The bookmakers need racing. I have this debate about F1. F1 is held by the balls by the car makers at the moment, which is why they have these ****ty green engines- to market each car makers road cars. My argument is simple- if the big boys don't like the F1 rules, don't play ball. These car makers are famous BECAUSE of F1, and if they left plenty of car makers would step up and enjoy the advertising platform of F1. For me, if the big bookmakers don't want to contribute to the sport they make a killing from by stupid sods like us betting, then I'm sure there are some smaller bookies who would play by the rules to take up the power vacuum? The bookies without racing would be lost. It's always he most prominent thing advertised and as people say, most of the absolute dross racing is FOR the bookmakers. I don't know if my view is too simplistic but I think if you want to make a profit from a sport, you need to put something into it.
I think I agree Top Class in that Bookies do still need racing and so if racing can organise itself and refine it's product then it will have something properly marketable to the bookies. As it is Racing has to subsidise so many fixtures which is why horses compete for £1800 to the winner very often, a sum which when the expenses of Transport, Jockey, win fees and entry is taken out must not even pay the horses training fees for the month, and that was the winner. I cannot see how a race should be worth less than 5k, surely you must recognise the sport is over populated if you are racing for less than 2k in a sport called the sport of kings. I would make a rule tomorrow stating that from next season no race can have a winners prize of less than 5k, if a course cannot guarantee that through sponsorship or revenue then it is not fit to host this fixture.
Wow, hell of an interesting thread and very educational for the basically uninformed, like me! The only opinion I have is probably that the number of tracks should be 'trimmed', and 'new-openings' should be cancelled for the forseeable future, especially those damn synthetic courses? There are just too many racecourses at the moment. The bookmaker problem? I just give up on these people. But it is what the betting folk want in the UK and Ireland, so it's here to stay. Another question is the extraordinary timidity of some big bookmakers nowadays (judging from various comments from punters on this forum); they seem act like chicken-livered junior accountants at times? Before I quit betting 'seriously' like, (occasionally a man-size bet), some years ago, I always found PP absolutely OK, never had a betting problem with them, must say.
I have not really been following the racing all that closely Swanny, but it seems to me that a lot of the hunt races are very thin on starters. Small fields seem the norm on a lot of the English race days while off the top of my head, that does not seem the case for synthetic tracks. Forgive me if I have it all arse about. But if it's true, then maybe it's the hunt courses that need the chop.
I know what you mean Blue but I can't agree totally with that. I would say such fixtures could not be held under the Rules of the BHA. There is no reason why there couldn't be a second tier of Racing. This tier would receive no funding and venues would receive their income from membership fees, entry fees, stabling fees and any sponsorship they could attract, and pay prize money they could afford (ie self funding venues). Tracks that weren't able to be maintained to a safe standard would be closed. The top tier would be the elite, ranging from novice to Group standard. You would find the best jockeys and horses would be registered with the BHA and compete at the top tier tracks. The not so good jockeys and horses would compete in the lower tier but if they became good enough they would register with the BHA in order to compete in the top tier. The top tier would be funded, with fewer, better race tracks, bigger race entries and bigger prize money. Apologies for using the show jumping scene again but they seem to have it right with Affiliated and Unaffiliated. Affiliated horses/ponies and riders are affiliated to the British Show Jumping organisation and are eligible to compete at "affiliated" shows. Unaffiliated horses/ponies and riders can only compete at unaffiliated shows. There are effectively 2 tiers; the elite being those registered with the BS and the rest registered with the Pony Club. Not sure of the numbers but the Pony Club (for horses and ponies incidentally) has a significantly larger membership (which is only to be expected). The only other comment I would make at this stage is that maybe the top tier racing shouldn't be on every day of the week (other than Festivals) although there would be nothing to stop registered tracks holding unaffiliated events if they found it to be profitable. The better quality All Weather tracks, in my opinion, will rise in popularity as they can be run under floodlights in the evenings and the surface is more consistent. Under the 2 tier system I would expect the quality of racing on these surfaces to improve. Eventually all the top tracks would have turf and AW surfaces. When AW started out top horses avoided them and we got low quality events. This is gradually changing and will continue to do so with it becoming common practice for top horses to compete on both surfaces (again, this has been common practice in show jumping for decades). We will certainly perform better at the international AW tracks and possibly attract more competitors from abroad.
We could crowd fund Mr Mullins to pull a couple of horses out of Cheltenham to give everyone else a chance!
That is true, Cyc, for NH racing, especially when there are 'extremes' of ground conditions, either end. I am a bit of a devil with synthetic tracks, and probably unfair too, as there is certainly good-class racing at Kempton and Lingfield a lot of the time, as Stick I think it was who reminded me once. However a lot of the big fields at these synthetic courses contain so many very poor-class horses, who rarely run to any sort of form, and, as such, only benefit bookmakers. That is my main gripe, and why I feel the number of racecourses should be trimmed, as suggested above by other members.
