View From The Ring

Six more fixtures

I don’t want to bore you with statistics, sometimes they can prove meaningless, but there’s one stat that cannot be ignored in the sport we hold so dear. From 2008-2014, the horse population has declined by 1600, around 10%, that’s to say horses in training. In the same period – the number of races has grown by 15%. I hesitate to coin the phrase ‘the net result thereof’ – but you have to admit there appears a strong correlation in these two figures. More races – less horses..

Next year- six more fixtures. I want to make clear from the outset, I was given more than fair opportunity by the British Racing Authority to state the case on behalf of those of us who believe there’s simply too much racing. I was simply out-voted, or failed to press my arguments, indeed I think it’s fair to say my view stood pretty much alone in the face of data and reports compiled by important racing entities, to include the Racecourse Association, Arena leisure and Jockey Club. Racecourse Media Group, and Attheraces. The Levy Board also support the current level, based on data provided by big betting.

The consultation group doesn’t include any elements of Betting..

The aforementioned ‘pick five’ of racing (excluding Bet365, who oddly declined any participation, perhaps they don’t see us as serious?) Ladbrokes, Betfred, Coral, William Hill, Betfair broadly agreed with the current levels. This, despite their complaints on field sizes, elements of planning with competing fixtures devaluing certain races they sponsor, quite understandable, – that .

As to the influential Horseman’s Group? I honestly don’t know where they stand.

The BHA? As usual they get the blame, despite only controlling 200 odd fixtures themselves. One has to bear in mind, the OFT stripped the body of its powers in effect, and this is the result. I believe they definitely favour a reasonable cut. After all, the consultation was their plan. They weren’t prepared for the various stake holders to play rough, with spurious claims as to what any kind of cull would cost, without mind to the potential benefits in a raising of the bar on quality.

The sport is losing TV viewers and racegoers midweek. Bookmakers are the dominant sponsors, even if some view that as distasteful. Cheltenham lost six sponsors for their major festival races alone. The margin in betting has seriously declined, so has racing’s market share of the betting cake and lay to lose is a cancer on the sport. I’m sure racing’s most important group of tracks would prefer to move to a more balanced sponsors book given the pervasive influence of betting, but can’t find sufficient alternate companies at the current time. After all our tv networks and newspapers are literally stuffed with adverts from gaming empires. I’m aware some of you don’t care, nor understand the long term impact of this. But a full moon is coming.

Ladbrokes, one of the largest operators in betting worldwide, have already told you of their concern as to the viability of racing as a betting product. Were you listening, or did you put it down to their failures as a company to deliver a competitive digital platform?

In order for the BHA to ‘monetise’ the sport abroad, to betting, and to new sponsors, they must deliver on field sizes, and control the level of ‘grunge’ – low quality racing put on exclusively for betting, and stop the tendency for our best meetings to compete with England vs Moldova. An instant fail.

The critical Asian market, we base some of our Levy upon, bases itself on numbers betting, – often backing several in a race. The odds permit this kind of play. How does that fit with a five runner race at Southwell? Indeed, of what interest are such events to our betting public – other than the professional players? None. Of course, I’m painfully aware to some track bosses this is of no importance right now, but change is coming with the new media rights negotiations.

In the face of the spirit of change from the Authority, Arena leisure have threatened legal action. Yes folks, the same group who benefitted from the whole Good Friday concession is now holding the sport to ransom over their demands for a gothically dull floodlit mile for predominately low class horses at Gosforth Park. In much the same way as Pat Cosgrave was delivered back to racing – by lawyers, and their assertions. Tracks aren’t about to permit any reduction in their share of a media rights cake that has seen Bookmakers pay more than a hundred million more in recent times in fees to racing, with racetracks the primary beneficiary, and they’re not going to let a good thing go lightly..

We’ve reacted to the threat to field sizes by actually increasing the number of fixtures. Hard to believe it’s true. One is bound to question the purpose behind expensive consultation processes, other than to witness a circling of the wagons from ‘stakeholders.’ They simply refuse to countenance change, even if its utterly clear this is exactly what the sport requires to prosper.

