Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Barry, you are kidding, any publication that relies on a big chunk of it’s revenue from a limited set of advertisers is going to look after those advertisers editorially. It would only take Willbrokes to withdraw their advertising for a month or so and the RP would be in a real dither, particularly as MGN have put the paper up for sale. What effect do you think that would have on potential purchasers, if a major evenue source was witholding support?
If you don’t know, then think about it.
richard
Read the post again Barry, it was the RP’s competence that was being questioned. But , if the cap fits…..
Interesting info HFox and interesting that the HRA have just introduced random pre-race drugs testing, as they did at Warwick recently.
richard
A good place to start is the Severals, nearby the clock tower at the top of the High Street on the Bury road. Get there about 7AM, like the equine equivalent of Piccadilly Circus, strings walking round there to loosen up before going off to the gallops on that side of town. Easy walk up to Warren hill from there.
Malc, the gallops are owned and operated by Jockey Club Estates and they do a super job in keeping them in order. All kinds of gallops, turf, a/w, watered turf, uphill, flat and their jumps facilities are very well maintained, coincidentally pretty much on the old jumps course. Owners pay a monthly fee for the use of any of the gallops facilities, currently £87.50 per month.
richard
August this year is when his medical period is up. Only hope he is cleared to ride again. Brilliant jockey, superb judge of a horse and a very nice bloke. Very best wishes to him.
richard
Fitzpatrick had 630 rides in 2006. At £104.69 a time he would have earnt £65, 955 from riding fees alone. Plus his share of £379, 000 in prize money and any monies earnt from riding out and sponsorship. Winston had 981 rides giving a basic riding fee income of £102, 700
Lack of regular income is no excuse for what they did.
richard<br>
It isn’t that TV coverage is effecting attendance at Haydock’s jumps meetings. What the article said was that because most of their jumps racing is carried on terrestrial TV they don’t get BAGS payments for those races. Whereas they get paid, in RHT’s case, £4300 per race for non-terrestrial TV covered races – if my memory serves me correctly. Which is one of the reasons low quality flat meets are more profitable for them than jumps racing.
Maxse’s comments gave an insight into the likely future direction of flat racing. If he is right that Kempton is meeting it’s financial targets by putting on low quality racing that few people go to see, but the profits are made from BAGS payments, reductions in overhead costs (less staff for example), minimal prize money additions and presumably corporate entertaining judging by the high prices they charge for that, then that is a model other courses could follow.
Haydock have just varied the model. Whilst most likely putting on low grade racing which racegoers don’t go to watch, they intend to replace racegoers with people spending large sums of money getting smashed.
Suppose their defence would be that the profits from Friday nights enable them to fund their quality racing. In which case, it will be interesting to see what happens to Haydock’s contribution toprize money next year.
richard
On a related topic I do think that A D’s column in today’s RP was an exceptional piece of journalism. It really is about time that the RP shook itself out of it’s monopoly complacency and addressed real issues. A D’s piece did just that to my way of thinking.
His criticisms of John Blake were spot on. What is this guy actually saying, that my members are crooks and they should be allowed to keep on stopping horses and selling priviledged info, and it doesn’t matter?
I own racehorses and the trainers I use and myself are very careful about the jocks employed. I would have never thought that any of them were up to no good. But comments of the like that Blake has made – on behalf of the Jockey’s Association – do make me think about whether this is a sport I want to keep putting money into. And from conversations with other owners, that’s not an unusual opinion, based on what has gone on in the past.
So all power to the HRA, well done them for banging this particular set of crooks to rights. And whilst I might think all of them got off lightly, I do think the HRA sat their sentences very sensibly, none of them have got grounds for appeal and the longer they are kept out of racing the better.
As I see it, the bottom line is this. For too long racing has turned a blind eye to corruption. Now the worm – as it were – has turned. The more the wrongdoers are rooted out, and the more publicity given to those actions the better. It will give existing and would be owners and punters confidence that they aren’t being ripped off.
richard
Like Sal, I’m with Adrian. For a racing fan, Newmarket is well worth a visit, particularly if you spend time on the gallops and visit the Museum and the National Stud. If you’re into racing books and videos, Tyndals bookshop in the High Street has a good range of new and second hand books.
My wife and I are members at Newmarket so we go racing there a lot. A personal view is avoid music nights like the plague. They are packed out, you could spend ages queing for a drink in the bars, there’s little chance of seeing a race because the grandstands are full of people who are parked there for the evening so they can watch the performance in comfort and by the time of the 5th race it’s nigh imposible to get from the parade ring to the bookies because of the crowds gathered in front of the stage.
