What's wanted of a racing TV presenter

an opinion and ask the difficult questions when required

ability to say what an emotional moment this is as fergal returns on his first winner in britain for ten years

1 continued..................and YOUR favourite is.......

Its NOT my phuucking favourite, ffs!

2) We owe YOU the result of the last race.

PHuuck off! You owe me phuck all.

to be of a different colour than white

4. Not to be patronising.

This would appear to be an elusive quality.

1. Don't upset your fellow presenter.
2. Pretend that your fellow presenter is amusing.
3. Pretend that you are watching the best card ever even if it consists of five handicaps and a seller.
4. Have an exhaustive list of excuses why a horse ran badly that never involve criticising either jockey or trainer.
5. Be ready to drop in regular comments about breeding and pace angles.
6. Pretend to be interested in viewer's emails.
7. But most all to be of no use to the punter whatsoever.

Sounds like an ex Irish jumps jockey now on CH4

Shirley not.

Not to CONTINUALLY talk in a stupid voice,and gabble his sentences,like S Boyce.Dire presenter!!!

Be quite happy with no presenter, just the pictures would suffice, even more so if the time delay was shortened for us all

1. (.)(.)

anything else is a bonus

Suffer from verbal diarrhoea syndrome.

To be having to hold down a dozen further jobs within racing in order to pay for the professional punting

Although I put this up as a jokey thread it's actually quite a serious matter.

I'm talking about specialist channels, especially in the case of RUK where a subscription has to be paid ffs. We have a situation where

- most viewers don't respect or take any notice of the views of (almost all)  pundits

- these pundits and presenters are paid a healthy whack

- our subscriptions have to pay for them

- most of the presenters/pundits are also on the payroll of bookmakers who won't take a bet from anyone who shows the slightest evidence of a brain cell or two

- the fawning over b/m reps is odious in the extreme

An inanimate carbon rod would be a better option in virtually all circumstances, imho...

nellie1970
16 Aug 14 14:30

to be of a different colour than white

Yeah, i'm really struggling to think of any white racing presenters left in this crazy PC-sport

*****

@parispike -- these pundits and presenters are paid a healthy whack

I don't suppose they are destitute but I'd be surprised if most of the ATR/RUK types are on more than two or three hundred a day, and maybe not even that.

Before we get the violins out how many have just one source of income? I suspect just about zero.

It's well paid compared with many jobs in life. But appearing on television engenders a profound sense of insecurity - just like any other branch of the entertainment industry.

seeing as most of them are attention seekers who love the camera to tell us their oh so important opinion then maybe they should have this factored into their fee and take a cut

people who avoid camera and keep opinions to themselves not ideal for tv punditry gig, rider, you nugget

parispike's 10.43 post is spot on.

Steadman to Shinners earlier "Plenty of punter friendly big field handicaps at York"

Lots of these pundits keep coming up with great each way bets to nothing with an odds on fav in the field. Where do they get their each way bets on?

Most of them can't bet much.

2 or 3 hundred a day is pretty good pay to me, certainly a lot more than they're worth.

i wonder what would be the outcome if you offered:

1-paddock shots,going down and race with 1 presenter in studio.

2-same as presently-pundits,bookies reps etc.

actually after i wrote that i wish i could have had 1.01 the apologist would suddenly appear, lol , i should have said their oh so important sit on the fence opinions as all they do is waffle

but despite the attempted smoke screen the point remains they are attention seeking losers who  need the camera partly for money and partly to make up their much needed quota for the day

Aug 17, 2014 -- 5:10PM, Virgin wrote:

1. (.)(.)anything else is a bonus

+1

knot in wood, yes, miss out the middle man (the gravytrain) and split the cost saving between the viewer and the tracks meaning more money goes back into racing, but unfortunately we dont have the choice, so what does the apologist have to say about that?

at what, racingstar?

That was at Duncan's post,paris.

sure it wasnt the side effects of your medication

Ok, racingstar

knot in wood 18 Aug 14 16:29 Joined: 05 Nov 08 | Topic/replies: 4,316 | Blogger: knot in wood's blog
i wonder what would be the outcome if you offered:

1-paddock shots,going down and race with 1 presenter in studio.

2-same as presently-pundits,bookies reps etc.

I have no doubt as to the outcome!

not so sure parispike,imagine some people like the pundits etc.

RUK want the verminous Reps as much as the rest of us.
However,in the real World,they are financially obliged to let the lying Rodents come on daily to spout their utter nonsense.
Would you prefer it was £40 per month without them (I would).

Knot. Maybe some people do like pundits. But look what's happened to C4 Racing viewing figures since they have filled the screen with non-stop talking heads.

i agree pinhooker,most of them put me in a coma.

