For Sale - One Poisoned Chalice

Quite a few people have expressed surprise that John Smith’s have decided not to sponsor the Grand National after next year’s renewal.

My only surprise is that people are surprised at the decision.

John Smith’s will have sponsored the race for ten years and it is a sponsorship which does not come cheaply and they cannot deny their association with the race has, generally, been well worth the investment in terms of publicity.

Times, however, are changing and it is very easy to see why pouring so much money into the race is looking to be an investment which makes poor business sense, indeed it is in great danger of becoming a liability.

I don’t always agree with the BBC’s racing correspondent Cornelius Lysaght but in an analysis piece on the BBC Sport website he wrote:-

“With the ex-course boss Julian Thick out after the re-structuring of Aintree's parent company, and the British Horseracing Authority's articulate top vet leaving too, this news just adds to the difficulties facing the home of the Grand National.

"It looks like John Smith's has made what is a surprising decision mainly for commercial reasons, though the public image of the race - in which two horses have died in both of the last two runnings - must have been in the brewer's thinking as well.

"With that in mind, it remains to be seen how easy finding a replacement turns out to be."

Whilst the first paragraph may not be a fundamental reason for the withdrawal it is a consideration. If they have had a good working relationship with Thick a new appointee could well change the dynamics of the relationship between the sponsors and the racecourse. Personal relationships in business should never be underestimated.

The departure of Tim Morris from the BHA is also a bad move for Aintree and the Grand National. Morris has been a credible defender of the race in the face of vociferous and mounting criticism of the Grand National – indeed he is probably the only credible spokesman the BHA has available to field. Yet his services are no longer required.

Now I have been the first to argue that the BHA needs to cutback in the face of diminishing income but I have to say the removal of Morris and before that Paul Scotney does, along with other decisions made this year, seriously call into question the judgement and competency of BHA chief Paul Bittar.

More pertinent in Lysaght’s analysis is the public image of the race. I know this topic has been done to death and I have no intention of rehashing the arguments again here but, like it or not, the Grand National does have a serious perception issue in the eyes of the general public.

Now it is completely and utterly irrelevant if said perception is right or wrong – it is there and, thus far, racing has done little to dispel the perception and with the departure of Morris it looks as though the BHA is giving up on the PR front.

With such a poor perception is it any wonder sponsors are going to look again at committing huge amounts of money to a race which has the potential to alienate so many members of the public? Members of the public who ultimately contribute  to the profitability of the organisation.

It is commercial suicide to be so intrinsically associated with a product which has already alienated many and could well continue to alienate people further.

There was one other factor which Lysaght, understandably, failed to mention.

That is, of course, television coverage of the race moving from the BBC to Channel Four.

Even though the viewing figured on the BBC have plummeted over the past  thirty years, the race still attracted a domestic TV audience of around nine million ….. a tasty prospect for any big name sponsor.

It is highly unlikely the viewing figures when it moves to Channel Four will be even half that number, I predict they may, if they are lucky, attract around 2m viewers. Channel Four’s biggest ever viewing figures are 11.2 million and that was for the Paralympic Opening ceremony which came hot on the heels of the main Olympics (and bear in mind the BBC picked up a record 26.3 million viewers for the Olympic closing ceremony).

Channel Four’s best ever racing audience stands at a relatively paltry 1.4 million.

Also the BBC gave massive advance advertising to the race across its television and radio networks – C4 may well also run trailers but to a far smaller audience. The BBC trailers reminded viewers the race was coming, it bought the race into the public consciousness.

So from a sponsors perspective the move to Channel Four from the BBC is a massive negative.

Aintree and John Smith’s may well reach their aim of a £1m Grand National next year – if they do I suspect it will be a one-off.

I think Aintree will struggle to find a sponsor prepared to commit the same amount of money John Smith’s were, indeed I think they will struggle to find a sponsor who wants to be associated with a potentially damaging product.

