Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Steeps you claim;
47% of the Betting Industy’s profit last year came from FOTBs
Have you got a source for this, please.
I think it was in the January or February edition of Betting Business, the monthly industry mag. – And I should, of course have said FOBT and not FOTB
Also when you say
Racing’s share of Betting has fallen from the days of Extel (circa 20-25 years ago) from 80% to 50%
What are the total figures (size of total betting market say 1985 and 2011) you are taking those %’s from?
I don’t know offhand (it was above 80% and is now below 50%) – I could find out with some research but it wouldn’t alter the point of the market-share loss. No matter how much the market has grown, a progressive loss of share will kill your business in the end.
Tuffers, every other sport in the country doesn’t take place 7 days a week throughout the year.
I don’t see how that makes a difference. It just means racing has more opportunities to generate income from its activities.
People free to go racing Monday to Friday tend not to have much disposable income
Other than concerts, there’s little more racing can do utilise the land.
Well that’s your opinion but I have to disagree with your assessment. The idea that the course interior can be used for no other purpose whatsoever is ludicrous.
Fair point – I should have said profitably to utilise the land
These courses have a huge catchment to draw from and, believe it or not, some decent brains and marketing budgets, yet they still make a relatively paltry amount from non-racing activities. So what chance do the rural courses have?
I think the fact that they make so little from non racing activities shows that the brains aren’t good enough.
Well almost all of them offer conference/banqueting/weddings/exhibitions: a few have golf courses, some have caravan sites. What would you add to the mix?
The trouble with tariffs (apart from the fact that they put huge pressure on the smaller courses) is that the Horsemen’s members will start budgeting for them and once the media rights cash dries up there will be an almighty crash.
The trouble with not having tariffs is that you will end up with lots of races and no horses to run in them.
And the trouble with having tariffs is that you will end up with lots of horses and no races to run them in
I admire your optimism in believing that with hard work and application racecourses will survive without bookmaker-generated income; the reality is that it simply will not happen.
Your opinion rather than fact of course. I disagree fundamentally with your opinion based as it is on the belief that income from bookmakers is the only way racing can survive.
It is my opinion but there is plenty of evidence to support it: racing might survive without it but not in its current structure
Racing’s only potentially successful strategy is to develop the market – bring in new customers and encourage betting on the sport. In the 1960s there were almost 17,000 betting shops in Britain. The number today is half that – racing has lost 50% of its key product (betting) distribution channel over the years.
I agree that the market needs to be developed but I don’t see how the number of betting shops is relevant when some of the strategies open to racing include managing on course betting by the racecourses themselves.
On course betting is a tiny fraction of off-course and, bar the festivals,insignificant in comparison. If 20,000 betting shops were open selling racing’s betting product to customers, surely that makes more commercial sense than having 10,000 open?
The media rights costs it now demands, mean a further narrowing of that channel or driving its product online where levy can be avoided. One of Racing’s main aims should be to make it as cheap and easy as possible to run a UK betting shop, because that’s the only guaranteed place it will get a return.
I completely disagree. As I’ve said before, any strategy based on reliance on income from bookmakers is doomed to fail.
How then do you explain your enthusiasm for the tariffs strategy? The money ‘raised’ by tariffs comes mainly from bookmakers’ media rights payments
If racing truly believes bookmakers are raking in cash and paying far too little back, a real radical move would be to set up their own bookmaking division and start opening hundreds of shops.
Now that would be an interesting strategy.
Not necessary. On course betting should be the priority followed by the establishment of a nationwide pool betting operation. The failure to secure ownership of the Tote by a racing industry body is an absolute travesty but that shouldn’t stop racing attempting to run its own Pari Mutuel style operation.
Racing already has its on-course and nationwide pool betting operation, and has had for decades – the Tote. Pool betting in its current format holds little appeal for UK punters compared with fixed odds. How will it suddenly transform the fortunes of racing if run ‘directly’ by racing?
Drone, I haven’t seen York’s accounts but I’d be surprised if their non-racing business contributes much more than 10% to annual profits.