There probably is a role for some punditry but it needs to be aligned to the audience profile.

Some spotty 25 year old oik who pontificates as if he knows the game inside out whereas in fact he/she is learning the ropes ain't going to provide that...

I value the view (but might disagree with it on occasion) of

Neesom
Fremantle

and that's about it. Given the number of pundits here there and everywhere that's pretty pathetic for specialist channels

Always nauseating stuff when shinners is on, I swear he fancies himself as some sort of smart ar5e comic...him and bell were on the other day wishing each other a happy holiday as they both go off to malta.....I urged so much at that, that I tore my stomach lining right off.

Neesom(NH) and Fremantle are head and shoulders above the others because they have a genuine interest and have done their time on the racecourse.

I get the impression that some presenters learn their lines by studying various websites before turning up in the studio.

Love clowns like Steadman to explain what exactly they mean by 'punter friendly handicaps'.

Bookmakers know if they get a few results in the condition races the handicaps will take care of themselves.

not sure neesom is that good based on records i kept of his RP tipping a few years ago

Presenters are not there to tip winners (lucky for them).
The day I ever look to one to help me find a winner will be a first.

if you are going to rate a pundit its easily done by recording their selections,hth

If you need a "pundit" to help you there is no hope for you.
This will help you

racingstar i was replying to the pinhooker regarding how good neesom is as a tipster, you seem to have make a few assumptions to suit your cause

I have no cause,rider.
Sorry if I offended you.

no cause! lol, ok racingstar

If you are referring to the choice between RUK and the shambles that are ATR I certainly have a "view" which I am happy to debate,rider.

that argument has done the rounds since long before you joined this forum

but no that wasnt 'the cause' i was laughing at

Why do we need so many of them for a start?
It would seem that racing has gone the same way as most other sports......just because they played it tv producers believe this is a recipe to make a marvellous presenter for some inexplicable reason.( Just because they can talk a bit does not make them give good in- depth reasoning ).
This is fately flawed from the start, as they will not criticise their mates for fear of falling out with them...ie Mick Fitz. Therefore the viewer is constantly irritated by them for not giving an impartial and balanced argument for poor rides etc etc.
The whole racing game is totally incestuous and it has to be said, until this mould is broken this same long standing argument will roll on and on forever.

There are infinitely less chuffer lickers on RUK,Paul.
The day you ever hear Fitz criticise a "hideous ride" by a top jockey will never dawn.

Lots of losers given in a convincing voice of authority
just to keep the bookmakers happy

"Chuffer lickers" - an apt and amusing turn of phrase but a most unappealing vista.

Rider. Is there any single RUK. or ATR racing pundit who, from statistical evidence, falls into the "profitable" category?

They are so busy running up and down the country and booking in and out
of hotels they have little time to study form and little time to socialize
Most rely on what trainers and jockey's tell them in fleeting conversations.
they can't possibly win on the nags...

On a specialist racing channel are there any need for presenters?

Although a few viewers may need some "help" with their selections, the vast majority will have their own "view".

Why not:

Horses in paddock.
Going down to the start.
Betting / exchange show.
Race.
Reply.
Head on.
Winners enclosure.

Do we really need more?

Dune. In a word, no.

Really they crave to be better at picking winners than the general public
but I know one personally and he often ignores my advice when I tell him my
fancies for big races based on really superb form lines and instead picks one
with little chance because he has talked to a trainer.He never gets mentioned
on any threads on here but is a really nice Guy if you know him.

@Dunerunner -- Do we really need more?

Try watching a day's racing on mute.

No-one will follow the pundits' tips blind but it is good to have them discussing the race and they may give me a piece of information I'd been unaware of, or make me look at known information in a new light.

Ironically, it is when watching racing alongside other people that I'd most like the pundits to shut up.

Aug 19, 2014 -- 9:35AM, The Pinhooker wrote:

Rider. Is there any single RUK. or ATR racing pundit who, from statistical evidence, falls into the "profitable" category?

when I kept records of all the RP spotlight tipsters neesom was no better than mid div, just to put his punditry in context, a few did show a profit and the ROI% went up when adding a bit of extra work myself

getting statistics on ruk waffle would be near impossible, atr i havent watched in ages

I'd like more cleavage

exactly

Why not:

Horses in paddock.
Going down to the start.
Betting / exchange show.
Race.
Reply.
Head on.
Winners enclosure.

Do we really need more?

A replay would be preferable to a reply but broadly that's all I want.

after many years of tearing my hair out over not showing horses to post i'm pretty convinced this is policy

If you wish to know what is not required, switch to ATR now!

I mean in the studio, by the way.