2010 UK Fixture List

Shadow Leader said:
Does anyone seriously think that were there to be no countryside days nor the CA allowed anywhere near a racecourse that people would start flocking to the racecourses and suddenly become avid racing supporters in their tens, and hundreds, and thousands? Cos that ain't gonna happen; it's just another excuse to get in a few more anti-foxhunting/CA rants. Perversely, the assertions that any association with the CA are seriously damaging the sport are not borne out by any evidence whatsoever, not least when the countryside days remain so poular and well attended!

I wonder how many people know that the Countryside Alliance does not exist merely to fight the hunting ban? It is an organisation that seeks to preserve the countryside and its ways and traditions.
Click to expand...

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on the hunting ban (I know more people who are for it and still hunt than those who are passionately against it), the fact is it is an illegal activity and I don't think a sport should be standing shoulder to shoulder with such when the sport is frequently in the headlines for completely different run ins with the law and rule breaking.

Racing is still perceived by thousands in this country as a pastime for the privileged and aristocracy; there are a huge amount of factors contributing to this but by allowing an organisation which supports an illegal activity which is the number one pastime of the elite into racing to promote itself is not going to appeal to the average man or woman on the street (we all know what the result would be if the hunting issue went to a referendum and I'm sure it's more to do with people sticking two fingers up to the people who hold hunting dearest to them more than the ethical reasons).

You wouldn't see cock fighting supporters sponsoring darts matches etc so why does racing need to be any different? I wouldn't be allowed to sponsor a race with the title "We Support Badger Baiting Handicap Chase" so why should the CA be allowed to sponsor races with titles like "Fight the Hunting Ban" in them?
 
Krizon you have stated that the racing industry is a multi million pound industry, but have also said that it cannot provide a lower entry fee. Somehow the two don't equate.
 
Gamla Stan said:
You wouldn't see cock fighting supporters sponsoring darts matches etc so why does racing need to be any different? I wouldn't be allowed to sponsor a race with the title "We Support Badger Baiting Handicap Chase"
Click to expand...

Agh ...... but you can have the Badger Brewery Handicap Chase :blink: all you need to do is slip the word "baiting" in there and job done!!!!

I'm pretty certain Ch4 actually has a significant part of its funding from the licence fee as it isn't a strictly commercial broadcaster? so Plunkett was probably being a bit extra naughty. Mind you Alistair Down has let it be known a few times what he thinks of countryside days, and the fox hunting fraternity.

I personally regard it as a none issue and don't get too animated by it. I just regret so much parliamentary time was wasted on it when there were clearly more pressing issues such as affordable housing and middle class nimbys who needed trampling over instead. I do tend to agree though that every time anyone from the countryside alliance opens their mouths and starts preaching their feudal philosophies at me, I tend to find myself siding with the anti camp. I doubt very much that CA are aware of just how badly they come across though, and they'd probably be pained if they actually realised that they are best recruiters for the anti hunting lobby in the whole argument. I'm ambivluent to it for the most part, but if pushed I'd come down on the anti side of the equation, and this is largely down to the CA somewhat perversely
 
Last edited:
Toobe said:
Krizon you have stated that the racing industry is a multi million pound industry, but have also said that it cannot provide a lower entry fee. Somehow the two don't equate.
Click to expand...


The two equate perfectly given that the money isn't equally distributed across the industry. Wealth and comparative poverty can co-exist alongside each other under the same roof. It's no different in principle to the socio economic make up of any city in the UK. You have wealthy and less wealthy districts, the overall affect however is of wealth, even if it's concentrated in a minority of the population by way of a percentage at the apex of the pyramid

It's a bit like saying Britain is a very wealthy country, therefore we can afford to pay £500 a week dole
 
No but by guess I'd say the entry to some racecourses on certain days may just equate to that or more and your only there for the afternoon, the poor b****ds on the dole have to live on that all week. Not that I don't think some of them are more than capable of a good days graft. Maybe if the racecourses charged less got more through the door because of it, the ones who are eligable for work could get a job at the racecourse instead.
 
Last edited:
We're talking about the extension of the fixture list, to get back on track! Not about the appeal of racing, not about the Countryside Alliance, not about how much it costs to get into a course - there is a separate, dedicated topic for that.

Toobe, I don't quite know what it is you're trying to say, other than you think that racing should be free, particularly if it's low quality. Maybe when trainers charge per rata based on the ratings of their horses, that might happen. After all, there's crap prize money for the lower-rated animals, while their benighted owners have to fork out the same fees for every equine service in the same way as Classics owners do. There's no dichotomy about the entire bundle which goes to make up racing generating vast amounts of money. However, I still fail to see why that should equate to providing a free product. If you get a service, be it the production of a sporting event, or a basket of groceries, you expect to pay for it in order to support it. If you don't like the quality of the groceries, the answer's rather simple: you don't buy them. Ergo, if you don't care for low-rated racing, don't go. But the people who take the most amount of money and give the least back to the sport are bookmakers. Read the initial comments on this topic again to see the imbalance of power and it will begin to make more sense.

I've gone into considerable detail showing you some of a course's basic outgoing and income streams and you can, as you say, apply to Companies House for copies of their annual reports so that you can see exactly what their income from racing is. What it will show you is that no course, however rich and powerful it is, can survive on racedays alone. They have all had to develop a variety of non-raceday stratagems in order to survive. Maybe if you got a job working for a racecourse, or even spent a few days talking with managers, you'd get a better idea of how marginal some racing incomes are.

Personally, I'm a bit tired of recycling pretty much the same thought processes now, so I'll leave y'all with this - six races, all Class 5 and 6 at Lingfield tomorrow night. Number of runners? 79! It's on the Turf, not the AW, but you can bet your bottom dollar that 7,000 people aren't showing up because of that, or the quality - or even the quantity - of the racing. They're showing up because they're coming to see a good show post-racing and make a night out. They also clearly don't mind coughing up the extra fee to do so, either.

I think I can rest my case that the average fun punter neither cares about the ratings, the form, has never heard of sectional timings or dosage, and certainly won't have a clue whether EXCEED AND EXCEL makes a better sprint sire than REFUSE TO BEND. They, both boys and girls, just wanna have fun!
 
Very much so, Toobe.

Living and working in Cheltenham I am surrounded by people who love to go racing but don't know one end of a horse from another. They call themselves racing fans but never come out of the bars - even in good weather - and have no idea whether they are watching a chase or hurdle race unless they look at the racecard. The majority of them have not even noticed the difference in the obstacles, much less the change in a horse's stride and jumping technique for getting over them.

The RP question of the day last week was "Should the quality of Sunday racing be improved?"

My view of that was "Don't bother. The place will be full of people who neither know nor care what grade of racing they are watching." In the words of an old advert "I'm only here for the beer."

Reducing the fixture list would be probably be more prudent in the current economic climate as fields will reduce in accordance with the reduction of the horse population and its never that exciting to open the racecard to see a string of 6 or 7 races consisting of 4 or 5 runners each, with a favourite priced so short that it isn't worth backing.

Perhaps as well as reducing the fixture lists the number of races on the majority of cards should be cut back too?

If courses want to keep punters there longer and get a bigger cut of their money, perhaps they could get their bar licences extended to let punters stay longer, instead of chucking out an hour after the last race - although I suspect that would be hotly contested by the licence-holders of the nearest town.
 
Likening the CA to the BNP or likening hunting (which is still carried out perfectly within the law, please remember) to cock fighting isn't going to get anyone anywhere, quite aside from it not being accurate.

I can't agree with you Clivex - or anyone else for that matter - who is so certain that racing would suddenly boom were the CA not allowed near a racecourse nor allowed any of their propaganda nor issues to have anything to do with racing; it ain't gonna happen.

Toobe - I can't quite see the point about entrance fees being nearly the same as 'some poor bastards dole money'. Shouldn't 'some poor bastard' on the dole be looking for a job rather than going racing, or, using his dole money to pay for rent, food, bills etc, not an afternoons punting and jolly up?!
 
Krizon

I dont buy into the "poor owners" line at all

Its not compulsory is it? Arent there more owners than before? The sheer volume of racing proves that there are more than enough horses and therefore owners in the game. A bit of a shake out wouldnt be the worst thing in the world

What racing has is a surfit of horses, owners and trainers and yet a declining public profile and share of betting turnover. It needs to boost the latter and forget the former, where market forces should shake out the deadwood



Shadow leader...we have all said time and again that the hithcing on the CA bandwagon has a corrosive effect on racings image rather than any immediate boom or bust. Thats the point. Racing has a "get off my land" profile in many peoples eyes. The CA is effectively a political organisation. A pressure group if you like and one which many people (the majority???) dislike.
 