Perhaps someone on the forum can give us a more accurate figure? If not, I will try to find out as a matter of interest.
Tuffers, every other sport in the country doesn’t take place 7 days a week throughout the year.
Other than concerts, there’s little more racing can do utilise the land. Aintree covers 270 acres: it has a golf course, equestrian centre, museum,and a reasonable conference and banqueting business. But I believe that 93% of its income is earned over the GN meeting.
Just 6 miles north of the city centre, Aintree struggles to make much money from its supporting niches, as do a few other ‘City/Town-based’ courses like Musselburgh, Nottingham, Chester, Hamilton, York.
These courses have a huge catchment to draw from and, believe it or not, some decent brains and marketing budgets, yet they still make a relatively paltry amount from non-racing activities. So what chance do the rural courses have?
The trouble with tariffs (apart from the fact that they put huge pressure on the smaller courses) is that the Horsemen’s members will start budgeting for them and once the media rights cash dries up there will be an almighty crash.
I admire your optimism in believing that with hard work and application racecourses will survive without bookmaker-generated income; the reality is that it simply will not happen.
Racing’s only potentially successful strategy is to develop the market – bring in new customers and encourage betting on the sport. In the 1960s there were almost 17,000 betting shops in Britain. The number today is half that – racing has lost 50% of its key product (betting) distribution channel over the years.
The media rights costs it now demands, mean a further narrowing of that channel or driving its product online where levy can be avoided. One of Racing’s main aims should be to make it as cheap and easy as possible to run a UK betting shop, because that’s the only guaranteed place it will get a return.
If racing truly believes bookmakers are raking in cash and paying far too little back, a real radical move would be to set up their own bookmaking division and start opening hundreds of shops.
Now that would be an interesting strategy.
I’m planning a detailed blog post on this over the next week or two but I’d like to set some things straight here.
I am not against increased prize money in any way so long as it’s achieved without excessively damaging the current fabric of racing (some changes are inevitable).
Racing was my first love, and has remained so. I’ve had the good fortune to work in several areas of it: I have done the coalface stuff as a betting shop manager in my younger days. I was marketing manager at Aintree for 4 years so I know the racecourse side and the problems they face.
I spent 7 years with SiS, so I’m familiar with the broadcasting aspect. And I spent 5 years on the board of Tote Bookmakers as commercial director.
I’ve dabbled in journalism having published a few articles in the old Sporting Life. I mention all this to let you know I have a fair bit of experience of the varied points of view in the industry.
Most of the current problems racing faces stem from the BHA having no control of industry media rights. Soccer is a very valuable sport from a media rights viewpoint, not least because the rights are negotiated by the ruling bodies rather than individual clubs.
Racing’s media income will never reach soccer levels as it is miles below it in the popularity index. But racing could have a much healthier long-term future if the BHA had sole control of media rights. Its secret would be to
charge less for them
to keep the maximum number of off-course bookmakers in business.
As it stands, racecourses – as individual entities, or groups like Northern and Arena – are revelling in a free-for-all. Do you seriously believe Northern and Arena would be in this business if they could not negotiate their own media rights?
When I was at Aintree in the mid ‘90s, only 12 racecourses were making an operating profit. Without the Levy, 47 racecourses would have been in deep trouble and would probably have closed.
I suspect that quite a few more racecourses could now survive without the Levy, but I doubt it is more than 50% of the current 60.
Prior to the advent of SiS, in the old Extel days, off course bookmakers paid for the blower commentary and wall sheets from Jackson & Lowe; their running costs for feeding info to customers would be minimal compared with today.
Back then, a shop taking £1m a year was a jewel in the crown, Two weeks ago I spoke to the MD of a prominent Midlands chain of independents who sent me his figures for a shop taking £1m a year – he closed it shortly afterwards as it was making a loss.
A bookmaker setting up today needs to find £14,000 PA for SiS and another £7,000, approximately, for Turf Tv. An independent also needs to pay the Gambling Commission about £1,700 a year for an operating license (The multiples pay about £250 a shop due to the highly inequitable Gambling Commission fee structure).