The consultation discussed the removal of races that attracted low turnouts midweek. What’s wrong with that? It also discussed reducing the grade in certain races, to grow field sizes because we have more horses of very poor quality. This is to embark on a programme of lowering the overall quality of the programme still further. That wouldn’t be my choice, but I believe there are those who would use rocking horses if it made up a race.

All weather is on the increase, despite poor attendances, which adequately demonstrate the public have no appetite for it. The fare is largely unappealing. Racetracks focus our jewels in a one hour slot on Saturdays, often opposing more popular sports such as soccer. The midweek continues to be run down to the extreme. Sunday night racing, distressingly, has now appeared on the calendar. Nobody trumpeted that. Hardly surprising.

Few of these measures are customer focussed or about increasing quality. They evidence of an Authority boxed in the corner. Placed there by the office of fair trading. What a mess they made, ignorants with clipboards.

I’m fully aware though, there’s a strong body of fans and insiders who believe the current volume of the sport is farce. That to prune the programme by less than 1% and move a few races about won’t change things much. It’s a view I’ve heard many times from my customers, read constantly on social networking. Most of these views are the punters of course. The vital stakeholders group in racing who don’t have a seat at the top table, as things stand currently. They are joined though by a few brave souls from the training ranks, and some well intentioned journalists.

As we keep lowering the bar on quality, we make the whole thing just that bit less interesting to bet on. The USA has seen a dramatic decline in interest and betting in the sport. Excessively dull as a product. That’s precisely where we’re heading. Believe it’s true. The global data is fully at odds from that argued by the Levy Board and Betting.

Of course, I know we can offer some superb product, and accept we can’t always have group ones. Anyone at Ascot last weekend on British Champions Day can only be thoroughly impressed by the event. Cheltenham, Aintree, York and Goodwood showcase the best of Racing. Horseracing in Britain can be utterly superb at times. I want no mistake made that I have the utmost faith in the sport. Yet we seem to be choosing the route as driven by big betting, and backed up by their highly questionable data. I don’t want to dwell on the tracks themselves. If they’re paid to race in front of empty stands, they will do just that. It’s a business. They will inevitably favour the current level. Many have impressive debt levels to service.

People are persuaded by betting by two very simple phrases. ‘Every race contributes to the Levy’ and ‘if we don’t provide racing when the punters are in the shops, we will simply sell rival products.’ Data is brought out to back up this argument. As a colleague correctly pointed out, it’s hard to take the argument for a cut in the volume of racing forward when the data appears to show we could lose substantially from any cut in the programme. I argue in a different vein. No data has been produced, nor analysed, to show what would happen to the sport’s finances were we to embark on a programme which raised the overall bar on quality. No figures have been produced to show that in fact were we to raise the average field sizes by just one – from the current average of 7 to 8 horses a race, that the extra business we would ‘field’ would more than balance any loss in the total volume. Horses would seek other opportunities.

I hope I have made that simple point well.

Let me explain big betting for those who do not understand it. No, I’m not here to discuss those who ‘get on.’ Broadly speaking, what the multiples desire is ‘product’ – lots of it. The successful supergiant will deliver as many betting opportunities as they can in an hour. Racing is marginalised as a product in comparison to gaming, which is the engine of their businesses, and other sports such as soccer. The actual number of races put on every week, make the sport relatively inexpensive to bookmakers in real terms, and they generate noise and footfall in the LBO’s. They get so many spins of the wheel. Anyone who’s remotely threatening in the modern betting environment is closed down with alacrity.

What’s our future? I believe the data rights deals racetracks have enjoyed likely heftily squeezed by the bookmakers, and we will see racetracks close. The bookmakers simply carry far more commercial nous. Midweek racing most weeks has simply collapsed. Even our finest races ‘carve up’ between a select few, whilst lesser owners struggle at the cost of keeping their horse as the balance between prize money at the highest level and most of the programme is thoroughly disproportionate We can make more of the product.

We can grow, by embarking on a programme to cull more fixtures and move the overall quality and competitiveness right of centre. How many of you are prepared and supportive of the battle the BHA faces in forcing change, or to contribute financially towards a more interesting programme? The simple fact of life – we need a robust BHA, thoroughly in charge of what’s best for Racing. How vocal will you be in support of the surgery we actually require? I don’t see many leaders. We need a few more prepared to serve the sport and not eat its lunch.

