British horsemen’s group minimum prize money tariffs
- Thread starter swedish chef
- Start date
Sheikh
At the Start
How ? seeing as the vast majority of them regardless of their parentage are shite.
Last edited:
If you consider the value of the Levy PLUS the income from Media rights the decline is nothing like so serious. The problem is that the racecourses have appropriated the media rights income as their right, and are using it to show their shareholders growth, at a time when every other part of racing is in decline.
Just look at Arena Leisure's results; they boast of their increasing Media rights income for 2011 onwards, which is almost DOUBLE what it was before. It's now about £105Million over the 5 year deal. And not so long ago it didn't exist.
It is a fine piece of work by the courses for their shareholders, and is the reason Northern can afford to put another £1,5M into prize money.
Just look at Arena Leisure's results; they boast of their increasing Media rights income for 2011 onwards, which is almost DOUBLE what it was before. It's now about £105Million over the 5 year deal. And not so long ago it didn't exist.
It is a fine piece of work by the courses for their shareholders, and is the reason Northern can afford to put another £1,5M into prize money.
You 'make' them (Jeez, do they ever sound like factory pieces?) in the hope that they'll turn out to be good. I went over all that bit earlier! You don't know what sort of racehorse a pronking little foal will turn out to be until it's had a few runs. It might be a slow starter, like many children (which aren't told they're shite if they are, one hopes). It might not 'come to itself' until it's 4 years old, allowing for growth spurts, weak knees, etc. (Still sound like a child? That'll be because it still is.) But by then they're just 'shite' and breeders are accused of overproducing rubbish, when in any given demographic, there'll be more shite than gloss.
Take 100,000 people, and how many of those are brilliant, ground-breaking scientists, archaeologists, or musicians? I mean on a par with the ONE horse that wins the Derby out of thousands of possibles. Maybe five people, if we're lucky? So the rest are, it seems, shite. So the answer to too many shite people in the world is to breed less. One child per ten brilliant couples, perhaps? And all you'd get from 100,000 bred from that ratio, would be five brilliant people! But in the meantime, misery galore for those thousands who weren't allowed to have kids.
We do employ eugenics, in a sense, to racehorse breeding: we try to breed from the soundest, the best-conformed (as that makes for the least physical difficulties and the best action), best temperaments, but, more than anything, best performances.
However, one only has to look at the amount of 'top' sires with 'shite' running on the AW, as if that is somehow a frightful stigma, liked being branded on both cheeks as an adultress, to see that none of that always works out. Horses are still - thank Christ - sentient beings. They fret, they get annoyed, they show playfulness and contentment, they dislike certain people, and love certain environments. They are not wound up with a key to perform. If ever a little ditty suited them, it would be "I'm not a robot". Thus, there is no guarantee that a SEA THE STARS to an ATTRACTION-type mare would produce a handsome, gutsy, consistent top performer, any more than Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe would've produced a beautiful genius. Just as likely a breathy ditz with Einstein's hair and nose.
Cjboy, not sure what you mean by the racecourses appropriating media rights income 'as their right'? They negotiated the rights in the first place, en bloc, so that racing's product wasn't supplied ENTIRELY FREE on film to the bookmaking industry, so they are their right. SIS have increased the outlay per race to all courses - so all courses will show an increase in their incomes from these payments. Arena's courses have not received an increase per race higher than Jockey Club Estates or independents like Plumpton. All media rights payments are good for shareholders, no matter which course they purtain to. But don't forget that as the company with the monopoly in all-year fixtures, Arena is bound to show a larger income from SIS than courses which race to fixed seasons. Obviously, it's going to rake in a lot more income than a pure NH course like Fontwell Park (Northern) or a pure turf Flat course like Goodwood (independent).
It's also about time Northern put up a bit more prize money as it's been the lowest-paying racecourse company for years! The ROA has always rated it as Banded to Jockey Club Estate's Classic class in that aspect.