On top of these costs, add the normal operating expenses for a retail business – a business, remember, that cannot raise its prices; a business whose ‘natural’ margins have been seriously eroded by activity on the exchanges.
I met a long-established independent bookmaker a couple of months back who asked me if I knew of anyone who would take the keys to his eleven shops – at no cost. Celtic Bookmakers – a 60 shop chain in Ireland recently went bust. Hundreds of independents are closing each year.
The elimination, in the Gambling Act, of the demand criteria (new license applicants within a quarter mile of an existing shop had to prove that there was unmet demand in the area), has left independents as shrews in full view of the hovering hawks that are the ‘majors’.
Next time you’re in a town centre, take a look at how many major bookmakers are now, literally, next door to each other. Economies of scale allow them to run at tiny margins, FOBTs being the engine that keeps them ticking over (47% of the betting industry’s profits last year came from FOBT machines) yes, 47%.
When Extel were the sole broadcasters, racing’s share of the betting market was above 80%. Today it is below 50% and falling. The further it falls, the more the bookmakers celebrate because the nearer they come to being able to dispense with the costs of buying picture rights from racecourses.
Howard Chisholm runs 49 shops in the North east of England. His is a family company of more than 50 years’ standing. (Buying a 50th shop would push him into the next level of the daft Gambling Commission fees structure).
Mr Chisholm has never subscribed to Turf Tv. His business has not suffered though he has had to increase his concessions to keep punters, but those concessions are nowhere near as expensive as paying AMRAC £350,000 per annum for pictures.
Mr Chisholm is most astute. His estate is one of the few owned by independents that will probably survive. But his policy should teach racing two significant lessons:
1 A well-run off-course bookmaking business can survive without paying for pictures from the ‘major’ racecourses.
2 The large corporations will not be blind to that fact.Bookmakers do not need live pictures from racecourses to survive; all they need is a level playing field. Given the choice, I have no doubts at all that every single company would rewind to 1987 and happily resume with audio-commentaries from Extel at a paltry price.
So, independents are steadily closing. The big boys are slowly but surely taking the place of the independents. The stronger the big bookmakers grow, the weaker racing’s position becomes. I’d be the last person to suggest that a cartel might eventually be formed, but if half a dozen companies control 99% of the country’s betting shops, racing’s negotiating position will be substantially weakened.
Coral broke ranks and signed for Turf Tv just before the deadline (a deadline for Turf Tv partners AMRAC too – who were in dire trouble but tempted Coral with an excellent deal). Coral’s rivals were forced to follow, but do not assume that a reverse of the situation cannot happen – Howard Chisholm has proved there is life, and profits, without Turf Tv.
Nor should racing, or bookmakers, forget the singular basket of eggs that hosts almost half bookmakers profits. Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) are by no means a stable income source. The government has its beady tax eye on them as does the problem-gambling lobby.
Two years ago I asked the CEO of one of the major chains what would happen if FOBTs were abolished; “We’d close 80% of our shops” was the answer.
Tuffers, and many others believe that racing needs to find a funding mechanism other than the Levy; media rights is not that mechanism. Media rights is the Levy in fancy dress – the bookies still pay the bills.
Grand plans for income from sports betting rights (SBR) on racing will simply not happen. Bookmakers will stop accepting bets on horse racing rather than pay for SBR for the sport because to do so would be an implicit admission that all the sports they bet on are also entitled to a payment.
Bookmakers’ net profit is currently around the 2% to 3% mark. Add the costs of SBR for all sports and wave goodbye to High St betting shops. And good luck with getting a payment from the offshore online guys.
Alan Morcombe, CEO of the Horsemen’s Group, did not cover himself in glory in his previous business venture with Alphameric. Global businessman and highly respected judge Joe Lewis tried to unseat Mr Morcombe more than once, before the Alphameric CEO slipped away quietly having used his own 1% shareholding in the company to engineer his skin-of the-teeth survival in JL’s final coup attempt.
