Catch Up Time

This week I thought I would revisit some of my recent musings.

A few weeks ago I was making the point, regarding the mooted 150 cut in the 2011 fixture list, it would not be enough and a cut of around 500 fixtures would be required if the sport was to become financially viable.

Last week the 2011 fixture list was finally published and what did we see, a cut of 23 fixtures after, it seems, racings rulers caved into pressure from the Horseman’s Group, one of the many self-interested faction sin racing, who seem to lack either the ability, desire or intellect to see the parlous state the industry is in.

Can racing really survive with the current levels of prize money?

As I write this I am on my way to Newcastle races where three of the contests offer first prize money around the £1,500 mark, yet the BHA are saying courses should be aiming for a £3,000 minimum – why is this being allowed to happen.

Those who disagree with me will point out these low value races are oversubscribed. That’s as maybe but they are oversubscribed by frankly useless horses, who should not be seen on a racecourse.

The 2011 fixture list is not all bad, there are some good initiatives coming from it.

I like the idea of season Champions Day and especially at Ascot rather than Newmarket. My one reservation is the timing as it looks to be planned too close to Arc weekend, which is fast becoming the fitting climax to the European season. It is a pity the BHA have seemingly ignored French concerns.

I also like the idea of weekend Premier fixtures, providing a focus for weekend racing.

I would however like to take the initiative a step further.

I would like to see a two tier system of racing in this country.

The top tier would roughly equate to the current Class 3 or better with the lower tier the current Class 4 and lower.

The top tier fixtures would be fully funded. There would be at least one top tier fixture each day from Wednesday to Sunday, with a minimum of two each Saturday and Sunday. In addition there would be a minimum of two top tier fixtures on a Bank Holiday. Provision would also be allowed to retain existing Monday or Tuesday Festivals.

There would be additional top tier meetings allocated subject to a) sufficient funding and b) sufficient horses in the population.

For the tier two meetings there would be one half-funded meeting every day with two scheduled Monday and Tuesday’s.

Other tier two meetings could be scheduled but they would have to be fully funded by the racecourses and / or bookmakers.

Opponents of a wholesale slashing of the fixture list point to the knock on effects in terms of trainers going out of business and the associated job losses.

Whilst such losses may be distressing at a personal level, it should not be a reason not to introduce such swinging changes.

Nobody has a God given right to be in business as a racehorse trainer, the racing industry should be subject to the same financial constraints as the rest of the world. If a business is not viable then it has no right to survive.

If a training establishment cannot be viable then it should shut down.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It seems I managed to upset the Racing Welfare Charity when I railed against James McQuillan’s performance at their fund raising day at Huntingdon on August Bank Holiday Monday.

In one comment it was implied that by criticising McQuillan I was also criticising their fund raising efforts.

Let me put on record here and now I have the utmost respect for the work carried out by Racing Welfare and I wish them every success in all their fund raising ventures, which are for a worthy cause and I would encourage anybody with an interest in racing to support them.

They also pointed out that McQuillan provided his services for free at Huntingdon that day. For that he is to be applauded, although I would expect anybody providing a service for a charity to provide their time for free.

The worthiness of the cause nor the “celebrity” providing their services free of charge does not, however, change my view that McQuillan is wholly unsuited to carry out MC duties at any racecourse, regardless of whether it is a charity day or not.

Racing Welfare also tell me they had more positive than negative feedback regarding McQuillan’s performance …. It would be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of those commenting. How many of the positive comments came from those who were really interested in the actual racing.

If he was fund raising at a village féte or at an event away from an actual race meeting then, by all means, use him.

There people are attending an event, in this case a horse racing meeting, where the charity fundraising is secondary to the main event, then those attending should not be subjected to such asinine utterings … especially when the onslaught was relentless.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I also mention my attempt to visit all the UK racecourses in 2010, which floundered when transportation issues thwarted a trip to Redcar.

With two further Redcar meetings scheduled it was still theoretically possible to complete the “full set” but other events have now prevented the achievement.

Ironically the course that finally prevented the goal being achieved was Perth, ironically one of the courses I also failed to visit last year.

I was all set to visit their final meeting of the season. My flight was booked, car hire was arranged.

I even went to bed early as the alarm was set for 04:30. A hour into my slumbers the phone rang, the type of call one always dreads, to hear my Father had just been taken into hospital.

So that finally was the end of the full set quest for 2010.

I don’t think I will bother in 2011.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This weekend is the Arc meeting in Paris and it is fast becoming one of my favourite meetings of the year. Not only do we have the Arc itself but the undercard is now beginning to ooze class.

It was a close shave this year. Normally obtaining Press accreditation for the Arc has been a relatively simple process. You wrote to France Galop in July and you received confirmation within ten days.

This year, due to demand exceeding availability, they introduced an online system for requesting accreditation, with a closing date of mid-September.

All well and good but decisions regarding accreditation were not made until after the closing date, which means accreditation was only confirmed in the last fortnight. Somewhat difficult when there are flights and hotels to book.

Last weekend at Ascot there were some very illustrious correspondents complaining there were, at this late stage, no hotel rooms available in Paris for Arc weekend.

One often sees caravans parked up in the Bois de Boulogne and I understand the owners are very “accommodating” – perhaps some of the hacks could stay there.

What A Carry On

The “Carry On ……..” films are something of an acquired taste and were based on a standard formula where there wass incompetence, misunderstanding and innuendo.

The saga of the 2011 fixture list certainly fulfils the first two of the above criteria.

According to the latest pronouncement from the BHA it looks like being late September before the 2011 fixture list is published – which will not be good news for printers of racing diaries and calendars.

The delay in publishing the new fixture list, normally published in July, is the result in a catastrophic drop in the Levy.

By all accounts those in the industry were expecting a levy yield of £150m, whereas the actual yield will be around the £70m mark.

Talking to individuals closely involved in the negotiations, those in the BHA were so certain of there being a £150m yield they had no “plan B”. Indeed it was actually put to a senior director of the BHA that the yield was not going to be as expected and when asked what the alternative would be, the somewhat worrying response was along the lines “the Levy will yield £150m, we do not need a contingency plan.”

If this assertion is true, and I have no reason to doubt either the reliability or integrity of my source, then it does not auger well for the future of the sport when the “leaders” adopt such an arrogant stance.

The press release detailing the delay in announcing the fixture list had one very telling paragraph in particular.

“…………. meeting of the British Horseracing Authority Board and the subsequent meeting of the Levy Board, together with detailed dialogue with the Racecourse Association and Horsemen's Group.”

Therein lies the problem, there are too many diverse, vested and often contradictory interests involved in the running of the sport.

More fundamentally the Levy is an unfair and anachronistic means of funding the sport.

Why should horse racing alone benefit from a bookmakers levy?

Why shouldn’t soccer, rugby, tennis, golf benefit from a levy as well? Indeed should the BBC not get a Levy payment on the Strictly Come Dancing betting turnover?

When the Levy was introduced almost 50 years ago bookmakers bet almost exclusively on horse racing and the Levy model had some credence.

Now, however, the environment is completely different and horse racing is just one of many sports vying for the punters pound.

Love them or hate them and I have to confess I am no fan of bookmakers, they are canny operators. Most have moved offshore to maximise returns and decrease their Levy liabilities and who can blame them for that. Most are shareholder owned businesses and they have a legal obligation to ensure maximum returns for investors.

To “protect” the Levy they made voluntary payments from the offshore betting and, culpably, racings leaders rolled over without a fight.

If offshoring was not enough to fatally damage the Levy then the introduction of the betting exchanges really threw everything into disarray.

Bookmakers complained because, overnight, their monopoly on laying had disappeared. No longer did they have exclusive access to and were able to utilise insider knowledge to make a killing.

Of course the bookmakers cried foul, saying individuals can benefit from inside knowledge, not known to the public at large.

That complaint is, of course, somewhat disingenuous as bookmakers have for years made use of information not generally available to the general public. Whether the information comes from schmoozing connections or, more sinisterly, overlooking defaulted accounts in return for information.

But of course the real objection the bookmakers have to the exchanges is it has hit their bottom line and profit.

For all their faults bookmakers are run by accountants who know exactly what they are doing.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the BHA.

It only needs a quick read through the CV’s of the BHA board of Directors to realise how weak it is and what little grasp of running a multi-million pound business there is.

Far too many of the Executive are racing insiders with no experience of running a major business. With all due respect to the individuals concerned how can a former trainer, formster and TV pundit, Clerk Of the Course and Cop as well as other lifelong racing insiders effectively control a multi-million pound enterprise?

Even those bought in from outside the industry do little to inspire confidence with only Paul Roy boasting any credible experience and that is only in merchant banking.

Even the Finance Director’s only previous experience was effectively as a departmental head of finance within the BBC – not the perfect financial model for horseracing.

With such a weak management structure it is little wonder the wiz kids n the bookmaking fraternity are able to run rings around the BHA.

Of course the lack of significant “real world” business expertise amongst the BHA executive is only part of their problem.

More significant are the other vested interests pulling in different directions. From the Racecourse Association (RCA) representing the racecourses, through to the Horseman’s Group representing trainers and the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA) representing owners. All of whom have differing and often contradictory agendas.

With such a fragmented industry, full of self interested bodies, it is actually a wonder racing has actually survived as long as it has.

Now it is approaching decision time.

The focus on next years fixture list centres around the 250 BHA funded meetings, of which 150 are in doubt.

The 16 fixtures allocated to Ffos Las, as a new course are safe, which is a relief as without them the course would not have been sustainable and it may well have followed that great white elephant Great Leighs although, unlike Great Leighs, Ffos Las is a course which deserves to succeed.

The main reduction will be at weekends with funding for four Saturday and two Sunday meetings each weekend. I agree with the four meetings on a Saturday but would prefer to see three meetings on a Sunday at the cost of having a blank midweek day, say having Mondays (apart from Bank Holidays) as blank days.

Of the surviving BHA funded meetings even some of these are in doubt as most of the meetings are the all-weather twilight meetings and these will only be allowed if the courses can guarantee an average prize fund of £3,000 a race, a sum significantly more than is on offer now. Better still, bearing in mind these meetings are run for the benefit of the bookmakers, perhaps the bookmakers should fully fund them.

In my view a reduction of 150 meetings in 2011is nowhere near enough. This equates to an approximate 10% reduction in fixtures against a drop in predicted revenue of around 50% ….. even a a grasp of basic schoolboy mathematics (or as I believe it is called now – numeracy) will tell you the figures will not add up.

There needs to be a greater drop in the number of fixtures and if that means racecourses having to close or the number of horses in training and the number of trainers operating being reduced then so be it.

Sure there will be posturing saying the industry could not survive such cuts, that is a parochial view. Is it not better to have a smaller more efficient industry than no industry at all, which is what will happen if drastic action is not taken.

In all other industries and walks of life drastic cuts are having to be made, racing should not be an exception. Yet one is left with the strong impression racings rulers think the problems can be addressed with the application of a sticking plaster rather than drastic surgery.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if racing as we currently know it failed. It would be painful but it would also give the opportunity for a new, leaner, better managed sport to emerge.

Personally I would like to see the sport run on the Hong Kong model, where all aspects of the sport are run and controlled centrally. There would be a Tote monopoly with all profits being returned to the sport. Broadcast rights would be managed more efficiently and professionally.

It is absolutely absurd and a damning inditement on the ability of the sports management that the sport actually ends up paying a broadcaster to cover the sport.

In the short term the 2011 fixture list should be cut to a maximum of 1,000 fixtures.

Sink Or Swim?

These have been quite a few leaks this week about cutbacks in the fixture list for 2011, I’m going to wait until the fixture list is actually published before making any comment on cuts, although it is a subject dear to my heart.

However the speculation has prompted Ffos Las supremo Dai Walters to warn Ffos Las, Britain’s newest, may be forces to close if the reports are true. Actually I hope that isn’t the case but it has made me think, which courses would I not mind seeing close.

I was initially tempted to go through all sixty courses but decided it is too much like hard work for me to do and for you, dear reader, to plough through.

So what I will do is go through the tracks which I feel strongly should remain open or I would be happy to see become a new chapter in Chris Pitt’s, A Long Time Gone, the bible of closed racecourses.

If I don’t mention a racecourse here it means I have no strong feeling either way.

Aintree: now on “normal” race days Aintree can be one of the most desolate courses imaginable, empty and soulless, However for three days in April it hosts one of the greatest jumps meetings in the world, including arguably the most famous steeplechase of all the Grand National and for that reason alone Aintree has to survive.

Ascot: the building of the new stand was nothing if not controversial and I was one of its greatest critics. However Ascot listened to the feedback and addressed the issues. Now I love the place and Ascot has to rank amongst the best racecourses in the world, it stays.

Ayr: It calls itself Scotland’s Premier Racecourse – it ain’t. Although millions have been spent improving the inside of the stands, externally they still look tired and jaded. The track itself is beset with problems, they regularly seem to have unsafe or false ground. One I would shed no tears for were it to close.

Bath: It has the distinction of being the UK’s highest racecourse and therein lies a problem in that it is built on a free draining hill, yet it has no watering system. This invariably results in firm going and resultant small fields. Weekend meetings are a nightmare attracting beer swilling hoards. Another that would not be missed.

Brighton: The course has long had a sordid reputation, although this has improved in recent years. The place still does have a seedy, tatty feel and the stand could do with being replaced. On the plus side the views are fantastic but this also results in major problems in that a sea fret frequently rolls in, obscuring visibility of the racing. As Sir Alan, now Lord, Sugar would say, “reluctantly, you’re fired.”

Cartmel: A perfect example of “less is more.” Only racing seven days a year this is a gem of a course. It should be an abject failure as viewing is terrible but this is more than compensated by the idyllic setting and fantastic atmosphere. This is a course I would dip into my own pocket to save.

Chester: One of two controversial inclusions in this list I suspect. As this would be the first course I would close down. I dislike the place with a vengeance. It may well be the oldest course in the country but it is not fit for purpose. Viewing is terrible, it is cramped and ram packed solid with racegoers at every meeting. Now some would take the latter to be a positive and it would be if they were there to watch the racing. Chester is a drinkers course, where the object seems to be to pour as much alcohol as possible down ones throat then become as obnoxious as possible. Chester could stage three legged donkey racing and most of those attending would be none the wiser. If you have ever wondered what it is like to attend a Chav’s convention then may I suggest a day at Chester races.

Fakenham and Ffos Las: I am going to lump these two together as they have similar issues.

Unless you happen to live locally both are absolute sods to get to. In the case of Fakenham it is located in a part of the country where dual carriageways have not yet been invented and whichever way you go you will be on bendy, single carriageway roads. Add to that the local farmers seem to use driving their tractors at 20mph on raceday as being some sort of mating ritual you will arrive exasperated.

With Ffos Las it just seems a long way from anywhere, look at the map and it simply seems to be a case of popping across the Severn Bridge and then a quick hop down the M4. It isn’t it is a very long drag down the M4 and when you finally escape the motorway the local signposting to the course takes you a very pretty way indeed.

However both should be saved.

With Fakenham the journey is vindicated by one of the friendliest tracks you are ever likely to visit. Small, compact, good viewing and some decent arcing.

With Ffos Las you get one of the best, if not the best, racing surfaces in the country.

Fontwell: Well I am biased here but this is the very first course I visited and I love the place.

You have never properly experienced National Hunt racing unless you have watched a Fontwell chase from the intersection in the centre of the course.

Haydock: This was a once great course which has been emasculated by constant tinkering to the National Hunt course. The ground has been bear ruined and the going reports frequently border on fantasy. Worse of all the priority of the executive seems to be more focused on attracting Chester’s boozers and Chavs than providing decent racing. So another for which no tears would be shed.

Kempton: London could easily afford to lose one course and it would have to be Kempton. Granted it is home of the King George and it does still host some half decent jump meetings. However its sell out to AW racing is unforgivable.

Redcar: OK some personal prejudice here. If the wind is in the wrong direction you get the fumes from the nearby chemical plant so you go home with a sore throat and streaming eyes. It is a real pain to get through and driving through the bleak industrial wasteland to reach the course is depressing and to add to the depression, to reach the car park you then have to drive through the middle of a cemetery. That just about suns it up.

York: And we end with another controversial decision. Yes it is a great track, yes the racing can be high quality. However it is another course ruined by its clientele. The mid-week non Festival meetings are just about bearable but for the festivals and weekend meetings, it turns into a drink fest and a not very pleasant one either. By late afternoon there is invariably an edge to the place as the alcohol begins to take effect. A shame but for me it ruins a good afternoons racing and like Chester is one of the courses I invariably leave thinking I would not be at all perturbed if I was never to go there again.