Take 100,000 people, and how many of those are brilliant, ground-breaking scientists, archaeologists, or musicians? I mean on a par with the ONE horse that wins the Derby out of thousands of possibles. Maybe five people, if we're lucky? So the rest are, it seems, shite. So the answer to too many shite people in the world is to breed less. One child per ten brilliant couples, perhaps? And all you'd get from 100,000 bred from that ratio, would be five brilliant people! But in the meantime, misery galore for those thousands who weren't allowed to have kids.
We do employ eugenics, in a sense, to racehorse breeding: we try to breed from the soundest, the best-conformed (as that makes for the least physical difficulties and the best action), best temperaments, but, more than anything, best performances.
However, one only has to look at the amount of 'top' sires with 'shite' running on the AW, as if that is somehow a frightful stigma, liked being branded on both cheeks as an adultress, to see that none of that always works out. Horses are still - thank Christ - sentient beings. They fret, they get annoyed, they show playfulness and contentment, they dislike certain people, and love certain environments. They are not wound up with a key to perform. If ever a little ditty suited them, it would be "I'm not a robot". Thus, there is no guarantee that a SEA THE STARS to an ATTRACTION-type mare would produce a handsome, gutsy, consistent top performer, any more than Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe would've produced a beautiful genius. Just as likely a breathy ditz with Einstein's hair and nose.
Cjboy, not sure what you mean by the racecourses appropriating media rights income 'as their right'? They negotiated the rights in the first place, en bloc, so that racing's product wasn't supplied ENTIRELY FREE on film to the bookmaking industry, so they are their right. SIS have increased the outlay per race to all courses - so all courses will show an increase in their incomes from these payments. Arena's courses have not received an increase per race higher than Jockey Club Estates or independents like Plumpton. All media rights payments are good for shareholders, no matter which course they purtain to. But don't forget that as the company with the monopoly in all-year fixtures, Arena is bound to show a larger income from SIS than courses which race to fixed seasons. Obviously, it's going to rake in a lot more income than a pure NH course like Fontwell Park (Northern) or a pure turf Flat course like Goodwood (independent).
It's also about time Northern put up a bit more prize money as it's been the lowest-paying racecourse company for years! The ROA has always rated it as Banded to Jockey Club Estate's Classic class in that aspect.
Where is the SIS money coming from? It's from bookmakers, which has therefore reduced the gross profit and hence the levy!
All I'm saying is if you take the total "income" into racing, which is approximately levy, media rights, entry fees, sponsorship, and gate money, it has not declined in the same way that the levy has gone down.
So why has prize money declined so much?
Why should only one part of the income pie be considered when setting prize money, i.e. the Levy?
Why does the Media Rights income belong to the racecourses anyway? Why not the racehorse owners who provide the animals to race? The answer is that it's a symbiotic relationship which relies on the participation of courses, owners, trainers, gamblers, and spectators. Thats why I say that the racecourses shouldn't be appropriating the media rights income to provide a return to their shareholders, as they are alienating the rest of the parties that are vital if races are to be staged. Some of it should be used to provide a return to their suppliers, i.e. the Horsemen.
In the past the Levy has been described by ministers as anachronistic, and there is a desire to get rid of it, and one of the potential replacements was and still is a media rights structure. In a future structure with no levy but a much larger Media Rights payment would anyone envisage running for NO prize money?
I won't be, and the way the situation is going is pathetic. I'll be cutting back on our horses in England, and I have just sent one horse to Ireland and am moving our mares to France
Finally I point out Arena's results precisely because they are a reflection of the industry as a whole, it is just that as a public company their results are easy to find, whereas other racecourses are privately held.
All I'm saying is if you take the total "income" into racing, which is approximately levy, media rights, entry fees, sponsorship, and gate money, it has not declined in the same way that the levy has gone down.
So why has prize money declined so much?
Why should only one part of the income pie be considered when setting prize money, i.e. the Levy?
Why does the Media Rights income belong to the racecourses anyway? Why not the racehorse owners who provide the animals to race? The answer is that it's a symbiotic relationship which relies on the participation of courses, owners, trainers, gamblers, and spectators. Thats why I say that the racecourses shouldn't be appropriating the media rights income to provide a return to their shareholders, as they are alienating the rest of the parties that are vital if races are to be staged. Some of it should be used to provide a return to their suppliers, i.e. the Horsemen.
