Peter Savill group threatens boycott of TV interviews unless trainers ...

Doubtful the fodder really care much for interviews tbh….

i hope the telly companies tell them to do one...

i doubt they will tho.

Some trainers could refuse to give interviews on course during live television coverage of British racing from next month unless they receive payment, according to Peter Savill's breakaway group the Professional Racing Association (PRA), which has said it is not an "idle threat".

The PRA has contacted media rights company Racecourse Media Group (RMG) on behalf of its membership, which it claims numbers more than 170 and includes many leading jumps trainers, asking for a payment of £500,000 this year in return for agreeing to give interviews from February 1.

The PRA has also contacted Sky Sports Racing with a proposal, although it is not known for what amount, while ITV is also aware of the situation. Although ITV is not being asked for payment the refusal to give interviews would affect the broadcaster, which is set to show the Cheltenham Festival in March.

Contact was first made in December but it is understood the PRA's proposals have been rejected so far.

The Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) has a long-standing media rights agreement in place under which its members agree to give interviews in return for payments that go towards the riders' insurance costs. Former PJA chairman Nigel Payne, who is acting for the PRA, said that trainers believed they should also receive payment.

"If you are Sky after a football match you have access by contract to the managers and players," he said. "In a sense this is what we are saying here in that when Sky or ITV or Racing TV are broadcasting they should have access to the main players.

"Now they pay the jockeys, which goes to the PJA for the benefit of the jockeys. So what we are saying is why shouldn't the trainers get paid as well. What's the difference? We felt trainers should be entitled to some remuneration for the enormous number of interviews they give."

Peter Savill: "Sunday has been 'bouncy castle day' so far"
Peter Savill: heads up the PRA breakaway group
Credit: Edward Whitaker
Payne said a refusal to do interviews would only apply to live racing and not to other programming such as the second series of ITV's Champions: Full Gallop, or to the written press.

He added: "The only way that we are able to impress upon RMG and Sky that this was something that we were determined should happen was to say that if no agreement was reached of any description we will request the trainers who are signed up to the PRA not to carry out interviews on the racecourse.

"I'll be talking to Sky and RMG and putting arguments to them up until the last minute but we have the complete backing of the trainers and they are aware that February 1 is the date. You don't make idle threats. Hopefully we have still got time to sort things out and it is not beyond the wit of man to do that."

Payne claimed the payments, the destination of which would be "entirely up to the trainers", would in effect be coming from racecourses rather than the broadcasters or media rights companies themselves.

He added: "As I have said to RMG and Sky, just deduct a figure from what you give to the racecourses, which will not be a lot per racecourse, to meet a figure to pay the trainers."

It is understood RMG will only deal with the National Trainers Federation (NTF) as part of the wider Thoroughbred Group on commercial matters as it is the officially recognised trade body for trainers in British racing.

The Thoroughbred Group is currently in talks over commercial agreements itself with racecourses, which include access to participants being linked to courses signing a deal.

However, Payne claimed the NTF was aware of the situation, adding: "This is in no way an anti-NTF thing at all."

ITV is in the second year of a three-year deal to show exclusive, free-to-air coverage of British horseracing until the end of 2026. Talks about extending that contract are expected to begin later this year and it is understood that the PRA's demands have not been well received by the broadcaster.

The PRA is the brainchild of Savill, the former chair of the BHA's predecessor the BHB, owner of Plumpton racecourse and whose colours have been carried by racehorses including Celtic Swing.


I think it was on the pay site.

This would be the same Peter Savill who wrecked press coverage of racing by demanding payment for cards. Savill (and to be fair, he is not alone in the sport) need to realise that racing is just not that popular so there is no point looking at football with green eyes.

Can the boycott start at 15.05 tommorrow please?

If a trainer gets paid for talking about a horse then any payment should go to the owner. A 10% fee could possibly be retained by the trainer.

Finacial blackmail with the Cheltenham festival coming up.

As just proffered, put the owners up and pay them, alongside owner's family and the head lads/ladies who look after these hosses 24/7 in front of the camera and get their overviews of the beast.

Trainers often pompous, half-pis4ed and evasive/ambiguous.

Racecourses that couldn't care less if any punter turns up as long as they get the image rights and now a proposal to blackmail the broadcast companies into stuffing cash into the pockets of trainers.

ludicrous situation.

