Agt change the Chester course layout

It's so the low picks will turn up this time. (Think 1 and 2 were missing last meeting.)

Nero playing the fiddle?

Clive R. wasn't bad on that instrument, either!

What if 35 books turn up ?

How about we change the layout of the Platinum few in the centre, or make it only 6 pitches on the rails to ease congestion?

How many of the 46 books with pitches were asked if they would support this change?

Don't think there's much chance of 35 turning up now , there will be 10 completly useless pitches .

Got rid of half the punters,now reduce the bookies and put extra chester bet pitches in .

If the number of bookmakers attending is linked to how many pitches we have then the rails is very well supported, so I'd say about an extra 20 pitches would solve the problem.

If this is an arbitrary change to the designated number, albeit on a trial basis, is this not a worrying precedent being set ? Perhaps somebody could outline how the system works when a Ring has its designated number of books increased or decreased.

I agree democrat ,very worrying , there are lots of rings all over the country that have spells of low attendance so where next?
The biggest worry of all is this is not being enforced by the course , somebody in the Agt has dreamt this up .

Why should the ring be changed at all? When you buy a pitch you do so on the basis of all available pitches being in operation and pay based on what's it's worth under those circumstances. If places to bet are closed through health and safety or hospitality on the May meeting creating lack of space that's fair enough but to make fundamental changes because it looks prettier for the management or it benefits some at the expense of others is wrong to me. How about we do away with the entire second row at York tats? Those pitches are not used in the main, and bookies choose the back line instead - a long list of potential silly changes at various courses, all of which unfair in my view without at least asking properly all those that it affects - the stakeholders.

Do our contracts not include some protection against courses making fundamental changes to rings? I'm assuming this is course generated of course

Your use of the word 'assuming' encapsulates the underlying issues courselayer i.e lack of information. This action should have been supported with details of the reasons behind it and what consultations, if any and with whom, that have taken place. Why shouldn't the Ring remain in its original form and those layers attending choose wherever they want to bet ? Any revisions to the layout/number should be agreed at the appropriate time  by the recognised bodies with all those affected consulted beforehand.

I'm sure that the unofficial Chester bookmakers spokesman, aka Lord Facts, can enlighten us

^Lord Facts bets in Tatts... Perhaps just a coincidence that he hasn't contributed to this thread.

If bookmakers stand for Agt interference here then what's to stop them doing it everywhere?

Morning Radge, yes but I do recall he was championing himself as the 'bookmakers representative for Chester'

Do you know if anyone on the bookmakers list was consulted about this?

I was told last week by one of our NBPA directors of the proposal to change the ring on a trial period that the ring would be split into two bays of 12 and 22 pitches of which my own personal view would not have helped my own pick and stated more than likely a good few others as well.I have since been contacted by another director with the new proposal of the layout which is similar to the original layout when 46 pitches are used and was explained to me to make the ring fairer to everyone it is only temporary layout and fingers crossed hopefully next season normal sevice may be resumed

The value of the pitches will decrease for 75% of the ring , the Agt should stick to what they are supposed to do instead of lining the pockets of a chosen few.

I fail to see how this change can make it fairer for everyone. Let's be honest the only thing that has gone wrong here is that last meeting the books bet  in space and margins were 2% a runner instead of the traditional 1% in all but the top dozen picks, as a result business was good despite every attempt by the course to shut the ring with its minimise shareholder wealth policy and hence woeful crowd in attendance.

Whilst this change helps my premium pick it's not one I want to see again or at any other course without valid reasons.

Democrat made the point well I feel.

Well the ring alteration proved as successful as every body expected with around 20 bookmakers prepared to work in such an environment and 3 of those going home before the third race.

Come racing .