In the past the Levy has been described by ministers as anachronistic, and there is a desire to get rid of it, and one of the potential replacements was and still is a media rights structure. In a future structure with no levy but a much larger Media Rights payment would anyone envisage running for NO prize money?
I won't be, and the way the situation is going is pathetic. I'll be cutting back on our horses in England, and I have just sent one horse to Ireland and am moving our mares to France
Finally I point out Arena's results precisely because they are a reflection of the industry as a whole, it is just that as a public company their results are easy to find, whereas other racecourses are privately held.
I'm with Cjboy here - Kri, you obviously work for a racecourse and so I can understand your position but as a cynic once wroet "the whole things becoming a racket"... One that precludes the lowest common demoninators - Owners and Punters. Joe Public.
From Arena Leisure's web site I copy the statement below:
Arena are going to get about £20M a year from Media Rights, an income stream that didn't even exist a few years ago. If what Krizon says is true, then since Arena make up about 25% of the fixture list then there is about £80 million a year coming into racing from media rights. Add the levy of about £80 million and we get a total of £160M.
A few years ago it was only the levy and I doubt it has ever been £160M
Arena are going to get about £20M a year from Media Rights, an income stream that didn't even exist a few years ago. If what Krizon says is true, then since Arena make up about 25% of the fixture list then there is about £80 million a year coming into racing from media rights. Add the levy of about £80 million and we get a total of £160M.
A few years ago it was only the levy and I doubt it has ever been £160M
Aragorn: True, but I'd never defend the indefensible, though! I'm not a politician and say what people would prefer to hear, rather than what I believe is right (even if I get it wrong!). Speaking personally as a sometime small-time owner, and someone who constantly tries (against the tide much of the time, it has to be said) to improve things for visiting owners at the courses where I work, I'm all too aware of the vastly expensive business owning is (and breeding!), versus any returns (and that goes for breeding, too!). Nobody's cut anyone any slack at all during these straitened times - don't hear of a transporter cutting his fees, because of rising petrol costs; don't hear of a farrier offering BOGOF on a set of shoes; don't hear of a feed merchant offering loyalty bonuses... nope, poor old owners bear everything, that's for sure.
Cjboy, ah, okay, see where you're coming from now. I thought from the way you'd written it (re the word 'right') that you meant the racecourses were grabbing something that they weren't entitled to. My misunderstanding. But your quote tallies with what I was saying - that the increase is linked to Arena's huge portfolio of fixtures and, therefore, number of races.
I know that around 3-4 years back the payout from SIS was £4,000 per race per meeting per course, which was an enormous amount of dosh to fork out. Arena would've definitely have had the lion's (and the tiger's!) share on account of the vast all-year schedule they had, especially when Great Leighs went tits-up and they grabbed a load of their orphaned fixtures, bringing Lingfield 105 (often with 8 races per meeting) in one year alone! So that would've raised their income unexpectedly that year and the next, when GL failed to recover. And don't forget that, although it's calmed down a bit now, we were regularly hosting 8-race cards on the synthetics, and very rarely only 6. There are hardly any grass tracks able to offer 8 races in one day, certainly not for every one of their far fewer meetings.
Cjboy, ah, okay, see where you're coming from now. I thought from the way you'd written it (re the word 'right') that you meant the racecourses were grabbing something that they weren't entitled to. My misunderstanding. But your quote tallies with what I was saying - that the increase is linked to Arena's huge portfolio of fixtures and, therefore, number of races.
I know that around 3-4 years back the payout from SIS was £4,000 per race per meeting per course, which was an enormous amount of dosh to fork out. Arena would've definitely have had the lion's (and the tiger's!) share on account of the vast all-year schedule they had, especially when Great Leighs went tits-up and they grabbed a load of their orphaned fixtures, bringing Lingfield 105 (often with 8 races per meeting) in one year alone! So that would've raised their income unexpectedly that year and the next, when GL failed to recover. And don't forget that, although it's calmed down a bit now, we were regularly hosting 8-race cards on the synthetics, and very rarely only 6. There are hardly any grass tracks able to offer 8 races in one day, certainly not for every one of their far fewer meetings.