Mr Morcombe is credited with setting up AMRAC and driving Turf Tv – in fact the project was the brainchild of Alphameric’s Development Director, the very able Phil Siers – now retail MD at rival SiS.
After speaking at a seminar at the Betting Show some time back, Mr Morcombe’s first comment to a group of others (I was one of them) was “I thought I was pretty good in there, what do you think?” Read into that what you will. (Take a look at the stock market price performance of Alphameric during his tenure, prior to the AMRAC deal).
His ‘leadership’ of the Horsemen will, I believe, end in disaster. This tariff idea is a typically ill-thought-out practical and PR disaster which was driven through without detailed consultation with racecourses, or, more importantly, any consideration for the potential fallout from such a scheme.
It’s already proved a patchwork of back-pedalling and individual interpretation which should be a considerable embarrassment to HG members, let alone racing.
I’m all for mavericks in business; but mavericks almost always need an experieved hand who can lasso their gung-ho, heads-down-and-charge ferocity.
In conclusion, like it or not, bookmakers pay to keep racing alive as we know it – through media rights or Levy. They will not accept a sports betting rights structure. Those owners with horses talented enough to win at the top tracks should celebrate the Horsemen’s policy. The remainder might want to consider mid to long-term arrangements for re-homing or slaughter.
Joe,
Can I ask what you think an owner like Tuffers (who has horses that are winning this year but he is still struggling to cover his expenses) should do?
Imo he either:
1) Shuts up and accepts the status quo
2) Supports the tariff and boycotts those races that don’t meet it
3) Decides enough is enough and spends his leisure pound elsewhere.Or is there an alternative that I’ve missed?
No doubt there will be mistakes made and divisions re the tariff but at least it is an attempt to redress the balance and give owners, trainers and their staff a better return. If some races fall by the wayside does that not tell it’s own story about how attractive they are to O&T’s?
I’ve said it previously: Redistribute some of the prize money from the top tier to the middle to lower tiers.
One final point, if bookmakers wish to continue to push for dross meetings like we’ve seen on the a/w why should owners and trainers subsidise these meetings. Again redistribution of the funds to make the racing more attractive to all stakeholders is the only way forward or these meetings will slowly but surely disppear in any case.
I believe the first thing owners should do is find themselves representatives who have a coherent and plausible long term strategy which does not alienate the public and the theatres in which their horses ply their trade.
There seems to be some natural, unreasoned, assumption that if pressure is put on courses, the shockwave will eventually hit the off-course bookmakers.
The reality is that hundreds of betting shops are closing each year (others are opening but most are owned by the big four whose economies of scale, allied to the changes in the ‘demand’ criteria brought about by the Gambling Act 2005 (in force from September 07) allow them to dart in and bite from a ‘market-cake’ which is getting no bigger.
Bookmakers have been ‘educating’ punters in the charms of FOBTs and virtual racing in preparation for racing self-immolating. Courses will close and will not be missed by the bookies (no Levy to pay, no media rights for pics – huge cost savings = massive rise in profits: happy days).
Fewer courses mean fewer opportunities for horses to run and, naturally, further reductions in Levy. Media rights values will drop too as courses close meaning less prize money while, at the same time the Horsemen will be under pressure to ‘build on the success of their tariff policy’ by increasing tariffs further, which will exacerbate the vicious circle.
Don’t the Horsemen realise that the bookies are p1ssing themselves at this self-righteous campaign which is cannibalising the future?
When racing is dead, betting shops will still be full of punters – they might be talking about the good old days – but they’ll be betting on something else.
RIP the tariffs or RIP racing – take your pick.
In Mark’s position, I’d beware Greeks bearing gifts.
He’ll be gone by the end of the Flat.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
If this was an Auction, Mr. Dunlop would be admitting to running a Ring, and be liable to a criminal prosecution. Interesting legal position, when the other trainers have denied it.
