Fixtures and Aintree

With all that has been going on in recent weeks the 2012 fixture list turmoil has almost slipped under the radar.

Put bluntly the BHA, who supposedly governs the sport, has little say in the fixture list, save for the limited number of fixtures which are funded by them and the rubber stamping of the final fixture list.

Control of the fixture list is effectively managed, if managed is the word, by the Horsemen’s Group representing owners and trainers and the Racecourse Association, the umbrella group for all the racecourses bar one.

Two groups with disparate, often conflicting, interests.

The BHA are certainly getting fed up with spokesman Paul Struthers saying, "We have urged the Horsemen's Group to develop their race planning proposals for nearly a year, with little apparent progress.

"We'll continue to encourage them and help them along the way, but it really is time for them to make progress on this and on other structural issues, rather than focusing on soundbites and PR. This will then allow us to work with them and the racecourses to find the best solution for the sport as a whole."

Meanwhile Racecourse Association chief executive Stephen Atkin said, "We are working closely with the BHA and the Horsemen's Group on the construction of next year's fixture list and we hope the work will be concluded by the middle of next month. The issues involved are complex and include both field sizes and the financial return from fixtures. "

No, the issues are actually not that complex but more of that anon.

The BHA has meanwhile announced a cap of 1,400 fixtures in 2012, which will result in a reduction in the fixture list of, wait for it, “at least 80 fixtures.”

80 fixtures – are they living in La La Land?

It is a given that the yield from the next Levy is going to show a significant reduction, something even acknowledged by the BHA, which in itself is a step in the right direction, as they grossly overvalued the yield for 2011.

In the real world sensible, responsible people live within their means. Businesses which want to survive work within their fiscal limits or they go bust, it is basic common sense.

Racing, as an entity – ignoring the disparate vested interests – seems to be adopting an ostrich mentality when it comes to living within its means.

As one who no longer has a mortgage and no debt, I am probably one of the small minority who bemoans the record low interest rates A significant portion of my income relies on returns from savings and investments.

With the low interest rates and volatile stock markets my income, like racings, has taken a massive hit in the past two years.

If I followed racings example, I would still be living my previous lifestyle, or tinkering round the edges, and would be heading down a route to inevitable bankruptcy.

What I have done is cut back drastically on non-essentials and luxuries and I am even watching the essentials – it is called living within my means.

Racing needs to do the same. The money available for the sport has drastically reduced and is reducing.

 
Yet all “racing” seems to do is bemoan its lot, complaining how unfair everybody, especially those evil bookmakers, is - yet it does nothing to address the financial reality.

It really does remind me of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned.

Until the funding model for the sport is resolved in the long term racing needs to cut its cloth to suit what is available and that means a drastic cut in the fixture list.

How big a cut? Well I would go for an absolute maximum of 1,000 fixtures in 2012. In all probably still far too many but certainly better than the tinkering seemingly being considered.

Yes it will mean job losses, it will probably lead to a reduction of the horse population.

It will mean racecourses closing down but that is a price which will have to be paid.

Other businesses and industries have had to make drastic cuts, why should racing be any different?

It will result in a leaner, meaner sport. A sport that will be in a better position to move forward, if and when a new funding model can be agreed. Although I have a worrying fear racing does not have the wherewithal to resolve the matter.  

Which courses could go?

Here are my eight to exterminate.

Top of the list must be Folkestone. A course not loved by many within the industry. It is situated on prime building land and its owners, Arena Leisure, would have no problem getting a premium, which would do their balance sheet wonders, should they decide to sell.

Brighton is another course which will not be missed in many quarters. Frequently at the mercy of appalling weather it is not very often one has an enjoyable day at the course.

Yorkshire is overly endowed with courses and could easily afford to lose a couple without a huge impact across the industry. I would suggest any two of Redcar, Catterick or Thirsk. (OK the pedants will point out Redcar is no longer is Yorkshire but it is still considered part of the Yorkshire set-up)

One of the Scottish courses could go, my preference would be Ayr, always a bleak experience.

In the “Midlands” few would lament the loss of Worcester. Whilst presuming a cut in artificial surface racing then either Wolverhampton or Southwell could go, with my preference for the latter.

Finally Bath, simply because of its inability to provide decent ground due to its lack of a watering system.

More changes have been announced to the Grand National fences following this years renewal and the deaths of two horses. Personally I believe the changes are more window dressing than anything else, in an attempt to appease the like of Animal Aid.

For better or worse the National is not the race it was in the past, in terms of the fences it has changed beyond all recognition in the time I have been watching it to the extent that, for me, it has moved from being a special race to a novelty contest.

To pinch a Racing For Change buzzword it has no place in the narrative of the National Hunt season, being a race over a unique distance, over unique fences with a unique number of horses competing. It is a race living on its history, it is at risk of becoming an irrelevance.

In my view the biggest problem is not the size of the fences but the speed the horses run and the number of runners in the race.

That is what needs addressing by a) ensuring the ground is on the soft side of good, b)reducing the distance to the first fence either by physically moving it, which may not be practical or by shortening the race distance and starting just after the Melling Road and c) reduce the field size to a maximum of 30 to help alleviate the jostling for position, giving horses and riders better sight of the fences.

I would also introduce additional qualification criteria in that both horses and riders can only take part in the race if they have actually "completed" a race over the National Fences.

    

. . . . but the Levy was dry.

Writing these brain dumps is something akin to waiting for a bus, you wait ages for some inspiration then everything happens at once.

Yesterday saw the Governments verdict on the latest Levy and it came up with an estimate of between £73.7m and £80.8m, effectively an uplift of 7.5%, plus a decrease in the threshold whereby bookmakers pay a reduced levy.

I have to say it is not very often I agree with politicians, however I agree wholeheartedly with the closing comments of the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, where he said:-

“With the determination concluded, I would like to re-state my disappointment that the relevant parties were not themselves able to come to terms and I would strongly encourage them to develop a less adversarial relationship going forward. I have tried to be fair by listening to the advice of the Independent members of the Levy Board and I will continue to be guided by their advice in future years until what should be a straightforward commercial negotiation can be taken permanently out of the hands of Ministers. “

I would go as far as to say it not a disappointment, it is a disgrace that racing is unable sort out its own finances.

Although it does have to be acknowledged any discussions between the racing authorities and the bookmakers is akin to a 45 rated handicapper taking on Sea The Stars.

On the one hand we have British racing, a sport which has no cohesive structure, a mish-mash of various self-interest groups, all of whom have differing, often conflicting, priorities. On the other hand we have the bookmakers, multi-million pound businesses, run by financially astute individuals who know who to run successful, profitable, organisations.

If you want to play a fun game get a blank sheet of A4 and write a list of all the organisations and groups involved in racing and, when complete, ask yourself who actually controls all these groups, who speaks or acts for a unified Team Racing?

Was the “Racing United” initiative on your list.

For something that is meant to unite the sport it does not appear to have been that successful. All it happens to be is a window dressing enterprise. Flogging the same dead horse that the Levy is unfair on racing and the big nasty bookmakers are “robbing” the sport.

According to its website it has attracted 1,502 online and 1,157 physical signatures for its campaign. Now add up all the numbers who work in racing, who go racing, who visit betting shops – all locations where the petition has been available and you will see what a waste of money the exercise has been.

Bookmakers are not robbing the sport, it’s just they are more financially astute and are able to outflank racing at every turn.

When it comes to funding those who run the sport are riding a one trick pony, it is the Levy or nothing as far as they are concerned.

Racings negotiators seem unable to accept the Levy is anachronistic, out-dated and not fit for purpose. It is indeed questionable whether it was fit for purpose when it was first introduced.

It could equally be argued the Levy is grossly unfair for bookmakers and for other sports.

A question I have asked many times, yet nobody in racing has ever been prepared to answer, is “why should racing alone benefit from a bookmakers levy?”

Why shouldn’t football get a levy? Why shouldn’t the BBC get a levy on money wagered on programs like Strictly Come Dancing?

The Levy in intrinsically wrong and unfair, it also allows for lazy financial management within the sport.

Why should racings bean counters make any effort in seeking proper commercial funding when funding is more or less handed over on a gilded plate?

Racing needs to negotiate a new funding structure that is fit for purpose in the 21^st century. One which stands up in the competitive commercial world.

It should not rely on what is effectively an outmoded tax, nor should it rely on Government intervention when it proves itself to be incapable of even negotiating within a framework it supposedly knows and espouses.

Racing for Change, now there is a name to conjure with. Instead of tinkering around the peripheries and introducing larger number cloths, trying to attract Brian, Fred or whatever other fictitious racegoers it wishes to make up, perhaps it should spend time looking at the fundamentals of the sport.

Perhaps Racing For Change should look at creating a unified structure to run the sport like the multi million pound business it is and not some elitist club.

Of course it will not happen as it is an arm of Racing Enterprises, which is owned by two of the interested factions in the sport, even though they have conflicting priorities.

Interestingly it is the same two factions who are at loggerheads in the on-going tariff dispute, how will Racing Enterprises spin that one?

Racing needs financial and marketing teams who understand what is required and who can deliver what is needed.

It does not need negotiating teams who stick their heads in the sand, who go into negotiations with the bookmakers with only a well rehearsed, obsolete, Plan A and no plan B to fall back on.

It does not need leaders who put their own egos above the interests of the sport . . . Paul Roy.

You think I am being harsh?

We are talking here about an industry which cannot even give away its terrestrial TV rights for goodness sake.

An industry where a broadcaster has to be paid to show the sport on terrestrial television.

Yes, even Channel Four negotiators can run rings around racings great and good.

The BBC have been criticised for reducing their coverage of racing. Who can blame them? Why should they pay public money to show a sport, when their rival is actually being paid to broadcast the sport 52 weeks a year? Is that a level playing field?

Can you seriously imagine the Premier League even contemplating turning to Sky and saying we will pay you to show our matches?

It is a joke. Much as I love this sport, one wonders if it deserves to survive the way it is currently structured and managed, although I use the latter term in its loosest sense.

No business (and racing is a business like any other) has a divine right to survive. It has to adapt, it has to live within its means.

No business should go running to Government for help just because those are supposed to manage it do not have the wherewithal or ability to seemingly organise even the proverbial piss up in a brewery.

I sincerely hope the Government has the balls to turn round and say the 50^th Levy scheme will be the final scheme and it is up to racing to sort out its own finances going forward.

Racing needs to join the real world. It needs to know the full worth of what it has and to then exploit that worth ruthlessly.

The halcyon days of racing just being a gentleman’s club are long gone, the sooner those who are charged with running the sport realise that the better it will be for all concerned.

My final comment on financing relates to the tariff protests organised by the Horsemen’s Group.

So they want greater prize money in the sport – well there’s a surprise!

Presumably they accept the economic reality there is less money coming into the sport as there is less money in the economy in general, yet there has not been a commensurate reduction in the fixture list.

Umm doesn’t basic common sense then suggest there will be less money per race to go around?

Instead of going for headline catching, yet ultimately pointless tariff protests, perhaps they should address the more fundamental issues of the structure and future financing of the sport. Including ensuring the fixture list is cut back to a realistic level to reflect the funding available.

Oh silly me . . . the Horsemen’s Group is one of those vested interest parties who are more interested in their own narrow self-interests than the wider interests of the sport.

A perfect illustration of all that is wrong with the sport.