It's called a fait accompli Johnny ! Don't you dare call it a 'stitch up' or you will be black balled ! Any suggestions where GY races can be run next season if the grandstand has blown down ?

if i could offer my humble opinion for what it is worth i have no problem with the "same firm" linking but strongly believe there should be limits on the number of pitches by a said firm in the ring.put simply it cannot be right longterm for the good of the ring if the biggest chequebook always wins and the said firm end up with 2  3  4  5  6 piches at any track.surely this is akin to tesco owning every retail outlet in the country and charge what they like the public wudn;t stand for it it maybe just my opinion but i am entitled to have 1 it would be my suggestion that the proprietor was limited to pitch in each ring and prevent public perceptions of cartels and my perception that it is purely driven by greed .

they aint worked it out yet but when the few paying race-goers are left and even they can work it out that 90% of the pitch holders are the same bloke what you think they gunna do............. just another nail in the coffin of racecourse bookmakers.......  most can't even see it that the sad thing they think they got the upper hand

Could not agree more Flash. Take Cheltenham Off Lower Tatts for instance - there are just ten pitches. One firm has four of them - is 40% an acceptable level of 'occupation' and not contrary to the public interests ? I simply ask the question and would appreciate opinions from all quarters especially those who have the knowledge to point out that multi-pitches are permitted as long as they do not exceed more than a certain percentage of any one betting area.

Does this ruling, if adopted by all racecourses, mean that all the aliases that have been invented by the multi pitch operators will now be scrapped and be removed from the AGT records ?

We have 2 pitches at just about everywhere we go and on about 95% of the time they are run separate - if they are not worth running on there own they are not worth adding to another one.

So Peter James and Yorkshire Racing are here to stay

Flash,as far as I can see its a free market so I don't see how it can be stopped although I personally would be happy enough with some sort of limit,easily got around though by just forming another company.Re the bugger all comment 1 pitch only would mean big leap ups for the smaller investors and would devalue pitches considerably so once again I'm out.

ribero1 in my opinion your argument is flawed my pitches are all decent picks dont see how smaller investors can get a leap up everybody knows even me that you only get what you pay for anyway don;t want to argue this point cos it is still a democracy in this country and we all have our different views and i accept your position on it

chelt off lower tats will 4 top picks all trade umder one name stood next to each other linked like one long joint or under separate names running around hedging between each joint trying to compile a human link up lol. staff training will be required too.

racing snake rgt are only allowed to link them if the said pitches are trading under the same name that is the criteria otherwise have to be run as separate entities rgt have agreed to police it

pitches for sale soon at a website near you

Your 'democracy' point is noted Flash - 'theory' and 'practice' come to mind as do 'head' and 'sand' re some of the self-interest based views still being expressed. It will always be thus I fear but a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step ! Trouble is this business does not have a thousand miles left on the clock.

link up to 10 users mifi 49 pounds

The lack of response to previously posted questions speaks volumes. Others with views that the minority set the standards for the majority without that majority having a say have a point. One poster used the word 'revolution' - is that the answer every time a view is expressed calling into question what has been allowed to take root in the Ring ? On another subject - use of exchanges on course was allowed without consultation. If a poll of layers had been taken on this matter how do the forumites think the votes would have been cast i.e. FOR usage or AGAINST ? Honest, unbiased views appreciated.

democrat.... use of exchanges on course imo is a yes... I don't spin money through the machine like some books but believe it to be an essential tool to construct a book on quiet days and to keep an ipad or telephone arbors steeling the value. wish it didn't exist at all but it does so use at as necessary.

HMMM

In answer to democrats question,if a poll had been taken when exchanges started and BF led a campaign to get exchanges allowed on course,the vote would have gone against them but now would go massively for them as the ring is now full of plenty who have never known anything else and wouldn't know how to work without them.
Using them on course is comfortably the worst thing ever to happen to the on course industry,turkeys for Christmas etc.

You have gone a stage further than myself ribero in that my disquiet concerned no consultation regarding whether Exchanges on course should be allowed. You appear convinced that should opinions have been sought the majority would have opted for no Exchange usage. We shall never know if your assumption is correct but everyone will know the reason for the Ring's  inevitable demise when not if it occurs.

Truth - But with the way they operate how can they possible every get their original investment back yet alone hope to show a profit  whilst at the same time bringing about the demise of the ring in it's in entirety....       sad thing is they think they are putting themselves at some sort of advantage...... they will never be able to compete with the King of the Ring Bigger than the machine.......  long live the King..... and avoid all commission agents at all costs  for the limited life span that the ring has left

Can JCR, if they really mean business, please regard link ups to Exchanges as being between two separate businesses ?