Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It is depressing and yet the BHB keep trying to purvey their claptrap about GB racing being the "best in the world"
richard
Twilight fixtures start at 4pm with the last "betting session" (how the BHB now describe horse races) at 6.20 which is ten minutes before betting shops currently are legally required to close. Their purpose is to relieve betting shop punters of their money at a time of day when there is not much else going on.
They were introduced, according to the BHB, "after consultation with the betting industry" They aren’t designed to attract racegoers
From autumn 2007 , when betting shop opening hours will be extended until late in the evening, twilight fixures will cease and be replaced by floodlit evening meetings at Kempton and Wolverhampton. Every Wednesday to Saturday from September through to December is the initial plan apparently.
richard
Do you work for RUK/ATR Reet Hard?
Let me repeat, the reason the two broadcasters have forced through 48 hr decs is because they believe money can be made for their shareholders. The shareholders are in RUK’s case their racetracks. The majority shareholder in ATR is Arena Leisure, who, of course, own racetracks
Racing’s rulers are currently the RCA and the BHB beurocrats. Trainers have no vote on the BHB board and the ROA is consistently out voted by the afore mentioned bloc.
The Racing Post is in commercial parnership with RUK and they get a considerable amount of advertising from ATR and the minority shareholder Sky through the Skybet operation. So their editorial stance is to support 48 hr decs. Admittedly they do allow the occasional contra view from their once in a while independent opinion writers, but the main editorial thrust is to support those who help to make the profits.
The other countries arguement is a non starter. In most of those jurisdictions horses are trained at or near the tracks where they race – which is not the situation in the UK. In this country just getting a horse to the track is an expensive business and there is no recompense if on arriving the horse has to be withdrawn.
As to punters, like I said I’m no spokesman for the bookies, but if they think 48 hr decs is reducing betting turnover then to my mind that sums up punters’ opinions.
richard
There are no sensible and valid reasons for the introduction of 48 hour flat decs. The reason they were introduced was because ATR and RUK hope – and that is the word- that it will enable them to sell transmissions to overseas jurisdictions and attract overseas betting revenue. This despite the fact that previous experiments, with 48 hour decs on the A/W, didn’t generate a red cent. And so far, this latest attempt has generated no revenue at all. Nor is there as yet any indication that it will.
The decision to implement 48 hour flat decs was forced through the BHB board against the advice of owners and trainers by the RCA with the support of the BHB permanent members. The latter desperately flailing around for sources of revenue after their mis-management of the data rights issue and bookmakers cutting the levy payment.
Normally I’d take any pronouncements by bookmakers at the end of a very long spoon. But they have said 48 hr decs will cost them and racing revenue because of their reluctance to price up eary ‘cos of non runners. No reason for them to say that unless they were sure that would be the effect.
48 hr decs will not be applied to jumps racing. This is a sport mostly limited to the UK, Eire and France. There is little interest in the USA, Far East, Middle East and Australia.
As to the comment from that renowned and well known trainer of racehorses Prufrock, if he doesn’t understand the effect of 48 hr decs, I’m sure there are posters who can bore the more knowledgeable members of this forum by enlightening him.
richard
Be most intereted to know the source of that info, it doesn’t seem to stack up with industry statistics.
For example according to the recently published BHB Economic Impact Study there are 22, 000 core racing industry employees and 25, 000 secondary employees in the whole of racing related industries – flat and jumps.
Attendance comparisons with 2001 are meaningless. That wa the year of the foot and mouth epedemic. Because of meeting cancellations jump attendances were around 500, 000 down on the previous year.
Jumps and flat racing is in no better state in 2006 than it has been in the immediately previous years. 2007 is likely to see a decline in both codes, with significant cuts in prize money, more GB horses being bought by overseas buyers and racecourses prioritising corporate guests more and more at the expense of bread and butter racing fans.
richard
The great majority of the top value lots at Tatts have been bought by overseas buyers to race in jurisdictions that pay out real prize money.
Yes, judged by the prize money on offer in the bookie dominated racing scenario in the UK, some of the prices paid for lots look OTT.
But they are not necessarilly OTT in relation to the prize money available in the countries in which they will be racing. Countries in which stallion fees are generally higher than in the UK, so a succesful horse can make a return on investment on both counts.
I’ve attended Tatts sales for a few years now and I have to say never have I seen so few UK buyers and so many from overseas as at this sale.
Understandable I suppose, with collapsing prize money in the UK and ever rising costs, it is not surprising that overseas buyers are seizing the opportunity.
richard
"You can’t do justice to weighty and relevant matters in the kind of cramped column-space devoted to TRF’s number one gatecrasher, so that argument falls flat on its face".
On the contrary, there is plenty of space do do justice to weighty matters. All it takes is a good journalist who knows his or her subject, can cut out the padding and get straight to the point. The likes of Bill O’Gorman, Mark Johnston when he was writing for the RP could do it, as does Lydia in The Times working often with even more limited space – to mention but a few. Some of The Sportsman’s opinion writers managed very well with extremely tight restrictions on numbers of words.
That some of the the RP’s regular writers – and I would except the bloodstock material – can’t manage it speaks volumes about the editorial management of the paper and the journalistic capabilities of some of those they employ to write.
richard
Whilst all this is very interesting, perhaps a question to ask is why the Racing Post’s star columnist – their billing not mine – should choose to devote a large chunk of his column to dumping on an eighteen year old kid?
"Star" columnists usually offer insightful opinions on major issues. Matters like the effects of the severe cut backs in prize money by the Levy Board and some tracks, the government renaging on it’s promise to sell the Tote to racing, the real problems caused by 48 hour decs, deliberate overwatering at some tracks, the inclusion of banded racing in main cards, what will happen to the HRRA when it is taken under the wing of the BHB are just some of the issues that are going to have quite an effect on the future of horseracing in the UK.