Good post Ramruna.

Payne is the supreme example of a brown-nosing gravy-train-rider. He has had more jobs than soft Joe. Greasing his way way into this and that sinecure. His contribution to the well being of racing is zero. It would not surprise me if, in 2 years , he was "representing" the media companies opining how disgraceful it is for trainers to be asking for £ for interviews. If PETA came running and offered him enough he would soon be campaigning to abolish horse racing. A loathsome toad. On the merits , I would be happy to pay a levy on my betting to have all interviews with jockeys and trainers forbidden. "the horse is very well and should give a good account of himself.........................when do I get the £250?"

A posh boys trade union......lol

Any forumites saw action at Stockton racecourse?

I posted in wrong thread but that is not a hanging offense!

Taken from Scoobytoos post, ....

    PRA, RMG, SKY, ITV, PJA, RACING TV, NTF, BHA, BHB. 


   Thats the reason the sport is going backwards. TOO many Snouts in the Trough.!

not like saville to threaten punters with a good time

yeh I went 3 times twice over jumps ,once on the flat just before it closed
my dad told me in early days they had a group of men in wellies and waterproofs and they formed a circle and you paid them a penny to have a wazz in the circle

When I first read Sporting Life in late 80s I still remember seeing the form for horses that won at Stockton, Arthur Stephenson horses

think Peter easterby won the big race the Saturday I went maroon colours , clay something

Sparrow asked me to post the picture of the first Omnibus he was a conductor on so here it is:



He was round 17 when he started his conducting?

Not sure what I would do without having trainer interviews, with some shifty looking types mumbling and staring at the ground and into the sky, while talking utter shooight before a race....

Savill was the brains behind premier racing

1st tp Clayside?

trainers will be mortified they are not able to mislead the gullible without receiving a fee.

Cardinal

Stockton is the only racecourse I’ve never been to that raced whilst I was interested in horse racing ,it did reopen as teeside park for a short time ,the best horse that ran there that I can remember was gay spartan.

possibly geoff

leif 24 Jan 25 23:03 
Sparrow asked me to post the picture of the first Omnibus he was a conductor on so here it is:



He was round 17 when he started his conducting?




The forum nutter leafy appears again. Any more covid conspiracy mug stories you might possibly dig up again.

It is an inevitable part of modern sport and mandatory in Football and Tennis but it is something we managed without for many years and could do again. In cricket the captain has to be miked up during play! Ridiculous. no comment. no comment, no comment would soon put a stop to it.

Ramruma said it all for me, will Saville never learn...

Jan 25, 2025 -- 8:23AM, jimnast wrote:

CardinalStockton is the only racecourse I’ve never been to that raced whilst I was interested in horse racing ,it did reopen as teeside park for a short time ,the best horse that ran there that I can remember was gay spartan.

As someone who has Stocktonian blood running through my veins all info is appreciated

Leaf still thinking what a clever little boy he is.  Bless him.

Dan Skelton has backed the Professional Racing Association's demand for trainers to be paid for broadcast interviews, and says he and others are prepared to "stand strongly" if it comes to not cooperating with the television companies on course.

More pies for lard 4rse

Sparra still smarting after falling for the gender bender LaraBroon ruse.

Bless him

Back again goes the conspiracy mug to his favourite subject. Why don't you post this nonsense in the Politics forum?

We know what Skelton is like when it comes to money and selling horses

everyone else jealous of jocks getting 500 grand for doing what their paid for,riding horses

Nero fiddling while Rome is burning.

Give 'em rice.

Dan Skelton has backed the Professional Racing Association's demand for trainers to be paid for broadcast interviews, and says he and others are prepared to "stand strongly" if it comes to not cooperating with the television companies on course.

As reported exclusively by the Racing Post, Peter Savill's PRA, which claims to represent 170 trainers across Britain, has contacted Racecourse Media Group (RMG) asking for £500,000 in media rights payments. Sky Sports Racing has also been approached.

If the media companies do not come to the table, the PRA is prepared to instruct its membership not to do television interviews on course, beginning as early as February 1.

The National Trainers Federation (NTF) is the official representative of Skelton and his colleagues on racing's various decision-making structures through its membership of the Thoroughbred Group, and its chief executive Paul Johnson said that, while he understood the frustration of the PRA membership, the NTF did not support such a course of action.

