Anyone have a copy and paste job (or even the gist) of the front page story on the RP today? The Irish version has half the story (and Alan Byrnes comments) on the third page but the front page is just pictures so I guess there was a printing mistake on the Irish version....
RFC Article
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
I have the UK version. Pretty much castagating it. The headline on page six reads "Street: there's no quick fix but we've done a good job so far" with a box beside it of the "ten 'quick delivery' initiatives - have they worked" which has x beside five of them, question marks beside three and just ticks the box on PR campagn to promote racing and improve enjoyment and understanding of day at races.
Street focuses on taking the stars to a borader audience and the Free Racing Week which he says played a part in the increased attendances. Bigger number cloths and live stewards are also mentioned. He does say progress is slow because of the stakeholders involved, a point clearly stated by Alan Byrne in his editorial piece.
Around the article, Barry Dennis criticises the gold flag for bookies.
There are comments from various professionals when asked "what do you think RFC has achieved so far":
Peter O'Sullivan "mercifully, not too much - I would rather it was Racing for Pogress"
John Warren "I do find it disappointing that there is so much negativity......if the industry is not prepared to support looking at change it's a pretty sorry day"
Philip Hobbs "RFC has achieved bery little"
Mark Johnston "I still feel the project is flawed and that they are tinkering with the minutiae"
Gay Kellaway "I've never been so depressed in 19 years as a trainer....where is it all going to end"
Street focuses on taking the stars to a borader audience and the Free Racing Week which he says played a part in the increased attendances. Bigger number cloths and live stewards are also mentioned. He does say progress is slow because of the stakeholders involved, a point clearly stated by Alan Byrne in his editorial piece.
Around the article, Barry Dennis criticises the gold flag for bookies.
There are comments from various professionals when asked "what do you think RFC has achieved so far":
Peter O'Sullivan "mercifully, not too much - I would rather it was Racing for Pogress"
John Warren "I do find it disappointing that there is so much negativity......if the industry is not prepared to support looking at change it's a pretty sorry day"
Philip Hobbs "RFC has achieved bery little"
Mark Johnston "I still feel the project is flawed and that they are tinkering with the minutiae"
Gay Kellaway "I've never been so depressed in 19 years as a trainer....where is it all going to end"
Last edited:
I thought Alan Byrnes piece was very well written and more of that sort of opinion on those sort of matters should be a priority for the RP in such times rather than weither or not Tony McCoy will be the BCC Sports Personality of the year...
Byrne picks and chooses though. Whose he going to upset by pointing out the obvious. Yet will he point out the obvious when it is about his advertisers (one of whom took a half page ad on that two page RFC spread or those that hold the lucrative centre page ads) or those he needs quotes from.....I doubt it. That's why racing needs a second daily paper. The Irish Field and the RP have their hands tied because they need others to pay them and for information. While another paper is not economically viable, it would be great to have choice.
Yeah I recall. That's why I was saying economically viable. If I remember correctly, they ran out of cash very quickly. You have to be able to support a business like that for 2 to 3 years in order to build a following. Think they were only able to support it for six months.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
I agree. An excellent piece of commentary, imo. I contacted the paper to tell them that.
The Sportsman paid salaries to a small number of staff from September 2005, to a larger number of staff from January/February 2006, launched in March 2006 and folded in October 2006, so it could be argued that it existed for more than a year.
No-one was ever given any indication from those in charge that the plug would be pulled so quickly, and the paper was, or so it was said, as near as dammit breaking even by the end...
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I thought it was getting better in the weeks immediately preceding its demise.
It started from a low base, though.
It started from a low base, though.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
It did.
It was not the intention.
It was not the intention.
I'm not sure how much The Sportsman was promoted, though. It was giving away free copies at Lingfield for a meeting or two, but overall I don't know how much of its money went into advertising and promotions. Very difficult to launch anything 'quietly' these days - you need to sponsor several cards and give away lots of prizes, I think, if you're to break into racing's rather ossified loyalties.