Racetracks are feeding off rich machine based pickings from Betting, whilst many fixtures deliver a very poor product much of the time. Their focus has to be in deliverance of a better product for bettors. Not holding their hand out because 8 races makes more money than 7. Poor thinking

If I’m ever asked to stand to post and serve the sport I love in a capacity other than pricing up races, by people who seek and desire constructive change, I shall of course, but will evidently have to climb over a few stakeholders on the way! Geoff Banks October 2014

A BLUEPRINT FOR RACING

Several months ago I listened to the CEO of Coral, Andy Hornby, give a keynote speech to executives at the Leaders In Racing conference.

‘Racing and Bookmakers should work together to make profit for both’ It brought tears to my eyes. ‘Our data suggests a third meeting every day increases turnover by 30% and those meetings should start around midday, this is when people break for lunch and can pop into a betting shop to wager’ He went on to muddy the words ‘turnover’ with ‘profit’. Most businessmen accept that the two don’t always go hand in hand- especially when we’re discussing gambling – but let’s not spoil a good wheez shall we?

‘The ideal format has Racing approximately ten minutes apart throughout the day. Our analysis suggests more races equals more profit’

Now, for brevity I’ve paraphrased the main thrust of his argument as to re-hash any speeches at that conference puts you to sleep. But you get the idea. Of course this view is peddled by a small army of PR men from the Barking outfit every five minutes on Attheraces. Rather cleverly Coral have become the biggest sponsor in Bookmaking for racing. They do have considerable influence, one they pay for.

Of course, I also readily accept that the same argument will be peddled by William Hill, Ladbrokes and Betfred. I enjoyed a chat last week at Ascot with the Chairman of the Levy Board. A most personable chap who told me I was the first Bookmaker to advocate a cut in fixtures. This suggests some of those in authority in Racing, whenever we are talking about betting, only consult the same five firms! (if we include Betfair of course.) There are opposing – and sensible views. We are responsible for just under 20% of the market – that merits consideration

Turnover and market share is down in racing, so let’s deal with the problem by putting on more racing, in the worst slots, and work with reduced field sizes. I think most people readily agree it lowers the quality. That’s demonstrably wrong. Let me explain

You see, the empirical evidence paints a completely different picture. At the foot of this report, I invite you to view the presentation by Jennifer Owens, a research consultant for Aspire Wealth, tasked with investigating the state of the Racing and Betting market globally. Again I spare you the full details, but let’s deal with comments affecting Andy Hornby’s argument.

‘Since 2006 Great Britain is scheduling more races. Whilst amounts wagered between 2006 and 2013 have dropped dramatically. In the period between 2001 and 2012, the number of runners per race fell from 11.6 per race to 9.3. Sports betting in the meantime grew from 58% to 72% between 2003 and 2013. Hong Kong, with its competitive fields and less racing was the standout performer worldwide for betting on racing. Indeed that state’s turnover on horse racing remained constant despite a 30% increase in sports betting in the territory’

She goes on ‘The most striking example which was quite damaging to British Racing was the introduction of gaming machines into UK betting shops. FOBT’s account for 38% of gross win in the UK – just as well they are limited to four machines per shop.’ The lady took no prisoners.

Jennifer continues ‘There is evidence that field sizes and turnover are correlated – at least in the negative. The greatest declines in turnover have been witnessed in the US and Great Britain since 2006, and in these markets the field sizes have dropped dramatically.’ ‘In many markets Racing has become disconnected from Betting.’ In broad terms racing governance doesn’t engage the right type of people to maximise it’s output and we need to turn around the field size problem urgently in her expert opinion.

Anyway I digress. What conclusion can we draw from this intelligent appraisal? Well if her numbers are correct, and I think it’s reasonable to suggest they are, Andy Hornby is talking out of his corporate backside. The global view on betting doesn’t in any way support his stance that more racing engenders more levy. Quite the opposite. In fact the most successful state for betting in the world only races six times a month. Hong Kong.

