The funding crisis in horseracing

And another thing horse-racing in the UK and Internationally has fecked up on is providing accessible rankings for its competitors.
Two other sports that also fail in this respect are boxing ( too many governing bodies each with their own lists ) and athletics where the WR holder can be different from the World Champion who is different from the fastest in the world this year who could be different from the person with the best competitive record.
Tennis, when the world 240 is pitched against the world 24 gets it right - this is meaningful information, you might be able to do a better home-made ranking but not by much, and the public grasps it. It's simple, it's a quality guy in the world's top two dozen against a guy 200 places worse, he should win easily but it's no certainty.
Horse-racing should do likewise internationally and nationally, and update within an hour of the result of each big race so a new number 1 or whatever can be declared before people go home. And no ****-footing with different rankings for different distances, just one ranking for all, one World Number 1 and one British Number 1. You could give the contract to John Whiteley or Timeform, just set some objective criteria, no weight-for-age, or sex allowances, time-period 2 years, use a collateral form database updatable within an hour of the result and get cracking. It doesn't matter if a handful of people could do better, the vast majority couldn't. Stick the end of season international negotiation into touch.
Tell people that the Arc features the World's number 6 and 9, that the Abbaye features the Worl numbers 70 and 74, the Champion Stakes Britain's 2 and 3. The public 'get' contests described this way, they don't get pounds,  furlongs, allowances as easily.
But try persuading the BHB - you'd have more chance persuading them that 2 chins are better than 1.

I agree Bongo that the structure of Racing is confusing to the unitiated (Lori made similar points earlier) . And also that Boxing is another Sport which is hard to follow for the same reasons.

The great majority of people that take an interest in any Sport are only interested in the highest levels of it.

With Racing and Boxing it is not too easy for the casual observer to ascertain what these are.

They might watch the Sussex Stakes and understand the significance when it is explained to them that it is a contest between the best horses at a Mile in Europe, but then the next race will be a 0-85 handicap and it's hard for them to see what it is or why they should care about that.

Would be better i'd say if  the top courses only staged races of Listed Class and above (and the 50k+ handicaps i suppose)  . And these would be the only ones shown on terrestial TV . Each time racing was on BBC or C4 , the runners would be drawn from the same pool of 200 or so elite horses and so the occasional viewer would become familar with them, and , even without official rankings as suggested above , would get an idea of how good they were in relation to each other and at which distance .

I have only bet on 2 horse races since  June , but i've watched 2 dozen (all group races) as i am interested in the Sport at the top level .I have no interest at all in the lower class stuff and can't see why anyone  (other than the participants ) would ever be.

It seems unrealistic to me that racing expects the entire sport to be 'funded ' anyway . In any other  Sport the only people making a living out of it are the elite, other participants are involved purely for enjoyment . People who run Sunday League Football teams don't expect to be getting tens of thousands of pounds a year out of it so why should people who own mediocre racehorses?

Tobermory, the betting public's favourite events tend to be big-field handicaps run over a variety of distances.

With the recent compression of the handicap at the top, the horses now tend to be within a stone of each other, though historically there has been a thirty-two pound spread between established and emerging runners, the horses at the top being Group class and those at the bottom rated in the mid-70s.

Part of the betting interest of races like the Lincoln, the Magnet, the Ebor, the Cambridgeshire etc. and many sprints has been that even novice punters have felt that they have a chance, while another aspect of the appeal for the more initiated has been trying to make out plots and 'good things'.

In order to get a handle on these kinds of races, the aficionado needs to be on top of well over 1,000 horses, or else trust to others' judgment, form figures and ratings or some impression of humans' (trainers', jockeys') abilities.

Personally I find the Royal Hunt Cup at least as interesting as e.g. the Queen Anne; the winning training performance is usually more skilled. I don't think you can attempt to draw people into the sport without making it clear that they will need to manage a lot more information than, say, for Formula 1 if they are going to get hooked.

You'll know better than me Sandown, although I did regularly bet horses in 1991. I seem to remember there were fewer races per meeting (pretty much exclusively 6, occasionally 7) back then whereas at a glance there seem to be more than 6 on a regular basis these days.

Won't make a huge difference I'm sure, but suspect it'll be some of it. Might be an argument for more races per meeting anyway (giving value and all that jazz).

What a surprise! Racing and bookmakers have failed to reach agreement and the current levy dispute is to be settled by Govt.

As Govt's decision will be heavily influenced by the views of the independent members of the levy board, and as a report prepared by Deloitte's on behalf of the independent members, largely rubbished Racing's claims and arguments,it seems likely that Racing will not get anywhere near it's demand for £150m (really?).

What with Roy shooting himself in the foot (over BF shares) and Paul Dixon sounding (and looking) like Bob Crow what with his strike threat, the whole process is in keeping with the arrival of the pantomime season.

We have all the ingredients we could possible want for a show. The Horsemen's Group would of course supply the horse, Paul Dixon as the head and any number of candidates for the back end. The 7 dwarfs will be supplied by the jockey's representatives, the Ugly Sisters could be filled by reps from Hillies, Laddies & Korals. Nic Coward could audition for the part of Jack as he is after the bag of gold but has just a few beans of argument in support.paul Roy could play Dick Whittington because clearly he believes that the streets of the City of London really are paved with gold.Who better to play The Fairy Godmother than Hunt, the Culture Secretary who has to decide on how much dosh Racing is to get.Cinderella could be played by Harry Findlay as he doesn't seem to get an invitation to the Ball. Prince Charming is a role up for grabs. Needs someone who is reasonably media savvy but without much of a brain.Derek Thomson perhaps?

We, the BF forum can play the audiance. Get ready with your boos and hisses. I'm practicing my cry of "He's behind you!" as we speak.

Worth noting on this thread the donation of £250,000 from Betfair to the horsemans group. The receipients said the moeny would go towards shoring up the bottom level prize money. It's entirely understandable that Betfair no longer want to pay the voluntary levy in tradition manner!

Talking of pantomine, the amateur production of the BHA submission to the levy board must leave those within racing now fearing for the future.

Apols for the speiling mishtakes. *recipients

There is a special report on "horse racing in crisis" tonight at 7.30pm on sky sports news.

Thanks Hazel. I'll watch it.

Last week we had David Cameron trumpeting that he had achieved a spectacular success in holding the EU budget increase to 2.9% when all round Europe countries are having to use an axe to public spending. Makes you wonder how any organisation which doesn't have to worry too much about its income will ever achieve any drastic reductions in its cost base without some external driver.

Which brings me to the horse racing industry. Just what is it that would lead to the industry undergoing a reduction to its cost base in order to get its financial affairs in order?

Obviously, turkeys will not vote for Christmas, so we can't expect to see trainers acting to reduce their training establishments unless they lose owners which forces them to act.

So, owners drive the agenda. By paying exorbitant prices for animals they keep the breeding side afloat and by paying the asked for training fees they keep the trainers in business.Only owners can force down the cost base by threatening to scale back. The fact that they don't suggests that the drop in prize money levels is not feeding through to change their behaviour.

Of course, if they start sending their horses to foreign trainers and to foreign races at the expense of British racing then the effects will be felt, as has happened apparently in Ireland.

Courses have driven up their prices in order to balance their books and have done so without losing attendances although we are told that being in the racecourse business is not especially lucrative and non-racing income is vital as is contributions to prize money through the Levy.There really is no pressure to reduce the number of meetings and horses in training unless prixe-money falls off completely.

So, it seems that the necessary pressure to reduce the cost base isn't really there. It's no wonder that the Horsemen's Group sees the income from betting and media rights as the only lever that it wants to pull. Like the EU it will go on crying for more and more subsidy without ever thinking twice that perhaps the time is right for vigorous pruning.

I think there will necessarily be attrition at the bottom, though.

