I wonder if it's going to take one of the courses or groups of courses to break away completely from the whole system to sort this out.

Provide their own TV pictures via a spare or share channel on Sky / internet stream, attract their own runners and arrange what the hell meetings they like, when they like, with prize money from their admission / tote.

Stick two fingers up to the BHA, the Jockey Club, SIS and say 'we can run it better and we're not paying you another dime, you bunch of overpaid incompetents'.

They can then sort out their own contracts with the bookies and (hopefully) prove that it can be done better

A much better thought out idea than my semi-rant Sandown. My only comment is why the BHA need to be involved at all?

I wonder if their control of the racing calendar is contributing to racing's decline, and if courses had the freedom to stage meetings how and when they liked things would be better.

I can see that this might result in days with no racing, or all evening meetings - but if the bookies are unwilling to shell out for weekday racing at a commercial rate then so be it I guess.

It's a wonder that the success of the sport is being judged by the amount of prize money owners receive, and not by attendances, tv viewing figures or the success of british horses and jockeys in major races at home and abroad.

It's likely judging Chelsea by how much profit Abramovich makes (actually he loses millions) and not by the fact that they won the double last year.

You can't make this self indulgent rubbish up.

sandown

you may be right, but I have a feeling that if you reduce numbers, the industry is still going to go downhill - my overriding thought is that most of the customers pound is being spent on other leisure activities.

Also, the BHA, Levy, racecourses should spend more of their energies seeking to improve their customers requirements, rather than the endless tirade of parasitical attacks on bookmakers to give them more dosh - Its time they realised the bookmakers have em over a barrel, and their levy contributions will continue to reduce as more bookmakers customers turn away from horse racing in British betting shops.

Judging by the letter from The Horseman's Group, published in today's (Aug 26) RP, this organisation is fast becoming the power behind the scenes within racing, bringing together, as it does, owners, trainers, breeders, jockeys, stable staff, and that means it counter-balances the courses position of strength,

Reading its aims (http://www.thehorsemensgroup.com/?section=10743), its clear that it is motivated to improve the interests of the "players" and is more akin to being a trade union than an "board of management" which views itself as being and competing in markets (entertainment, sports, gambling). No doubt it will be a stronger player in levy negotiations as a result of this grouping.

Can the BHA provide the necessary commercial/marketing acumen to balance the "players" and the "venues" versus the bookmakers(as the HG sees things)or will it become purely the regulatory and integrity arm of an increasingly inner-directed industry.

There is still a whole cultural revolution to take place with no sign that it will ever happen.

"Breeders face biggest drop in profit for years" says todays RP (p21).  "Breeders could be facing their most unprofitable year for more than a decade, warned former TBA chairman Philip Freedman." "...facing their most unprofitable year for at least the 14 years, he said."

Contrast this with the recent results published by W. Hil l where everything looks rosy ...thanks to the football world Cup. buried in the figures was the 7% decline in over the counter (OTC) business which is where the horseracing business meets the gambling business in the High Str. Machine business up nevetheless. Hil ls are looking to overseas expansion.

Come on racing. Wake up. The Horsemans Group may be a strong power base but its aims are still the old ones of getting more from the bookies. Where are the visionaries who can see that the game has to compete with entertainment generally, sports gambling in particular, and is not just about improving the income to the horse lobby. That will follow if the broader strategy is pursued and not just by setting prize money contribution targets.

birch2


your 'contrast' is like making a comparison between the profitability of a field of rape seed and a farmers 2,000 acre estate !

Well put! I am trying to make the point that whilst bookies seem to be prospering, racing isn't. Tha's the contrast. The stronger the bookies get with their focus on other sports/channels, the weaker racing's position becomes.


