[richard]

Equitrack,
Just by way of explanation, the easily accesible figures don’t distinguish between flat and jump prize money per track and the total prize money split between the two codes is roughly two thirds flat, one third jumps. For flat only, owners’ contributions are 19% of prize money, compared to 10% for jumps. So I can’t give a statistical answer. But, I think you are right in the sense that the better the race, the higher the entry fees. On the whole, the higher the entry fees, the bigger the proportion of prize money provided by owners.

Just a couple of examples:
At flat only Newmarket owners contribute 37% of prize money. At Goodwood it is below aversge at 14% but that’s because the racecourse and their sponsors contribute a whopping 39%. At Wolves, by comparison, owner contribution to prize money is 12%

By way of another point the 295 Group and Listed races on the flat take 38% 0f the flat prize money, though they only account for about 5% of all flat races. (Food for thought there!) Entry fees are high, with forfeit stages, etc, for Group races but whether owner’s contribution as a whole are significantly higher as a proportion of prize money? It’s certainly high in value and I’d suspect high in proportion, but honestly don’t know.

richard

[richard]

The broad answer to you question Cavelino is that owners accounted for 16% of total prize money in GB through entry fees, an amount which does not include race sponsorship monies provided by some of the bigger owners, eg the Sheiks, Cheveley Park, etc. In fact owners account for more prize money than racecourses who provide 15%. The 16% owners’ contribution is equal to the amount of prize money (16%) from sponsorship.

There aren’t thousnds of owners. In 2008 there were 3800 sole owners of racehorses, with a further 5700 individuals owning no more than a share. So the majority of owners – those who only own parts of horses – are presumably not that well off.

So far as funding from breeders is concerned, a considerable amount of prize money is put into racing by the EBF. Basically stallion owners pay a set amount each yesr (based i think on no. of coverings), which goes into a fund to provide extra prize money in EBF nominated races. Also the TBA have just introduced a scheme (applying I think to foals and yearlings) wherby the mare owner can nominate the progeny to be included in the scheme on the payment of a fee when the horse is sold at the sales. For a horse to qualify the buyer pays in an equivalent amount into the fund which will be used to boost prize money in nominated 2y old races.

It would seem to me that breeders are doing more to boost prize money than the BHA whose one and only active contribution is to keep increasing the number of low level BAGS races.

richard

[richard]

Dear Mr Crisford

There has been a lot of talk in the press about the need to re-structure flat racing in GB. Does Godolphin hold particular views on what should be done either for the benefit of the sport as a whole or for Darley/Godolphin?

From a different perspective what would Godolphin not want to see in any proposed re-stucturing, again either in the interests of the sport as a whole or Darley/Godolphin in particular?

May I just explain my interest in this subject is from the perspective of an owner (and therefore an occasional buyer of racehorses) and as a regular racegoer.

Many Thanks

richard

[richard]

Robin F/M has the right of it. The Ballydoyle pacemakers aren’t usually pacemakers in the strict sense of the word. Their job is to try to light up the main competion and make them go too fast and if that fails get in the way of other horses as they fall back.

Think it helped Sea The Stars to have Kinane riding, he would be able to anticipate the Ballydoyle tactics as well as anyone.

Personally think it is a pity that apparently Ballydoyle don’t have the confidence in the capability of those horses they want to make into high fee stallions to run them on their merits. Their team tactics in the UK, maybe Ireland for all I know, are so obvious in Group races that their mob handed approach is becoming a touch farcical.

richard

[richard]

I’m a bit bemused by some of the figures quoted on this thread. The current flat jock fee is £116.90. I haven’t had an NH runner since December but at that time the fee was £154.92. Fees increase every year by the rate of inflation on the basis of an agreement between the JA and the NTF. And as posters have pointed out, jocks get a % of prize money

Because of the amount of flat racing a flat jock would have to be very poor indeed not to be able to earn a decent income, there are so many meetings now. But poor in this context is a relative word. There are a good number of flat jocks who get a decent number of rides who are , to put it politely, not very good jocks. They only get the rides because there aren’t enough good jocks to support the BAGS race program instituted by the BHB.