There is a disconnect between trainers who get horses from the big or even smaller breeding operations and those who have to make do picking up sub-20k purchases for owners at the sales. These people are getting almost nothing in prize money and their owners will drop out. The gaffs where their horses run have slashed prize money and hiked entrance fees and are still struggling to survive.

In countries like America the sport is pretty much for a social elite of owners, a group of  professional clahorsemen and women and a small number of strung-along enthusiasts. In Australia, by contrast, ownership is very broadly based and the sport more broadly popular. We are going down the first route.

*professional horsemen

Muqballs, you just a mistake, Period, .

Nicely summed up, Sandown.

I see no reason small owners will drop out of the sport, Askari. Winning a couple of low grade handicaps as things stand would probably just about cover a weeks training fees and travel costs to a meeting. A further reduction would not make much difference to this bottom line?

(PS. Apologies, I seem to have aquired a wierdo stalker!)

Can there have ever been a more ludicrous threat to strike than that put forward by the Horseman's Group?


Just who do these people think is going to suffer the most from this?


Not the punters, who will just shift their betting to some other sport.


Not the bookmakers,who have plenty of alternatives to push.

Racegoers will be deprived of action and may be annoyed but is the race-going enthusiastic public the group that the Horseman's group really want to upset?


Race-courses will suffer, but they are hardly the problem, are they, in this funding crisis?

No, the real sufferers will be the trainers, the jockeys and the owners who make up the Horseman's Group. Deprived of income, prize money and opportunities for wish-fulfillment, the HG will maintain the strike until such time that they have embarked on nothing other than a futile self-imposed hunger-strike which nobody else really cares about.

Onwards, onwards charged the 600, into the valley of death. Another stupid action by horsemen I seem to remember reading about. Or cavalry charging machine guns in WWI. What is it about horsemen that requires them to have so little grey matter between their ears?

that they realise that they  have embarked on nothing other

I read somewhere (possibly rp?) that Dixon had obtained some actual figures for the big off course firms income / gross rake from horse racing. If he had these figures, surely his best course of action would be to make them public? If the figures are as he suggests making a total mockery of racing then he might garner more support from a wider audience. As things stand he is alienating the very people who are funding the prize money kitty along with many others. The last racing person to go headlong into battle with all and sundry left the game in a total shambles, pitched battles breaking out left right and centre. Not surprisingly racing came out a poor second!

Interesting article from Andrew Beyer about the crisis in the states in todays washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110307591.html

"We learned that less is more," said General Manager Bob Kulina. "If you put a good product out there, people will bet it.

An especially interesting comment, Zilzal1

Honestly believe that racing as we know it will not be around in the next 10-15 years.  It's on the shelf waiting to be knocked off and all signs are pointing down.

Muqbil, the small owners will not drop out b/c of any change in racing prize levels or training fees but b/c they will find it harder to finance their racing losses out of their other activities.

Economic hard times will make racing an unaffordable luxury.

That was my reasoning, anyway.

Ah sorry, askari1. Totally misunderstood.

Yes, there are some uneven bumps in the road ahead for everyone. The figures at the latest horses in training sales seemed to hold up well, although I'm sure the basic figs obscure a less rosy outlook.

Muqbil, I was surprised to see how well these figs. had held up.

I still feel that many good but not top-class horses that in the past wd have stayed in the country to be campaigned over in NH are going to Dubai.

Against this, we are seeing more PTP horses and French-breds coming to dominate the novice NH ranks.

Over the past week we have seen the Levy Board confirm a further £10m cut, the Govt. planning to wash its hands of racing - the sport doesn't figure in it's future priorities (DCMS business plan) and the courses's leader, Aitkin, warning of fixture losses.Can things get any worse?

Well, yes they can. Over the next couple of years the media will swamp us with increasing coverage of the London Olympics,the next World Cup, the Ashes, the Premier League, the Champions League. Then there's Wimbledon, Ryder Cup, other big golf events, cricket generally,the list is virtually endless.Where will racing figure in all of this? It's becoming a non-event. Will the end-of-season Flat finale at Ascot revive things? Sure it will! Once Cheltenham and Aintree is over followed by the Epsom Derby and Royal Ascot there is very little else that will get off the inside pages.Oh for a Melbourne Cup type response in the UK.

If there is one thing that must top the list of priorities for racing it is to re-structure entirely how it is presented both to the media and to the public by the media. The media needs to be persuaded to modernise its approach. Just how boring has it all got? Racing has two dedicated channels talking to the few who are interested. The approach of using commentators to discuss races in the time-honoured manner of discussing every horse and then each giving their selection for the race is old-fashioned and useless in as much as there is never any evaluation of tipping performance for fear of being found out as useless.TV treats its viewers as all being total newcomers to the sport when the opposite is the reality. The only people watching are those who know as much if not more than the commentators.There needs to be a wholesale clear-out of the people  who bore us all to death - the Thomsons, the McCriricks, the Lesleys and others who either don't know anything or who think their celebrity is what matters. There are enough really knpwledgable people who you could build re-vamped programmes around.

A bit of a rant this morning, I'm afraid, which is usually the sign that I'm becoming frustrated with the lack of any understanding of the issues let alone action that can improve the crisis facing racing. It's not just about funding, that's just the most outward sign, it's about the sport and its future within our culture.

Presenting spam as steak won't make it steak.

The arrival of satellite television and particularly the internet signalled the onset of a fundamental weakening of racing's position in the nation's sporting psyche. There are now many more interesting and attractive alternatives to a badly run, corrupt, unintelligible, saturated, minority-interest hobby.

The racing industry has yet to accept its new position at the lower end of the pecking order, but the approaching years of general austerity will see to that.

I've just skim-read BF's submissions re. the Consultation Process & the levy, the treatment of BF & its customers etc.
http://corporate.betfair.com/sitecore/content/B/Betfair/Homepage/media/press-releases/2010/~/media/Files/B/Betfair/pdf/HBLB-Consultation-Exercise-Betfair-Submission.pdf

This is the equivalent of a nuclear strike in written form.Detailed, tightly-argued, clear, logical, thorough, powerful. You can't fail to be impressed if you look at it. The best brains have been at work on this, for sure. Racing's case as contained in its March submission pales by comparison. It must surely be 1/100 that any rulings will go against BF and in favour of Racing, or trad. bookmakers.

oops. That should be 100/1 against! not 1/100 on.

Here's a tasty little morsel from Australia, as reported on RP site:


Betfair considering its options after losing a Federal Court appeal over the payment of rights fees to Racing NSW.

The online betting exchange challenged Racing NSW's right to charge a fee of 1.5 per cent of turnover under the Race Fields legislation introduced in September 2008, arguing they should pay a percentage of gross revenue


At a stroke of a pen, legislation might be introduced which would solve the funding crisis. 1.5% of gross t/o amounts to a lot of ££'s.If BF's margin is around 4% with £300m income then their gross is about £7.5 billion which would realize around £110m or twice their last reported net profit. Hey ho.

Who would be worst affected, assuming that BF pass it on? All the low margin high t/o traders & bot operators, that's who. Position players would be hurt but not wiped out because they are not as price sensitive ad the traders etc.It would make life very difficult for the arbers, no doubt, too.

Don't say it would never happen because it just might.

My last 2 postings represent opposite ends of the spectrum demonstrating the fog of uncertainty surrounding this issue. Just a thought, but do you think this news from NSW is factored into the BF share price?.

Sandown, the OFT stated many years back that they wouldn't entertain a levy scheme that discriminated against exchanges and stipulated "e.g. a levy on turnover". The BHA and the bookmakers were making turnover noises at the time having seen how successful betfair had become and how it was affecting their margins (this was before Lord Haw-Haw's SP "reforms"). Of course the tory OFT might see things differently.

Yeh, I remember now Feck. And of course, my deliberate mistake was to use total t/o not horseracing uk t/o which is what , 40 or 50% of total. Still would make a tasty sum.I'd never say never when it comes to Govts doing u-turns on anything.

