The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Never Nearer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 87 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Now here’s something RFC could usefully sort out #322393
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    The Racing for Change project board:

    * Chris McFadden (REL Chairman)
    * Stephen Smith, Horsemen’s Group and ROA Council
    * Simon Bazalgette, Chief Executive, The Jockey Club

    * Tony Kelly, Group Managing Director, Northern Racing

    * Ian Barlow, Chairman, Racecourse Association
    * Nic Coward, Chief Executive, British Horseracing Authority
    * Douglas Erskine-Crum, Chief Executive, Levy Board
    * Wilf Walsh – Independent Director (formerly MD of Gala Coral)
    * One new non-executive member: to be appointed.

    And on that note I’m done. :D

    in reply to: Now here’s something RFC could usefully sort out #322388
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    Pru,

    If I was selling equipment I’d make sure it worked before I took it to market.

    If I was selling a leisure service I’d make sure it was enjoyable (in a whatever-floats-your-boat way ;-) ) before I took it to market.

    So, if I was selling racing, I’d at least try to make sure the people who provide the experience don’t regard regular customers as a nuisance before I wasted time trying to rustle up any more for them.

    It’s an arrogant and offensive reply to one of the more reasoned and reasonable letters on this subject that the RP has published. Meanwhile today’s RFC tweet is excited about an interview in a newspaper. Where’s the deep sigh emoticon?

    in reply to: Horsemen’s Strike #322157
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    I very much doubt ‘The Governer’ would make a rick of such magnitude.

    :D

    Let’s try £1,000,000,000

    The Roy & Topping Random Number Generator (patent pending) always seems to come up with a conveniently round figure. :)

    in reply to: Horsemen’s Strike #322041
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    It would be interesting to see the exact make-up of the levy in terms of who contributes the most

    Ooo! Ooo! I know this one. Bookmakers. Bookmakers pay 100% of the Levy. In turn, the HBLB contributed 57% of all prizemoney in 2009.

    Prizemoney 2009
    Horserace Betting Levy Board 57.0%
    Sponsors 13.3%
    Owners 15.6%
    Racecourses 11.7%
    Divided Race Fund 0.9%
    Development Fund 1.3%
    Order of Merit 0.3%

    [Source http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resou … eviews.asp]

    in reply to: What are the alternatives to the Levy? #321387
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    I can’t find the article on the RP web site. However, some of what Edward Gillespie said is covered in Mark Davies’ blog entry about Paul Struthers’ official response to the Betfair ads that ran in the RP at the weekend (a quote presumably given with his fingers crossed so it didn’t count as he’s too bright actually to believe what is reported to have come out of his mouth).

    http://www.markxdavies.com/2010/10/07/t … lly-walks/

    In fairness to the RP, once again taking the Betfair shilling for advertising hasn’t stopped them running sniping news stories. [Share price is greedy. Customer who inexplicably lost £400 has it returned to his account. etc.]

    Obviously Ralph Topping is still outspending them.

    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    Everyone claims to be a proud supporter of British racing. It’s meaningless. Judge people by their actions, not their words.

    Interesting that, yet again, a sport that claims to offer outstanding commercial value to sponsors has failed to attract a non-bookmaker to sponsor one of the biggest races of the season. We were told in the RP that Betfair was the other interested party.

    Look on the bright side. At least Ralph ‘Make Up A Number’ Topping’s lot can’t sponsor at the Festival now.

    in reply to: "Racing United" #317953
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    The launch of the Racing United campaign was accompanied by a set of figures from the BHA, entitled "Bookmakers’ false claims on increased contributions to racing", which appeared to suggest that, in percentage terms, bookmakers’ combined payments have actually increased as a percentage of their gross win on British racing over the last four years, from 12.53% to 14.5%.

    Can this really be true? [That they circulated the figures, rather than the figures themselves, that is.]