Last edited:
There's undoubtedly too much racing. One of the most ridiculous decisions the BHA made was to redistribute Great Leighs fixtures to other tracks rather than letting them fall by the wayside. It's amateur hour.
 
Clivex, putting aside the obstacles like class, which you strew in the way of every debate, there is no need to boost betting turnover. Betting has never been, er, better! But it doesn't trickle down into racing - you state that as if I didn't already mention it. I know all too well that betting turnover doesn't reach the parts it used to reach or ought to reach. The Levy's donations have shrivelled to pitiful levels, even if it does donate towards some universities for equine research. And talks between the BHA and the Levy Board have repeatedly broken down over several years, which you seem not to be aware of - it's easy to come up with sweeping 'should do's' when you don't seem to realise that they've been, and continue to be, addressed.

Please demonstrate, using some figures if you can, exactly how you see betting turnover increasing if there are fewer horses in racing? Please don't tell me that people won't be betting on the poorer horses, because that's rather insulting to your co-punters, isn't it? Surely one should assume that they don't do this already,

Racing doesn't have more horses in training this year than it did five years ago, so your notion of a 'surfeit' is flawed for a start. If it's a surfeit now, it was a surfeit then, when no-one was bitching, because there wasn't a financial crisis. Try again.

Racing is very actively trying to attract more owners, ffs! Don't you read any articles or watch any interviews about syndicates, like Highclere, Goodwood Racing Club, Pat Eddery Racing, etc., etc.? - I couldn't possibly put them all up, they'd take pages to list. Racing clubs and syndicates are the very stuff of most trainers' yards, and have had some very high profile winners, too. Try again with that theory.

A surfeit of trainers? Facts, figures - please! You're just chucking words about, aren't you? I have no idea at all what you mean - please explain. You can ask the NTF to provide you with membership details if you're serious about discussing this.

Declining public profile: there was a very, very slight dip in overall racecourse attendance in 2008, around 1.9%, in the UK. Most of the downturn, if you'd read about it, was due to abandonments due to bad weather - nothing at all to do with the public not wanting to turn up. In fact, at courses where they didn't get too badly affected by frost or waterlogging, there were increases in gate takes. Try again.

The big, very expensive Festivals saw the odd day take a downturn, but that was because, as they admitted themselves, trying to run racing for an extended number of days was always going to see one of them take a dip. That doesn't seem to have deterred them from deciding to continue with multiple-day festivals for the future, though.

Of course you don't buy into the 'poor' owners line. You're too busy trying to find another class divide where there isn't. That weary chestnut about it not being compulsory is ridiculous in the context of someone who's a member of a racing forum, frankly. Racehorses aren't a necessity at all. We could shoot them all, everywhere, in every country, if it'd make you feel better? Then you could go play with your classless virtual racing and be a happier man.

I could point out a few more things which aren't a necessity: any sport, music, art, sculpture, poetry, novels, having children, toys, hobbies, forums. But I tend to think it'd be a slightly less interesting world without them.
 
Sunday racing in the UK must rank as one of the all-time great missed opporchancities.

We had the chance to start with a blank canvas for Sunday racing, a chance to make it the showcase day. What did we do? We framed the meetings so that they became non-triers' conventions.

Sunday racing is now no more than an excuse for addicts to get out of the house and down to the bookies. They'd be better off spending their time in church.
 
Class divide and money divide are slightly different. To think racing doesn't have a class divide is fooling yourself.
 
Any society is divided by notions of status (for which read class, tribe, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, world without end), Toobe. It would be silly to pretend that F1 isn't dominated by the shriekingly rich, for example, which are well out of my (financial) class, and that football isn't exactly the same - based on money status. Trying to make out racing as so class-ridden that it isn't popular flies in the face of facts.

I deal in logic, reasoning, and facts - not conspiracies, fancies, fake philosophising and personal bias.

But now I've got to get off to divide the classes at Lingfield. Oh, shit, I can't. We're still one enclosure only, where riff-raff have to rub shoulders with hoi-polloi!
 
Ah!........you remind me Kri, at Ascot for the September Festival was standing near the paddock when an attractive young lady said to her escort in a lovely Irish lilt " do we have to walk back through the riff-raff, darling?".
 