I read the bf levy submission a few weeks back and was surprised by the lack of response on the forum.  It is a very well written document and was interesting even just for an understanding of other areas such as gambling via bf being non taxable in uk etc.  I really can't see how bf will lose this.

This NSW 1.5% turnover idea just isn't workable on bf under the current structure if I have understood correctly (if it were to be passed directly to customers)?  An example of absurdity would be backing a 1.01 shot as this would lose you money whether won or lost?  Maybe I have misunderstood - my stumbling block being the definition of "turnover". Would be interesting to know how turnover would be calculated on a bet from both backer's and layer's perspective i.e., chargeable on liability?  I am assuming "turnover" is meant at bet level because a "percentage of gross revenue" is a percentage taken from the commission bf take?

I agree Getafix with both your points but it is possible to get around the second point. The BF submissions have indeed been excellent and like you say they have not been mentioned on here.

The t/o issue could be got round by the use of "implied" figures which BF themselves have introduced as a concept when working out implied commission. Just work up from an assumed margin of say 4% and Bob's your uncle- an "implied" t/o figure.

When the first ever internet exchange (interbet) started up the C&E insisted they paid turnover tax on both backer and layer stakes. Bookmakers were charging 9% on stake at the time (tax+levy+fiddle) and interbet had to do the same. Obviously it never took off. Betfair & Flutter got very very lucky in that they started up when most bookmakers were moving offshore and a gp tax was already being touted as a replacement. Had they started up at any other time (and I think the timing was pure luck) exchanges would've been strangled at birth. Obviously the offshore option would've been there but, unlike high street bookmakers, they would've had no advertising outlets bar the internet. When you consider how long it took them to get beyond the fiver swap shop stage within the UK it's quite possible they would never have taken off offshore.

In full agreement with the above posts, the Betfair submission made the BHA documents appear as though they had been thrown together during an extended lunchtime pub session.

A pure turnover tax would surely kill exchanges stone dead?

Here's evidence that changes to the current state of affairs are afoot and a little closer to home. From the RP site:


HORSE RACING IRELAND said on Friday it was "pleased" that the Irish Bookmakers' Association had aligned itself with the position it holds on betting tax.

Chief economist Colm McCarthy has recommended that the Irish government doubles off-course betting tax to two per cent in next month's budget and applies it to all betting and gambling companies operating in Ireland,


And just to make all those low margin-high voulme players on exchanges think twice about how easy it is to make money on exchanges without ever having to have  an opinion, there's this tasty morsel :

McCarthy's report also suggests a levy of one per cent "on both layer and bettor" on the betting exchanges.

Of course, it could never happen here. Could it?

I would like to see Betfair move offshore.

Muqbil

I would like to see Betfair move offshore.


I will not be surprised if this loophole is closed very soon.

Could a levy tax on exchange users be the final nail in the coffin for the racing industry? If the bookies are to be believed that most money is now diverted through betfair a 1%+ raise on top of the betfair commission could move most liquidty providers to other sports where such a tax is not applicable.  For many such a hike will make the sport unplayable - though they may just get replaced by even more efficient players? It will be interesting to see the effect of the NSW case if tax is forced...i.e., what it does to liquidity/volume traded here (I am assuming betfair covers these markets?). I may incorrectly believe that today's punters are more price oriented hence an exodus and thus death of the industry (assumption based on the huge client base of betfair - they must be here for a reason)?

they must be here for a reason
obviously the ability to lay is a main reason for such a huge client base and advertising etc just thinking/questioning out loud.

The bookies would get control in such a scenario but not sure the money racing needs would be released as bookies will only take mug money, which is being eaten by fobts, virtual racing etc.

Sandown When: 20 Nov 10 10:44 Muqbil

I would like to see Betfair move offshore.


I will not be surprised if this loophole is closed very soon.

What will be the legal basis for disallowing companies based offshore to accept bets on uk sporting events? It would make a mockery of the European free union.

Going back to the Irish point, when considering the sad, sorry state of their economy, even compared to the uk, following the Irish lead might not be the brightest move in the world!

sandown

I will not be surprised if this loophole is closed very soon.

why do you consider this a 'loophole'?

You may not agree with European Law, but it is not a loophole. Their continued delay (years of moaning but no action)in challenging this, indicates to me that they know they will be on a loser!

A pure turnover tax would surely kill exchanges stone dead?

I don't think it would. I realise the 1% site isn't exactly a hive of activity, but there's plenty of pre-off action available.

Of course, it may not be applicable to horse racing, which is the topic of this thread, but I don't think exchanges themselves suffer through it.

Consider the turnover in a typical midweek race with an odds on fav. Say one million matched (turned over). The actual positions taken of that million figure are a tiny fraction. Why should Betfair have to pay 1% of the matched figure as per the comical BHA submission? Makes no sense at all.

Consider the turnover in a typical midweek race with an odds on fav. Say one million matched (turned over). The actual positions taken of that million figure are a tiny fraction. Why should Betfair have to pay 1% of the matched figure as per the comical BHA submission? Makes no sense at all.

What really makes no sense Muqbil is that betfair present them with these joke figures by including ping pong money and then doubling them.

Big blow to prizes as rates cut by up to 68%
By Howard Wright 4:49PM 24 NOV 2010

THE stark reality of the prize-money plight facing racecourses in 2011 has been laid bare with the publication of the Levy Board’s contribution to basic daily rates (BDR) for prize funds at each track, which reveal cuts of up to68 per cent from the original 2010 starting point.

Source RP


Now the reality begins to dawn. First the cutbacks, then the declining interest in the sport will accelerate. The optimists point to increased attendances and head-in-the-sand like ignore the diving betting turnover. Nevermind, the single day in October that will be Flat racing's Grand Finale will solve everything. Meanwhile, the key issues remain unadressed.It's like giving a starving man a whistle and a party balloon and telling him he will soon feel OK on the premise that if he looks happy he won't notice the hunger pains.

I don't buy the Racing Post so there is a good chance I have missed the annoucement of how expenses within the BHA will be slashed?

Surely they are now taking drastic measure to prune all the deadwood at the top of the BHA tree?

The pension pot contributions alone add up to many many millions.

As you point out the attendances are a total misnomer. The tracks are happy as they are making a few bob from their pop concerts with a few races tagged on the back.

Compare this from the RP......

THE Levy Board's three independent members have recommended that a target yield in the range of £75-80 million should be set for the annual levy scheme beginning next April, compared with a forecast of around £65m for the current scheme.

The range sits between racing's claim for a levy increase to the region of £130-£150 million and an offer from bookmakers reported to be nearer to £50 million. RP

...... with this from The Times

Racing reacted warmly to encouraging financial indicators yesterday, with news that the independent members of the Levy Board have recommended to government a levy yield of £75 to £80 million for next year — £20 million above the amount bookmakers were expecting to pay.The Times Online


To my mind, £75-80m is an awful lot closer to £50m than it is to £150m. So, why did "Racing"  react warmly to "encouraging financial indicators?" If falling short by approx 50% gives rise to "warmth" just how hot would they have been if the figure had been say £100m? Boiling point? And if they had seen a figure of £150m I presume they would have been not so much "over the moon" as "cinders." This is especially odd as the levy rate of 10% might become 9%. Curious spin, to say the least. When is a defeat a victory? When I say it is of course, said Humpty Dumpty Roy.

Todays news  delivers the first part of all that racing has campaigned for Paul Roy RP p4


How deluded is this gimp - its a proposal you dumbwit - ie not decided

What a job that man has done. You just can't keep these city boys down. "Masters of the universe" and "the finest of international minds" just doesn't cover these guys (IMO).

Maybe switching the stall numbering on right handed tracks will fix things and boost the falling levy?