Hence the rapid volte-face today. How much more ducking and diving is there going to be before the tariff lies in tatters?
Ill-conceived, poorly executed, inconsistent: a strategy it most definitely is not. It’s a ransom heist where the perps keep changing the rules.
Some might say they are cheating racegoers of value and the Levy of cash. And wasn’t somebody lying over the Leicester walkover?
Mr Balding and Mr Beckett claim today they engaged their runners ‘only in error’.
Yesterday’s quote from Mr Dunlop?
"We all have our views regarding the tariffs and I very much support them," said Dunlop.
"I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
The sore Horsemen of the Apocalypse: mount your high horses at Leicester, slip off quietly at Newbury
Trainer
Andrew Balding stoutly refused to declare his runner for tomorrow’s controversial Leicester race worth £7,000 less than it was ‘supposed to be’ according to the Horsemen’s tariff. Yet Mr Balding’s strong feelings about defending the tariff seem to have been set aside at declaration time for tomorrow’s Totescoop6 Spring Cup at Newbury where he runs Brick Red in a race offering almost £14,000 less than the tariff level.
Mr Balding said, “I’m pretty strong on the tariffs, but we have to judge every race on its merits. It’s still a £30,000 race and it’s just down the road. It’s tough for older horses with the programme. He missed the Lincoln and we’ve got no options to get him handicapped for races like the Hunt Cup at Royal Ascot.”
Is there a more staunch advocate of tariffs than Mark Johnston? Yet Mr Johnston has Greyfriarschorista in the Spring Cup explaining it away on the basis that by his reckoning the race is the equivalent of a normal 0-105 which would have a much lower tariff.
So Mr Balding is toeing the tariff line except when the track not meeting tariff is ‘just down the road’. And Mr Johnston has his own personal tariff menu based on his opinion of the race conditions.
The Horsemen set out on this tariff project with the zeal of crusaders. It appears the only time they want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder now on it is to quietly cook up a walkover.
Those who are sticking to the tariff structure no matter what – at least you deserve praise for consistency. Those who wriggle their way in and out of the tariff maze as it suits might want to consider checking in their principles when they pick up their badges at the racecourse entrance. They can always quietly collect them again on the way out.
Joe McNally
http://wp.me/p1o7dN-poI know all owners are not rich or ‘fat cats’ by any means, but I’m ultra-confident that’s how the tabloids will portray them.
As for the success of tariffs,is that going to be long term? What’s the exit strategy? If racecourses start closing, will it be reconsidered?
The recent about-face showed how much detailed planning had gone into the boycott ‘strategy’.
I think it is short term and ill-conceived and it will come back to bite you hard.
I’d happily bet there will be a mention of it in the non-industry press.
And do you think those Leicester racegoers wending their way home will feel they had full value? It’s not even a walkover based on principle. Full blog article below.
No such thing as bad publicity? Not in my book.
From the Press Association:
The Bet totepool At totesport.com Handicap at Leicester on Saturday will be a walkover after just one horse was declared in protest over the race tariff.
According to the tariff set by the Horsemen’s Group, the Class Three contest should hold a total prize-money fund of £13,000, but this race is worth just £6,000.
Having attracted three entries at the six-day stage, just Saint Helena will line up, but trainer Harry Dunlop insists he is not condoning the level of prize-money on offer.
“We all have our views regarding the tariffs and I very much support them,” said Dunlop.
“I discussed it with some of the other trainers and we thought the best way to do it would be to run one horse so Leicester would have to put up some prize-money.
“It’s a very difficult situation as there are actually five races on the card that are under tariff, but there were just three entries in our race and that changed the situation.
“My owners were very keen to run and they are very important, so that’s why we’re running.
“Obviously it doesn’t look very good for Leicester that they’ve got one runner in a race and I’m afraid prize-money needs to come up.
“I’ve never seen a walkover in Flat racing before and I think Leicester need to wake up and smell the coffee.
“They can see there is just one runner there and they will not want it to happen again in the future.”
Saint Helena will pick up the full prize-money fund if not declared a non-runner.