I dont readily see the Horsemans group as the major players wanting more from the bookies - that accolade goes to the levy board and BHA parasites

The HG is a strong power base and its submission to the levy board is the case for racing which the levy board are using. They look to become the main players and from theie press comments, they will seek to replace the levy board. Look to Paul Dixon's letter in the RP this week for confirmation.

askari1

I agree with you about the bm's . Their l/t strategy might include ditching racing at some point - unless its levy free - which is unlikely, or at least to pay a mere token. Racing's administrators don't seem to see that they have very little leverage over bm's and in fact the expansion of the fixture list, far from helping, was/is being used by bm's to convert low grade punters to other more profitable sports/machines.Almost anyone who wins at sometime, is barred. It's interesting that in their accounts, Lads show "high-rollers" as a separate profit centre, and clearly will not bar anyone who qualifies as a "high-roller."

When you look at the figs, what does go into racing is a very small % of gross take on racing let alone on total take. Racing has to control the contact with racing punters. That is fundamental to solving this problem which at present is getting worse, not better.

Horse racing is too mysterious for people these days, needs more openness and clarity.

Other sports rely on being self-sufficient. Horse racing, somehow, needs to find a way to do the same.

Detatch completely the betting element and make the sport interesting in it's own right, rather than just something to punt on.

The thought of taking 2p off my £1 bet on Chelsea to win the league and giving it to the winners of the FA Cup is ludicrous, yet Horse racing fans seem to think it essential!

The biggest mystery is how all the picture money goes to the tracks - how the **** (self edited) did they swing that? The tracks are nothing without the horses, jockeys and trainers.

get a life

I didn't expect a positive response on a betting forum to a suggestion of a return to a turnover tax to help fund British racing and there wasn't one.

To play devils advocate, it is fair to ask why punters should pay anything at all towards the sport on which they gamble. It certainly wouldn't help to increase racing's share of the gambling market if such a tax were to be introduced, and given freedom of choice, it's fair to assume that all those punters who have no special predisposition towards horse racing would be less likely to bet on racing when they can bet "tax free" on other sports. And the decline in share of the gambling market is what racing people don't yet fully grasp as a problem.There have been plenty of people on here who have said why they choose to bet on other sports.

The premise on which the levy legislation was introduced is that the horse racing industry is deserved of support through legislation to levy bookmakers profits, who benefit from the existance of horse racing and without which they would not be in business.

That premise was always doubtful in principal and it is surprising that other sports bodies have not tried to gain similar treatment citing horse racing as a precedent.

60 years on, I doubt if this legislation would be introduced for no other reason than that it is a restriction of trade. There is talk that the EU will look into the matter.

The existance of the levy has surely influenced bookmakers strategy and we have seen the consequences in terms of straight evasion through relocation oversees, to a determined swing away from horse racing and towards substiute products upon which no tax is levied. You cannot blame bookmakers for doing this. Anyone in their position would surely try to become less dependent on risky income upon which extra tax is paid and more dependent upon lower risk products which have an increasingly higher consumer demand.

Against this background of weakening consumer demand, made worse by bookmakers response, the racing industry has become dependent upon the levy for its contribution towards increasing central costs and towards maintaining prizemoney levels.

The fact that the racing industry does not have a direct channel to this source of income, which ultimately is provided by the customers of bookmakers, has meant that the racing industry has never built up any expertise in this area and indeed from all known reports, appears to be blind to the issue.In support of its claim to its share of income it seems to rely on academic theories of why it should receive around £150m p.a. Naturally, the bookmakers ignore such arguments and need only point to there P&L's to argue what is affordable.

The introduction of a commercial bidding element into the levy negotiations is the immediate opportunity for the industry to imprive its share but ultimately it will have to recognize that the levy mechanic will go and a replacement needs to be put in place.

Over the course of this thread, I have tried to expand the argument but the repsonse has been limited. Perhaps on a betting site that is only to be expected.

I would have thought that this issue warrants a much wider and more open debate and it is very disappointing that the media avoid the issue,. The Racing Post is especially culpable in this respect as it has the responsiblity of being the leading newspaper in the field and it should lead on this. The specialist TV channels are also guilty of not giving this issue any airtime.