Last edited:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I can't remember the exact amount, but TurfTV pay a lot more per race to their tracks than SiS do.
swedish chef
At the Start
Leicester race abandoned after attracting no entries
BY RACING POST STAFF 10:52AM 27 APR 2011
THE Horsemen's Group's system of recommending prize-money tariffs has resulted in the first complete boycott of a British horse race by trainers
The 1m4fhandicap at Leicester on Friday, which failed to meet the Horsemen's Group's tariff, was abandoned after attracting no entries on Wednesday.
The race in question, originally the 3.50pm, was reoffered until 10.30am in a last-ditch attempt to find a runner but, with none materialising, the race was abandoned and removed from Friday's racecard in a move unprecedented in recent racing history.
The maiden has been split into two divisions, each with six runners, to maintain the six-race card.
The abandoned contest offered £2,000 less than the minimum prize-money of £7,000 required by the Horsemen's Group for a class 4 handicap on a Friday.
Jeremy Noseda, who decided not to declare Bow River Arch, said: "I discussed the situation with the Horsemen's Group and the owner [Bluehills Racing Ltd] and we decided not to declare because of the prize-money."
Nick Lees, chairman at Leicester, said: "I am very disappointed but had suspicions something like this was going to happen because the race had such a low entry."
Leicester staged British racing's first walkover in more than three years on April 17, when the Harry Dunlop-trained Saint Helena was the sole entry for another below-tariff race.
BY RACING POST STAFF 10:52AM 27 APR 2011
THE Horsemen's Group's system of recommending prize-money tariffs has resulted in the first complete boycott of a British horse race by trainers
The 1m4fhandicap at Leicester on Friday, which failed to meet the Horsemen's Group's tariff, was abandoned after attracting no entries on Wednesday.
The race in question, originally the 3.50pm, was reoffered until 10.30am in a last-ditch attempt to find a runner but, with none materialising, the race was abandoned and removed from Friday's racecard in a move unprecedented in recent racing history.
The maiden has been split into two divisions, each with six runners, to maintain the six-race card.
The abandoned contest offered £2,000 less than the minimum prize-money of £7,000 required by the Horsemen's Group for a class 4 handicap on a Friday.
Jeremy Noseda, who decided not to declare Bow River Arch, said: "I discussed the situation with the Horsemen's Group and the owner [Bluehills Racing Ltd] and we decided not to declare because of the prize-money."
Nick Lees, chairman at Leicester, said: "I am very disappointed but had suspicions something like this was going to happen because the race had such a low entry."
Leicester staged British racing's first walkover in more than three years on April 17, when the Harry Dunlop-trained Saint Helena was the sole entry for another below-tariff race.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
I hope both divisions of the maiden have had their prize money raised to the original levels rather than being split, as usually happens.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
This has all the makings of a very exciting dispute.
It should be a heady cocktail. Administrators, racecourse management, etc.
It should be a heady cocktail. Administrators, racecourse management, etc.
On The Bridle
At the Start
Fair play to the Horseman's group - but is it too late to make any meaningful difference. I just hope it doesn't backfire and lead to more lesser grade races.
rorydelargy
At the Start
The British Horseracing Authority today announced a cap of 1,400 to the number of fixtures that will be scheduled in 2012, after its Board approved plans to reduce the fixture list by at least 80 fixtures. It also confirmed that the 2012 fixture list will be published by no later than Friday 30th September 2011.
The 2012 fixture allocation process has been suspended since the beginning of June because of the uncertainty regarding the funding of fixtures next year, as a result of the decline in levy funding. This is due to be confirmed at the next Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) meeting on 14th September, after which the total number of fixtures will be finalised.
