The Biggest Horseracing Story since Shergar, and yet......

M

michael_o

At the Start
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
457
this story has been live for 48 hours, yet nobody on here (apparently) could care less. An insufficient funding from betting is a problem which has plagued our industry for the last 20-or-30 years, yet people on here are only obsessed about what's going to win at the Festival. This new government initiative to replace the Levy has, I hope, huge implications for our industry, whether you're an Owner, Trainer, Jockey, Stable staff, or even just the occasional punter.

I congratulate Steve Harman and Nick Rust for the behind-the-scenes lobbying which was obviously necessary to secure this result. Surely, for every fan of horse-racing on here, this must be something to celebrate tonight?

Except maybe, the contributors to Talkinghorses.
 
Maybe the firms will have to start takng a bet now to get some of the losses back.I too am eager to see the Response to this.
 
Last edited:
michael_o said:
this story has been live for 48 hours, yet nobody on here (apparently) could care less. An insufficient funding from betting is a problem which has plagued our industry for the last 20-or-30 years, yet people on here are only obsessed about what's going to win at the Festival. This new government initiative to replace the Levy has, I hope, huge implications for our industry, whether you're an Owner, Trainer, Jockey, Stable staff, or even just the occasional punter.

I congratulate Steve Harman and Nick Rust for the behind-the-scenes lobbying which was obviously necessary to secure this result. Surely, for every fan of horse-racing on here, this must be something to celebrate tonight?

Except maybe, the contributors to Talkinghorses.
Click to expand...

Supporters of racing are not responsible for the funding of racing in the same way a Chelsea fan is not responsible for the finance of football.
 
Last edited:
There are zero details available regarding how it will work - no idea if it will be based on gross profit, net profit, turnover, include media rights money or not, whether it will run along the same lines as the Levy (ie. include provisions for veterinary research, rare breeds etc.), the list of possibilities is endless and there's still no guarantee that it will definitely result in MORE money for racing, or at least significantly more than they are getting at the moment.

I think people are just waiting for more details on it before heralding it as something that will save racing which could make them look pretty foolish if the net result is £££ in the circa 2006/7 levels.

FWIW when I opened the thread I thought this was about Paul John & Jim Best.

Martin
 
Jesus Christ. All you're worrying about is how this will affect your bet. This is much more, so much more, than just about your stupid little wager. This is about as all, whether we're net contributors (as I am) or recipients (stable stafff,etc.) from this exciting new initiative.
 
Racing will continue in one vain or another regardless of this decision - if it goes through the Levy system then the BHA will find a way to put races on and trainers will charge the same price they always do.

We've seen that when given a chance to run for more prize money most owners don't want to - that or the trainers talk them out of it.

Martin
 
michael_o said:
Jesus Christ. All you're worrying about is how this will affect your bet. This is much more, so much more, than just about your stupid little wager. This is about as all, whether we're net contributors (as I am) or recipients (stable stafff,etc.) from this exciting new initiative.
Click to expand...

My hero.
 
michael_o said:
Jesus Christ. All you're worrying about is how this will affect your bet. This is much more, so much more, than just about your stupid little wager. This is about as all, whether we're net contributors (as I am) or recipients (stable stafff,etc.) from this exciting new initiative.
Click to expand...

So racing owes you a wage?
 
Irish Stamp said:
Racing will continue in one vain or another regardless of this decision - if it goes through the Levy system then the BHA will find a way to put races on and trainers will charge the same price they always do.

We've seen that when given a chance to run for more prize money most owners don't want to - that or the trainers talk them out of it.

Martin
Click to expand...

agree with all of that and well said

this "change" will probably mean more egg and spoon fodder and 50 odd rated horses running for 4k instead of 3k

who gives a f***
 
michael_o said:
Jesus Christ. All you're worrying about is how this will affect your bet. This is much more, so much more, than just about your stupid little wager. This is about as all, whether we're net contributors (as I am) or recipients (stable stafff,etc.) from this exciting new initiative.
Click to expand...


99% of punters are "net contributors" to racing. Consider this before you start giving out about your favourite hobby-horses.

The BHA - after years of utter ineptitude and blown opportunities - appear (finally) to have grown a set, and called the bookies bluff. The deal is to be welcomed, and looks positive, but the devil is in the detail, so please forgive me if I choose not to join in your trumpeting of this as the biggest story in racing since Shergar (whoever she is).

I'll give the BHA due respect when I see it making a material difference. Until then, you can poke your apparent indignation right up your jacksie.
 
Last edited:
One wonders what was stopping the OP from making an OP 48 hrs ago if he felt the matter was worthy of discussion instead of being a tosser about it.
 
WTF? No defitnitley not,no, it's my hobby. But i do expect a slightly better yield from my outlay of £40K approx. per annum.

So I'm really chuffed tonight (not many are her apparently).
 
I don't particularly care about your £40K a year outlay.

I know at least one member on here who spends more than that on 'racing' each year, and that Member hasn't chosen to have a pop at the rest of the Membership, because they have failed to mention this story.

Perhaps if you had modulated your opening post, and asked a question instead of having a go, you might have got a more positive response. As it is, you will probabaly have to slap your own back, because I've no interest in doing it.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
I don't particularly care about your £40K a year outlay.

I know at least one member on here who spends more than that on 'racing' each year, and that Member hasn't chosen to have a pop at the rest of the Membership, because they have failed to mention this story.

Perhaps if you had modulated your opening post, and asked a question instead of having a go, you might have got a more positive response. As it is, you will probabaly have to slap your own back, because I've no interest in doing it.
Click to expand...
 
Michael,
I admire your enthusiasm for change in the funding structure but what I have seen so far is a seemingly vague outline and no substance. There are many issues ,many varied interests, many different agenda to be dealt with and the proposals are coming through the notoriously slow mechanism of the Government. Well done to those that have got things moving however let's see something more of a framework in order to make valid comments and or contributions.

There are strong views held by many on here, not necessarily all aligned. I'm sure we'll get plenty of debate when there is actually something to react to.
 
Well it's nice to know someone is passionate and enthusiastic enough to be scolding others for not cheering this massive change.

This massive change while aimed at Internet bookies who don't currently pay a levy will of course see prices and offers to ME/US tighten up in the future and bookies profits rise to cover the cost.

I can hear the computerised calculators ticking over already.

You may think this is a good thing and it may well be for the many people employed in racing but to the punter it can only mean one thing.,
 
michael_o said:
this story has been live for 48 hours, yet nobody on here (apparently) could care less. An insufficient funding from betting is a problem which has plagued our industry for the last 20-or-30 years, yet people on here are only obsessed about what's going to win at the Festival. This new government initiative to replace the Levy has, I hope, huge implications for our industry, whether you're an Owner, Trainer, Jockey, Stable staff, or even just the occasional punter.

I congratulate Steve Harman and Nick Rust for the behind-the-scenes lobbying which was obviously necessary to secure this result. Surely, for every fan of horse-racing on here, this must be something to celebrate tonight?

Except maybe, the contributors to Talkinghorses.
Click to expand...

It's not an 'new initiative to replace the levy', merely a mechanism to claw back that part of it some have contrived to duck for the past few years. If, or when, the levy is properly replaced, and racing funded from actual betting turnover rather than bookmaker profits, then punters et al might have something to celebrate.
It is wrong - and has been since Savill's day in 2001, when general betting duty was replaced by gross profit tax - that those who make racing's rules also have a direct interest in ensuring the punter loses.
 
Last edited:
Everything gets passed down the line and it will be the average joe public that will be hit In the pocket directly or indirectly,whether it's your quarter point or your 8.50 burger at HQ.Where more money maybe put back into grass roots I'd be sceptical without seeing it on paper.In theory and a perfect world yes the money will make the sport better at some level,will it make the product better for me-probably not.As for the OP,without meaning to cause offence if you think you are owed something for your 40k p.a you are in the wrong game.The people at the top of the food chain answer to shareholders and unfortunately this isn't the Truman show where we eat an apple under the tree on our lunch breaks.
 
michael_o said:
Jesus Christ. All you're worrying about is how this will affect your bet. This is much more, so much more, than just about your stupid little wager. This is about as all, whether we're net contributors (as I am) or recipients (stable stafff,etc.) from this exciting new initiative.
Click to expand...

michael_o, you are not a frequent poster on here so maybe the tone of the above post is what you're used to elsewhere but if you you want to spark a meaningful debate on the matter I would suggest that is not the way to go about it.

There is no shortage of intellect on this forum. Belittling people's betting activity in relation to an industry issue - albeit a very important one - is not going to keep any debate to what the agenda should really be.

As others have said, there isn't enough information available to the betting public (and I'll readily admit the betting shop clientele I've been used to witnessing in over 40 years are highly unlikely to give a fig about the issue) and it is always going to be easier to present reasoned cases for and against if you have more information.

I agree with you assertion that this is one of the most important issues to affect racing. (The Shergar story wasn't about racing; racing was merely the context for the story.)

It was almost certainly going to be aired on here at some point but right now Cheltenham is what's occupying everyone's mind. And I most certainly take exception to the idea that my wagers are stupid. I have not made one bet so far that has not been arrived at following considerable analysis.
 
Desert Orchid said:
michael_o, you are not a frequent poster on here so maybe the tone of the above post is what you're used to elsewhere but if you you want to spark a meaningful debate on the matter I would suggest that is not the way to go about it.

There is no shortage of intellect on this forum. Belittling people's betting activity in relation to an industry issue - albeit a very important one - is not going to keep any debate to what the agenda should really be.

As others have said, there isn't enough information available to the betting public (and I'll readily admit the betting shop clientele I've been used to witnessing in over 40 years are highly unlikely to give a fig about the issue) and it is always going to be easier to present reasoned cases for and against if you have more information.

I agree with you assertion that this is one of the most important issues to affect racing. (The Shergar story wasn't about racing; racing was merely the context for the story.)

It was almost certainly going to be aired on here at some point but right now Cheltenham is what's occupying everyone's mind. And I most certainly take exception to the idea that my wagers are stupid. I have not made one bet so far that has not been arrived at following considerable analysis.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
Desert Orchid said:
michael_o, you are not a frequent poster on here so maybe the tone of the above post is what you're used to elsewhere but if you you want to spark a meaningful debate on the matter I would suggest that is not the way to go about it.

There is no shortage of intellect on this forum. Belittling people's betting activity in relation to an industry issue - albeit a very important one - is not going to keep any debate to what the agenda should really be.

As others have said, there isn't enough information available to the betting public (and I'll readily admit the betting shop clientele I've been used to witnessing in over 40 years are highly unlikely to give a fig about the issue) and it is always going to be easier to present reasoned cases for and against if you have more information.

I agree with you assertion that this is one of the most important issues to affect racing. (The Shergar story wasn't about racing; racing was merely the context for the story.)

It was almost certainly going to be aired on here at some point but right now Cheltenham is what's occupying everyone's mind. And I most certainly take exception to the idea that my wagers are stupid. I have not made one bet so far that has not been arrived at following considerable analysis.
Click to expand...

You're quite right D.O. On reflection my comments were disrespectful and the tone inappropriate. I apologise to you and anyone else who may have taken offence.
 
Back
Top