As birch2 noted, I do care about the future of horse racing in this country and I would like to see others who make a living from the sport, look up fronm their part of the trough, and speak up. We might expect Timeform to have a say in their annuals but they too don't appear to be too ready to engage,. Neither does Betfair and nor do the bookmakers. The Horseman's Group is primarily interested in boosting prizemoney levels and ensuring that owners get a "fairer" return whilst the administrators keep on boosting the central ovehead. The trainers are too focussed on training horses to be vocal on this issue other than commenting on prizemoney levels being a disgrace.

The apparent increase in attendances is, I fear, no more than a swallow,not a summer,and in any event I would seriously question whether the best longterm opportunity, the increasingly important and lucrative "grey" market, is being neglected in search of the fickle youth market which is neither intinsically desposed towrds the sport and importantly isn't the one with high disposable income and wealth.

I will try and widen the argument by sending a copy of this post to the relevent groups and individuals to see if a wider discussion can take place in the open. I will not be holding my breath, needless to say.

@


In an Ideal world,  What do you want horse raceing to be like ????



Like  F1?    10 teams,  20  Fantastic horses  and a World  Championship ???

Or Like   Premier league  football ?



Assuming the raceing  was self sufient.  Would you prefer  8  Huge meets a year  (the size  of Ascot / Cheltnam)

or  Lots  of small  events...  ???




Have  you been tho   Hongkong,  to watch the night raceing ?

Have you  Been to Japan  /  Singapore  ???


Stop thinking negative..  Now  name  ONE  positive thing in horse raceing  you'd  like  ?? _

Horseracing was not introduced as entertainment for spectators but as a competition between owners who liked a wager. In fact, apart from all-in wrestling and maybe twenty 20 cricket,is there any sport that is not primarily about anything other than competition? Being the fastest, beating the others, winning.

The fact that people pay to watch sport and are entertained by it shouldn't divert attention from the point of sport which is competition. When spectators lose confidence that players are trying to win then the enjoyment goes out of it.

Horseracing has evolved over 250 years as a test of the thoroughbred and the players (trainers, jockeys, owners) have always had that mindset. This is what makes it so hard for them to see that they need a paying audience to be able to go on playing.The most forward-looking realise that it is necessary for them to engage with the media and the public but I think it will be a long-time before they accept that the paying customer (the rascegoer, the punter) is very bit as important as themselves if the show is to go on.

Perhaps courses have made móre of an effort because they are in direct contact with the public and if they don't attract crowds then they will be out of business. Cheltenham must rank as the most customer-orientated course of all, I suppose.Others not far behind would be Goodwood,Ascot,York, Aintree and at a smaller level,Cartmel. Indeed, Ascot is an example of a course which had its nose in the air until fairly recently but is moving with the times.

I paint this background to show why racing's administrators are slow on the uptake. J A Mcgrath, on the Forum programme on ATR made the point that the BHA is the only auhtority in the world which doen't have control over the revenue side and that makes it even more difficult to cultivate this focus. In a laughably short 10 minute discussion about the funding crisis in racing. little could be said. Gregg Woods re-iterated the point made in nis column in this week's Guardian that the JC cutting back on the number of races by as little as 150 (probably reduced to 60 when the levy positive is factored in) is a very small step.

The rest of the country is facing 25% cuts possibly 40% cuts in expenditure and it behoves racing to come up with its own measures to reduce overheads. It's not just the levy negotiations that need to be finalised.

I think that the Horsemans Group (the new power base)would be open to a cold hard realistic longterm look at ther shape of the betting market and would welcome any attempt to show how their fortunes depend on understanding and controlling this little know market, if their objectives are to be achieved.