The decision by the BHA to remove at least 80 fixtures is due to concerns regarding the ability of the declining horse population to continue to service the existing fixture list. Recent analytical research undertaken by Weatherbys into the likely impact of sharply falling foal crops strongly suggests an increased rate of decline in horse numbers in 2012 and, with nearly 40% of races currently attracting seven or fewer runners, the fixture reduction has been approved with a view to protecting the competitiveness of British Racing.
The research involved analysing historical data, identifying relationships between foal and horses-in-training numbers, and applying those relationships to recent declining foal crops with a view to projecting future trends in horses-in-training numbers.
Although there is a range of possible outcomes, the BHA has taken the view that the rate of decline in horse numbers could increase from 3.2% in 2011 to around 7% in 2012. On this basis, it has been possible to model the changes that would need to be made to the 2012 fixture list with the aim of maintaining existing average field sizes of around 9 runners per race. The model, which takes into account the current number of runners, eliminations and average runs per horse, projects that a reduction of at least 80 fixtures would prevent further deterioration in levels of competitiveness.
The sport’s major events in the 2012 calendar will not be affected by the ongoing discussions, and are published today.
Ruth Quinn, Director of Racing for the British Horseracing Authority, said:
“Although the size and shape of the fixture list cannot be finalised until the impact of the significantly reduced levy has been confirmed, we have taken this action to try to ensure that falling horse numbers will not erode the attractiveness of British Racing, both as a sporting spectacle and as a betting medium.
“The process will involve removing a majority of the leasehold fixtures that had been agreed on a one-year only basis for 2011 between racecourses and horsemen, and we will continue to consult with stakeholders to ensure that the fixture slots that are removed will be those that are of the least value to Racing.
“Horse numbers have been in steady decline since peaking in 2008 and, with the significantly reduced foal crops due to reach racing age, the sport cannot continue at its previous capacity. Although we are in the middle of a remarkable Flat season, the Board felt compelled to take this decision to protect the long term health of the sport.”
All 60 British racecourses have been made aware of the changes, and the process of consultation regarding the removal of fixture slots is ongoing.
The 2012 fixture allocation process has been suspended since the beginning of June because of the uncertainty regarding the funding of fixtures next year, as a result of the decline in levy funding. This is due to be confirmed at the next Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) meeting on 14th September, after which the total number of fixtures will be finalised.
The decision by the BHA to remove at least 80 fixtures is due to concerns regarding the ability of the declining horse population to continue to service the existing fixture list. Recent analytical research undertaken by Weatherbys into the likely impact of sharply falling foal crops strongly suggests an increased rate of decline in horse numbers in 2012 and, with nearly 40% of races currently attracting seven or fewer runners, the fixture reduction has been approved with a view to protecting the competitiveness of British Racing.
The research involved analysing historical data, identifying relationships between foal and horses-in-training numbers, and applying those relationships to recent declining foal crops with a view to projecting future trends in horses-in-training numbers.
Although there is a range of possible outcomes, the BHA has taken the view that the rate of decline in horse numbers could increase from 3.2% in 2011 to around 7% in 2012. On this basis, it has been possible to model the changes that would need to be made to the 2012 fixture list with the aim of maintaining existing average field sizes of around 9 runners per race. The model, which takes into account the current number of runners, eliminations and average runs per horse, projects that a reduction of at least 80 fixtures would prevent further deterioration in levels of competitiveness.
The sport’s major events in the 2012 calendar will not be affected by the ongoing discussions, and are published today.
Ruth Quinn, Director of Racing for the British Horseracing Authority, said:
“Although the size and shape of the fixture list cannot be finalised until the impact of the significantly reduced levy has been confirmed, we have taken this action to try to ensure that falling horse numbers will not erode the attractiveness of British Racing, both as a sporting spectacle and as a betting medium.
“The process will involve removing a majority of the leasehold fixtures that had been agreed on a one-year only basis for 2011 between racecourses and horsemen, and we will continue to consult with stakeholders to ensure that the fixture slots that are removed will be those that are of the least value to Racing.
“Horse numbers have been in steady decline since peaking in 2008 and, with the significantly reduced foal crops due to reach racing age, the sport cannot continue at its previous capacity. Although we are in the middle of a remarkable Flat season, the Board felt compelled to take this decision to protect the long term health of the sport.”