Let’s put it simply, and honestly. Racing needs to tell the Bookmakers where to get off. You see our great sport is a vital cog in their wheel. If racing doesn’t fill the ten minute gap Andy requires, he will simply turn to another product to make the place look busy. Greyhounds, virtual, Australian and French racing are all fit for purpose here. British Racing doesn’t have to prostitute it’s product in order to keep shops open. Gross win across the counter has been dropping between 5%-6% since 1998 and there’s little doubt the major operators focus their advertising on machine take- not racing. So why are we bending over for organisations who don’t promote the sport? Or perhaps you draw a different inference from the picture which typifies these companies.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I do know my turnover on the far better funded Irish Racing runs at around 9% of my racing turnover – yet it’s ill-considered as a product against the British one, timing of the races are not synchronised with their UK equivalent, nor do we earn levy from wagering upon it. That seems fairly odd to me.

Will some shops close? Inevitably. But let’s not kid ourselves, these are the worst performing money factories, often competing with other LBO’s in the same street or district and whose machine gross win (typically industry wide figure of £3600 per week per shop) is unable to support the unit in some areas, where the FOBT take is insufficient. This is natural forces and we shouldn’t be wailing if a few of them go to the wall. Proliferation of betting shops isn’t about racing. We’re not going to improve our levy yield because we have another shop 200 yards away, most people can struggle that far for a bet. Hell, I bet Newham would be thrilled to see a few less squeezing into their High Street.

The period between 2002 and 2008 with fixtures growing from 1270 to 1548 and a levy yield which also grew modestly fooled some folk. Those years actually witnessed a decline in the numbers of people actually going racing, not only per fixture, but overall . The new meetings were in unattractive slots. They diluted competition in racing by spreading the available horse population more thinly. Some tracks found they were in fact weakening their own other fixtures. If people aren’t going racing- they sure as hell aren’t betting. We’ve lost the impetus and this is no more illustrated in racing than the depressed state of the On Course market. Racing to empty stadia has become rather par for the course with ticket prices people simply do not want to pay by cynical management. Selling ’empty space’ with a notable lack of effort. Put another way – racing is heading to the dogs and become reliant on festivals. Pass the port will you?

Tracks are guilty of putting on events without thought or involvement for the production of competitive fields and the size thereof. 38% of all races are won by the favourites, 2 in every 5 races! That’s a fantastic statistic and evidence of the transparent nature of the sport.Not only are the favourites the legitimate ones, but lets face it, the drifters run appropriately as unscrupulous connections take advantage of a no lose opportunity! Little geo-location of fixtures is evident, in order that the available local horse population, and attendances, could service the same. We do not properly consider the cost of staging fixtures like Ffos Las- which even if it’s a self funded two mile hurdle race with two fences hundreds of miles from civilisation, still has a significant attaching integrity cost to operate.

Finally, and perhaps most damaging, racetracks have shifted fixtures from their traditional midweek slots to weekends. To include many premier races. The Stewards Cup. The Ebor, The Derby, and more. All moved from midweek slots where they were the focus of most newspapers and TV networks as well as general sporting fans, to ones where racing found itself competing with England vs Costa Rica. Simple for Racetracks- a disaster for the profile and numbers of the sport. Expect RMG to argue over loss in income, although it both ignores the cost involved in racing to empty stands and the the sheer lack of data backing their stance. Footfall and beer sales are all furthered by Saturday racing. We glibly criticise Channel 4 for poor viewing figures when we feed them a diet of 5 runner races. Although I agree – the burger van HAS to go 🙂

Such moves put top racetracks in direct competition with each other. Ascot, Britain’s premier course regularly competes with York for coverage and exposure. Our Champions Day sees Cheltenham competing with Ascot for coverage. It’s not unusual to witness these three top courses rivalling Chester and Newmarket along with sundry smaller tracks for attention.

In what other industry would you create a programme so devoid of interest midweek? A bit like Waitrose emptying its shelves of fresh vegetables and offering us tinned plums instead.

