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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Cheers screaming. Perchance do you have any links?

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.

Thanks screaming.

"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.

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

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.

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.