Thinking of ossified mindsets, isn't the hallowed Sir Peter's remark about it rather being Racing for Progress superfluous? If something progresses, it changes from what it's been. (Just to go for the Pedant of the Year Award, that's all.)
Thinking of ossified mindsets, isn't the hallowed Sir Peter's remark about it rather being Racing for Progress superfluous? If something progresses, it changes from what it's been. (Just to go for the Pedant of the Year Award, that's all.)
Last edited:
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
A search on Racing Post website for races in 2006 with the word "Sportsman" in their title produced 57 results, including the "Group 2 The Sportsman Newspaper Hungerford Stakes" and the "Read Kieren In The Sportsman Handicap".
The only thing that was missing was "The Sportsman (We Are So Busy P1ss1ng Our Money Away On Stuff Like This That We Soon Won't Be Able To Pay Our Staff) Stakes."
The only thing that was missing was "The Sportsman (We Are So Busy P1ss1ng Our Money Away On Stuff Like This That We Soon Won't Be Able To Pay Our Staff) Stakes."
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
I blame George Graham.
The Sportsman paid salaries to a small number of staff from September 2005, to a larger number of staff from January/February 2006, launched in March 2006 and folded in October 2006, so it could be argued that it existed for more than a year.
You have to be able to support a newspaper for 2 years from launch. The run rate on production costs just bleeds you dry.
When I worked for the Saudi Oil Co., it had a free business advisory section which would help entrepreneurial Saudis prior to their starting up new companies. The rule of thumb was nothing back for the first year, break even second year, small profit third. Anyone whose proposals couldn't show that third-year profit potential were advised not to go ahead until they could.
Prufrock,
May I say first of all that imho you did a great job at the Sportsman, your equivalent of RP Spotlight horse comments were well ahead of the RP's at the time.
Having said that wasn't the RP opinion piece a typical example of their blame everyrbody for the state of racing apart from the off-course bookies policy?
After all the ocb's pay the RP salaries through their advertising and send their journos crates of wine when nice things are written. Can't expect an impartial view from the RP.
Isn't the main problem with racing's funding the fact that the Levy Board is controlled totally by the bookmakers through their statutory right of veto. And wouldn't it better for racing if the government abolished the Levy Board and let the horseman's group negotiate commercially with the bookies. Not likely that because of the taxation element, but if the horseman's group play their cards right and can persuade the government that more taxation (govenment revenue) would result from a statutory change in the way the L.B operates, then there would be hope that bookmakers would have to pay a proper price for the golden egg that is their profit from horseracing.
richard
May I say first of all that imho you did a great job at the Sportsman, your equivalent of RP Spotlight horse comments were well ahead of the RP's at the time.
Having said that wasn't the RP opinion piece a typical example of their blame everyrbody for the state of racing apart from the off-course bookies policy?
After all the ocb's pay the RP salaries through their advertising and send their journos crates of wine when nice things are written. Can't expect an impartial view from the RP.
Isn't the main problem with racing's funding the fact that the Levy Board is controlled totally by the bookmakers through their statutory right of veto. And wouldn't it better for racing if the government abolished the Levy Board and let the horseman's group negotiate commercially with the bookies. Not likely that because of the taxation element, but if the horseman's group play their cards right and can persuade the government that more taxation (govenment revenue) would result from a statutory change in the way the L.B operates, then there would be hope that bookmakers would have to pay a proper price for the golden egg that is their profit from horseracing.
richard
I see Barry Hills was complaining about Newbury and its concert. He is quoted as saying two members walked up to turnstiles and did an about face because of the crowds. I find that very similar to paying €100 for a four ball and having the members complaining that we are holding up play. We are holding up play because we don't know the course but our €100 pays for your groundsman to keep the greens in the condition you are accustomed to!! Ditto with racing. If concerts make a racecourse money, that is money that can be put back into prizemoney. Nice to see Perth increase prizemoney for an upcoming meeting because of extra corporate hospitality. Racing really needs to accept it is in the entertainment business and what was a good product ten years ago may not be a good product now. So in some cases it needs to be bundled with something else, and in Newbury's case it was a concert. In Ireland, some punters have complained that they can no longer get into see the last two races of a Leopardstown evening meeting for free becasue the racecourse charges, even after the last, for the live band. I don't see the problem. Those punters contributed nothing to the racecourse other than a bet with the bookies, possibly.