As a business plan, Saturday focus demonstrably fails the quality test. Our best racing in direct competition to top sport, particularly football and rugby. We have a Derby opposed by 8 other meetings on the same day! Let me stress this, Lingfield just down the road opposes the Derby.

Punters, those who shall not be heard, have been telling me for several years now they tire of the glut of racing. Newspapers and TV networks to include the BBC have dropped the sport in part or whole. Racing Journalists are getting laid off. Put very simply we’re boring the pants off people and running the sport into the ground to keep Coral in machine take and racetracks putting the sport on in front of nobody. An industry servicing machines

This isn’t our game face surely? Positively it’s one the BHA Chairman, who’s emerged from hiding and appears now to want to address with his new consultation into the fixture list. If required I will be part of any quorum and/or meeting or analysis to press this case.

This consultation will inevitably bring the sport into conflict with the likes of Tony Kelly and Simon Bazelgette et al. They’re not likely to give up the easy dollars they earn annually from media rights with jewels like Kempton and Southwell, with arguments like what will we lose rather than what does it cost. The media rights cake envisaged in 2018 won’t be a patch on what they’re earning right now if we continue on the path of 6 runner races and odds on chances. Bookies won’t peddle an unprofitable product riddled with favourites hosing up through lack of competition. There’s evidence right now the betting share for racing is well down. So what are we selling the bookmakers, or rather more pertinent – asking them to sell for us?

It does require the turkeys to vote for Christmas as things currently stand and forego an element of beer sales. There appears to be a view if we put up 38 grand we’ll end up with a quality Brigadier Gerard. In fact we ended up with a short field, odds on chance event. In betting terms it’s useless.. It’s not JCR’s fault and I’m not suggesting that. There are, quite simply, far too many opportunities for our wealthiest owners and a racetrack focus on such owners. They’re not turning down the 38 grand- they know they’ll get it somewhere else.. We’re looking after the top horsemen. All very well, but what happens to betting in such races?

The juggernaut that is British Racing is finally starting to recognise that any way you cut it, 1548 fixtures is simply far too many. We can tinker with the planning but we’re not going to make the product that much more competitive which is what both bookies and punters want. We also have to properly consider the effect of small fields on interest abroad. I would settle for a modest cut for now to examine the impact on field sizes. I think most would.

I have absolutely no clue why we accept a jumps programme so geared upon four days in March. The power of best trainers, has to be curbed and measures put in place to insist our top animals race in front of paying customers and telly and not afforded racecourse gallops by pliant courses. I’m constantly amused by stories from Seven Barrows of athletic and evidently agrophobic pets only fit to work 3 times a year. Send the buggars out to work. NH suffers from some of the lowest fields in the sport and we need seriously to look at the abandonment of summer jumping completely in favour of the winter. It never used to take place in August and I fail to evidence the compelling reason for it now. Betting turnover on summer jumping in racing is extremely poor (typically lower than AWT). It’s an area of the programme that needs to be sacrificed

I chatted to several of my on course peers after Ascot. It’s readily accepted the meeting was a complete disaster for Bookies generally – expect a few profit warnings! What was remarkable was that most of my colleagues betting at Ascot actually turned a profit, when they should have done their brains! These days to turn up as a Bookie, post general market odds and stand back waiting to see who backs what, is a recipe for failure on course. Most of the larger concerns find betting on course impossible because they don’t ‘trade’ the wagers on exchanges. It’s a total necessity if you are to make racecourse bookmaking pay as a business. However the much wider industry still continues to accept prices that more often than not mirror exchange odds, and can be based on some individuals betting win only, or a fifth of the odds on a 16-21 runner handicap.

At the midweek and sundry ‘weaker’ meetings the on course market has become excessively weak and totally ruled by exchanges for their prices. I watched a major operator’s rep at York run around recently telling folk he wasn’t going to invest with certain organisations because they weren’t in the 20 firm ‘sample’ that’s used to return odds to the LBO’s. Therefore for such organisations to control a particular horse’s SP, they only have to wager with the ‘sample’ organisations, and ignore the other 90 bookies. It costs but a fraction of what it used to, to move the SP of a runner at a major track like York. At the weaker meetings like Kempton, frequented by the smallest weakest bookmakers, it’s pathetically easy with but a few grand to influence prices. What self-respecting bookmaker is going to turn down £300 from the majors when they’re only holding that much per race? Manipulation on the cheap. And a market and exchange so easy to control these days doesn’t encourage laying.