Skelton said: "I know the vast majority of trainers are behind this and as far as the stance that the media companies might take – which is not to deal – I don’t think they’re on very strong ground.

ITV racing is set to expand Sunday coverage in 2024
Trainers are threatening to boycott interview requests from February 1
Credit: Edward Whitaker
"Ultimately what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and we’re some of the actors that are walking on the stage of the racecourse, just like the jockeys. I don’t think it’s a great argument to say we’re going to pay one but not the other. Now this is out there that jockeys get paid for interviews and trainers don’t, even the average person on the street will ask why that is."

Payments received by the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) from broadcasters help to fund the injury insurance scheme and Skelton emphasised it would be for the trainers to decide how any money was utilised rather than automatically going to the PRA, but that it would be used for "the good of the industry and go towards administration".

Skelton praised Johnson's role with the NTF but argued that Savill's contribution was to "ask the awkward questions" of other interests in the sport. He said: "This is all about representation and we’re getting more representation. I’ve got a lot of time for Paul Johnson, I think he’s an excellent leader of our NTF.

Peter Savill: "Sunday has been 'bouncy castle day' so far"
Peter Savill: the chairman of Plumpton withdrew from the Racecourse Association and heads the PRA
Credit: Edward Whitaker
"Peter has been in the industry a long time and in many different roles. He has a slightly different take and, by his own admission, he can rub people up the wrong way. But he asks the awkward questions. I feel for way too long the trainers – and not even just the trainers but the horsemen – haven’t had the say we're entitled to."

An RMG spokesperson said: “RMG’s shareholders are already actively engaged with the National Trainers Federation – a member of the Thoroughbred Group and the official trade association for trainers licensed by the BHA – on all commercial matters, including prize-money investment.”

Johnson said the PRA's stance showed how frustrated many of his members were but said he could not support the proposed broadcast boycott.

"The National Trainers Federation would like to clarify that we act on behalf of 435 trainers and that our position is not to seek direct payment for media interviews," said Johnson.

"While we agree that trainers providing interviews generates value for the sport, we believe that the sharing of this value is something that must be achieved through the signing of commercial partnership deals between participants and racecourses, as sought by the Thoroughbred Group.

Paul Johnson: NTF chief executive "hugely concerned" by affordability checks
Paul Johnson: NTF chief executive does not back trainers boycotting broadcast interviews
"However, the fact 170 trainers, most of whom are also NTF members, are engaged with the PRA, is an indication of the levels of frustration that currently exist about the lack of any agreement over the sharing of racing’s revenues, which we are all working to generate. Until this is resolved, it seems likely that we will see further unrest."

Johnson added: "Discussions between the Thoroughbred Group and racecourses over the signing of commercial partnership deals are ongoing and we do not view the type of activity threatened by the PRA as helpful to these negotiations.

"We firmly believe that at a time when the sports revenues are under threat, stakeholders need to work together rather than against each other and to put the customer at the forefront of our activity. The threatened action by the PRA does neither of these things and we do not support it."

Simplest solution would be to stop paying the jockeys so there's a level playing field.  The sport is in demise and the entire industry continues to look after their own special and separate interests.  They'll all be blaming each other in 10 years when there is no jumps racing and the flat calendar consists of fields of 3 horses racing for £1.50 in prize money.

James Millman made a good point about this on willhill radio. Basically said any interview should be welcomed and seen as free publicity for the trainer and his business. Some really delusional trainers around, stuck in their racing world bubble, with no awareness of the bigger picture for a dying industry.   


Btw.How much do you think Evan W should be paid for his pre-race interview comments on Owl Of Athens?

He's schooled well

He's done plenty of work but may need the run

He'll come on for it

It's been a cold spring and the fillies are a bit behind where we'd like them to be.

He's still got his winter coat.

He's a chaser in the making and anything he does over hurdles is a bonus

80-1 into 85-40...Nowt to do with me, one of the owners had £20 each-way on.

He'll be a fun horse for the owners

We're hoping he'll turn out to be a Saturday horse

There's not much point hanging onto a 95-horse because of the lack of opportunities and poor prize money here, which is why we're hoping to sell him to some mug abroad for seven figures.

He's a horse for next year, really.

The jockey gave him a good ride. I turned to the owner three furlongs out and said I didn't think we could win from there.

Cheltenham is the dream for this horse.

We'll see what the handicapper does before deciding on his next target, but all options are open.

Listen, we always thought this lad was smart judged on what we were seeing at home.

Any one who missed Evan Williams ysdy needs to go to Racing Post and watch it, a man looking furious for a second then fake innocence, vile bloke.

I think what may be of more value to viewers would be to pay Eddie Freemantle for his trainer observations...

I saw trainer x outside the saddling boxes pacing up and down whilst nervously pufffing on a cigarette, and interestingly his horse here has been backed.

Sounds ludicrous IMAO. Is there a precedent for this in other sports?

I think what's needed is here is something akin to the whip review panel, but obviously instead of counting whip strokes they'd be rating the trainers' interviews.

So for example:

If the trainer puts the public away...£250 fine.

If the trainer divulges something that was worth hearing...£100 credit.

Lee Mottershead

Let's begin with a potential scenario for this coming Saturday.

Following Galopin Des Champs' latest tour de force, Willie Mullins waxes lyrical about the magnificent chaser in interviews seen by those watching the Leopardstown coverage on ITV and Racing TV. Mullins then goes on to talk about his earlier winners on day one of the Dublin Racing Festival, including star novice hurdler Final Demand, so impressive in the opening Grade 1 for British owners Bryan Drew and Caroline Tisdall.

The sport's dominant force also enjoys a productive day at Sandown, where Impaire Et Passe lands the Scilly Isles Novices' Chase for owners Simon Munir and Isaac Souede. The card's shoulder races go to British stables, yet the winning trainers, whose businesses are hardly being helped by the exodus of British-based jumps owners to Ireland (often for confusing reasons), reject the opportunity to promote themselves, their sponsors, their profession and the sport because a deadline to pay them £500,000 had passed earlier in the week.

Putting aside arguments about whether trainers, like jockeys, have a right to expect remuneration for cooperating with broadcasters, the timing of the Professional Racing Association's move towards militancy is perplexing and self-harming on a number of fronts.

The official line is that Peter Savill's group's target is not the broadcasters but racecourses, but it is broadcasters and their viewers who will most immediately suffer if the threat is activated. As might therefore have been expected, the PRA's demand has gone down like a lead balloon at ITV, with which racing will soon need to begin contract renewal talks.

"For me, it's all about the customer," was the entirely sensible message delivered by Cheltenham's new chief executive Guy Lavender in a Saturday ITV interview with Ed Chamberlin. Television viewers, like racegoers, are racing's customers. Now, more than ever before, they need to be looked after and respected.

Cheltenham boss Guy Lavender speaks to Ed Chamberlin at Cheltenham on Saturday
Cheltenham boss Guy Lavender speaks to Ed Chamberlin at Cheltenham on Saturday
Credit: Edward Whitaker
Evidence of that came in something else Lavender told Chamberlin.

"We're going to have north of 200,000 people here at the festival," said the man now responsible for jumping's premier meeting. Unless "north" translates to an additional 30,000 racegoers, the festival will suffer a third consecutive attendance fall, something Lavender was unable to rule out on ITV. Remember that just three years ago, Cheltenham recorded an official festival crowd total of 280,627. That is an awfully long way north of 200,000.

Now is not the time for a vital stakeholder group to go schtum. Pleasingly, that harsh reality has been accepted by the National Trainers Federation, which does not back a PRA move that has unsurprisingly confused last year's Kentucky Derby-winning trainer Kenny McPeek. "I'm trying to understand this one?" he wrote in a post on X. "Help me, wouldn't a well spoken interview be an opportunity to explain to players your plan and possibly grow your business? And the sport!"

McPeek was responding to a post by Nick Luck, who recalled a previous boycott in 2005. Luck referenced John Dunlop crossing the picket line at Goodwood, which brought to mind a conversation I had with the great trainer that same day. "I don't care what you ask me, just ask me something," said Dunlop. His enthusiasm to break ranks and be quoted on absolutely anything was most commendable.

At a time when racing's leadership faces an already uphill battle to convince government it should help the sport secure a levy reform deal with bookmakers, it is unlikely ministers or their officials will be impressed by the latest skirmish between the sport's two stakeholder sides. Governments want to deal with united entities, yet here we not only have racecourses and participants at loggerheads, we also have a situation where a significant number of trainers are preparing to take action that has been denounced by their own trade body.

It's also hard to believe government will look kindly on the latest grim chapter in the sport's depressing relationship with marketing.

"I don't think anything is off the table," says Felicity Barnard in relation to British racing's efforts to boost funding
The entire Great British Racing board, including Ascot chief executive Felicity Barnard, recently quit
Credit: Edward Whitaker
As a reminder, it was announced earlier this month that the entire Great British Racing board had resigned en masse in order to make way for a new marketing committee that will report to the cross-industry commercial committee. The now former GBR chair Nick Attenborough described the introduction of the new committee as "a positive step". It is fair to say Attenborough was being diplomatic in the extreme.

Word on the street is that the GBR board – whose members included Ascot chief executive Felicity Barnard and Thoroughbred Breeders' Association chair Philip Newton – quit in exasperation, not to enthusiastically make way for the committee but, in part, in protest at its creation. The board's members brought to the table considerable commercial and marketing expertise yet it is understood they felt consistently sidelined, just as too many in racing's leadership have sidelined the sport's marketing, leaving it desperately underfunded and depressingly undervalued. Moreover, just as the PRA's boycott tactic exposes divisions among participants, the marketing mess has highlighted serious differences of opinion and aspiration within the racecourse sector.

It is certainly hard to work up much excitement for the marketing committee, not least because marketing committees seldom work well and this particular one is far from an original concept.

Until recently, there was a racecourse marketing group, jointly chaired by representatives of GBR and the Racecourse Association. Part of its remit was to help shape and deliver projects linked to the Premier raceday project, whose promotion has been next to non-existent. In no small part that has been due to the commercial committee obstruction that was highlighted last year by then Jockey Club chief executive and commercial committee member Nevin Truesdale.

Devoid of money and good ideas, the marketing of British racing continues to be wholly inadequate. One vehicle the sport does have for successfully promoting itself is its extensive television coverage. That some participants should see merit in damaging that from within is utterly baffling.

should be (an informal) contract with entering in a race...you are available for comment on your horse

this greed is such a bad look

someone needs to tell MOTORSHEAD he loses the room after 6 words never mind 6 FOOKING thousand

I can see the argument that if jockeys are paid then trainers should be paid as well, but I think there is a stronger argument that neither should be paid. It's more about self promotion rather than anything useful. If there was nobody to interview perhaps they could save a little money on presenters? It would also force them to focus more on the real stars, the horses.

I thought they already got a small fee for doing so, they’d certainly have to pay me to talk to that cretin CHAPMAN

How about the owners as well and of course dont leave the Lad/lass out of it.

If you are not paid and not contracted to do interviews then you should be able to opt out and the TV companies should be aware of that. Interviews after a race are OK and most trainers do them but the intrusive attempts before a race when a trainer is talking to owners or jockeys are out of order imo. I suppose I tend to tune out nearly all interviews as I am only interested in live sport.

"they are getting this, so I want it too"

It does not do their public image much good, enough to put people off sending them a horse to train.

Plenty of perks for them as it is without the pettiness.

Hugo Palmer and Kim Bailey have came out against.

They are well mannered tho’

They both are, especially K.B.

Some of them like talking to the media and that is their prerogative. Those that prefer to stay silent should not be approached by aggressive Journos.

... Very rarely see someone being interviewed who doesnt want to, if you felt that much against it a
quite word with the media beforehand.

I like that story of John Dunlop showing a spirit of independence. As I remember he was one of the better interviewees in the training ranks

Honest and Open

I know it turned sour at the end with bankruptcy and redundancies but I miss John in the game

Trainers aligned to the Professional Racing Association (PRA) will refuse to give live TV interviews at Sandown on Saturday unless media rights companies and racecourses agree to collectively pay them for doing so.

The ultimatum has come after it was revealed the PRA, a group founded by Peter Savill, had been seeking payments from media rights companies to allow access to its members on racedays, a move that has been criticised by some trainers, including Kim Bailey and Jamie Snowden, and does not have the support of the National Trainers Federation (NTF).

The PRA claims to represent 170 members and its proposal has been backed by Dan Skelton, who believes trainers should receive payments in the way that jockeys receive group interview fees, with payments received by the Professional Jockeys Association (PJA) from broadcasters used to help fund the injury insurance scheme since 2008.

In a statement on Monday, the group said: "The PRA board met today and reiterated its call for racecourses, RMG and Sky Racing to show that they value the contribution that trainers make to the show, and also to explain why they have so far been willing to pay the jockeys but not the trainers. This money will not be going to trainers personally but to the benefit of the sport, including, among other good causes, the NTF Benevolent Fund and Racing Welfare.

"This is yet another example of racecourses taking horsemen for granted as they have for far too long. To say that trainers should be grateful for the exposure is both insulting and symptomatic of the imbalance of the distribution of racecourses’ revenues into prize-money which the PRA has been investigating for the past year and which it has found in many instances to be unacceptable."

The statement said the PRA was formed to "identify and speak out when it sees issues that are damaging to the sport and financially unfair to horsemen", and added: "Unless the racecourses and media companies resolve this particular issue by Saturday, the PRA trainer members will refrain from giving interviews at Sandown on Saturday. It's well within the racecourses’ capability to ensure that this situation is avoided. The ball is firmly in their court."

On Sunday, Savill said the payment of jockeys had set a precedent and branded the argument that trainers should be grateful for the exposure as "laughable". However, a number of trainers, including Kim Bailey, have stressed the value of engaging with on-course interviews.

Kim Bailey, always remembering the good times, at Thorndale Farm
Kim Bailey: has voiced his opposition to the actions of the PRA
Credit: Edward Whitaker
Bailey said: "We need to promote our sport and we would be lost without any sort of television coverage whatsoever. We should be doing everything we possibly can to get the sport out there, especially at the present time when we're struggling to keep the profile of the sport up, so it's very disappointing to see talk of such a potential move.

"I have a strong view that racing is not great at looking after many things but the owners are the most important people in the sport and without them we can't survive. We train the horses for the owners, so it should be the owners picking up any money and not the trainers."

Bailey raised the fact that many trainers are sponsored by bookmakers, and added: "I'm sure those bookmakers want to see their logos in television coverage – it puts their names in lights. TV interviews not only help to promote the sport but they also promote your yard. It's a self-promotion.

"As someone who has experienced being away from the limelight for a while, I can promise you that when you get the opportunity to be interviewed you're delighted to be asked. When you're going through a bad patch, no one wants to talk to you, and that's much more depressing."

That view was echoed by Snowden, who said he does not agree with the PRA's proposal, and added: "We need to be singing from the same song sheet but I think the PRA is muddying the waters, confusing the issue and causing a splinter group to form, which is something racing doesn't need.

"Anybody who is a member of the NTF pays for the organisation to work on their behalf, and it does a brilliant job, whereas the PRA is trying to operate by itself."

Savill, the former chair of the BHA's predecessor the BHB and owner of Plumpton, has been funding the free-to-join PRA, and said on Sunday that any money collectively received for trainers giving interviews would go "partly to defray the administrative cost of the PRA" but more substantially to charities such as the IJF.

I think every interview post the race ought to be paid, the destination of the proceed decided accordingly eg jockey goes to IJF; stable lad/lass to their hardship fund.
And, ban bookies sponsoring trainers/stables which is a direct conflict of interest eg Hendo, reporting to Unibet 1st eg Altior (in the past). This is so wrong and unprofessional, and against the ethos of the sport ie protect the integrity, and ensure a level-playing-field for all.

Savill ...has been funding the free-to-join PRA, and said on Sunday that any money collectively received for trainers giving interviews would go "partly to defray the administrative cost of the PRA"

I see.

ITV presenters are paid, why not trainers, jockeys and stable lads/lasses as long as the fee goes to their respective welfare body. I hope the fee is related to the number of questions asked.

Whatever the charge it should be doubled for any time Chapman lurks in the parade ring and pounces on connections as soon as their winning horse crosses the line, connections trying to enjoy the moment but have it totally ruined.

Can see the owners coming out bigtime shortly what with the David Power cup for jockeys/trainers and now this, they are gonna  be saying ''who the hell pays the bills'', ''who supplies the horses''. Trainers/jockeys being paid by bookmakers, jockeys displaying sponsorship on colours if i was an owner i would be getting seriously p@$$&d off.

This whole issue has to win the 'who gives a fook' award for the year (already) surely.

Abandoned

Maybe members of the public should demand a fee for being interviewed or filmed!

After a festival winner they'd be gagging to get in front of the cameras....be good to see ITV turn around and tell them to get fooked.

I put forward The Management & Cagliari……25 squid a poke…..

Isnt it about time that everyone pulled together for the sport instead of grabbing for the milking stool. Its in trainers interest to promote the
sport at every opportunity they can. However, it appears that some would prefer to kill off the goose even though they have plenty. Its called greed at the sports expense. lets get real trainers are not super stars.

Strike off. Shame, I was looking forward to not hearing Skelton again. Pitiful stuff.

The Kane v Abel Skelton row is over.

Dan backs down after being furious harry was looking at 500k this year,when it was pointed out to him,he gets 300 horse training fees,plus his cut of the prize money,plus his ladbrokes sponsorship.

No doubt Evan Williams will be sent to Coventry,has he hardly helped their cause.

Personally I can't see why trainers should be considered as responsible for "marketing the sport".  Marketing is a highly specialist enterprise and needs single-minded professional attention.
I have yet to see Tv, in any shape of form, do anything other than market itself.  In any sport.
Were the Tv operations inclined to pay a flat fee for every interview into the In Jo Fu and like-minded charities directly associated with the sport I might have a higher opinion of them.
If jockeys take fees I have no issue with training staff doing likewise.

Trainers are marketing themselves,with every interview,
If they come across as knowledgable,charmastic etc.this may help with owners sending horses to them.

Jockeys don’t market themselves in same way.

You’ll book a jockey cos he rides good,not cos he interviews good,but you might book a trainer

Lawrence Mullaney being interviewed after his winner earlier, and what a great opportunity it was for him to advertise his business...He'd taken a break from training during which time he'd worked at Ballydoyle, and now's he back training from the yard which was previously occupied by Mick Appleby and from where he'd been AW season champion trainer, no less. Lawrence told us about the great facilities available eg swimming pools, etc

I was starting to think that I may book a holiday there

It came across as a sort of symbiotic relationship, Lawrence got to tell the world that he's back training winners and open for business, whilst SSR got to enhance their coverage with a trainer interview.

No surprise that it is Dan Skelton spearheading the trainers'money-for-interview revolt but surely, given the the collusion by trainers, jockeys and owners in the daily monumental fraud perpetrated on the betting public, connections should instead be paying the industry journos and the other media gravy enablers for keeping quiet and  never asking awkward questions while assisting this endemic criminal corruption?

Good point Ihal...

I am really worried were this is all heading for a few quid, those who get the most from training usually are the ones been interviewed, I bet those poor trainers way down the food chain would welcome a interview with open arms never mind been payed for it...If trainers can't see were this is going let them be reminded were Mr Saville took racing the last time he set out with the idea of making money from newspapers and how racing was left the poorer....

Sad, Mad, Bad from Savill, even if in the eons of history he was once proved right, in recent times he rarely spouts a good point.

Was near Dan at donny on Saturday,he watched the katiera race on the rail with chapman,microphone in hand,waiting to interview after it won,jetera beat it on the nod,chapman ran off to find Harrington connections.
Dan looked dapper in his wax coat with the get the badge in emblem,no not stone island ,ladbrokes.
Jetera had ran in better races than katiera plus it still came over given the storms,looked a fair result.but itv didn’t want an interview.

I get the logic ,that jockeys are paid,the presenters are paid,the camera crews are paid,but Dan is being paid by the owner to manage his entry,plus he gets a bonus if it wins.
If they got paid,imagine the anger if they said,it will come on for the run or it dosent like the going,then wins,

Everyone can be happy if only harry would say to Dan,don’t worry bro,I ll give you 100k when I win the paddy power jockeys cup.

Be interesting to know if harry has a share in the stable,training fees,ladbrokes sponsorship,or is that all dans,hence the 500k is all Harry’s,
Don’t think they ll be going on holiday together this year.
He had Bridget moaning the other day,no one books her for rides,

Dans easily the best British trainer,got 30 years ahead of him,needs to tone down the money hunting,he ll win enough.

i havent had time to read the above posts but when i read a trainer was objecting i immediately thought about flat trainers who are representing owners who are leaders of nations and see racing as an advert for their country and pile fortunes into the game. This is where it could get a little dangerous for a blanket boycott as racing doesn't want to lose huge investors for the sake of half a million. Sheikh Mo comes to mind.

The (bookie) sponsors of the trainers will be happy this has resolved itself............

Why on earth would a bookmaker want to sponsor a training yard?

..... The same reason bookmakers bought up most of whats left of Greyhound tracks.

I also like ihal  28Jan25 19.08. The words "media gravy enablers" should be forwarded as best new phrase of the year and be awarded with a gold star by those who decide such things.

there is a very easy solution to all this (certainly for SSR and RTV)...

bin pundits and just show the horses in the paddock and the actual race...

no need for ANY interviews with jockeys/trainers (does anyone actually believe what they say anyway ?)...

and as for ITV Racing...

never watched it and i have no intention to ever watch it as from what i hear it's aimed at internet influencer types which ain't my scene at all.

Racing is on its arse, losing owners, credibility and money at an alarming rate.

The sport needs re-structuring from the ground up in order to make it sustainable long term

Everyone agrees upon this.

So at a time when TV exposure is more crucial than at any time since WW2, Skelton, Savill et al think they should be paid for doing incredibly short interviews on TV?

Talk about self-harm?

I thought it was April 1st when I first saw it reported in the Racing Post.

Sadly, its true.

they don't see it that way Stevo..

what's more important ?

what's best long term for the sport ?

or short term personal gain ?

they say the latter...

reminds me of an online gambling firm i know of...

you might have heard of them..

begins with the letter 'B' and rhymes with 'mare'...

if the broadcasters had any sense they'd tell the trainers who want to boycott interviews to go fk themselves...

that's what i'd do.

Saville should realise, most of the country does not care about racing, if C4 gave up racing, it would not matter to the majority. Or maybe he is grabbing what it can before the ship sinks.

if channel 4 still did the terrestrial racing with the likes of Francome and McGrath i might watch it...

no chance i'd ever watch folk like Chapman and Nicholls...

more interested in clickbait stuff that lot.

Jim "if you went racing as often as I do - and I go every day - you would know" McGrath.
Not missed here.

Just to put this to bed,for Danny 2jobs,wanted 3 jobs.

When Dan Skelton gives an interview at the track,he’s ,in that moment being paid by the owner of the horse hat the media are asking him about.hes been paid to enter the horse and attend the track to ensure its saddling and running.
When the media then ask him,it’s it well.he then makes sure he gets paid again for the same interview,by promoting the ladbrokes badge,
So he’s being paid twice for the same interview,he then wanted to be paid a 3rd time,using savill as a willing fool.he owns a race course,but said racecourses should pay for trainers interviews,
A man so stupid ,he announces an initiative,that he’s going to pay for.

So Danny 3 jobs failed,he ll just have to settle for being paid twice.

Harry Skelton,is paid for 3 mins to ride a horse,once he dismounts,he’s not being paid,so it’s only fair that jockeys are paid for interviews.

But because David power threw 500k at them,the trainers reacted like Palestinians running for an aid drop in Gaza,demanding their aid drop,even though they’ve had 2 aid drops for their interviews.

Hope this clarifies the savill initiative.

Not only was savill wrong,he couldn’t even announce it correctly,from paying trainers to paying himself plus injured jockeys,he couldn’t even get this right.

Thank god people like this never get high role positions in racing,like chairman of the BHAfor 6 years,

Oh wait,he was,why didn’t he deal with this then.

Boiled down, it’s basically.

Harry’s getting 500k ,I want 500k,Peter sort it out.

Perhaps we should set up a Just Giving page for each trainer, then we can contribute when they give an interview that we find useful.

Find useful.

Maybe set a target of 1 pound,I’m sure over the next few years the odd trainer might get their quid.

I think I'd have to be paid, to waste my time listening to any of them...

GEORGE.B 28 Jan 25 18:56
Lawrence Mullaney being interviewed after his winner earlier, and what a great opportunity it was for him to advertise his business...He'd taken a break from training during which time he'd worked at Ballydoyle, and now's he back training from the yard which was previously occupied by Mick Appleby and from where he'd been AW season champion trainer, no less. Lawrence told us about the great facilities available eg swimming pools, etc

And barely a month later it would appear his horses are now with different trainers

Northen Cracksman debuts for Mick Appleby tomorrow.
Pleasant Man ran for Martin Dunne yesterday.
Dash Power ran for Jessica Macey last night.

All seemingly different owners.
A short-lived comeback?