Leicester’s clerk of the course Jimmy Stevenson was left saddened by the situation.
“It’s disappointing, but it was sort of inevitable after we got the entries,” said Stevenson.
“The horse just have to go down to the furlong marker and come back in front of the judge.
“It’a unfortunate, but there’s not a lot we can do.”
The last walkover to take place under Rules in Britain was over jumps at Exeter in 2007, when Ballyfoy claimed victory after the two other runners were declared non-runners.
Many seem to count this Leicester walkover as a ‘success’ for the Horsemen. (The irony of the boycott affecting a sponsor who is racing’s biggest contributor by far seems to have escaped them)
It’s not a success for racing’s image, that’s for sure. It’s not even a walkover caused by men standing by their principles. It’s a walkover by conspiracy “So that Leicester would have to put up some prize money” I think you’ll find that the non-racing media will see it as a kidnapping story where the ransom was paid but the hostage wasn’t returned by the ‘fat cats who can afford to own racehorses’
Graham Cunningham told me it was ‘an industrial dispute’ in his eyes. Industrial disputes, in the eyes of the public, are the preserve of low-paid workers and black-faced miners with hungry kids.
I’m not saying prize money should or shouldn’t be increased, but we should all look after racing’s image, as the fallout from the Grand National showed.
Horsemen (could they have come up with a more anachronistic name?) crowing ‘success!’ about a walkover which deprives Leicester racegoers of value, the industry of Levy, and racing of respect, is shameful and embarrassing and another incision in racing’s death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts
Many seem to count this Leicester walkover as a ‘success’ for the Horsemen.
It’s not a success for racing’s image, that’s for sure.
The non-racing media will see it as a kidnapping story that finally delivered a ransom for the ‘fat cats who own racehorses’.
Graham Cunningham told me it was ‘an industrial dispute’ in his eyes. Industrial disputes, in the eyes of the public, are the preserve of low-paid workers and black-faced miners with hungry kids.
I’m not saying prize money should or shouldn’t be increased, but we should all look after racing’s image, as the fallout from the Grand National showed.
Horsemen (could they have come up with a more anachronistic name?) crowing ‘success!’ about a walkover which deprives Leicester racegoers of value, the industry of Levy, and racing of respect, is shameful and embarrassing in my view.
"THE PROBLEM MUST BE ADDRESSED!"
Yes. Unfortunately, nobody knows the postcode.
Brilliant stuff GT-I will again publish on my blog and link/credit to your post if that’s OK?
I have published all 40 highly detailed factfiles on blog for those interested: find the JSGN Factfile Category on right of the page this link takes you to http://wp.me/1o7dN – they are all under there
Not tips, just extensive history and background on horse/trainer/owner/jockey.
OND Somoza had over 200 views in a few hours, probably because there’s not much info out there on it. Next most popular is Becauseicouldntsee
Good luck to everyone tomorrow and all horses and jocks: My own shortlist is:
GOLDEN KITE
ORNAIS
CHIEF DAN GEORGE
IN COMPLIANCE
MAJ CONCORDE
THE MIDNIGHT CLUBI think CDG is the type to take to the fences/trip and he’d be the best value bet though TMC will go off quite a bit longer-priced than I thought it would. He looks very solid but am always looking for a value outsider.
Joe
I don’t want to cram the forum with lots of detail, but am equally conscious not to be trying to drive people to my blog.
Suffice to say that there are numerous GN Factfiles similar to the one below on my blog for anyone who’s interested.
Thanks
Joe
http://wp.me/1o7dNOSCAR TIME (IRE) FACTFILE
b g Oscar (IRE) – Baywatch Star (IRE) (Supreme Leader)
10-10-09 Form: 4243/2123217/23232214F/73152-263 Owner: Robert Waley-Cohen
Trainer: Martin Lynch IRE Breeder: Edmond Coleman Jockey: Mr Sam Waley-Cohen
Oscar Time
Oscar Time has only won four of 28 starts but is a model of consistency, having filled the runner-up berth 10 times. The gelding passed through the sales ring for 37,000 euros as a three-year-old at Tattersalls Ireland in August, 2004, with Martin Lynch the buyer. As a four-year-old at Goffs in May, 2005, Emerald Bloodstock paid 40,000 euros for him. The gelding started his racing career at Martin Lynch’s Stepaside yard in the ownership of Navan-based Eamon Kane. Having made his debut with a fourth place in a Roscommon bumper in October, 2006, Oscar Time won at the sixth attempt in that sphere, defeating subsequent Grade One winner Weapon’s Amnesty by half a length at Thurles in January, 2008.
A victory over hurdles followed that April but his biggest success to date came over fences when winning the Paddy Power Chase at Leopardstown in December, 2009, in which he defeated Siegemaster by seven lengths. In April, 2010, Oscar Time showed his potential for the John Smith’s Grand National when finishing runner-up to Bluesea Cracker in the Irish Grand National at Fairyhouse. Following that effort, Robert Waley-Cohen and Sir Martin Broughton purchased the gelding with Waley-Cohen going on to say: “He was bought with the specific target of going to the National. He was second in the Irish National last year and Sam rides him. He has the perfect profile."
Oscar Time has raced thrice this season, each time ridden by Waley-Cohen’s son, the Gold Cup-winning amateur, Sam Waley-Cohen. After finishing second to Rick in the Rock Of Cashel Hurdle at Thurles in November, Oscar Time was then a good sixth in a competitive three-mile handicap hurdle at Leopardstown in December. His latest start came over fences when third in the Grade Two BobbyJo Chase at Fairyhouse on February 23, five lengths behind The Midnight Club.
Race Record: Starts: 28; Wins; 4; 2nd: 10; 3rd; 6: Win & Place Prize Money: £194,237
Robert Waley-Cohen
Robert Waley-Cohen enjoyed his greatest day as an owner in March, 2011, when his amateur rider son Sam Waley-Cohen partnered Long Run to win the Cheltenham Gold Cup, trained by long-time friend Nicky Henderson. The gelding, at six the youngest Gold Cup winner since Mill House in 1963, had landed the King George VI Chase at Kempton in December, aged five. Although Robert Waley-Cohen had a few rides in point-to-points, he described himself as an incredibly bad amateur – “Wrong shape, wrong weight, not fit enough – basically, just thoroughly incompetent”. Born on November 10, 1948 and the founder of healthcare giant Alliance Medical, Robert Waley-Cohen is no stranger to big race success at Aintree as his Rustle won the Bumper in 1987 and the Sefton Novices’ Hurdle the following season while Wont Be Gone Long took the Topham Chase in 1990 and Liberthine collected the same race in 2006 under Sam.
He trains a few horses himself under permit and sent out Katarino to win the John Smith’s Fox Hunters’ Chase in 2005 and 2006 again ridden by Sam. A member of the Jockey Club since 1983, where he has been a steward, he has a small team of around 10 broodmares at Upton Viva in Warwickshire and is also a director of Cheltenham racecourse – he will become Chairman of Cheltenham racecourse when Lord Vestey steps down at the end of this season. He has horses in training with Guillaume Macaire in France as well as Nicky Henderson. His son Tom died of cancer in July, 2004, making Liberthine and Katarino’s exploits even more poignant. Tom’s Ward at Oxford Children’s Hospital is named after him.
John Smith’s Grand National Record: 2003 Katarino (UR 15th); 2007 Liberthine (5th)
Martin Lynch IRE
Stepaside, County Dublin trainer Martin Lynch (born June 6, 1958) is a former jockey who enjoyed his biggest day in the saddle when winning the 1990 Vincent O’Brien Gold Cup on the John Upson-trained Nick The Brief. The Meath native learned his trade as an amateur rider with Clem Magnier and John Fowler, winning the Morgiana Hurdle on Fowler’s Royal Dipper. After turning professional, Lynch won the 1985 Thyestes Chase aboard Seskin Bridge and was second to Rhyme N’ Reason on the same horse in that year’s Irish Grand National. He rode Elfast to win the Mildmay Of Flete at the 1992 Cheltenham Festival before hanging up his riding boots. After taking out a trainer’s licence in Ireland, he leased Bill Durkan’s yard at Glencairn before relocating shortly afterwards to Middleton Park in County Westmeath.