The "Law of Unintended Consequences" is a must for anyone who suffers from the delusion that they can, in some way, influence human behaviour, usually for their benefit. It's existence proves to be the nemesis of many over-inflated ego's.

Take Betfair. They introduced the PC because they felt that some winners were winning too much and it was therefore unfair for the rest who by definition would be losing too much or at too fast a rate. The extra income would help BF find new punters. Right.

What happens? Those who are winning consistently say , OK I don't have anywhere else to go to for my methods, so I will continue hoping to become more effective and to find ways to diminish the PC.


Those for whom it was intended to help, consistent losers that is, noticed that their incentive to continue on the journey to the Promised Land of consistent profit was given a nasty kick in the  hollyhocks. Even if they managed to get there, the nasty BF were going to take 20% of their profits. OK, so I don't know that for sure, but it is a pretty obvious thing to conclude if you have an understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences. It may not be the reason why BF's profits from horse racing are down as they say in their defence of their share price fall, but other causes. But I say, beware. Horse racing is the canary in the cage for other markets. It will show here first what will happen elsewhere.

Those who want more money for horse racing should reflect on 50 years of adversarial argument with bookmakers who have always been said to be the reason why there is a less than fair levy. If the Law of UC was foremost in their minds, critics of BM's might have realised sooner that BM's would look elsewhere to find their profits, somewhere easier than horse racing. Lo and behold, that is what has happened.

Nic Coward has resigned from the BHA, ironically over, to quote from today's Times "frustration over funding inadequacies." What a joke. His role in dealing with the crisis has been at best , poor.

Mark Johnston, in his recent blog, clearly states the consequences of lower prize-money levels. He also says that the industry is too "betting-led." Yet where does he think that the funding increases might in future come from, other than from betting? He doesn't say.

The point is that racing needs the bookmakers to be on-side but that the tail should not wag the dog. Otherwise, we get to another wonderful example of the Law of UC. Introduce more lower grade racing to boost the levy. Ignore the fact that more dross will act as a huge turn-off to racing fans and so reduce the amount of betting on the sport. It doesn't do much to attract newbies, either.

Sandown could i add to that the unintended consequences of RUK charging much more than setanta did for home TV coverage of their tracks; which did drastically reduce my betting on those tracks.  And when RUK asked betfair for too much money, their video service ended, which i have little doubt reduced punter betting and levy intake yet again.

Hazel

That's classic. It's like Govts who introduce the 50p in the £ plus tax rate which is intended to raise/increase the total income tax take but which in actual fact always decreases the total take, the evidence for which is substantial and from all over the world over many years. Nevermind the reality, how does it look!

Little comment followed the remarks made by William Haggas at the Gimcrack dinner when he said

"We have been raped for the past 50 years (by the bookmakers) and it is no surprise to note that the four best-financed racing associations in the world - Hong Kong, Australia, Japan and France - all have one thing in common: no off-course bookmakers. We have a fantastic industry and it is just a shame that the bookmakers do not seem to appreciate it."

I have no special love for the big bookmakers personally. I have had my accounts closed and bets refused or offered insulting sums or prices just like many others. Their business practices are aimed at franchising the losing punter and disenfranchising the winning punter. But who could say that they are not abiding by the law?

Racing needs the bookmakers in this country to not just contribute towards racing's costs but to actively promote racing to their customers to help reverse the declining interest in the sport.Does William Haggas, and others, really believe that the best way to create a strong working relationship and to maximise racing's income is to insult the other side?


Haggas's language is way over the top but no doubt reflects the views of many who can be described as "horsemen" as well as more than a few racegoers and punters who would all like to see a Tote monopoly.
Yet this is a "dead parrot" of an argument, one that is all wishful thinking without an ounce of realism. It demonstrates a reluctance or an inability to see the big picture.

Worse than the emotive language used, is that the point that the statement is made on the back of a false premise, namely that it is the bookmakers who are responsible for the financial position in which racing finds itself.

The levy was introduced 50 years ago to compensate the racing industry for loss of contribution via on-course and Tote as a result of the law which allowed off-course bookmakers to develop.

To my mind, 10% of gross profits, as it became, is a fair settlement, in line with common practice in business as a commission rate.

Of course, racing is dependent upon bookmaking to honestly and fairly declare the right figures but it is bound by law and the tax authorities to do so, so racing should have little fear of being short-changed. Basing the figure on future income increases the room for debate but overall, racing will get its 10%. I, therefore, see no case to argue that racing has been unfairly treated and to use terms like "rape" is wide of the mark and counter-productive.

The fact is, that racing has grown fat and complacent. It has taken the dosh without questioning the source i.e. punters being sufficiently interested to bet on horse racing, and that racing therefore has a responsibility to offer a product that punters want to bet on.It has only itself to blame for going down the route of low-grade racing because bookmakers pushed it that way. Racing did not have to buy that argument but it or Savill to be precise, was short-sighted. It saw the money but did not see the consequences despite many pointing them out.

Now bookmakers have found other products for punters to bet on, ones which do not involve a 10% levy. It would be surprising if they did not pursue that strategy.

If Haggas and others want a thrive racing industry they must work with not against bookmakers in encouraging them to promote the sport. Perhaps whoever buys the Tote will provide some sort of answer but let us be realistic about what they will be able to achieve. Bookmakers are too big, too entrenched, too good at being commercial, for them to disappear. Betfair has not been able to take more than a 6 or &5 share of the market despite an innovative product so why should we expect a new Tote to do that much better?

Co-operation is the way forward, not hostility. If Governments can recognise that they have no chance of winning the war in Afghanistan and will have to eventually deal with the Taliban, how much less of a compromise is it for racing and bookmaking to learn to work together?

why do all and sundry within the 'racing' industry jump on the 'blame the bookmakers' bandwagon, instead of facing up to their own inadequacies?

dont they realise they are in a unique position for any sport?

I see the levy reducing to an insignificant amount, whereas if there was a will within racing, then a commercial deal could have been acheived years ago.

Now, its too late - the bookmakers have the legal challenges necessary to pay virtually nothing

So, nauseatingly, its going to get a whole lot worse

It's time for the Levy Board to start playing "hardball". Start threatening them with either increased payments or they will lobby the government for a Tote only off course system. It wouldn't be a hard sell as they can use the other Tote only countries (Aus, France etc) as good examples of just what revenue can be made with such a monopoly.

Aussie

You've misunderstood the argument re BM's contributions and your solution is not possible given UK legislation re. trade restrictions,etc.Anyway, such a course is not within the Levy's remit - their role is to find the compromise between the two sides.In fact, the Levy Board is part of the problem in that it forces people into opposing camps.

Sandown

Racing needs the bookmakers in this country to not just contribute towards racing's costs but to actively promote racing to their customers to help reverse the declining interest in the sport.Does William Haggas, and others, really believe that the best way to create a strong working relationship and to maximise racing's income is to insult the other side?

I agree, and feel the frustration of most when I see bookmakers focusing on FOBT tournaments and other products. Horse racing is occupying (if not glued to [smiley:crazy]) a back seat of their priorities.

Shouldn't be too long before we hear of the Govt's settlement of the current levy dispute. It will be no surprise if the final figure is well below £100m, but whatever it is, it is relatively unimportant for the longterm.

The key isssue is the declining interest that punters have in betting on horses. Buried within the Gambling Commission's figures for the 12 months ending last March is the fact that on-course the number of bets was down 23%. Yep, that's TWENTY THREE percent. Off-course, the decline was 10%.Better but still severe. Perhaps the slight upturn reported for course attendances in the past year may show a slowing of that decline but I doubt it. With 2011 bringing all sorts of consequences resulting from the austerity measures to cut the structural UK deficit and with unemployment expected to rise by the best part of 1m and with inflation ready to rip, the threat to racing is that the figures can only get worse, not better.At 23% pa, the racecourse could see the number of bets fall to 45% of the 2009 total by 2012. More on-course bookmakers will give up the game, for sure.