My strong suspicion is the new sponsor will come from within the industry and if I was tempted to have a bet (which I’m not) my money would be on the Betfair Grand National in 2014.

Is Orange My Colour?

When I wrote a recent blog criticising the Breeders Cup and Dubai one of the feedback comments I received agreed with what I had written but concluded with the comment “I think there are now two countries where you will not be welcome.”

Well in the case of Dubai that would be no great hardship as I have no intention of ever visiting the place anyway and with a passport full of Israeli visa’s I don’t think I’ll be allowed in any Arabic country anytime in the near future.

As for the USA I would like to visit there again, although whether I will be allowed in again is another question as last time I was there I really thought I was going to end up in Guantanamo.

Let me explain.

I’m not one of those people who can laze around on holiday – at a push I could possibly be persuaded to spend an hour, possibly two on a beach and that would only be if I had a really engaging book to read. The thought of spending two weeks on a beach would be an automatic qualification for Room 101, indeed the thought of spending two weeks in any one place on holiday fills me with dread.

That is why my holidays are planned with military precision.

This trip across the Atlantic is a prime example and my planning would have impressed any travel agent.

The holiday was starting by flying to Las Vegas, via Toronto, for the traditional start to the American trips. Then after three days in Vegas (I find Vegas is so full-on I cannot spend more than three days there in one go) it was off in a car to Utah for a week exploring the canyons.

Back to Vegas for a couple of days before flying to Minnesota for a few days to visit friends.

The next leg was a flight to Buffalo to see Niagara Falls from the US side then it was a matter of crossing over to Canada by land, picking up a car and heading to Toronto for a few days, with the other holiday highlight being racing at Woodbine, before flying  home.

All relatively simple and, as is the case in the US, the internal flights were ridiculously cheap.

Well about a month before the holiday there was a change of plan as an interesting attraction loomed in New York so with some re-planning, instead of flying from Minnesota to Buffalo, flights to New York and then Toronto were booked.

Now the flight to Buffalo wasn’t worth cancelling as it only cost about $80 and it was non-refundable anyway – not cancelling that flight was a big, big mistake.

The holiday began fine – the flight to Toronto was great and thanks to a US / Canadian arrangement US immigration for the flight from Toronto to Vegas was cleared in Toronto so no long delays on arrival in Vegas.

Vegas was its usual fantastic self – Disneyland for adults I call it.

The Nevada Canyons were awesome even surpassing the Grand Canyon.

Bryce Canyon was a surprise as the top rim was so high there was even snow, even though at the base temperatures were in the 80’s in old money.

The visit to Minnesota to see the friends was great and as it was the first time in Minnesota, it was a chance to explore somewhere new.

It was leaving Minnesota the problems began.

The problems actually began the evening before as I attempted to check-in for the New York flight online – after all I had an e-ticket.  It wouldn’t allow the check-in and said check-in at the airport.

I thought nothing of it, it was a Saturday evening and I thought, perhaps the check-in system was down for maintenance.

The flight to New York was 7:04 in the morning so it was a cast of arriving at 5:00 to check-in.

At the North-West check-in desk I was greeted by the usual exuberant American false bonhomie.

You will know the sort of thing if you have ever gone into a shop or restaurant in the States, even though you have never met the person serving you before, you are still treated as though you are some long lost friend.  I think they call it customer service, I won’t tell you what I call it!!!

Anyway I handed over the e-mail confirmation of my flight and when the check-in clerk keyed in the booking reference the “long lost friend” welcome changed to Arctic frosty – for a moment I did wonder if I had, inadvertently, asked her to perform some perverted sexual act. She almost threw my boarding pass at me.

As I walked away I noticed she was in animated conversation with her colleague next to here and the way they were looking daggers at me it was clear I was the topic of conversation.

I had a look at my boarding pass to make sure she had booked me on the correct flight, the only unusual thing I noted about the boarding pass was it has SSSS printed on the bottom, something I had not seen before.

As I approached the security screening queue I was actually approached by a Transport and Security Administration (TSA) officer who asked to see my boarding pass.

I showed it to him, “could you please come with me sir?”

I was asked the usual “where have you been, where are you flying today?” questions and answered then quite happily, still assuming this was a random security check.

With his next question, the penny dropped, “are you booked on any other flights today?” Clearly a leading question as he already knew the answer and luckily I remembered I had not cancelled the Buffalo flight.

I explained why two flights to different locations were booked on the same day and why I had nor cancelled the original flight. I have to say the attitude changed markedly and it became much more relaxed and friendly.

He explained their systems had picked up the double booking and I remembered it is a terrorist ploy to book multiple flights.

As I said all was relaxed now and he was on the verge of becoming my new best buddy. He said because of the double booking it would mean full security screening.

He said the hold bags had already been fully searched and were OK. All he needed to do was check my carry-on baggage, which was just my camera bag.

He took the swab, as they do, and went over to the explosive testing device.

What happened next will live with me the rest of my life.

We were both watching the computer screen and it turned a vivid red and flashing up in big white letters was just two words “EXPLOSIVE DETECTED”

He turned round to me and I could feel the blood draining from my head and I really thought I was going to pass out. He obviously saw that as well and almost went to catch me.

After the dramatic red screen of death as I called it the computer display said “query nitro-glycerine”  

I don’t know how I didn’t become a blathering wreck – in between having visions of being dressed in an orange jump suit and being taken off to Guantanamo Bay, my brain amazingly came up with an explanation, despite being a shaking gibbering wreck.

It was the word glycerine that was the clue.

You will recall I had been exploring the canyons of Utah at the beginning of the holiday. It was very dry in the desert and my lips were chaffing so I had bought some lip salve from a local store, a glycerine based lip salve!!!

Luckily I still had it and when they analysed some, it had the same chemical profile as the “explosive” on my camera. Obviously taking photos of the canyons I had transferred plenty of the lip salve onto the camera.

He took my boarding pass, stamped it, handed it back – in bright red it said “security cleared” – I was allowed through to departure – my fellow passengers must have thought I was a nervous flyer as I was sitting there ashen faced and shaking like a leaf.  

Thankfully I was able to prove I wasn’t a terrorist, somehow my brain clicked into auto-pilot to come up with an explanation.

I have never been so scared in my life.

Even though I was innocent I have little doubt I am sitting on a TSA / FBI / CIA watch list somewhere – I’m dreading my next trip to the USA.    

PS The trip to New York was worth all the aggro and even though most of the racing was on dirt, the racing at Woodbine was an absolute delight.  

Size Matters

I have this aim, as yet unfulfilled and probably destined never to be fulfilled, to try and visit every UK racecourse in a calendar year. Each year I get tantalisingly close yet something usually conspires against me.

This year I’m going to miss the target by four or five, mainly with the Scottish courses, which are always a logistical nightmare, made all the more difficult by airlines drastically reducing, or rather getting rid of, racing friendly flights.

Ryanair’s propensity to use strange destinations worked in my favour on occasion as what they called Glasgow was, in reality, Prestwick, located in Ayr and a ten minute taxi ride or 50 minute walk from the racecourse. It used to be ideal as there was a flight from Stansted on the Saturday morning of the Scottish National with a flight back in the evening. Both were very much racing specials, the last time I availed myself of the flights I had Choc Thornton sitting next to me and John Hunt a few rows back.

Now in the spirit of cutbacks Ryanair no longer have internal UK flights to Scotland and the few airlines that do are not racing friendly with their timetables. Ditto with trying to get there by rail.

So the alternative, for me is an unimpressive 6½ hour each-way drive.

It’s a similar problem for Perth and Kelso. Hamilton and Musselburgh are a little easier being close to Glasgow and Ayr respectively.

On Thursday this week I was at Taunton and was very surprised when I realised it was my first visit there since January 2010. How could I have been away from such a delightful track for such a long time.

Taunton will never win any prizes in a racecourse beauty contest but it is what NH devotees call a “proper” National Hunt track. It’s one of those courses where the patrons are there to appreciate the racing and not to be seen.   The racing is rarely top draw but some decent sorts can turn up and it’s handy for many of the big west country trainers.

It’s also a course you can get something to eat and drink and not walk away feeling as though you have been mugged   ….. it’s the sort of course it’s a delight to visit.

The only downside for me is it’s a devil to get to, it’s around 160 miles but it is, and if you are a frequent driver you’ll know what I mean, a long 160 miles. The alternatives are basically cross country then the M4 /M5 neither of which are enjoyable drives. The alternative is to do the entire journey cross-country and that can be very long, especially on a dark evening.

After the delights of Taunton the next day I was at, arguably, the biggest contrast in NH racing, Cheltenham.

Now there is absolutely no questioning the quality of the racing at Cheltenham, even the “smaller” races attract runners the likes of Taunton can only dream of.

However is Cheltenham a pleasant racing experience for the racegoer? I suppose it depends what you’re looking for.

Friday was a “quieter” day at the course with around 20,000 but it was still very hard to move around the place. Getting from the press room to the parade ring was an absolute nightmare.

I must admit I was on the verge of decking somebody by the end of the afternoon.

I get really irritated by people who think the walkways are good places to congregate for a chat with their mates as they sup their alcohol, not caring if they are blocking the way of others who want to move around – perish the thought anyone get in the way of their drinking.

On the subject of drinking I am genuinely bemused as to why people seem to be completely unable to socialise, or enjoy themselves without having to drink alcohol.

If not the drinkers there are those who are walking along then  decide, suddenly, to stop for no apparent reason, completely oblivious to anyone who is walking behind them. If I'm suddenly going to stop walking I will step to one side so I don't get in peoples way - that's it rant over.

I know several people who love National Hunt racing and want to see the best racing at Cheltenham but will not go because they find it so uncomfortable.

OK it’s not a problem unique to Cheltenham and I also have to say, even though there are some exceptions, the drinkers at Cheltenham are generally better behaved than at courses like Chester, York, Ascot and Newmarket to name but four.

Which begs the question is bigger better?     

Is it better to go racing at a smaller track where there is space to move around and get close to the action and the horses or go to a bigger course, where the racing is better class, but moving around and getting close to the equine competitors is much more difficult?

Indeed my experience at Cheltenham on Friday was so unenjoyably I didn’t bother going on the Saturday where crowds of around 30,000 are expected.

There is no pleasure to be derived trying to battle to the parade ring then get back to have a vantage point to watch the racing.

The “icing on the cake” on Friday was the drive home, the first 20 odd miles in really thick fog where you could barely see more than ten yards in front of the car.

I’m even going to desert Cheltenham on Sunday for the delights of Fontwell, my absolute favourite racecourse. It’s Southern National day and it will be quite buys but I don’t care it will be a lovely afternoon and I can’t wait to, once again, stand near the intersection of the chase course – one of the best places, anywhere, to watch racing close up and personal.

Yes, size does matter – small National Hunt courses win every time.

Thank You For Your Feedback

Whenever I write the blog I’m never sure what sort of reaction I’m going to receive, sometimes it’s the complete opposite of what I expect.

Many a time I have written something I’ve perceived to be innocuous and it had generated an almost thermonuclear response, other times I’ve written something I thought would be really contentious and most of the feedback has been positive and supportive.

I was surprised with last week’s blog when I was expecting some backlash, the surprising aspect was the strongest backlash came against my criticism of Channel Four and their not giving the real reason for Michael Hills “retirement day” absence.

One of my correspondents indignantly called on me to “remove my snide comments about C4” after pointing our C4 and RUK had simply repeated a statement issued by Hills.

I responded thus:-

"The comments are not snide at all.

"C4 chose to broadcast Hills statement at face value and then chose not to correct what they had broadcast when the real reason came into the public domain.

"The real reason for Hills not racing was freely available. I wasn't even at a racecourse and I had access to the official explanation well before C4 went off air.

"Indeed instead of correcting what they said C4 repeated the Hills version of events, well after the real reason was in the public domain.

"At best it shows a lack of fact checking on Channel four's part at worse, which I suspect, a cover-up so as not to piss on Hills farewell.

"You know as well as I do there is a tendency to close ranks in racing and this is a prime example.

"So I stand by what I said, 100%, indeed I think I was actually very restrained."

It also transpires the same story about Hills being unwell was broadcast over the PA at Newmarket, so although my criticism was directed at Channel Four it should, perhaps, have been directed more widely as it seems Newmarket Racecourse may also have been part of the conspiracy to “protect” Hills.

Some of the feedback is quite surreal, like the following example:-

“HAD IT UP TO HERE WITH YOU osterpaulmeyer. Do you even LIFT? “

I suppose in the old days of pen and paper it would have been scrawled in green ink.

 I wasn’t too sure how to respond to that one, not least because, unsurprisingly, it was anonymous.

One response could be does your Mummy know you are playing with her computer? Alternatively I could respond about care in the community clearly not working very well.

Clearly whoever sent the well thought out response does have some literacy issues.

Now I don’t actually mind getting responses which are critical of me or which choose to verbally attack me. After all I’m more than happy to dish out criticism where I feel it is justified and on those grounds alone it would be hypocritical of me not to accept criticism myself.

I recall in a previous job where I was effectively an “enforcer” and it had been a torrid week, the end of which had seen four formal “complaints”, including one from a very senior director, about my “direct” approach. Normally such complaints were like water off a ducks back but even I was surprised with four so I had a chat with my boss.

Two things stuck in my mind after that conversation, the first was “nowhere in your job description does it say you have to be popular, I employ you to get results and you do that” and the other was “if people are complaining about you, it means you are doing your job properly. People don’t like having their shortcomings pointed out. The day I stop getting complaints will be the day I start questioning you are doing your job properly.”   

However the two examples I cited above do show a marked contrast. The first comment about Channel Four was signed, it was from someone who actually broadcasts themselves and someone whose opinion I respect although, on this occasion, I don’t agree with.

At least we are able to debate the issue and, if need be agree to differ.

What I do take exception to is the anonymous snipers, as in the case of the second example. I have no time for those who will only attack or criticise from behind a cloak of anonymity, even if their criticism is seemingly valid and accurate. Why should any respect be shown to someone who isn’t prepared to openly say who they are.

So to any of my readers who take issue with what I have to say bring it on, let’s discuss and debate the issues but if you want a debate don’t be a coward and hide behind a cloak of anonymity – grow some balls and have the courage to make your point openly.

Jockey James Millman is a breath of fresh air, he has embraced social media and is one of the most open jockeys out there and is one of the most honest. Last week, even by his own admission, he had a bad day at the office at Wolverhampton and who of us hasn’t had a bad day at work. However the abuse he was subjected was out of all proportion and, unsurprisingly, the most vitriolic came from the anonymous posters.   As a result he was threatening to walk away from Twitter, hopefully he will reconsider as he shouldn’t let the bullies win.

Too many people think they can write what they want on social media outlets and they can write with impunity. They are so mistaken as some found out last week as they were before the courts for revealing the name of a rape victim, which is protected by law. In my view they were very lucky to get away with a modest fine.

More recently we have had the wholly unfounded allegations made against a former senior Conservative Minister which have been discussed on Twitter and in blogs. Hopefully those who named him will be suitably and punitively punished and this unsavoury incident will result in a change in the way people approach social media and people will think before they post.

One final thought for those who chose to post anonymously. Unless you are technically very, very clever and reading what they frequently post intelligence isn’t a dominant attribute, then your posts will not be anonymous and you can be traced.