I do think we are long past the time where the potential profits from a healthy industry are governed by a deeply unhealthy one. That is the on course market. They simply need to be excised from current arrangements. I’ll use a dirty phrase. Industry prices. At the end of the day, they are more representative of the weight of money. The days of John Banks and Colin Webster in trilbies and shades standing horses for £30,000 are long gone and so are the arrangements put in place in those days for producing a fair SP. It no longer represents the industry. I believe the major Bookmakers – tote and exchanges all need to be part of a new mechanism, not Martyn of Leicester – he of the plastic shoes. Next time I go racing- I fancy I’ll be stoned alive. Fair enough, it’s better than the results

To the racecourse Bookies I say this. As the off track prices inevitably dip – so the on course market’s odds become more attractive to punters. A path to new business. We neither need, nor deserve to be part of a mechanism when there’s only a handful of us, betting to pennies and following cyber betting bots.

Kick these suggestions around

A maximum of two (Levy and Media Rights) funded premier events on any day.

Premier events to be incentivised to move from Saturday slots with appropriate increases in rights and levy

Racetracks to be penalised with total loss of funding for production of races under 5 runners.

Racetracks to be rewarded with increased payments for producing field sizes exceeding 10 runners

Racetracks funding to decrease for each race containing an odds on favourite and increased for any race where the favourite goes off at 5/1 or better.

No All Weather racing to be programmed in the summer in opposition to key festival events such as the Derby

Summer jumping programme to be scrapped for two months.

Race planning to fully consider Geo location factors

A minimum number of qualifying events for entries for Cheltenham

A modest cut of 100 fixtures

BHA to create a betting forum with representatives from both large and small Bookmaking concerns, punters and racetrack management with mandate to improve betting turnover on the sport

SP Mechanism to exclude racecourse bookmakers and to include the major 6 operators to include the Tote and Betfair in a new mechanism based on the weight of money

Coral to reintroduce the blonde to their adverts. It was the only betting advert worth watching..

These plans will affect income streams of some and put other people’s noses out. I’m not, however in the business of making myself popular amd I think my chances of making the Jockey Club are a bit slim 🙂 Of course I understand some of us turn left on aircraft and don’t worry about what’s happening in the back of the plane. How much it costs, whether they’re drinking from a real glass, and what film, if any, they’re enjoying. But such individuals must be viewing the approach of 2018 – when the Turf TV contract expires with firms like William Hill with some trepidation. If you’re sitting there thinking the racing is ‘terrific’ and Bookies should pay more for the product because they have offshore wings making bundles out of the sport, you need to excuse yourself from the room. UK Racing is, quite simply, the weakest betting product globally. Let’s not get snobbish about betting – it’s the engine that drives the sport.

These suggestions will have racecourses reaching for their calculators and the big Bookmakers shuffling their PR crews out to protect ‘their’ business model. The argument shops will close if we don’t come ‘to the rescue’ simply isn’t the case. The strongest product for bookmakers remains horses – and the better quality that is, the better for LBO’s. Of course the measures are quite radical, but I think we have to accept a degree of surgery. Next time you pass your local betting shop – see what they’re peddlng in the window. Right now – it isn’t Racing

You have a voice. Use it

Geoff Banks

June 2014

Link

http://www.archk2014.com/en/2014-arc-video-06052014.aspx

THERE IS ONLY ONE DERBY

The Derby Who could not enjoy the Derby? An iconic race on an unusual twisting track where the field drops into the straight and race downhill past rows of London buses. It’s one of the great British events. One of my favourite meetings of the year. On the eve of the Oaks, I was at Epsom to film a small fun segment for Channel 4. Hundreds of workers buzzing around, having meetings, preparing. Epsom, whilst it is a great track, disappointingly only produces one meeting of merit a year. That’s not a comment meant to impugn Jockey Club. I think the reason being the unusual nature of the track makes running more premium events there difficult. I think that’s a shame. It also argues the importance to the track of a financially successful Derby.