I wonder if part of the problem is that those in charge of racing seem to come mainly from financial or legal backgrounds (cf Roy, Coward, Savill)and have no experience of building businesses in  commercial markets where understanding the needs of consumers is of paramount importance and tailoring their products/brands to meet those needs. A restructuring of the top of the game is fundamental to the development of a strategy that will work long-run.

I have yet to see anyone argue with the mantra that "young" people must be targetted for the future. I strongly disagree with this conclusion if it means that is the only group targetted, but have yet to see any journalist raise the issue and to present the arguments for alternatives.

Did you see Tony Smurthwaite's column in the Racing Post this week, Sandown?

More incredible incompetence from 'racing' as the racecourses receive only around half of the media rights' payments from bookmakers, with the other half going to SIS and Turftv.

How is this possible and why the **** do they keep signing long term deals with these leeches?

heynoodles


Only just read the article. Works out at about £70k per meeting paid by BM's or just about £11k per race or £22k per hour  approx. which sounds like the going rate for sports OB but I can't be sure anymore. Still, I'm sure that it bears a strong relationship to the market rate for the job. I doubt if the TV companies  make more than 15-20% profit on their 43% of the total i.e £5-7.5m . Don't suppose more than a third goes back to sharheholders so we're not talking about big numbers for 25% or so of total held by courses and 25% of total held by BM's.And its a basic requirement, isn't it, to show pictures.

If the courses get 57% or about £61m that's about £1m per course on average. Sounds OK to me. Guess a lot of that goes into prize money and the figues show that racecourses wouldn't  be making money (apart from Cheltenham, Ascot, York etc0 without their non-racing income streams.

But it does highlight what BM's have been saying which is that you have to include media TV rights payments along with the Levy which means almost the same again. BM's are not getting away with it as racing keeps making out.

At the receiving end,

Just had a look at the Racing For Change website http://www.racingforchange.co.uk.

It's a very professional site and the content shows that they have done their homework well and no doubt have been advised by specialist Brand agencies or Ad agencies.

End of year report shows that they have had a number of real successes such as the A P McCoy campaign for Sports Personality.

Included in their Target broup aims is the over 55 age group so that satisfies me although I still haven't seen anything related to any initiatives.

Their success in getting broad agreement for an end of Flat season Grand Finale is also an achievement even if there are a few quibbles. they might be able to get it brought forward to a period when the ground might be less of a factor.

As far as the main issue is concerned i.e the thread title, I don't see any real progress. They have used the right words re. the need to reverse the decline in interest in racing for punters but I don't get the feeling that they really understand the betting side too much even though there are bookmakers on the main board. Perhaps their views are not being listened to or maybe the BM's have a different agenda. Who knows?

Without success in this area, thge rest will come to nought. They can increase attendances all they like but without a reversal of the trend in betting on horses the income for racing will continue to decline. I think it should be their main priority not just one item in a long wish-list of aims.

I hope someone from RFC is reading this thread because they would have more of an idea or two  to go on if they did.

A fascinating power struggle is in progress with the Horsemen's Group (owners, trainers, jockeys) on one side and the courses on the other, with the demand by the HG for minimum prize money tarifs, which they say will give them a fair share of the media rights payments which courses receive (about £60m.)

The HG really are the coming body and it won't be long before they, rather than the BHA, speak for Racing. They are a bit like a trades union in a way and they are led by a man (Dixon) who looks like Bob Crowe's (London tube leader) double.

When the pie gets smaller, its obvious that people may start fighting each other for the scaps rather than jointly address the key issue.

RFC has its work cut out because the HG represents the traditionalists who view the racing game as one which depends on them and therefore their interests are paramount. This is a seemingly indisputably solid argument but the fact remains that until the sport is managed with a view to recognizing that it is the CUSTOMERS (punters, racegoers) who matter most the sport will never manage to win back its share of the betting pound, on which it depends for its viability.

To what extent is racing handicapped by a lack of transparency if it is to reverse the declining trend in its share of the betting pound?

How much is the betting public, especially the newcomers to betting and racing, put off by the obvious fact that so much of racing is run for the benefit of insiders – those represented by the Horsemen’s Group – and who gain at the public’s expense?

If there is considerable indignation at banker’s bonuses, does a similar degree of indignation persuade potential punters that they have more chance of winning if they bet on more transparent sports such as football?

Whilst there has been a clampdown on the clear crime – for that is what it is – of owners and trainers laying their own horses, even if it is purely to leverage the price or to hedge against not winning even if trying, there can be no way to change the image of the sport whilst the culture of the “insider” leads to opaqueness rather than transparency.

There is a news item in the RP about the (widespread?) use of “milkshakes” but very little comment. I can remember the “outing” of trainers who have used these in the past and very disquieting it is to read that it is still a common practice.

Reading the biography of Barry Hills “Frankincence and More” reminded me of the traditional default position in racing which is that horses training bills are paid for by owners and they and trainers can and should operate to maximise their opportunities to gain – at the public’s expense.

There is so much grey area within racing’s rules that astute trainers can obfuscate the perceived merit of their charges with ease. Given the dominance of handicaps, the need to “protect” the handicap mark or to get one handicapped on a winnable mark, becomes a top priority for most trainers.

The first run, especially, is the time when trainers and owners can benefit most because only they have the knowledge of how well the horse has been training. The public has only the market moves to go on and really astute trainers can use commission agents to mislead the bookies and the public into false interpretations of the fancied runners. Collusion with bookmakers has also been common, information in return for better prices.

I well remember talking once to a renowned trainer and punter about the terrible ride that I had seen in a G1 race where the jockey had given up the outside to no-one, and kept his horse four berths wide around a long turn losing lengths in the process. “Ah” he said. “Those would be my instructions for one that wasn’t off.”

We see every day, examples of questionable rides, which have been indicated by the market especially the place market on the exchanges where if there is an apparently good price available compared to the win market, then you had better beware. It is much harder to identify questionable training methods.

Trainer’s intentions are so important to the betting on a race that it should be compulsory for trainers to state before hand what their intentions are. Is this a prep race for another, more important race. Has the horse met with any recent setbacks? What is the weight of the horse compared to its weight when winning in the past?

After the event explanations are of no use to the betting public. It is information before the race that is needed.

If Racing wishes to boost the income received through the betting public then the betting public deserves more transparency, more openness from Racing. Racing can’t expect the public to want to bet when it knows that insiders are the main beneficiaries of the prevailing culture. If Racing wants to become a modern, profitable, competitive industry, then it needs to move on from the customs and culture of the past.

If the BBC showed all the races from just one meeting per day - be on it on the Red Button - it would do an incredible amount for racing, because punters bet overwhelmingly-so when the racing is free to watch in the comfort of their own home.  Increased turnover = more profit = more taxed monies = increased budget for racing.

In fact, SiS and TurfTV are the works of the devil if you ask me. Racing should strike a deal with the Beeb and Channel 4 and do away with the former two. It's a bit of a cheek to ask punters to then pay to watch the product. It's a hurdle (pun half-heartedly intended) that should be cleared with some urgency imo.

Attendances would probably decrease, but you'd hope subsidies would be made to the courses from the increased pot.

Verdis Quo

You don't explain WHY one channel showing 1 meeting is better for viewers than  2 channels showing ALL the meetings?; why RUK/ATR are "the works of the devil?"; why the BBC would be interested given their declining horse racing viewing figures over the years?; why RUK/ATR might not object under "fair trading" regulations?;why attendances would be more likely to decrease? why the levy pot is likely to be larger as a result?

1. How many people have Sky and/or Virgin, and therefore are able to watch all the racing? Free racing frees it up for everybody. Interest generally goes up in line with availability.