As a trainer, he enjoyed the biggest success of his career when Oscar Time landed the 190,000 euros Paddy Power Chase at Leopardstown in December, 2009. He is married to former trainer Suzanne Finn, a herbalist and acupuncturist, who is credited by the trainer with helping prepare the fussy eater Oscar Time for the Paddy Power Chase. He also trained the high-class Colonel Yeager to finish fourth in the 1999 Grade One Supreme Novices’ Hurdle at the Cheltenham Festival. Lynch has never trained more than five winners in a season, which he achieved in the 1995/96 and 1996/97 seasons.
John Smith’s Grand National Record: No previous runners
Mr Sam Waley-Cohen
Sam Waley-Cohen, 28, was born on April 15, 1982. In March of this year, he became the first amateur rider to partner a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner since Jim Wilson in 1981, when triumphing aboard Long Run, on whom he had also won the King George VI Chase at Kempton in December, 2009. His father Robert Waley-Cohen owns Long Run and is a director of Cheltenham Racecourse (soon to be Chairman), permit holder and owner/breeder who has most of his horses in training with Nicky Henderson. Sam studied politics at Edinburgh University and lives in London. He has established his own dental company, Portman Healthcare. He started out on the point-to-point circuit and is now a high-profile amateur rider with several prestigious prizes under his belt. His first success under Rules came aboard Moscow Dancer in an amateur riders’ handicap hurdle at Kelso on December 1, 2003. Liberthine gave Sam a first Cheltenham Festival victory in the 2005 Mildmay Of Flete Handicap Chase. His record at Aintree is the envy of many professional riders, with three wins from 10 starts over the Grand National fences. His first triumph over the famous course came aboard his father’s Katarino in the 2005 John Smith’s Fox Hunter’s Chase.
The pair followed up in the 2006 John Smith’s Fox Hunters’ Chase and Sam enjoyed a fantastic double as he also guided Liberthine to victory in the following day’s John Smith’s Topham Chase over the big spruce fences. His successes over the Grand National course prompted a change in the rules, which prevented riders from participating in the main event if they had ridden less than 15 winners under Rules. Riders are now able to ride in the race, at the discretion of the BHA, if they have partnered 10 winners under Rules. Waley-Cohen took advantage of this new ruling in the 2007 John Smith’s Grand National to partner Liberthine around Aintree once more and the pair enjoyed a superb race, leading for much of the second circuit before fading to finish fifth behind Silver Birch.
Waley-Cohen returned to Aintree in 2008 to partner Katarino in the John Smith’s Fox Hunter’s Chase and the 13-year-old, making his first appearance since winning the same race two years earlier, produced a game front-running performance, only to be passed at the elbow by Christy Beamish. Waley-Cohen enjoyed a productive season on both sides of the English Channel in 2008/09, winning an amateur steeplechase at Auteuil just days after partnering Tricky Trickster to victory in the National Hunt Chase at the Cheltenham Festival. Last season, he enjoyed Grade One success aboard Long Run in the Feltham Novices’ Chase, while he rode Isn’t That Lucky to finish third in the Topham Chase at Aintree, although Little Rocker fell at the sixth fence in the John Smith Fox Hunters’. Waley-Cohen is a close friend Prince William and Kate Middleton and is widely credited with reuniting the pair following their brief break-up in 2007. The future Queen was at school with Sam’s brother, Tom, who died of bone cancer, aged 20, in 2004. Sam is engaged to be married to party planner Annabel Ballin in June.
John Smith’s Grand National Record: 2007 Liberthine (5th); 2009 Ollie Magern (Fell 2nd)