Racing needs an identity. Who are they trying to appeal to? They need to focus on the audience they WANT to attract and go for that. To me the problem with racing is, apart from the 'hardcore' who else gives a **** about it and sees it other than a day/night out where you get steaming drunk! So by trying to appeal to the masses (Royal Ascot week with Gok ducking Wan) they are trying to appeal to people that aren't interested. There is two hopes of my Mrs sitting down to watch the fashion at RA and Bob's out of town! This is especially relevant for funding and why racing fails to attract household named sponsors. Bookies don't need racing anymore as they have the FOBT's that fund most of their shops and the online casino games where people lose ducking fortunes! So I can see their argument for saying, you know what, we're OK thanks. When you walk into a bookies nowadays, where are people stood? By the screens watching the racing? Nope, they're gathered round the machines pumping note after note in. Yes I like a £2.50 e/w on a horse a couple of days a week but they don't give two hoots about that and would happily lose me. Racing needs to bring itself into the 21st century, not have a half assed attempt at a few hashtags on the morning line and CH4 afternoon racing. It's backward in so many ways and needs SOOOOOOO much work on the infra-structure that I'm not sure if it can be saved long term...
Not against a two tier system Ron but could be a danger of finding itself not sufficiently regulated and leading still again to too much breeding, not enough animal welfare and dodgy betting. Put simply we need to move towards quality over quantity instead of how we have been going which is the other way. If there are no races for poorly bred horses people will stop breeding them, if trainers are not sent horses that can win races they will stop training, in three to four years time we have less courses, less trainers, less horses and better prize money at profitable courses and racing of well bred horses again.
If that's what is required then yes over time it will work itself out (although 3 to 4 years might be optimistic). However well horses are bred (needs defining), not all will be good enough to compete at the elite level. Where would they go? I suspect that it is not possible to register a horse for racing unless the dam is registered and the sire is a registered stallion so I'm assuming there is already some control on the breeding front. I'm not in favour of restricting racing to the richest people; that would kill off any romance in the sport and deprive horse lovers of a very rewarding past time. I think a 2 tier system is less likely to create welfare problems. Virtually every sport has tiered structures. Don't forget that most people have animals firstly as companions and secondly (if good enough) to compete (dogs, cats, birds etc etc) and do not expect to make a profit. Again for all these there are tiered systems for competitions and not everyone can afford to compete at the top tier(s) or have animals good enough to compete at those levels. But they can have a lot of fun competing at their own levels. I wouldn't want to take that pleasure away and I feel the same about horse racing. It's a difficult subject and it wouldn't surprise me if more thought has gone into it in this and other similar threads from the past than has been forthcoming from the Racing for Change (apologies for mentioning that waste of space)
If you had less racing, less racehorses, less racecourses, less trainers etc then the inevitability is that there are a lot of jobs that will be going begging chaps. All these fixtures are to satisfy the need of the bookmakers to have racing on screens from 1.00pm till 8.00pm even on a Friday in December. If you want to see what the industry is worth you only have to click on Betfair and see the sums invested on even the most modest affairs. The truth is that although it may not be the huge turnover it once was gambling on racing represents a sizeable chunk of bookmaker turnover. The two sides need each other and the Done sabre rattling is precisely that. If they didn't need it why would some voluntarily cough up for it? This argument often comes down to the slating of all weather racing. Having been to a number of all weather meetings at Kempton and Lingfield recently I can tell you the gate money is not supporting the game! In defence of the all weather there are some fantastic meetings that get put on these days. Probably the biggest flat crowd of the season outside of Epsom was for the AW championship this year.
BTW, we won two excellent races with Squire this season and had place money a few times. He didn't quite cover his costs for the season!
How true is it that only a handful of courses would actually stand on their own feet without being subsidised by the Levy? If any exist, should they by put to the sword? Being non essential enterprises, do they deserve the right to demand ongoing assistance after decades of failure? These struggling businesses now seem to look upon the Levy as a right when it should probably be seen as more of a privilege. I don't know how the tracks can get more people through the gate, but I think the onus for their survival should be fundamentally placed in their own hands.
I always remember Roger Charlton stating that a few years ago one of his won 6 races, in a term, and said beast still failed to cover its training expenses!
That’s a strange analogy, old boy. Mr Cameron is a keen racing fan (his father, also coincidentally named Mr Cameron, part owned a Group 1 winner in the 1990’s and our Premier has spoken fondly in the past about days spent at Newbury racecourse in his youth) whilst Jerry, a committed vegetarian who views horse racing as animal abuse, would quite happily ban the sport of the morrow.
This is perhaps more of an indication of the horse population and the scheduling of fixtures. As Swanny pointed out, the large fields on the synthetic courses are often comprised of very moderate animals, whose inconsistency of form makes for racing that helps turn a profit for the bookmakers. They would argue that this should be encouraged, since the Levy is based on their profits not turnover. Too many punter-friendly results are ultimately bad news for racing’s finances. There are a lot of small fields in National Hunt racing because the reforms to the schedule have created too many ordinary midweek novice events so trainers are able to avoid running their better prospects in competitive heats whilst picking up some prize money to pay the bills; and then target some of the better prizes at the big weekend meetings and ultimately the spring festivals.