All 60 British racecourses have been made aware of the changes, and the process of consultation regarding the removal of fixture slots is ongoing.
A step in the right direction, but is it enough?
The objective seems to be maintain the current average number of runners per race at nine, by reducing the number of fixtures in line with an expected drop in the horse population.
This implies in turn that the statistic quoted, about 40% of fields having seven runners or less, will continue to apply.
The objective seems to be maintain the current average number of runners per race at nine, by reducing the number of fixtures in line with an expected drop in the horse population.
This implies in turn that the statistic quoted, about 40% of fields having seven runners or less, will continue to apply.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Tariffs have led to downgrade – BHA report
BY HOWARD WRIGHT 10:03AM 29 AUG 2011
FURTHER stark evidence has emerged that the Flat racing programme in Britain is being significantly downgraded, with
officials in the BHA racing department putting the blame squarely on implementation of the Horsemen's Group tariffs -
which they describe as "a blunt instrument" - by racecourses.
Last week the Racing Post revealed that the number of Class
2-4 races from July to August 23 had declined from 546 to 456,
while Class 5-6 races went up to 906 from 725, compared with
the same period in 2010, when BHA minimum values, not tariffs, applied.
However, six-monthly figures compiled by the BHA's racing department and released to various industry organisations,
which the Racing Post hasseen, paint an even gloomier picture for owners of horses rated in the 90s and high 80s.
The documents analyse by rating band the scheduled Flat programme from July to December this year, compared
with 2010.
They reveal there will be 133 fewer handicaps for three-year-olds and upwards in Classes 2-4, a fall of 17.5 per cent, but 102 more such races in Classes 5-6, an increase of 9.5 per cent. The total number of qualifying races is due to drop by only 31, or less than two per cent.
The number of two-year-old handicaps, which are not restricted to horses below a certain maximum rating until August, is scheduled to fall by six, but the distribution among rating bands is significantly different.
There will be a decrease of more than a quarter in Class 2-4 nurseries, with 29 fewer programmed, and an increase of 23, nearly one-fifth, in Classes 5-6.
Outside nurseries, the number of two-year-old maidens is due to remain relatively stable - down from 480 to 475 - the document notes, but Class 4s will fall by 53, while those in Classes 5-6 go up by 50.
The downward trend, if not the figures, has come as no surprise to the BHA's racing department, whose work has provided industry officials with indications of the likely consequences since the HG tariffs were introduced on the Flat in April.
Their views are contained in notes from a meeting of the BHA's cross-industry racing committee in July, which considered the July - December programme breakdown.
The report says: "Whilst therewas no doubting that the introduction of tariffs had encouraged racecourses to increase theircontributions towards prize-money and had also helped to put a focus on racecourses' responsibility to prize-money in a way that had not been achieved before, they had been a blunt instrument and undoubtedly had also led to some significant downgrading of the programme, as had been pre-warned by the racing department."
It adds: "The committee felt the system at the moment seemed to be advantaging bad horses at the expense of good ones. Lower-grade races were not filling, but there were fewer and fewer races for decent horses.
"The horsemen's tariffs were always going to lead to downgrading, unless they were introduced alongside specific race-programme negotiations between the horsemen and racecourses."
The report notes that early in the year, following a further reduction in Levy Board support for prize-money, the BHA agreed to a moratorium on minimum values, other than at the top end, "as ameans of protecting the balance of the programme and ensuring that the better horse would still have opportunities to run".
It adds: "The introduction of the tariffs had, to some degree , obfuscated that decision."
A briefing note by the BHA racing department, which has gone to various industry bodies, concludes: "Changes to the Flat racing programme from July to December 2011 are most likely to adversely affect horses that are relatively highly rated but below the level normally required to be competitive in black-type races.
"In particular, horses rated in the 90s and high 80s will have significantly fewer opportunities in 2011 than during the same period in 2010."
Taking the fourth quarter of the year, starting October 1, the briefing note says the programme for higher-rated horses "has been altered in such a way that horses rated above 85 have very few opportunities".
The handicap programme has been hardest hit in the last quarter, with no 5f, 6f or 1m nursery above the 0-85 rating band after October 14 and no more than two races for three-year-olds and upwards rated above 95 in each distance category, with none over 1m2f or 1m6f.
BY HOWARD WRIGHT 10:03AM 29 AUG 2011
FURTHER stark evidence has emerged that the Flat racing programme in Britain is being significantly downgraded, with
officials in the BHA racing department putting the blame squarely on implementation of the Horsemen's Group tariffs -
which they describe as "a blunt instrument" - by racecourses.
Last week the Racing Post revealed that the number of Class
2-4 races from July to August 23 had declined from 546 to 456,
while Class 5-6 races went up to 906 from 725, compared with
the same period in 2010, when BHA minimum values, not tariffs, applied.
However, six-monthly figures compiled by the BHA's racing department and released to various industry organisations,
which the Racing Post hasseen, paint an even gloomier picture for owners of horses rated in the 90s and high 80s.
The documents analyse by rating band the scheduled Flat programme from July to December this year, compared
with 2010.
They reveal there will be 133 fewer handicaps for three-year-olds and upwards in Classes 2-4, a fall of 17.5 per cent, but 102 more such races in Classes 5-6, an increase of 9.5 per cent. The total number of qualifying races is due to drop by only 31, or less than two per cent.
The number of two-year-old handicaps, which are not restricted to horses below a certain maximum rating until August, is scheduled to fall by six, but the distribution among rating bands is significantly different.
There will be a decrease of more than a quarter in Class 2-4 nurseries, with 29 fewer programmed, and an increase of 23, nearly one-fifth, in Classes 5-6.
Outside nurseries, the number of two-year-old maidens is due to remain relatively stable - down from 480 to 475 - the document notes, but Class 4s will fall by 53, while those in Classes 5-6 go up by 50.
The downward trend, if not the figures, has come as no surprise to the BHA's racing department, whose work has provided industry officials with indications of the likely consequences since the HG tariffs were introduced on the Flat in April.
Their views are contained in notes from a meeting of the BHA's cross-industry racing committee in July, which considered the July - December programme breakdown.
The report says: "Whilst therewas no doubting that the introduction of tariffs had encouraged racecourses to increase theircontributions towards prize-money and had also helped to put a focus on racecourses' responsibility to prize-money in a way that had not been achieved before, they had been a blunt instrument and undoubtedly had also led to some significant downgrading of the programme, as had been pre-warned by the racing department."
It adds: "The committee felt the system at the moment seemed to be advantaging bad horses at the expense of good ones. Lower-grade races were not filling, but there were fewer and fewer races for decent horses.
"The horsemen's tariffs were always going to lead to downgrading, unless they were introduced alongside specific race-programme negotiations between the horsemen and racecourses."
The report notes that early in the year, following a further reduction in Levy Board support for prize-money, the BHA agreed to a moratorium on minimum values, other than at the top end, "as ameans of protecting the balance of the programme and ensuring that the better horse would still have opportunities to run".
It adds: "The introduction of the tariffs had, to some degree , obfuscated that decision."
A briefing note by the BHA racing department, which has gone to various industry bodies, concludes: "Changes to the Flat racing programme from July to December 2011 are most likely to adversely affect horses that are relatively highly rated but below the level normally required to be competitive in black-type races.
"In particular, horses rated in the 90s and high 80s will have significantly fewer opportunities in 2011 than during the same period in 2010."
Taking the fourth quarter of the year, starting October 1, the briefing note says the programme for higher-rated horses "has been altered in such a way that horses rated above 85 have very few opportunities".
The handicap programme has been hardest hit in the last quarter, with no 5f, 6f or 1m nursery above the 0-85 rating band after October 14 and no more than two races for three-year-olds and upwards rated above 95 in each distance category, with none over 1m2f or 1m6f.
As Colin's post clearly indicates, there is a serious degradation going on as racecourses reduce prize money by programming lower quality races. Meanwhile Ffos Las, which has provided some very good racing, given a shot in the arm to Welsh stables and attracted good attendances is up in arms about a possible major cut in the number of fixtures it stages.