    I’m willing to believe a PR company will peddle whatever idiotic prejudice the person picking up the tab wishes to waste their money on. Disproving the case is usually the job of others though.

    in reply to: English raiders in French handicaps? #316912
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    Pour qu’un cheval soit qualifié dans un handicap en plat, il faut qu’il ait, en France, à la clôture des
    engagements :
    – soit couru deux fois en ayant gagné au moins une fois,
    – soit été classé deux fois dans les quatre premiers,
    – soit couru au moins trois fois.et pour les chevaux ayant gagné une course à l’étranger qu’ils aient couru au moins une fois en France après cette
    victoire.
    Les courses réservées aux gentlemen-riders et aux cavalières ne sont cependant pas prises en compte pour cette
    qualification.
    Toutefois, sauf exception prévue par les conditions générales ou particulières s’appliquant à la course, pour qu’un
    cheval soit qualifié dans un handicap prévu comme support de paris sur le plan national, il faut qu’il ait, en outre, à
    la clôture des engagements :
    – été classé dans les sept premiers d’une course prévue comme support de paris enregistrés sur le plan national,
    – ou été classé deux fois dans les cinq premiers d’une course disputée sur un hippodrome classé en pôle national
    ou en pôle régional,
    – ou été classé dans les trois premiers d’une course courue sur un hippodrome de 1ère catégorie.
    Les conditions de qualification ci-dessus peuvent être complétées pour certains handicaps par des conditions de
    qualification spécifiques mentionnées dans les conditions générales ou particulières s’appliquant à la course.

    Which is definitive (http://www3.france-galop.com/uploads/tx … E09_01.PDF), if incomprehensible to this monoglot. Babelfish implies that a horse needs to have run/been running in France.

    in reply to: What are the alternatives to the Levy? #316856
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    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.html

    He 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.

    in reply to: Laying Horses – Sean Boyce #314606
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    As the industry regulator I believe the BHA should be able to interrogate any betfair account at any time without waiting for Betfair to report anything they (betfair) deem to be suspicious.

    The Memorandum of Understanding Betfair has with various governing bodies (and it’s a long list these days) allows for information to be passed to and from governing bodies.

    "…your Personal Information may be disclosed to any regulatory or sporting body in connection with policing the integrity or enforcing the rules of a sport or game and/or prevention and detection of crime and with whom the Group has agreements (Memoranda of Understanding or “MOUs”) from time to time for the sharing of such data and where the Group considers that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that you may be involved in a breach of such rules or the law, have knowledge of a breach of such rules or the law or otherwise pose a threat to the integrity of the relevant sport or game. Those bodies may then use your Personal Information to investigate and act on any such breaches in accordance with their procedures."

    Anyone signing up for a Betfair account agrees to this.
    http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Privacy.Policy/

    Typically thoughtful piece from Sean, though.

    in reply to: French Racing Info #314339
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    The returns published by Ze Turf are their own, rather than those of the PMU (for instance, Dream Ahead returned 11.50 with Ze Turf and 14.10 on the PMU).

    Well there you go. Even when it’s in English I don’t understand it. :-)

    in reply to: French Racing Info #314208
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    http://www.zeturf.com/en/

    has live prices and comprehensive dividends, and, for a monoglot like me, has the merit of offering an English language version of the site.

    Again, nothing about pool sizes AFAIK though.

    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    More racing tradition down the swanee… just stinks of greed on York’s part.

    In a way that, say, expanding a compelling 3-day meeting into a bloated 4-day affair doesn’t?

    in reply to: Paul Nicholls Sponsor #312679
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    And yet, the 2M chase at Cheltenham is still shown in the online program book as the ‘Connaught Chase’

    When this story first broke, some weeks ago, Peter McNeille was quoted in the RP as saying that Cheltenham was aware of the situation but considered that the people involved probably had more immediate things to worry about than a race sponsorship some months ahead.

    Programme Books tend towards the aspirational more than the definitive. We won’t really know the title and value of this year’s renewal until the Racing Calendar is published around a month ahead of the event.

    in reply to: PHIL SMITH Q&A #312609
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    Perhaps an interview with Pru would have been more efficient than a Q&A. :D

    in reply to: Harry Findlay’s does have tick with Betfair #312009
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    I post links to quite a lot of Mark Davies’ blog entries — everyone admires people who agree with them most of the time :-) — and this is another thought-provoking one.

    It’s a direct response to the Telegraph article and also has relevance to the future-funding thread.
    http://www.markxdavies.com/09/08/2010/t … n-findlay/

    in reply to: Harry Findlay’s does have tick with Betfair #311996
    Never Nearer
    Member
    • Total Posts 98

    No way will I reading him on Betfair. Can’t stand that shower pretending to be the alterboys and shafting racing at every opportunity. When they put into Racing what they get out of it only then will I use them.

    You are Paul Dixon or Nic Coward and I claim my £5.

    Perhaps reading content Betfair has paid for and then placing your bets with someone else can be your act of rebellion.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 87 total)