It’s different in NH. The fixture list hasn’t been expanded to suit the off-course bookies, jocks have to be good to get rides and the standard of riding is, on average as it were, significantly better than on the flat. And NH jocks get a very good standard fee.

So as an owner, a free for all in flat jocks fees wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the jocks I used. I wouldn’t put up an unsuitable jock because they were cheaper. Conversely, if the capable flat jocks put up their fees significantly, that would be another financial reason – and there are enough other ones – for getting out of ownership.

richard

[richard]

The suggestions that a reduction in the number of flat meetings would lead to a cull of flat horses in training are not borne out by statistics.

Between 2003 and 2008 the number of flat fixtures increased by 30%, 726 to 945.

The number of flat only horses in training increased by a much smaller 14%, 7683 to 8784.

Even including dual purpose horses, the number of which increased significantly in 2007 & 2008, the increase is 23%, 9016 to 11077, but still far less than the increase in fixtures.

The suggestion that up to 5,000 horses would be taken out of racing from a reduction in fixtures is not tenable, because that would mean either flat horses in training would decline by 57% or flat and DP horses by 45% on 2008 figures. Under either scenario that would pretty much be the end of flat racing in this country.
The number of flat fixtures could easily be reduced by 10-15% and it wouldn’t, in itself, have any effect on the number of flat horses in training.
richard

[richard]

Think it is important in this discussion to distinguish between flat and jumps. The number of jumps races has stayed relatively static, whereas flat racing has increased significantly. There never were enough flat horses to accomodate naturally the big increase in races. It is only through limitations on field sizes, reductions in handicap ranges to 14lbs in many races and the reduction in mid range h/cs,eg fewer up to 75s whilst correspondingly increasing the number of up to 70s/80s. The like of that has enabled the BHB to increase the number of races and get sufficient runners to satisfy the off course betting operators.

Up until 2008 the BHA’s strategy to increase the number of races, in line with the requirements of the bookmakers, was helped by a small but steady increase in the number of flat horses in training and owners, although the latter were increasingly part owners.

According to their own figures as of mid-June, doubtless due to the economic situation and in my view at least other factors, the situation for 2010 is beginning to look difficult.

The number of named flat horses in training declined by 8.9% compared to 2008. Due in part to a decline in the number of dual purpose horses. But most worryingly 2yold named horses in training fell by 8.6% over 2008 and by 11% on the 2007 peak. 3yolds fell by 5.4% on 2008.
The number of owners including part owners fell by 5.8% and it is worth remembering that many owners are kept as such on the database for 2 years. The number of new registered owners fell by 15.8%

It is to be hoped the June figures are not typical, but as an owner who talks to other owners and bearing in mind the lagging nature of the curent economic situation., my own view is that there will be a significant reduction in owners and flat horses in 2010 . Which suggests that the BHA lunatics really are running the madhouse in increasing the flat fixture list
richard

[richard]

Was at Newmarket that day and the majority of people left the track before the Arab race. If the laudable purpose of the sponsors was to expose and promote Arab racing, it didn’t work. Far betteri if it had been the first race on the card, half an hour before the first thoroughbred race, when the majority of racegoers would have arrived. Many more would have watched it.
On a related point, with the significant decline in flat horses in training this year and worse to come in 2010 because of the economic situation/prize money issues, I wonder whether there is an opportunity for Arab racing to pick up some owners who can no longer, or don’t want to, pay out the amount of money it takes to keep a thoroughbred in training. I don’t know the economics of Arab horses, cost of buying one for example, but the training, etc costs are a lot cheaper. And they are lovely looking horses.

richard

[richard]

What really gets my goat is that Henderson gets away with a non sentence – three months when he hasn’t got many runners anyway, when if it had been Joe Bloggs trainer he or she would have received a penalty which would have put most trainers out of business.
But what really wrankles is this.

I have and still do own horses, decent ones, but like many thoroughbreds they are prone to injury and illness. I’ve spent a great deal of money in treating them. More to the point in determining their treatment, I had detailed discussions with the vet and the trainer as to the length of the treatment and how long it will take post treatment for the medication to get out of the system and when they could race again. I ‘ve even paid for blood tests close to the time when they were being entered to make sure the medication had cleared. I’d suggest the majority of owners/trainers would take a similar view.

Yet, Henderson, who according to the disciplinary findings has been systematically treating his horses on the day of the race, has deliberately
tried to cover up his use of illegal substances. So, I ask, how many times have his horses won because they were on illegal medication and, how many honest owners have been deprived of prize money because of his activities?

The discipinary panel said they mitigated the sentence because of his ambassadorial role. Oh sure, what does this mean, that he makes himself available to racing channel interviewers and has a convivial relationship with racing journos? Or what?

Personally I think he should have been banned for entering horses for at least a year, which would have got him
out of racing for good and sent a warning to any other like minded trainers.
If the moral crooks aren’t got out of racing then I ask myself what is the point of paying £18k a year to run a horse honestly when that horse is disadvantaged because it is run honestly ?
richard

[richard]

Coolmore connections did have runners in Dubai this year, it’s just that they were trained in South Africa, not Ireland. No doubt there are several reasons for that, not the least, in my view ,is that they would have to send a large number of horses from Ireland to employ their team tactics

Dubai racing attracts many of the best horses, unlike in the UK which is basically dependant on Arab owners and to an extent Coolmore for good top class horses. There are owners in the UK who would jump at the chance to be invited to run their horses in Dubai, helped by the subsidies on offer for running there.

As for Godolphin in the UK, it’s interesting I think that horses trained outside the Godolphin set up run well and those within Godolphin don’t. This might suggest that there is something seriously wrong with their management/training set up. Which would further suggest that Godolphin’s UK fortunes could only be revived by a comprehensive clear out of the current management. From what little experience I have of talking to Arab owners this might be very unlikely to happen as Arabs are very loyal to people they believe have served them well in the past. Change, in terms of people, doesn’t come easy to them.

richard

[richard]

Spot on Zorro, anyone professionally involved in racing knows that full well – the off course bookies run the sport.
But how to change it? A Tote monopoly would be the glib answer, but governments aren’t going to buy that, so what can racing do to liberate itself from the bookies’ control?

richard

[richard]

Leemac,
My wife and I went to the Guernsey specially for their one meeting and if I may say so we thought you did a great job. We are experienced racegoers, but the way you interviewed officials, trainers, jocks, owners before and during the meet, was really interesting for us and I’d guess very helpful and involving for the majority of the very big attendance who probably aren’t regular racegoers.
If this were done regularly at UK meetings, my guess is that it would help to involve the ocasional racegoer, help them to feel part of the racing experience and would at least be interesting to the regular goers. Probably be no point in doing it at A/W BAGS tracks unless it’s a music night or equivalent, but for the occasional visitor at flat tracks, seems to me it is the sort of approach that could encourage them to come back. Far better than bookie "experts" advising people to bet money on the horses they expect to loose..
Maybe difficult in the UK for the race commentator to take on that role, but someone from a course could.

richard

[richard]

Interesting comments about the GL surface. The odd trainer I’ve talked to about it all came up with a comment equivalent to "they’re still learning how to look after it". The one time I went there I walked part of the track and as it was a bit breezy I picked up handfuls and chucked it in the air and it flew about like feathers.
This was a track with very severe kickback, though the surface is not as "gritty" as some of the other A/W BAGs tracks.

richard

[richard]

Lots of wise and based on experience comments on this thread. But I would add the comment that if you don’t trust the trainer to make the best decisions, it would be preferable to take your horse(s) elsewhere.

The most basic and most important decision for an owner to make is to pick a trainer whose skills are appropriate to the type/ability of the horse.

Get that decision right and all else falls into place.

In my wife and I’s case, we pick trainers who have proven experience with the level of horses we can afford to buy and with whom we can develop an open relationship. The training of horses and picking the right races goes hand in hand. Hence we would expect a trainer to communicate on the progress of the horse, his/her current ability and advise on entries. We would then discuss the possible entries and mutually agree the races to go for (and the jockey). There is no conflict involved and the decision is a shared one. So far as communication is concerned, we just talk as and when necessary, we don’t expect or want absolutely regular reports, partly for the reasons below.

I would add we live about an hours’ drive from Newmarket where our horses are trained and we call in the stables to see them at least once a fortnight. Over the years us and the horses have got to know each other, so we can understand their state of health and we are well aquainted with the stable staff whom we chat to about our horses as well as life in general.

I empathise totally with APs approach, especially about finding races either side of big meetings, but another consideration is that if you own a horse that has reached a certain handicap level, the number of opportunities may be limited.

For what it is worth my advice would be:

Start by finding the right trainer for your horse.

Develop an honest relationship – the trainer must know what you want (eg running at prestige meetings or running for the best chance of winning)

Try and visit the yard as often as you can and get to know the horse.

Get to know the stable staff for the reason that they do the basic looking after of the horse.

Above all achieve a communicative relationship with the trainer and if that isn’t possible, move the horse.

For what ’tis worth
richard

[richard]

Think a fundamental question is, is anyone controlling the content of the RP, or do writers just submit copy which is published without any oversight?

Agree with Bulwark, I hope Mr Hales does sue. Maybe if he does it might concentrate the management’s thinking which might bring about an editorial product which actually is worth buying. At the moment, my impression is that most of the content is wriiten without much thought in the spare moments the journos have in between trading on the exchanges, or whatever they do in their working hours.

The RP needs a serious shake up. Hopefully a law suit might help to bring that about.

richard

[richard]

This from the Daily Mail:

Don’t bank on Great Leighs: RBS may be last resort for Essex course
By Marcus Townend
Last updated at 8:09 PM on 16th March 2009

"Royal Bank Of Scotland have emerged as the most likely new operators of GreatLeighs, the Essex racecourse currently stagnating in administration.

Racemail understands that a creditors’ report has recommended that being taken over by the bank — who have just recorded the biggest loss in British corporate history (£24.1billion) under disgraced former chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin — is the best way forward.

Complications over the ownership of pockets of the Great Leighs site, notably the
racecourse stables, have put off potential buyer Northern Racing, whose group lacks an all-weather track, and only two serious bids have emerged.

One is a consortium, including original owner John Holmes in partnership with Arena Leisure and SIS. The other is by a mystery buyer but neither are believed to be acceptable to administrators Deloitte. That leaves RBS, the bank who loaned Holmes more than £20million to open Great Leighs, as new frontrunners to acquire the track that has not raced since January 15.

Initially, closure was only expected to be a matter of days while a new BHA licence to race was sought. But seven more Great Leighs fixtures were put up for auction yesterday with four finding buyers, amid growing frustration at a lack of progress.

There appears to have been little contact between Deloitte and the BHA in recent days.
If a BHA licence application for a new operator is not held soon, a fresh batch of fixtures will have to be handed back and it is not inconceivable that Great Leighs may find themselves unable to race before June 18, ironically the day new Welsh track Ffos Las opens.

An ownership solution involving RBS raises the possibility of damaging and delaying lawsuits being launched by current investors and stakeholders, who will argue that they only became involved on the basis of financial information originally supplied by RBS.

All of which could make an already messy situation disastrous if further delays leave Great Leighs rudderless ahead of the imminent bidding process for the 2010 Fixture List.

The lease expires on more than half of their 77 meetings this year. The bidding process takes place in June but behind-the- scenes preliminary negotiations start next month.

One leading racing figure said yesterday: ‘If Great Leighs can’t enter the process, they haven’t got a fixture list.’ "

At a guess this story came via their business journalists and the DM’s city pages have a good reputation among financial professionals.

richard

[richard]

Isn’t the basic point that Arena have no opportunity at Worcester to develop housing estates/golf courses/ business parks, etc?

Probably the track used to be a nice little earner for them since their investment there has been minimal. But faced with the prospect of spending money, understandable they may want to get out.

Worcester was one of the fairest jump tracks in the country, with it’s flat configuration, sweeping bends and a long run in. A very good track for novice horses.

It wouldbe a real shame if the local authority who own the lease didn’t take action to re-assign it to a company who cared about racing – assuming Arena want out.

richard

[Author]

Posts