Furious Ffos Las owner threatens to close course
By Howard Wright 8:58AM 29 AUG 2011
FFOS LAS, Britain's newest racecourse, will be closed and one of the biggest individual jumping strings dispersed if the track is denied nearly half its fixtures in 2012, as is envisaged under current negotiations on nextyear's calendar.
The dire consequences emerged on Sunday in a serious warning from Ffos Las founder, inspiration and chairman Dai Walters, whose business plan for the course faces being torn to shreds.
Ffos Las, which opened in June 2009 as Wales's first new racecourse for 80 years, is scheduled to stage 29 fixtures this year - 16 granted under the BHA's ‘new racecourse' policy, 12 BHA-owned leasehold fixtures that were acquired through a prize-money bidding process, and one that is self-funded.
However, for next year the BHA has refused to put up the majority of its own fixtures for auction and has decided on applying a cap of 1,400 meetings, which means a cut of at least 80.
Dai Walters with Oscar Whisky, one of 50 horses he owns
PICTURE: John Grossick
The result is that Ffos Las would retain 16 ‘new racecourse' fixtures but lose 12 that were obtained through a competitive bidding process.
Walters said: "It's a very disturbing situation. I'm passionate about Ffos Las, but I'm a businessman and can't run it at a loss. If they leave us with 16 fixtures it would ruin our business plan and we'll lose the racecourse.
"I don't make money out of the business, but I'mcertainly not going to lose money on it. I'll be very annoyed if we do lose these fixtures."
Walters added: "I realise that fixtures may have to be cut because levy income has been halved since we did our original business plan, but we've delivered everything everyone asked of us - an excellent track and facilities, way above many others in health and safety terms, and prize-money that's never been below the Horsemen's Group tariff.
"I'm not asking for money. I just want the fixtures. I can accept a drop of one or two, but not a dozen. It would be very unfair. The answer is common sense."
Walters said he believed that losing the racecourse, as well as hitting the racing industry, would be "one of the biggest blows to tourism in Wales".
He added: "We had a crowd of 7,500 last Friday, with nearly 1,000 in the hospitality areas. The recession inIreland has meant we haven’t had as much traffic from there as we had hoped, but we still get Irish visitors and the support locally has been very big.
“I know we’ve been good for business in the area because people keep coming up to me and saying so.”
Walters, who has 50 horses in training, spread among a dozen stables, had a further warning.
“I will definitely close the track if they cut me back to 16 fixtures,” he said, “but I will also never own another horse in my life, so there’ll be a big knock-on effect.”
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Story in today's Racing Post details how William Haggas persuaded Thirsk to downgarde their class 4 opening maiden on Saturday's card to a class 5 because he wanted to run a particular horse (presumably Pacific Trader) in it. However as class 4 it was £300 under tariff. race is downgraded, so now £2,000 above tariff. Owners are exactly £0 better off but Haggas is seen to be supporting them.
Isn't this incident a massive dent in their credibility?
Isn't this incident a massive dent in their credibility?
Answer = yes.
What surprises me, though, is that racecourses are free to do this kind of thing. In Ireland there is a race planning committee which sets out the programme of races for each fixture. I don't think a racecourse could take a unilateral decision to do something different. Are there not similar constraints on British racecourses?
What surprises me, though, is that racecourses are free to do this kind of thing. In Ireland there is a race planning committee which sets out the programme of races for each fixture. I don't think a racecourse could take a unilateral decision to do something different. Are there not similar constraints on British racecourses?
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
There are in as much as Thirskhad to ask the BHA if they could downgrade the race - the BHA agreed and the race is now a Class 5.
Last edited:
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Story suggests it needed BHA approval to happen and it must obviously have got it.
Fair enough, but what about the general downgrading of the programme described in the RP article posted above by Colin Phillips, on 29 August?
Has the BHA deliberately allowed the opportunities for better class horses to dry up?
Has the BHA deliberately allowed the opportunities for better class horses to dry up?
Last edited: