. Tote-fair would get a high street presence – a number of computer terminals so bets could be made with support staff to help and to also take bets to those without accounts. So racing on the high street provails – and attracts a huge amount of punters…..from rival shops as they show pictures!
8. At the end of each year – 40% of the Tote-fair profits would also be reinvested into the levy. The remainder would be reinvested in ensureing continuing profitability (modernisation) and opening new shops on the closed down premises of rival bookmakers….
9. The funding provided by the levy would be reviewed each year and would be made public as to the decisions of where money was being spent. An indpendent committee would review this.
That would do for starters…..I personally think you would find that bookmakers would look at the long-term picture. True their horse racing turnover does not have the significance it once had – but I would still argue that a large proportion of people who bet in the shops are horse racing fans who bet on other events. They would see that its worth their while paying the levy.
As far as Jose comments that other sports are not paid for by bookmakers. Well, I do not see other sports providing "games" in this country all 362 days a year, from 12.00 until 5pm. Horse racing provides turnover the bookmakers need.
The bookmakers need racing.
I have just wrote that without re-reading too much so be gentle with me…..
As far as Jose comments that other sports are not paid for by bookmakers. Well, I do not see other sports providing "games" in this country all 362 days a year, from 12.00 until 5pm. Horse racing provides turnover the bookmakers need.
I always like this argument. One event – take the World Cup Final – might of provided the bookmakers with more turnover than 2,000 horse races. And more profit than x number of horse races.
They may not cater or pander to bookmakers, but are they not deprived of money in the same way racing claims it is?
Racing is currently discriminated against because other sports receive no money, apart from chosen sponsorship. Don’t forget bookmakers aggressively market other sports to get customers. Rarely does a football match go by without an advert. Why I wonder? For all they want losing punters, any new punters are instantly going to look at betting on the sport they’re watching, no?
I would actually like to see the BHA plans for a 130m levy settlement with the breakdown of how prize money would be increased across their 2011 fixture list.
- Total Posts 170
Jose, you talk a lot of sense and I also think it would be interesting to see such a breakdown of the levy spending.
The World Cup finals also has Budweiser paying 100 million to be a sponsor. Racing does not attract this level of sponsorship as viewing figured are probably 3 billion less for the Gold Cup!
The World Cup also happens every 4 years…….
The fact is – Bha have gotten themselves into this position by not being strong enough. They decide the number of fixtures, where they take place etc – it pits them in a strong position. Of course, bookmakers, if paying the levy should have an influence – but do not confuse that with control.
Raising 130 million in a sport where billions is gambled each year – should be feasable. If there was a betting company where part of the commission went back to the industry it thrives off (Aka my tote fair idea) – the public would get the same system now as betfair but with better odds and even more involved due to betting shop punters using the exchange odds and racing would not need the other bookmakers. Though I am sure quite a few would come cap in hand begging to show live pictures in their "arcade shops" Monday to Friday. After all, only so much Portman Park you can show…..
(just wrote on a train and unable to reread so hope it makes sense)
punters have never had it so good, fine, and good luck to them,
facts, dont pick me up on exact years.
pre betfair, 2002/3 betting shop T/O 60% horse racing, GP 20%,
post betfair, 2009/10, betting shop T/O 30% horse racing GP 10%,
OK bookmakers had a monopoly and ripped punters off pre betfair, whatever your view.
the facts are the biggest contributor to the levy was the betting shops, both T/O and GP halved last 10 years.
my solution, 1% levy on T/O, plus legislation preventing off-shore firms receiving credit/debit card payments for gambling, USA,France and Scandinavian countries control internet betting in some form or another.
my solution, 1% levy on T/O, plus legislation preventing off-shore firms receiving credit/debit card payments for gambling, USA,France and Scandinavian countries control internet betting in some form or another.
That’s not a solution, that’s your own recipe to strangle betfair to death. I’ll buy it though, providing the books also pay 1% of the counterparty risk amount of each individual bet taken. (At SP say.) With that deal for racing you’d be able to stand at Great Leighs, Stockton and Lanark next year.
Aftershock,
1 to 5 of your suggestions seem to want a lot more money from bookmakers (making it harder for them). The rest makes it a lot easier for a "Tote-fair". Or should that be "unfair" on bookmakers?A "Tote-fair" is a good idea, if we can find a benefactor to set it up. But they must be subjected to the same or equal rules as bookmakers. Totally fair competition.
A Tote-fair take out of 5% (possibly 4%) would be enough. Rest assured, Betfair would match their rates to compete or even undercut a new threat. So to try and get rid of them. I’m sure once liquidity gets the same as Betfair, most punters will change their alliegence to a firm who’s profits go back in to racing.
I’d also be in favour of a normal (pool prices) Tote slashing their over-round to 105%. Although why does it have to be the same over-round no matter how many runners? Surely in this computer age we can make it 0.75% or 0.5% per runner? Some sort of system for less over-round per runner the bigger the field would be ideal. You could even have a larger over-round for maidens than handicaps if needed.
With fair competition, Bookmakers would be free to drop their over-rounds, but they’d find it difficult to compete.
Value Is EverythingBookmakers already drop their overounds for the big races ie. strong betting events – see the Saturday races where many firms will bet 1% a runner or even less.
Would you fancy betting a 10 runner handicap at Catterick to 1% a runner or for that matter a 20 runner Maiden Hurdle at Wexford?
Irish,
Am aware of that Irish.
I meant Tote odds (decimal), pool prices.I agree with normal betting, over-rounds will be effected by how competitive and how easy the race is to work out. As it is, I rarely bet at Tote odds. A much smaller over-round would compensate for not knowing the exact price I was taking.
Value Is EverythingFair enough if it’s something the Tote want to do – as has already been mentioned at the moment bar the big pool bets such as the Placepot and the Scoop 6 for race to race betting the Tote is a no-go area for me.
punters have never had it so good, fine, and good luck to them,
my solution, 1% levy on T/O, plus legislation preventing off-shore firms receiving credit/debit card payments for gambling, USA,France and Scandinavian countries control internet betting in some form or another.
Strangely, the fact punters have never had it so good makes it more difficult for punters. With so much information now available to most punters, it is not as easy (imo) as it was 10 or 15 years ago. The greater number of well-informed punters, the harder it is for an individual punter to make a profit. One rule change that might make it easier, is for bookmakers to refund anyone who backed Harbinger for the Arc!
Do you think legislation to stop credit/debit card payments for gambling would be easily policed Barry?
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 170
Aftershock,
1 to 5 of your suggestions seem to want a lot more money from bookmakers (making it harder for them). The rest makes it a lot easier for a "Tote-fair". Or should that be "unfair" on bookmakers?True. Though a lot of the ‘proceedings’ in my post are based on how I think the BHA would need to presume how the industry would react (based on their current positions, I guess the bookmakers would call racings bluff if they threatened to remove pictures from shops if they did not met the levy required).
Though of course it may not play like this. For example, if the hardball worked – then they get their levy money, bookmakers would retain pictures but not be happy and I think we would all accept it would not be a long term solution.By the creation of a BHA authenticated exchange – that is actually run by punters prices ala Betfair (rather then a Tote) they are providing a long term money making solution to the issue of funding. It would be supported by race goers as they are contributing back to their sport and the BHA could ensure that courses supported the scheme whole heartedly (as they should, as the success of the exchange would be dependent on the amount of Levy they receive) – and hence make all Ladbrokes/ Corals etc leave the courses to be replaced by "Tote-Fair" terminals etc Advertisements all over the course. It would be a chance for racing to support itself whilst at the same time, offering the best prices rather then industry prices.
As a bonus point – by implementing this option it would be 2 fingers to bookmakers who are not willing to pay the true value of what racing is worth to them as an industry. If racing is not worth as much any more – so be it – they can just lose that 10% of turnover from their shops business and hopefully even more from their internet turnover.
As far as the money to start ‘Tote-fair’ – this is a different thing entirely. I would guess the government should wish for the sport to be self-sufficient and could lend the money but I doubt they would. Maybe someone could speak quietly to Branson…..just the sort of scheme he would love and he could make a few quid.
Strangely, the fact punters have never had it so good makes it more difficult for punters. With so much information now available to most punters, it is not as easy (imo) as it was 10 or 15 years ago.
To be sure I do find it strange that you think it less easy not having to pay a 9% OTC service charge on stake or winnings this past decade. My own bottom line tells me different.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.