Weekday meetings are fine though, should be able to get in one of the grandstands no trouble.<br>Another nice pub is the Affleck Arms in Dalham, though I think they do food only Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
richard
Like Sal, I’m with Adrian. For a racing fan, Newmarket is well worth a visit, particularly if you spend time on the gallops and visit the Museum and the National Stud. If you’re into racing books and videos, Tyndals bookshop in the High Street has a good range of new and second hand books.
My wife and I are members at Newmarket so we go racing there a lot. A personal view is avoid music nights like the plague. They are packed out, you could spend ages queing for a drink in the bars, there’s little chance of seeing a race because the grandstands are full of people who are parked there for the evening so they can watch the performance in comfort and by the time of the 5th race it’s nigh imposible to get from the parade ring to the bookies because of the crowds gathered in front of the stage.
Weekday meetings are fine though, should be able to get in one of the grandstands no trouble.<br>Another nice pub is the Affleck Arms in Dalham, though I think they do food only Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
richard
An interesting piece in the financial pages of today’s Daily Mail under the heading: "Racing Profits Are A Good Bet "
"Betting firms could be in for thundering gains at the races. Broker Arbuthnot reckons the changes to the way starting prices on horse races are calculated could provide a fillip to Ladbrokes and William Hill ….."
Yes indeed.
richard
For a reasoned explanation as to why the new method of calculating SPs will increase off course bookmakers’ profits, try this link to a piece by James Willoughby in the RP .
http://www.racingpost.co.uk/news/cuttings_library.sd
Personally, I was a tad surprised that this was allowed to appear, because it is to the point.
The basic changes compared to the previous system are:
The sixth best price rather than the fourth is taken as the SP
Previously only one of the "majors" could be included in the sample, now it is two.
Previously only those offering only win odds were included included, now those offering EW are included as well. Win only on course offers are generally higher than EW offers.
Despite the very professional pr emanating from Betfair, the major betting shop owners have a much higher volume of turnover and a much higher profitability from cash betting in their shops than internet and telephone. It is not the exchanges that primarilly influence SPs, it is the off course liabilities of the major bookmakers. The changes to the SP calculation automatically reduce those liabilities.
As to Halycon days, personal view is one has to go back a long way to find those. A rough chronology as to why off course bookies are so profitable is :
1960/1 Off course betting other than credit account betting legalised, levy paid by bookmakers. To pay for this, odds were slightly shortened, eg 100/9 became 6-1 and etc. Ew odds on 8 runner races went from one quarter to one fifth.
1963 Betting Act made the levy payable by punters. Bookmakers added on their own % to cover what they had persuaded the government was their extra costs, great move to increase profits.
Subsequently the levy on punters was changed to a levy on bookies’ profits, another great move for them as their is no audit requirement, so they can within legal accounting requirements present figures to minimise levy payments.
And now we have the new SP system designed to increase off course bookies’ profits even more.
I’m old enough to remember the days before betting shop legalisation, and believe me there was no problem for the ordinary off course punter getting a bet on, be it from the local "agent" of a bookie or, very often whoever ran the local pub who would take commission on the bet.
In those days SPs were a fair reflection of the weight of on course punter money, which they are not now, and EW punters had one quarter odds on up to eight runners and one third on the large field handicaps. Halycon days indeed.
richard
"Competive racing" in BHB/betting operator speak means racing which is designed to relieve betting shop punters of a higher proportion of their stakes.
Twilight racing and it’s eventual successor winter evening racing under lights has been/will be introduced for one purpose only. That is to provide round the clock "betting session" opportunities. The basic concept is that more racing means more betting shop betting and because A/W racing is the most profitable for bookies, more money will be delivered to racing’s coffers.
Whether this economic model works as the BHB hope, be interesting to see. An alternative scenario is that, taking Glen’s stats, your average betting shop punter gets fed up with losing money on this type of racing and turns to other ways of losing money more slowly.
TDK makes the point that if you put the work in (apologies if this is too much of a paraphrase) you can make money. But that is true of all racing and the fact remains that 95% of punters lose in the long term.