Richard, the problem with racing is that prize money is down to teeth-picking levels because the money's no longer in bookies' shops, from where it once flowed through taxation - it's gone massively to exchanges in offshore businesses. The Levy Board says it's not getting the money from its old sources, which are now a busted flush in terms of the 21st Century way of punting, and there has to be a rethink of how racing gets funded, because it's not coming out of bookies' purses any more.
Additionally, sponsors of races have pulled back due to the recession and many previous sponsors are now hard-pressed to even donate BTO prize monies. There's also the difficulty in getting top sponsors to fund what is, overall, low level racing. You can get something like a local bar or bistro (or even, ahem, 'gentleman's club') to cough up a grand for sponsoring a Class 5 prance - you won't get top sponsors doing so.
Cantoris makes good points about hospitality funding an increase in prize money at Perth, but for racing as a whole to accept it belongs to the world of entertainment now, rather than sport (and perhaps all sport is entertainment anyway?), more and more Family Fun Days, concert nights, etc., etc. will have to be the order of the day and night for it to thrive. Bunging up onsite hotels, pubs and vastly expanded hospitality facilities is one recognition that it can be bundled with leisure centres, golf courses, spas, long weekend jollies, etc., with racing one facet of an 'experience', not the sole raison d'etre for attendance.
Lingfield's Saturday night concerts have brought in much bigger crowds than Saturdays without music, with attendant mobile food outlets (all paying for their pitches) and an average of 24 bookies paying £120 a pitch (assistants where used an additional £20 each), whereas on previous occasions and regular weekdays, figure no more than 9 bookies and no mobile food. 'Fun' is a factor, and fun pays well. If that causes traditionalists' heads to spin, then unfortunately a number of people are going to be dizzy for a long time. Just two people turning away from thousands at Newbury is a drop in the ocean. If they were Annual Members, their annual fee amortised over its race meetings gives them the cheapest possible entrance and, knowing how cheap most AMs are, they rarely contribute anything other than a few £2 bets, bring their own race sheets from The Sun, and will have eaten at home beforehand 'to save money'. AMs contribute a handy lump sum once a year to courses, but otherwise are very poor onsite money spinners. Most courses have over the past few years dropped their many perks and privileges (free refreshments, sandwiches, dedicated parking, outings, free race cards et al) in order to fixate on high-level hospitality packages.
Additionally, sponsors of races have pulled back due to the recession and many previous sponsors are now hard-pressed to even donate BTO prize monies. There's also the difficulty in getting top sponsors to fund what is, overall, low level racing. You can get something like a local bar or bistro (or even, ahem, 'gentleman's club') to cough up a grand for sponsoring a Class 5 prance - you won't get top sponsors doing so.
Cantoris makes good points about hospitality funding an increase in prize money at Perth, but for racing as a whole to accept it belongs to the world of entertainment now, rather than sport (and perhaps all sport is entertainment anyway?), more and more Family Fun Days, concert nights, etc., etc. will have to be the order of the day and night for it to thrive. Bunging up onsite hotels, pubs and vastly expanded hospitality facilities is one recognition that it can be bundled with leisure centres, golf courses, spas, long weekend jollies, etc., with racing one facet of an 'experience', not the sole raison d'etre for attendance.