2. SiS and TurfTV seem to be the only ones in a healthy position (though I admit I could do with being more clued up on this). Everybody is in this together, and should pull together equally. I can't see these broadcasters ever reducing fees for the betting shops and casual viewers. Their charges are part of the attrition and should be looked at. Read any interview with independents in betview magazine (if you can get hold of it) and you'll see they all bemoan broadcaster charges.

3. The BBC probably wouldn't be interested. I was just hoping some kind soul there would do it out of heart.

4. I dare say they would object, but so what? You can give the new contracts to whomever you like. It'd be worth a shot for the long-term gains (which may or may not come, but it's worth a try).

5. Attendances would decrease because courses charge over the odds for entry and for refreshments, so with the chance to watch at home, a few will take that option. I was meaning a hundred or two rather than anything close to a thousand.

6. The levy should increase because the bookmakers have a lot more to pass on, and will do so willingly in line with increased profits (thinking with my heart there!). I know from working in a (busy, admittedly) betting shop that a BBC meeting brings in 100-150 slips more than usual. Even if it's fewer a day to the average shop, multiply that across the 7500 (rough guess) betting shops in the UK and the figures would shoot up markedly.

My post definitely did fall foul of heart-over-head, but it's not so wrong as to be so readily dismissed. Also, if I say what I say and it's wrong, then someone more in-the-know can correct me and help us all become more learned!

The levy should increase because the bookmakers have a lot more to pass on

if that were the case, why would 400 shops close if the gov appointed officials recommendations on the levy are approved?

If your livelihood was in the current bottom 400 shops, you may have a different view.

Today, MP's debate the funding issue, specifically a motion that relates to off-shore books and the future funding process.

The motion says "This House is concerned that betting operators are increasingly based offshore and so do not fully contribute to the levy, and considers that the government should bring forward proposals to improve the system of funding for racing and the relationship between racing and bookmakers before the end of 2011."

Apparently there is an EU angle to the levy which could become an important issue as it concerns whether the levy breaches EU law regarding subsidies.A whole can of worms beckons.

Pity that the motion opens with an issue (the position of off-shore bookmakers' payments) which is not central, to the main issue imo, of the long-term decline in betting on horse racing relative to other sports as well as in an absolute sense.The second half of the motion relating to the new improved method of raising money is the more important issue.

Racing is the sport which begat the betting industry. It is linked to gambling as closely as though it were one half of Siamese twins, yet it is slowly dying (as a betting product) whilst the betting industry broadly is thriving.

The reasons why this is so are multi-various. Other sports are perhaps easier to bet on (no form study needed) and in popularity horse racing has fallen from its once pre-eminent position. Viewing figures are declining whilst apparent modest increases in attendances, reversing a long-term decline, are an illusion of good health. The sport is run for the benefit of insiders, or so it must seem, and whilst not necessarily endemically corrupt, the grey area is huge and opaque, which allows insiders to benefit at others expense.

The Levy itself may have contributed to the decline because it has caused  Bookmakers to promote non-leviable sports and products which are easier to risk-manage even if returns may be lower than on horse racing.

With the prospect of austerity measures, job losses, rising inflation and higher interest rates, the immediate future for racing's income via betting looks bleak indeed.

Level playing fields are being sought, apparently, as is a commercial relationship. When found,everyone will be happy (not a reference to John Bircow, the Speaker).

One MP proposed that betting shops pay £1 per race, a measure which if implemented, should ensure more races per meeting and more meetings so as to maximise income. No incentive there, then, to cut numbers of horses and races and to raise quality. And this from an MP who represents a racing constituency, so who might, one would think, know a thing or two about the issues.

We learned that the levy is considered to be broken and a replacement will be found by "the end of the year." No pressure fellas.

Meanwhile, the current levy settlement is still to be decided by John "Soloman" Hunt. Perhaps he should use Soloman's tactic of judging that the baby (racing in this case) should be killed off. Would bookmakers reply "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" or not in true Ret Butler fashion.

The Management

I'll see your quote and raise you ten, which might be spot on as far is this issue is concerned

I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow.

anyone care to define a 'commercial arrangement', that cannot be legally challenged?

they tried it with data rights, failed and hence have been on the backfoot ever since

Apparently there is an EU angle to the levy which could become an important issue as it concerns whether the levy breaches EU law regarding subsidies.A whole can of worms beckons.

Ive mentioned this several times Sandown, at last you seem to have grasped the gravity of their position -

The racecourses may be able to negotiate more - but BHA/Levy/gov. have nothing legally to sell - and the books' legal teams have the end game challenge at the ready

Racing has little going for it in terms of attracting and sustaining casual interest apart from the deal with Channel 4.

It isn't being marketed innovatively enough. Races can take as little as a minute--2 mins. for a top-class race at the optimum distance for breeders. Surely 3 min. long shows can be programmed somewhere--in the evening, across new media, in different venues? You could build up familiarity by having established races forming a series or animals put into divisions. Replicating existing Arc and BC days is by contrast a weak-as-moonshine idea.

Here we go again. It seems that racing people have no understanding of the law of Unintended Consequences.

First there was the great idea to introduce a lot more lower class racing in order to boost the Levy, courtesy of Mr Savill.

Now there is the Horsemens Group imposing minimum tariffs on courses which is aimed at boosting prize money levels (without showing how it can be afforded).

Result. According to Arena it will lead to dumming down of the programme. Here's an extract from yesterday's RP re a letter from Arena to the HG.

The letter claims that to meet the prize-money requirements of the tariff every Group, Listed, Class 2 and Class 3 race at Lingfield would have to be scrapped.

"Is this what the industry really wants?" it asks. "We remain unconvinced that the unilateral publication of a tariff, after publication of race programmes in programme books and racing calendars, and which if implemented would result in a wholesale downgrading of the race programme, is in your best interests."

Makes you want to weep at the ineptness of the people in charge of Racing.

16 February 2011

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has today set the terms of the Horserace Betting Levy Scheme for 2011/12.  The Government is responsible for determining the 50th Levy Scheme after the parties involved failed to reach agreement by the end of October last year.
Mr Hunt believes that the reasonable estimated yield should be in the range of £73.7 million to £80.8 million in line with the Government-Appointed Members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board’s options. To achieve this, a number of changes will be made from the terms of the 49th Scheme – the headline rate of levy will increase from 10 to 10.75 per cent, and the threshold level under which betting shops pay a reduced rate of levy will come down from £88,740 to £50,000.

Despite a suggestion by the Government-appointed Members, there will be no change to the scheme in relation to foreign racing. As the Levy supports British horseracing it has been decided to collect it only in relation to bets on those races that take place in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr Hunt’s decision takes account of submissions from both the racing and bookmaking industries together with advice from the Government-Appointed Members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

Jeremy Hunt said:

“It is really disappointing that two important industries have been unable to come to a sensible commercial agreement.  I have tried to be fair by listening to the advice of the Independent members of the Levy Board and I will continue to be guided by their advice in future years until what should be a straightforward commercial negotiation can be taken permanently out of the hands of Ministers.

"I am grateful to the Government-Appointed Members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and both interested parties for their submissions.  I have now asked the Horserace Betting Levy Board to finalise the operational details of the scheme as a matter of urgency”.

The annual scheme is a levy on the profits of bookmakers from betting on British horseracing, and goes towards funding horseracing – for instance through integrity services, veterinary science, prize money, training initiatives and breeding programmes.

The increase in headline rate to 10.75 per cent will apply to telephone and internet betting operators (including betting exchanges) as well as Licensed Betting Offices.

For bookmakers who derive their gross profit from spread betting businesses the levy will be set at 2.15 per cent of such gross profit where it arises from British horseracing. For bookmakers taking bets at the racecourse the flat rate annual fee will increase in line with RPI to £210, whereas for those bookmakers who solely stand at point-to-point, harness racing or trotting events the new fee will be £166.
back to top

Notes to Editors
Written Ministerial Statement on the 50th Horse Race Betting Levy.

Government-Appointed Members submission.

The process was as follows:
The Secretary of State wrote to the Government Appointed Members (GAMs) of the Levy Board on 10 November asking for their independent recommendation by the end of November as to what the terms of the 50th Levy Scheme should be, having taken into account all relevant submissions from the parties.
The Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board members representing British Horseracing were then given until the beginning of January to provide the Secretary of State with their own submissions. These submissions, as well as the recommendation of the GAMs, have been published on the DCMS website.
The Secretary of State considered the parties’ submissions alongside that of the GAMs before making his determination.

The Secretary of State is writing to the GAMs, British Horseracing Authority and the Bookmakers Committee to thank them for their submissions and to explain his decision in more detail.

John Penrose, Minister for Tourism and Heritage with responsibility for horse racing has had no role in the decision making process to determine the 50th Levy scheme in order to avoid a conflict of interest.

The Government’s separate plans for longer-term reform of the Levy will be announced soon.

Thanks Steak and Chips for posting that.

So, a mid-point figure is c£78m, £16m more than BM's offered and £72m below the figure Racing asked for.But, BM's will have to work with a 10.75% Levy and lower shop thresholds, in future.

Surely Racing's so-called leaders should now raise their heads above the level of the sand and acknowledge that they don't have the necessary grip on reality to justify their salaries and positions.

But, to (mis)quote Churchill, this is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning, for the Levy and for those in charge of Racing as we know it.

New leaders apply now.

I assume this will go straight onto the overrounds and make racing even less attractive?

Dunno, Lori. Works out to about £600k for BF - wouldn't be surprised if they swallowed it and took it out of their £3m or so voluntary contribution. BM's are forced to follow BF prices and may be difficult to act unilaterally if others swallow.

Cheers, will be interesting to see.

FWIW Since the start of this thread I've been to Towcester twice. On the second occasion there was a large party of schoolkids present - starting them young!

I do find it difficult to get massively excited about, but the free entry makes an attractive proposition for an afternoon out and I believe I probably spend the same as if I had to pay to get in (total), except I wouldn't bother going in the first place if I had to pay. At least more than a token entry fee.

On the levy figure, the bm s have routed racing as was eminently predictable, tho' they will have to swallow a higher levy contribution going into the future.

The top end of racing--the third generation owner-breeders and their elite bloodlines--will always be there, but I fail to see how the bloated lower reaches can sustain themselves. Racing's rulers shd now form a systematic plan to move away from betting-shop fodder to fewer events w/ some form of heritage that might be capable of attracting the interest of a genuine sports fan.

This thread is an oasis in a Ferengi desert.

As BF moves to Gibralter ( best "unkept" secret), for reasons which I assume are as much to do with the threat of future "sports rights" payments as to competition, cost, tax and levy reasons, the spotlight in the "horse racing funding crisis" must shift to what replaces the levy?

Racing is placing its eggs in the "racing rights" basket and it is time to take a close look at this issue.

The immediate question is, what are the so-called "rights" for, I wonder?

I can understand that a race course has a right to charge on-course bookmakers a fee to cover the benefit bestowed upon bookmakers in providing them with a ready-to-use tame market of punters.

I can understand that off-course bookmakers and exchanges should pay for pictures from the course which are of assistance to the betting companies in generating their income.

Racing tried to charge newspapers for copyright on printing cards but they soon found that newspapers would have none of that as they saw the benefits accruing to racing rather than the other way round.So there is very little to the argument that the provision of an "event" in itself constitutes anything tangible.

Doesn't the fact that betting encourages involvement in the sport of racing provide an overriding benefit to racing which is greater than there being no off-course betting involvement?

BF charge a tax on players profits because they provide the platform on which these players operate.Players who can move away from BF because they don't like that concept can switch to alternatives, those who can't are forced to stay and accept that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

But exactly what "platform" is racing providing for one person to bet with another person on the outcome of a race?

Presumably, racing is banking on their being some sort of "intellectual property right" angle, which if successful, other sports would also claim.

This means that once again racing is relying on the law to provide it with a mechanism by which it can make money, just as the levy did, in point of fact.

The levy was introduced to compensate for the loss of revenue to racing as a result of off-course betting shops flourishing at the expense of the on-course market. In fact, the outcome was that it developed a much bigger market (10 times) which had marginal effect on the on-course market. Racing was the beneficiary of a market that it had no part in developing. The billions it has earned through the 50 years of the levy can be seen to be the equivalent of a huge lottery win. It got something much, much greater than it ever lost.

So, what is this "racing right" then? Presumably it is the right to bet on something that is the opinion exchanged between people who may or may not have any interest in the sport itself, who are not on the premises of any location where the sport is conducted, but who may be watching it on a TV screen somewhere which is being paid paid for by the TV company concerned.

I'm sorry, I just don't get this "right" and if the law is used to to tax the provider of the mechanism by which one individual bets with another, then they equally claim that the air we breathe is also taxable because it mostly consumed on someone else's property. Or is that too silly to consider? Perhaps the manufacturer of playing cards ought to receive something for every poker game played?Isn't having a bet nothing other than expressing an opinion on something and backing it up with money? If I opine that the Chelsea will win the Champions League and someone else disagrees with me why should that opinion be subject to a tax? If I back it up with a bet and the other person takes the bet, how is that connected to any aspect of the match or the clubs involved? If I place this bet on a betting exchange, how is the situation suddenly changed into one where the tax is now payable? 

In conclusion, I think that "racing" - and other sports - ought to be looking for a proper commercial relationship with betting and not be looking to the law to give them an easy ride based on an intellectually unsound principle. I'm not a lawyer and there are enough precedents of lawyers proving that black is white for me to believe that anything is possible and perhaps a legal "right" might be established but that won't make me change my opinion.

Anyone like to bet on it? If so, who do we pay a rights fee too?

Sandown

A very competent reasoning as to why bookmakers should pay nothing to horseracing via a levy -  tax them more for their vast profitiability, but horseracing is one of many sports that should not have any 'rights' on betting.

Toenail Cheeseburger seeks clarification on the following

I'm pretty sure the BHB lobbied for the introduction of FOBTs, but can't find any links. I seem to recall it was in return for evening opening of shops or a profits based levy or something like that. Can anyone remember any details?

I recall the background being betting-shop operators claiming that thousands of shops were uneconomical and about to close, and only money from FOBTs could keep them afloat.

The BHB swallowed this, along with the betting shops' claim that the Levy would be decimated by the loss of these outlets. The BHB therefore lobbied the government to allow FOBTs to save racing.

Cheers screaming. Perchance do you have any links?

My background comes from promotion and entertainment.  Those in charge of racing are not thinking outside their box on this. 

The costs involved with racing are finite and able to be calculated.  Many other sports and organizations have gone through this and adapted.  They are moving slow but not seeing solutions.

A total revamp is needed to not so much generate interest at this point but sustain those in racing rather than running them dry.

The little I have seen on how other countries run their racing, I don't understand why these ideas are not being brought into UK racing.

If anyone has blinders on, it is not the horses.  It seems to be some of those in charge who have not adapted to the new economy.

I think if I "owned" racing and my income through betting was on the down, rather than fight the BM's & Exchanges, i would be seeking to co-operate with them to find out why punters are betting less on my product.

In the last para of an item in today's Times Business about BF's Gibralter decision, the canary in the cage that is horseracing gets a mention

Its sports revenues grew by 8.6 per cent, as growth in football bets mitigated a small decline in horse racing.

This may just be a 3rd quarter blip or it might be the canary coughing up blood as BF's core racing punters avoid the PC or it may be part of the general move away from the sport as evidenced by BM's such as VC & Laddies. Either way, I would want to know if I "owned" racing. I can't think of a better project for Racing For Change to be involved in than a joint research project to get to grips with the real problem facing racing - its loss of  share of the punting pound.

Had a search, Feck, but the whole episode seems to have disappeared.

I believe the BHB support might specifically have been over an increase in the number of slot machines to be allowed in LBOs, since the permission to allow them in the first place dates back to 1996.

Thanks screaming.

BHA to cede powers to tracks and horsemen[/i]Howard Wright, RP today


It was clear sometime ago that the Horseman's Group was the new kid on the block and now they are to control racing along with what is being called The Racecourse Group who will be the purse string holders and fixture deciders.. The BHA becomes purely the regulatory body leaving the Jockey Club to manage its courses, I suppose, and contemplate its Stubbs paintings. Pass the port, old boy.


I guess that this will clear the way for racing to be placed on a more commercial footing ready to negotiate a price for Racing's "betting rights," whatever they may be.

Along with the news that "[i] Exchange users not liable for levy, say QCs " Jon Lees, RP today, one might say that Nic Coward has not exactly been too successful at the BHA, so good luck to the Premier league when he arrives there.

"Racing" is not exactly winning matches what with the settlement of the 50th Levy hardly a blinding result for them, and now losing this match, I think that the new kids on the block can't do any worse than the BHA did.

I wonder if its all too late. The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, judging by BF moving to Gibraltar in the footsteps of others and the news that PP is making over £1k per WEEK from its FOBT's up 23%. I know that the big  3 are a bit behind that figure (£750 pw) but do the sums. Apparently independents are making more than 50% of their profit from the machines. The betting shop business is virtually (no pun intended) lost to racing now, leaving on-line and on-course as the future drivers for income.

With BF's racing income apparently stalled, the future is not so much orange as red for racing. Let's hope that the new set-up leads to a greater vision being applied to the sport. Otherwise the funding crisis is going to become less a crisis and more a melt-down to a niche market.

"BHA to cede powers to tracks and horsemen"Howard Wright, RP today


It was clear sometime ago that the Horseman's Group was the new kid on the block and now they are to control racing along with what is being called The Racecourse Group who will be the purse string holders and fixture deciders.. The BHA becomes purely the regulatory body leaving the Jockey Club to manage its courses, I suppose, and contemplate its Stubbs paintings. Pass the port, old boy.


I guess that this will clear the way for racing to be placed on a more commercial footing ready to negotiate a price for Racing's "betting rights," whatever they may be.

Along with the news that "] Exchange users not liable for levy, say QCs " Jon Lees, RP today, one might say that Nic Coward has not exactly been too successful at the BHA, so good luck to the Premier league when he arrives there.

"Racing" is not exactly winning matches what with the settlement of the 50th Levy hardly a blinding result for them, and now losing this match, I think that the new kids on the block can't do any worse than the BHA did.

I wonder if its all too late. The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, judging by BF moving to Gibraltar in the footsteps of others and the news that PP is making over £1k per WEEK from its FOBT's up 23%. I know that the big  3 are a bit behind that figure (£750 pw) but do the sums. Apparently independents are making more than 50% of their profit from the machines. The betting shop business is virtually (no pun intended) lost to racing now, leaving on-line and on-course as the future drivers for income.

With BF's racing income apparently stalled, the future is not so much orange as red for racing. Let's hope that the new set-up leads to a greater vision being applied to the sport. Otherwise the funding crisis is going to become less a crisis and more a melt-down to a niche market.

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I don't think it'll hurt to post it here.

Here is a link to a survey being carried out by Racing for Change (part 1 of 4 this year):
.
http://www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveylogin.asp?k=129899040260

i]THE BHA has expressed its fears that racing in Britain could be come the increasing victim of an overseas talent drain due to a continuing decline in the number of races programmed to develop potential Group horses.

The governing body said the marked reduction in the number of Class 2 to 4 races, and consequent rise in Class 5 to 6 contests, was having a seriously detrimental impact on the racing programme, a view shared by racecourses and horsemen.

That situation is an anticipated outcome of the Horsemen's Group tariffs, that have helped raise prize-money, the BHA added.[/i] source: RP

Time to return to the most important issue facing UK racing and another example of unintended consequences. I am sure that this is not what the Horsemen's Group expected to happen. I'm equally sure that they will attach blame to someone else.

The industry is beset by the same kind of "entitlement" disease that prevails elsewhere. We hear time and time again that trainers and owners are deserving of a higher return for their efforts and that it is a disgrace that prize money levels have not grown at least in-line with inflation and preferably in-line with other countries.

The reality is that the industry operates under free market conditions with all that implies. If there is a recession then expect cutbacks in owners, breeding levels,in trainer and staff numbers and in money gambled on horseracing.

Artificial interference such as that attempted by THG does not work. Let the market sort it out. Punters want to a man or woman higher quality racing and fewer poor quality meetings. The driving force should be what the consumer wants not what the industry providers want.

If

Sandown
I don't often post on here, But Thanks for this ....
Sad Old Git that I am, I have just gone through all the posts (11 pages) and being interested in all aspects of Racing, Sports & Betting have found this all very fascinating, with many good points raised.  I do believe, like most other things though, that The Past is a foreign country, and horse racing will always struggle now, given the many other betting opportunities that exist.
When I first started betting, mid 70s, there was just Dogs & Horses. Most week days 2 horse meetings & Hackney , or another BAGS. Plenty of time to sort one out. There were characters in the bookies then, and the pub next door was just like an annexe.  A constant flow between the two. This and the Dog tracks & Racecourse around London is where me and my pals got involved with racing. And to this day a small crowd of us still go horse racing.
Now the pub has gone and the betting shop isn't the refuge it once was. One Arm Bandit noise, chit-chat in a multitude of tounges, virtual racing, lottery balls, non-stop audio, 20 tellys,etc etc... Not a very welcoming place !!
In light of this, where will the future race-goers come from ? The County Horsey Set and those professionally involved, are a given. I feel that the generation who were weaned on all the great horses from the 70s-80s will be the last big chunk / mass of racing fans. I go racing quite often, NH mid-week, and never see any teenagers - early 20s there, unless they are waiting on tables or serving food.
In conclusion, I feel Racing has had its day, and the Horse Racing Group, Racing for Change, BHB, Jockey Club, and the myriad of other organisation have missed the boat.

technology has allowed bookmakers to avoid paying as much levy to racing via simulted sports and casino gaming machines meanwhile the real technological device that could save the courses and tracks sports,  television and having pure racing channels with the money that could delivered being tied up by the stupid tv rights deals that sis,  owned by bookmakers has buried in its new casino format LBO culture.

No informed punter wants the consequences of a bm profits-based funding mechanism (over-watering, deteriorating courses, variable draws, unpredictable results) and many in racing (see Braveheart's comments today) find them hard to live with too.

Many at the top end of racing have a mentality of 'we all move forward together', perhaps because of uncertainties over how a horse will turn out and sympathy w/ those who end up w/ a mediocre horse on their hands.

This has allowed them to accept a funding mechanism that has seen what wd otherwise be an unviable ballooning of fixtures at the bottom end, w/ opportunities for horses, tracks and trainers that wd stand no chance in a free market.

The top end (the horses if they knew [;)] now must understand their prosperity lies in cutting loose from the rubbish and selling themselves in every way on their specific merits.

warrenlodge

Sad to say, but your words ring true. Glad you managed to read all 11 pages ...I just wish some at the top of British Racing would do the same because they would see that frustration at what is happening to this sport is very high.

askari1

The time has come for me to support the idea of a Premier League within racing, where all the main money and attention must go, if the sport is to find a sustainable place in the 21st C. Low garde courses and the trainers and owners associated with them must be allowed to continue if that is what they wish but without funding. I would be happy for newspapers to devote their space purely to the PL cards and to carry only the PL news.

There is no reason why rapidly imporving horses should not get the opportunity to race within the PL but that must be a matter of merit. In the open stakes races I see no reason why entries should be restricted if owners wish to enter but some kind of minimum performance level should be put in place.