The possible problem with twilight/winter evening racing is that it is a turn off to racing fans in that few people go to watch it and a turn off to betting shop punters because relying on newspaper and RP pages put up in betting shops, they are bound to lose money more quickly on this type of racing
richard<br>
Clivex,<br>Levy payments are only for basic prize money. BAGS/SIS payments for RHT tracks are, from memory, £4500 per race with eight or more runners, proportionately less for under eight runners, though maybe someone with a better memory than me might like to correct those figures.
Think the original Kempton marketing plan assumed large numbers of city workers would go down there to drink instead of going to London bars. Might have had some hope in mid-summer at night, but on a November afternoon?
rivhard
Prufrock.
It’s not that I think punters aren’t important – I’m one myself – but if racegoers are turned off the sport in noticeable numbers and owners leave the sport and aren’t sufficiently replaced, then horse racing punting fans are going to be left a touch high and dry.
For example, according to the BHB’s "Economic Impact Study", racecourse revenues from admissions, catering, corporate sponsorship and on-course betting totalled £195 million in 2005. The levy generated a total of £103 million, not all of which went to racing directly, and the betting operators pay probably another £21 million in SIS/BAGS payments which does go directly to the courses.
So in general terms decreases in attendances will hit racing’s finances harder than a decrease from the levy. though don’t get me wrong, it would be best for racing (but not for punters) if both showed increases.
But it’s not just money, to my mind racegoers are the bedrock of racing. Not just from attending, but because enjoyable racecourse experiences creates life long racing fans, future punters and future owners. Flat racing will not, in my view. survive in anything like it’s present form if it becomes more and more reliant on a levy income generated by people who have rarely seen a racetrack or a racehorse.
I don’t think there is any doubt that the proliferation of low grade racing, or winter flat racing, or BAGs racing , however one describes it, is depressing average flat attendances. But I would, agree with you – as I opined in my original post – that there are other factors at work which diminish the racing experience for both regular and new racegoers And as a regular racegoer, at some tracks, I think those reasons are too often apparent.
As for owners, if there aren’t enough owners, then there is less racing and the BHB’s strategy of providing betting operators a continous diet of racing during betting shop opening hours will just collapse. But the real losers will be the genuine racing fans, because if there isn’t a sufficient horse population. there isn’t the racing for them to watch.
richard
Replying directly to your post Maxilion, if you haven’t seen posts from me putting positive stuff about racing on this and other forums over the years, fair enough, if that’s your view, it’s not for me to debate that point.
But you did ask for views on the current situation, so here they are with respect to flat racing.
Fundamentally I believe that racing should be run to balance the needs of all participants including punters. That said, I think that there are two groups who are critical to the sport’s success, racegoers and owners. If either of these groups walk away from racing in significant numbers, then racing has got problems.
The BHB in their wisdom have increased the number of races significantly, by 10% from 2003 to 2006 year to October. But most of these are low level races which people don’t want to go to in significant numbers.
Comparitive figures are year to July:
Year Attendances (mill) Ave ‘000<br>2003 2.42 5.57<br>2004 2.54 5.09 <br>2005 2.42 4.93<br>2006 2.28 4.67<br>% change -6% -17%
Even allowing for Test Cricket and the Soccer World Cup, something serious is going on here setting the above figures in the context of the 10% increase in races. Plainly the increase in low level racing is a turn off to racegoers as shown by the decline in average attendances. But , the decline in total attendances might suggest there is something else happening which may be something to do with cost , value for money, facilities at racecourse factors – but that is probably another debate.
If the BHB are to further their policy of increasing the amount of bookie friendly low level racing then they need an increase in the horse population and ownership.
These are the latest stats up to Oct 31st:
Year Flat only HIT New owner Registrations
2003 7358 4652<br> 2004 8010 5028<br>2005 8160 4980<br>2006 7826 4701<br>% change +6% +1%
The overall trend ain’t too bad, but if that drop on 2006 continues into 2007, as likely it will for a number of reasons, then the BHB are going to have difficulty in fullfiliing their bookie friendly increase in race meetings. Without, that is, imposing more restrictions on running, which, if they do will turn more owners off the sport.
As for betting shop punters, people aren’t daft, and if they find they are losing more money through betting on low level racing which is what the BHB want, then they will turn to other forms of betting and lose their money more slowly.
This is probably too long a post already, but to summarise, the purpose of flat racing according to BHB dogma is to put on a race program below listed/group/heritage handicap levei level which relieves betting shop punters of the maximum amount of money to help fund those afrorementioned races. Racegoers and ordinary owners don’t figure in their marketing plan.
richard