Lingfield's Saturday night concerts have brought in much bigger crowds than Saturdays without music, with attendant mobile food outlets (all paying for their pitches) and an average of 24 bookies paying £120 a pitch (assistants where used an additional £20 each), whereas on previous occasions and regular weekdays, figure no more than 9 bookies and no mobile food. 'Fun' is a factor, and fun pays well. If that causes traditionalists' heads to spin, then unfortunately a number of people are going to be dizzy for a long time. Just two people turning away from thousands at Newbury is a drop in the ocean. If they were Annual Members, their annual fee amortised over its race meetings gives them the cheapest possible entrance and, knowing how cheap most AMs are, they rarely contribute anything other than a few £2 bets, bring their own race sheets from The Sun, and will have eaten at home beforehand 'to save money'. AMs contribute a handy lump sum once a year to courses, but otherwise are very poor onsite money spinners. Most courses have over the past few years dropped their many perks and privileges (free refreshments, sandwiches, dedicated parking, outings, free race cards et al) in order to fixate on high-level hospitality packages.
Very much not thought through properly so by all means pull this to pieces but Kri's comments about offshore bookmakes not contributing taxation-wise got me thinking, because that problem probably isn't confined just to racing but other sports, too, no ?
Do such companies advertise at racecourses and in print (if that sounds like a dumb questrion, remember I don't bet)? Presumably they have to to drive punters to their websites somehow. In which case, maybe it's time a special tax was introduced by our government via a special advertising tax on any advertising by companies who operate gambling enterprises soley offshore (ie, they don't pay any corporation tax). A significant percentage of the new tax to then be invested back into the sports that generated it on a % basis of turnover. Maybe this does exist already or something similar but I guess it'a growing problem for governments in the form of lost tax revenues these days.
Do such companies advertise at racecourses and in print (if that sounds like a dumb questrion, remember I don't bet)? Presumably they have to to drive punters to their websites somehow. In which case, maybe it's time a special tax was introduced by our government via a special advertising tax on any advertising by companies who operate gambling enterprises soley offshore (ie, they don't pay any corporation tax). A significant percentage of the new tax to then be invested back into the sports that generated it on a % basis of turnover. Maybe this does exist already or something similar but I guess it'a growing problem for governments in the form of lost tax revenues these days.
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
It would be Songsheet if football, cricket, rugby (both codes), netball (which is a great example of how you can set up a semi-pro sports league even in the current climate), volleyball, etc. where being funded by money that the bookmakers make from betting.
Racing needs to go back to the start and re-think where it wants its funding to come from, US tracks are funded by slot machines (something that wouldn't be feasible over here) - have racecourses looked at staging weddings, fares etc. I know Haydock seem to be doing very well on the non-racing side of things thanks largely to the work of Adam Waterworth prior to his moves to other racecourses and regularly staged/staged computer fare's, bridal fares and the like which will attract non-race day revenue to the course.
IS - you ought to know by now, from the number of bleedin' times I've mentioned it, 
that courses do very well from their non-racing activities, BUT, as I have also said before, since all racecourses bar some of the indies are owned by companies (Jockey Club Estates, Arena, Northern Racing, to name but three) which run on competitively commercial lines, the income from non-racing events does not go into their racing activities. It will go into increasing commercial amenities, such as the hotels/extra bars/new grandstands, etc., but it doesn't go towards prize money. Never, never, never. That's why courses' marketing departments are forever on the phone to past, present and hopefully future sponsors, trying to ensure that they pay for the races' prizes. Haven't you ever wondered why so many courses' receptionists answer the phone with "XXX Racecourse and Conference Centre"? Because they have separate licences for their racing events and their non-racing events. The incomes are kept separately by their accountants who audit the courses as two separate issues - racing income/outgoings, and non-racing income/outgoings. One reason for that is because, for example, casual raceday staff (including stewards' fees, the doctors and vets) is covered by raceday income - non-racing income will not fund racing's outgoings. However, it's non-raceday income that will fund large building projects, since it makes far more than most racedays, but only in so far as the projects enhance the overall property. Some grandstands were rebuilt because they were to form an integral part of a new restaurant/hotel/additional hospitality erection, and couldn't be separated from the new build. Otherwise, the hotels, restaurants, what-have-you are part of enhancing the complete property, increasing its use even more for non-raceday income. Lingfield's new hotel is there to service overstaying owners, but is also aimed at golfers (don't forget there's a good course right onsite) and overflow for nearby Gatwick Airport.