Suppose they got their £150m. Would that be the end of the crisis? No, it wouldn't. Sure, it would help boost prizemoney but that isn't the real issue. The real issue is that horseracing and betting on the sport is now seen as passe and out of touch with the new IT savvy world. It has got its strategy badly wrong in my view in ignoring the really important "grey" market and its attempts to buy the "yoof" markey will prove to be ineffective in the longrun.


Fundamentally, i don't believe that there is anything radically wrong with the racing programme that a bit of pruning can't put right. In 250 years racing has got to where it is through evolution. There is no need to look at other sports to put racing's house in order. Sure, premier courses should receive the levy and smaller courses must learn to live on their own model or go to the wall. Sure, low grade racing should be eliminated. Maybe an end of season finale for the Flat season is required - this is something that NH racing has got right. But we must remember that Flat racing is an international sport now and a purely parochial view will not work.

Mark johnston is not the only person with views on the state of British racing. Let's get a wider discussion going.There are so many talented people involved in this sport that a with a (not little) effort we could at least be able to see the bigger picture. Noses up from trough, please.

MIB34

Each country and each course will stoutly defend their prestige meetings and races and negotiating change is no doubt a long drawn out process with an imposition of change being impossible to implement. The race planning programmers have been doing their best to co-ordinate the pattern races in each country and it seems to work reasonably well.I don't think that an artificial points system overlaid will ever work. They are trying with the sprint series but it hasn't really caught on. Various awards cover horse of the year type categories.

I was thinking more along the lines of linking incentive races at meetings which give the winner an automatic place in another event (without the need for supplementary fees perhaps). These already exist in some cases.

The main end of year meetings are the Arc weekend at Longchamp, the Breeders Cup in the States, the Melbourne Cup meeting in Melbourne, the Newmarket champions meeting and the Ascot festival.There are also important races in Japan, Hong Kong. Is the Dubai meeting in March the end of (for southern hemisphere)or the beginning of (northern hemisphere)a season? You can't move it and it has become very important.

You have to remember the limitations on training horses, the various age, sex and trip permutations, the independence of the participants. You can't dragoon people. They need to see the logic and be attracted by the money and the prestige. Bloodstock value also has a say. In sum, its very complicated and I certainly don't have any easy solutions. Perhaps the world rankings might be a mechanic. Perhaps its an impractical wish.I'd like to know what the likes of Magnier and Shk Mo think? They would be the ones to drive this.

Long term, I see plenty of positives for the industry. Rising sea levels will force bookmakers to abandon their operations in Gibraltar. By 2020 Vict0r Ch@andler, who will operate from a cramped submersible somewhere in the Pacific, will be the only major odds compiler that has not relocated to the UK mainland. With Steven Fry likely to ban football shortly after he is appointed PM, racing's share of bookmakers' turnover will increase dramatically, and levy income will be booming.

My main concern is for the long-term future of the Thoroughbred. Cloning will be banned after a farcical 12-way dead-heat in the Cheltenham Gold Cup, when a dozen Kauto Stars pass the post together. Nevertheless, artificial insemination will trigger a dramatic reduction of the global Thoroughbred gene pool. Will the Coolmore Arabian, the O'Brien Barb and the Magnier Turk offer breeders sufficient options?

In common with a couple of previous posters, I'd like to say what a pleasure it has been to read such an engaging and thought-provoking thread on this forum.

My own view, for what it's worth, is that there are three major influences on the decline in public support for racing, and the concomitant funding crisis in which the sport finds itself.

The major contributory factor is the endemic corruption within the game itself. While a certain amount of skulduggery has always gone on - and one could argue that without unexpected results the game would not be viable as there would be no-one to lay bets - the opportunity afforded the corrupt by this platform to lay horses has served to increase the public perception that only those in the know can profit from horse-racing. What should have been an opportunity to make the game more transparent has been wasted by a supine governing body - it would be naive in the extreme to think that the cases that have come to light in the last ten years are not the tip of a very grubby iceberg, and the BHA have failed the very sport they are supposed to safeguard by employing outsiders with little or no experience of the game to police it. Betfair are in no way to blame for this, in fact the paper trail evidence which must exist should have gone some way to cleaning up the sport; instead the blatant quotidian thievery has been allowed to flourish.