Race meetings and racing have always been where the hoi-polloi have rubbed shoulders with the riff raff.
 
Toobe said:
Race meetings and racing have always been where the hoi-polloi have rubbed shoulders with the riff raff.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: Ahh, the great misunderstood hoi polloi...

The phrase is actually Greek for 'the people' or 'the masses', ie the riff-raff.
 
Krizon

For a start, i would like to know where else i have brought "class" into any debate. But even so, if you cannot see that much of the public have a perception that racing is ridden with class and that in itself is a turn off for many, then i am amazed

As for the economics, i simply dont understand your point at all. There is "no need" to increase betting turnover? No need to increase prize money then...ok?

And i suggested that market forces should be allowed to deal with the number of trainers and owners. It may be that the numbers are viable, but i suspect not
 
Colin Phillips said:
Ah!........you remind me Kri, at Ascot for the September Festival was standing near the paddock when an attractive young lady said to her escort in a lovely Irish lilt " do we have to walk back through the riff-raff, darling?".
Click to expand...

I don't blame her - walk through Tatts at Ascot and you're just as likely to get knocked over by a bunch of pissed up brawling thugs as anything else.
 
Superb attendance at Lingfield this evening - had a good look around after I'd closed the desk, had a v.g. burger, bought some chargrilled spare ribs and chicken pieces for consumption tomorrow - not cheap, but bloody marvellous - and admired a really well-dressed, happy, very young crowd having a lot of fun. This was really like a huge garden party - plenty of al fresco mini bars here and there - a Pimms bar, a cider bar, the champagne bar, not to mention Pizza Express's trailer, and two or three other stands, plus the fish 'n' chip bar, all doing a roaring trade. The restaurant had been fully pre-booked, too. We did a record number of badges for incoming Os & Ts, inc. Harry Herbert and the Highclere Massive, all lovely enthusiastic people without a rah-rah bone in their body (as HH hasn't - he's a lovely, fun, appreciative guy), there were some 3,600 pre-sales and the uptake in gate sales saw out around the predicted 7,000 on course.

Girls were dressed beautifully - it was 'ladies night' as well as offering the Battle of the Divas post-racing, plus fireworks, and it was a truly pleasing sight to see the whole of the stands, hospitality balconies, and lawns totally covered with excited, happy people roaring home Hayley in the last. I didn't stay, 'cos I wanted to get home before the rush for the exits, but everything looked great. Probably the best turn-out in 10 years for Lingfield, and perhaps our manager is actually getting things right where others let it lie so moribund for so long.

And yes, full fields of Class 5 and 6 - yet regular racegoers said they didn't mind, because they were running on grass! So much for them turning their noses up at 'low class' racing. They bloody loved it.

I'd suggest that some of the folks who are continually crabbing the bread-and-butter racing get out and go racing and see for themselves the difference a nice evening, some entertainments, and a few competitions, make to otherwise standard stuff. It cost £20 an adult, £10 students and OAPs, kids under 16 free. I think if you can't afford that once a month, say, you're in a pretty piss-poor state. I'd imagine, at a guess, that the vast majority of the crowd tonight was in its late teens to early 30s. Even if this is not their regular Saturday night entertainment, hundreds of young people were prepared to fork out the admission - with the gates opening 2 1/2 hours before first race at 5.45pm, and the bars open until 11, that's potentially (and actually, for the bulk of the attendees) the best part of 8 hours of socializing for £20 - flirting, giggling, backing horses with your girlfriend's name, drinking, eating, and entering best-dressed and best hat comps. Now, contrast 'n' compare with what you get for going to a football match.

And the class divide? There wasn't and isn't one. There are families in the restaurant, there is currently only one enclosure, and the standard of clothing - well, especially from the ladies who dressed up - was superb. They may have accents which aren't cut crystal, but who honestly, today, gives a flying fart about that? What is class? Money? Education? A title? No - it's behaviour and manners, and those are oft as well or better displayed by the so-called 'working' class than as any other perceived stratum. It's time to get out and see egalitarianism working very nicely, thank you.
 
Desert Orchid said:
.

Sunday racing is now no more than an excuse for addicts to get out of the house and down to the bookies. They'd be better off spending their time in church.
Click to expand...
If you go into most shops now on a Sunday, there won't be many there, people have realised that Sunday racing is crap.
 
Back
Top