Think of Fontwell's swanky new facilities - originally, the plan was very small scale: tear down the old Lawn Suites and just build six new hospitality suites. Then, on further examination, it was thought that Fontwell House, serving as the course's restaurant, was hardly in a prime position as no-one could see any live racing from there. So... that's now used as the wedding venue on non-racedays, and the tatty old Lawn Suites are transformed into a glass edifice with three floors of balconies, trackside views, hospitality suites and a sparkling, modern restaurant. But all of that will be to service the non-raceday events such as celebrations, product launches, seminars, et al as well - it would never have been built just for 20-odd racedays. One reason why racecourses can excel with these events is because there's so much free car parking! You'd pay £20 a day to park in Brighton if you hosted an event at one of the seafront hotels, for example, because while they may have the function rooms, they don't have any parking - well, maybe for up to 10 cars, but not the hundreds, say, for CD and record, fossil and rock, wedding and event fairs.
that courses do very well from their non-racing activities, BUT, as I have also said before, since all racecourses bar some of the indies are owned by companies (Jockey Club Estates, Arena, Northern Racing, to name but three) which run on competitively commercial lines, the income from non-racing events does not go into their racing activities. It will go into increasing commercial amenities, such as the hotels/extra bars/new grandstands, etc., but it doesn't go towards prize money. Never, never, never. That's why courses' marketing departments are forever on the phone to past, present and hopefully future sponsors, trying to ensure that they pay for the races' prizes. Haven't you ever wondered why so many courses' receptionists answer the phone with "XXX Racecourse and Conference Centre"? Because they have separate licences for their racing events and their non-racing events. The incomes are kept separately by their accountants who audit the courses as two separate issues - racing income/outgoings, and non-racing income/outgoings. One reason for that is because, for example, casual raceday staff (including stewards' fees, the doctors and vets) is covered by raceday income - non-racing income will not fund racing's outgoings. However, it's non-raceday income that will fund large building projects, since it makes far more than most racedays, but only in so far as the projects enhance the overall property. Some grandstands were rebuilt because they were to form an integral part of a new restaurant/hotel/additional hospitality erection, and couldn't be separated from the new build. Otherwise, the hotels, restaurants, what-have-you are part of enhancing the complete property, increasing its use even more for non-raceday income. Lingfield's new hotel is there to service overstaying owners, but is also aimed at golfers (don't forget there's a good course right onsite) and overflow for nearby Gatwick Airport.Think of Fontwell's swanky new facilities - originally, the plan was very small scale: tear down the old Lawn Suites and just build six new hospitality suites. Then, on further examination, it was thought that Fontwell House, serving as the course's restaurant, was hardly in a prime position as no-one could see any live racing from there. So... that's now used as the wedding venue on non-racedays, and the tatty old Lawn Suites are transformed into a glass edifice with three floors of balconies, trackside views, hospitality suites and a sparkling, modern restaurant. But all of that will be to service the non-raceday events such as celebrations, product launches, seminars, et al as well - it would never have been built just for 20-odd racedays. One reason why racecourses can excel with these events is because there's so much free car parking! You'd pay £20 a day to park in Brighton if you hosted an event at one of the seafront hotels, for example, because while they may have the function rooms, they don't have any parking - well, maybe for up to 10 cars, but not the hundreds, say, for CD and record, fossil and rock, wedding and event fairs.
Last edited: