It has been discussed, Stodge, since I put the issue up as a topic when it was first announced. I can't find it in the three pages comprising general racing topics, so I assume it's been culled. Can't think of anything more to add than was discussed at the time, though.
Comparisons with France aren't quite on a level playing field, since they have the Parimutuel for betting and no on-course bookmakers. You might as well compare the UK to selling races at any American track, where the prize money's likely to be 4x that here, with the show winning more than our first. You could probably then go on to compare us with Dubai, Japan, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Greyville... as far as prize money's concerned, we're about rock bottom. Trainers' main subject of complaint at the moment is the prize money, and the way that owners are not renewing ownership once their horse/s have retired. Jamie Poulton mentioned one owner who recently said to him, no, I won't be coming back. I've spent over £21,000 on the nag, who's won three races which have paid a total of less than £7,000 in prize money. What's the point? I can't run him to death trying to get more of a return for my outlay, that wouldn't be ethical. But it's absurd for racing to keep thinking it's acceptable that British owners just have to suffer the situation without end.
I discussed the issue with Brendan Duke and he involved Simon Holt - they couldn't agree on what would be the best way to put an end to the situation, though. I suggested a week's boycott of race meetings by the ROA, but Simon felt you'd always get the renegade, in the way you did with Christine Dunnett when trainers wanted to revolt against the low monies a few years back. Brendan thought just not having any racing at all for one day would show the bookies what having no racing for a week or a month would mean to their coffers. But why does it have to be down to having to take such drastic action?
Now for some guff from the ROA's 2009/10 Annual Report (you might want to grab a cuppa and a bikkie first):
What has happened so far is that a Horsemen's Group paper culminated in recommending the introduction of a tiered fixtures list, including an upper tier made up of the the premier product to which minimum prize money levels would be attached. It recommended altering the funding mechanism to incentivise racecourses to put more of their own money into prizes, and proposed the amount of funding for the Fixture Incentive Scheme to be greatly reduced. (The FIS is a Levy subsidy that encourages racecourses to put on fixtures in so-called unattractive slots to ensure there are sufficient fixtures at a time when the betting industry wants them.) So don't let's keep blaming racecourses for the 'poor' meetings you complain about. Racing's actually trying to tap that on the head, it would seem.
Outside the scope of the paper, but an important change in the way things will be done in the future is the Levy Board's resolve to alter the terms of the so-called Capital Fund, which makes loans available to racecourses. The changes mean racecourses will no longer be able to borrow money without paying interest, and will now be set a much sterner test to qualify for a loan. (Which might see some become housing estates, do you not think?)
The Levy Board executive has made significant progess in bringing changes to their funding structure, but it's not functioning in the way that allows British racing to maintain its current levels, let alone enhance them. The executive can't hold much sway over the current depressing decline in yield, this being more of a reflection of bookmakers' ingenuity in avoiding paying the full 10% of their gross profits to racing on their racing bets by, among other things, moving part of their operations overseas.
What the Levy's recognised is that increasing amounts of money flowing to racecourses in media rights income have to be reflected in changes in their funding mechanism. Partly because of this alternative income and because of the paucity of money generally, the Levy is going to demand more transparency of business accounts as the Board becomes more circumspect about the levels of funding it makes available to individual courses, and racecourse groups.
It's something of an irony for owners and the rest of the industry that at a time when a greater percentage of the overall Levy pot is being spent on prize money, the yield is dropping with the net result the prize money is decreasing.
It was against this difficult background that racing set about reinventing itself through Racing for Change, whose Project Director Rod Street recently wrote in TB Owner & Breeder mag, "There is no quick fix or miracle cure. Instead, we need to do hundreds of small things better for the benefit of both our current customers and the new ones that are so vital for the long-term health of our sport." No subject has commanded more attention in the industry than the need to enhance the narrative of major events, while there is increasing concern over how racing will fund a major end-of-season Champions' Day, especially as the industry's core funding is dropping alarmingly. But to quote Street again, "If Britain is to remain at the pinnacle of global Flat racing it needs an event that is the envy of other racing nations and not just a sideshow for Arc weekend and the Breeders' Cup."
-----------------------------------------------
Some stats just in: horses in training, monthly averages 2000-2009.
2000: Flat: 7,223 Jump: 4,322 Dual: 1,186 Total: 12,731
2005: Flat: 8,461 Jump: 4,197 Dual: 1,730 Total: 14,388
2008: Flat: 8,783 Jump: 4,077 Dual: 2,294 Total: 15,154
2009: Flat: 8,917 Jump: 4,677 Dual: 1,075 Total: 14,669
The average in the first four months of 2010 was 2.5% lower than in the first four months of 2009, so we'll see if the overall drop continues as the cutback in breeding bites into the 2 y.o. market.
More stats: the fact that prize money in Britain in 2009 was record £110.5m puts the current year's decline into sharp focus. The 2008-2009 increase of 4.2% was primarily due to the Levy Board contributing an additional £7.1m.
The racecourses' overall contributions were down £2.7m on 2008 while the owner's input was marginally above that of 2008. The 2008 figure had been deflated by the abandonment of York's Ebor meeting but, with last year's fixture taking place as usual, this boosted the overall 2009 figure against that of 2008 by £2.8m.
To date, the Levy Board's budgeted contribution to prize money for 2010 is down by £2.8m on the original budget of £57m. The resulting £54.2m represents 60% of the Levy's forecast annual revenue figure of £87.4m. Currently, both Levy income figures and prize money for 2010 continue to decline.
(Excerpts from the ROA Chief Executive, Michael Harris's, statement on racing finances in its Annual Report.)