Secondly, as remarked by previous posters, society has changed. In my 20 years in the game, betting on horse-racing has moved from being a mainstream pursuit to a niche market in a crowded betting market place - again the Sport's governors have failed it through realising this only too late, and by not having the faintest idea how to wrest back the interest of the general public. The almost posthumous institution of Racing For Change, its narrow remit, and sadly the lameness of its ideas thus far, will make no difference whatsoever to Racing's continuing decline.

Finally, I'm afraid Racing sold itself down the river the day it sold its broadcasting rights to a consortium of bookmakers in the guise of SIS. Control of broadcasting rights has given the major books the opportunity, eagerly grasped, to all but force the independent layer from the marketplace, while simultaneously diluting the quality of racing's product. The same platform through which racing shows itself to the public has been polluted by animal bingo, numbers games ad nauseam, to the point where betting shops are now no more than amusement arcades with racing's core product given begrudging space in amongst the virtual speedway and BAGS dross.

There are remedies to the first of these issues - Racing must weed out the corrupt, which will of course require a governing body with the guts to take on with extreme prejudice those who blacken its name.

Whether racing can invent a strategy to reverse the liberalisation of betting legislation is questionable, but one thing is for sure - its lamentable efforts so far have not worked, and will continue not to work in their present form. I tend to agree with those who state that pandering to the ADHD generation is not the way forward, but I don't claim to have the magic bullet.

On the third of these points though, I do have a solution: Racing must immediately tear up its contracts with SIS and TurfTV, and re-take control of what is essentially its only product. If partners are necessary, then partners must be found whose primary interest is in increasing the sport's popularity, not in decreasing its market-share to reduce levy payments. In short, racing should call the Bookmaker's bluff. The BHA must find a way of funding the acquisition of the Tote - I suspect that the last Government were waiting for such an approach, perhaps heeding some advice from the late Robin Cook that it should not be sold to any competitor.

The challenges facing racing are immense, but one thing is sure: Unless the sport changes fundamentally on several levels, it is heading the way of ****-fighting and Greyhound racing.

Very well put tucky. Unfortunately I can't see racing in this country rising to the challenges you have outlined so lucidly. I used to think we need only look across the channel for a better way. The PMU appears capable of funding much better prize money despite the fact that - a few big days aside - hardly anyone seems to attend most French tracks. And from what I know, better prize money is only part of a deal that makes ownership a much saner proposition there. Premiums for home-bred runners can bump up returns significantly; the fees demanded by decent trainers are significantly lower; and even transport costs for runners at PMU meetings is subsidised. The thing is, here we are conversing on the forum of the business that will probably signal the deathknell of the current French funding model, and would surely limit the potential positives of a racing-owned Tote.

Over the course  of 1 Prem League Season....
- A big  4 football team  will be a  shouted  about  by the tabloids  in no less  than 5 or 6 tourenments.

1,  All big  Premier League  Games  (total of 6)
2,  1/4's   Semis   and  mabe  Final  of the FA cap
3,  1/4's   Semis   and  mabe  Final  of the Carling cap
4,  Final  of  Comunnity shield  50% of the time
5,  Champions League    Group stage,  and final 16, Quater Final ...
6,  The  other  European Tourenement..  Mabe  once..

Thats  a Minimum  of 8  Big games..
an average  of  mabe  10 to 12
and a Max  of  14 to 15  Big  games..



Now  multiply  that figure by  5 years!   
You now  see how  a big 4  football club  is  in Big  games  50+  times  over 5 years.




NOW  whats  the  name  of that  horse  you were talking  about ??
Sorry   I cant remember..      ;)