So why pick on Jackane? With all due respect to him and this Forum, a topic which wouldn’t mean a thing to the 90,000 or so purchasers of the RP who are not members of TRF.
Stuck for something to write about and up against a deadline?
richard
<br>
Nice one Naps, a very game win, nice to see a horse that wants to get his head in front, nicely judged ride as well.
richard
Wit,
Maybe I’ve mis-understood your post , but the Directory does include a Harbie but not a Harby or a Harbie.
Taking your question literally, maybe it says something about the editorial – what’s the word I’m searching for?, could it be integrity? no, no, obviously not; perhaps I mean policy? of the Racing Post?
richard
According to the Blackstone Chambers’ web site Jonathan Harvie is indeed one of their QCs.
richard
For me, AP and Drone have summed up flat racing’s current situation very well. Perhaps the questions to be asked are – how did this situation come about, what can be done about it and is it likely racing’s authorities will do anything about it?
In my view the moral cancer at the heart of racing started under PDS’s tenure as BHB chairman, the details of which can be gleaned from the now somewhat discredited "Modernisation of British Racing" report.
Basically, the BHB plan, as I understand it was that all racing below Group/Listed/Heritage Handicap should be structured to maximise betting operator profits. Hence banded racing, handicaps graded in straight 10lbs ranges instead of the previous five, a 14lb handicap range (with gleeful announcements from the BHB that they would like to reduce it to 6), 14 runner field limitations to be reduced to 12 in high summer and so on.
The increase in the number of fixtures is described as an increase in "betting sessions" (note, not more opportunities for horses to run or for fans to watch racing) The BHB announce that all this is succesful because the number of favourites winning has declined therfore racing is more "competitive".
In other words, the BHB, racing’s ruling authority was conniving, nay deliberately setting up a situation where the majority of racing was to be run to fleece betting shop punters. Punters are b-f’s who will just willingly bet more and lose more and any owner who can’t afford to buy high priced stock isn’t worth bothering with.
In actual fact the wheels came off the details of that plan. Punters, probably inductively rather than deductively, realised it was harder to find winners and turned to other forms of gambling.
To the eternal discredit of racing hacks, the re-action of owners – ordinary owners not the majority of members of the ROA council – was never reported. But it was so severe, expressed through the NTF that the BHB had to re-institute 5lb handicap ranges and now the handicap 14lb limit has been enlarged to 19lbs. After all who is going to pay very large amounts of money to keep a horse in training if the horse can’t even get into a race, let alone one in which he or she can compete?
Again not a word from the RP or other hacks about the implications of these changes or why they were made. Can’t afford to offend those who provide hospitality, can we?
So what needs to be done? Well without going into great detail the race program needs to be re-formatted to provide racing that people will pay to come to watch and that gives owners the chance to run their horses in races in which they can compete. Which means among other things, cutting out the low level dross racing – as Ireland has done. Above all the race program should be constituted for the benefit of racing, not just to make profits for betting operators
Any chance this will happen? Not a prayer. Where’s flat racing in this country going? As the Americans would say, to hell in a handbasket.
richard
Fascinating stuff Barry and thank you for that information. Question is, you say will someone listen, but what is it you would want them to do? Is it that tax is too high, what changes do need to be made for the benefit of racing?<br>richard
Thank you for the reply Zorro and my apologies for the extra "and". Don’t know a thing about Footie, but guess we’ll just have to differ about the general level of cynicism.
A general point though is that IMHO the HRA’s actions are beneficial to racing because they show a determination to tackle corruption, so maybe people like me who cut back on their betting considerably ‘cos I just didn’t trust certain types of races could be encouraged to bet on more races.
richard<br>
Well said Glenn.
To remind you Zorro you wrote:" but attitudes to sport have changed massively … now it really does seem the only real shame is not even getting caught; it’s getting caught and not trying to bend the rules in your favour".
Do you really believe sports fans couldn’t care less about corruption, that racehorse owners and racing punters aren’t turned off the sport by the HRA’s predecessor’s perceived attitude to tackling corruption? If you do, then I’d suggest you inhabit a different morality than most people.
I’d be interested to know whether you really believe what you wrote, or whether you were directed to write some such stuff as part of the RP’s obvious distate for the HRA’s actions, or was it just that you had a deadline to meet and just dashed off the first thing that came into your head?
Be interesting to know too whether the Editor of the RP takes an interest in what his columnists write, or is he just grateful to get the copy in time? Quite understand if you don’t want to answer that question.
richard
So sorry LRM, deepest sympathy and condolences, for sure, many people’s thoughts will be with you.
richard
Good luck to your syndicate Daylight and I do hope you get the 20 people to fund her, at that price you deserve to.
May I say that as an owner I do know what it costs to keep a racehorse. I budget £18, 000 a year for the all in costs of training and running a horse and that does not include mine and my wife’s overhead costs. So the price per share looks very reasonable to me.
As for romanticism vs realism, well, if the only reason people owned horses was to make a profit, then there would be no horseracing at all in the UK. Very, very few horses recover their purchase and traniing cost during their racing careers.
Yes there is a risk in buying a horse, whether unraced or raced for all the obvious reasons. But Darley do not send horses they think are no hopers to the sales. Think on it, do they want horses bred by them to be continually walking round last at a banded meeting at Southwell?
So don’t be put of by curmudgeonly comments, if u fancy owning a piece of a horse, go for it. Even if she doesn’t live up to expectations, u’ll have a greast deal of fun and believe me, learn an awful lot more about horses and racing than ever could be achieved just by studying form.
richard