Jockey Club Racecourses have a talent for organising large festivals. I’ve been behind the scenes on many occasions. It’s impressive. I don’t believe people realise how much is involved turning a racetrack that’s done nothing for months into such a showcase for the sport. Chairs, bands, bunting, car parking, food and drink. The organisation performs the same feat at Aintree for the National, Newmarket for the Guineas, Sandown for the Eclipse and of course Cheltenham, to name but a few. They know what they’re doing here. And I love every one of the aforementioned. I don’t want to suggest otherwise.

JCR are, of course, the commercial arm of the once rulers of British Racing. They have a debt book to manage and of course it is vital to turn as many events as possible to profit. That’s business. One of their most successful tracks commercially is Kempton, tumbleweed blows about the place and never strikes an ankle. A product engineered for the shops. Little wonder Newcastle looks on with envy. The turf tracks such as Epsom and Sandown can struggle if their numbers dip

The Derby, arguably, is the second biggest draw in British Racing. For the last century (at least) its traditional slot was the first Wednesday in June. This was changed to arguably more lucrative slot on a Saturday. I have a big problem with this. I fully recognise the commercial importance of the event to Epsom and I also understand the stance adopted by the BHA in favour of large betting concerns in supporting so many race meets on a Saturday and more generally. I have been at odds with them on this subject because I do not accept the Sport itself benefits from this arrangement, nor the volume of racing, as advocated by Ralph Topping or Andy Hornby. They are running the sport to their gain and our ruin. If it was the case our beloved racing was ‘furthered’ by so many meetings on a Saturday (8 of whom competed with Epsom) – we would surely witness LBO’s about the country pushing racing in their shop windows. However the opposite is most certainly true. Shop windows are dominated with banners pushing the machines racing has no financial interest in. Shoving FOBT’s down our throats with warnings about ‘responsible gambling’ – You couldn’t make it up.

Mr Topping, shortly to retire from William Hill I’m glad to observe, led the pack of casino operators with an offer of 5/2 Australia to win the great race. After the flop of True Story in the Dante, William Hill were 4/6. £1 wagered netted £2.50 on the day of the race, yet would have won just 67p in profit the month before – a mere 32% drop in margin. Had Australia had one of his legs amputated I think the move would have been a fair one.Most business models would collapse at 5% drop in margin. Its a decision based on trying to suck customers away from rival firms – and driving them to other products. It’s a Levy wrecking exercise because it drives the whole industry to offering an odds-on chance at 11/8 by the start time, an industry 18% worse off thanks to William Hill. Roulette wins- Racing loses. Yet they claim to be supporting the Sport? Tell me how is Racing advantaged?

In shops more famous for restrictions on Racing and Greyhounds, the margin in betting terms on racing has collapsed, and let’s be clear on this – this is nobody’s fault but the Bookmakers. It’s a world dominated by pennies on exchanges and casino firms warring on market share. And it’s the latter that provides more liquidity, and therefore more price impetus. I’m suggesting alliances with such organisations are a waste of time if all they do is run the finances of the product to suit their own ends.

I don’t blame Paul Bittar for seeking a more convivial level with these firms. But I believe he has to recognise the realities in such a relationship. British Racing is a standalone product. The sport has become the conduit, the vital fodder such betting companies require to camouflage the presence of LBO’s proliferating our High Streets, as well as provide the background noise. There’s little chance of a fruit machine empire being granted free licensing by a worried government, but one that claims to be based on Horse Racing? Well that’s just British. At least it’s a British lie. Any potential profits from the Derby clearly sacrificed at the altar of market share. Should you care? Well for as long as betting profit funds the sport then the answer is yes. It happens at every festival, with rivals outdoing each other in offers so attractive they’re bound to be loss making. I’ll be glad when Ralph leaves, the firm might return to Bookmaking. I appreciate my view won’t be shared by Betfair, who have eaten King Ralph’s lunch for years..

The big story on the morning of the Derby – and the following morning, wasn’t Australia and his thrilling performance. The headlines were an England friendly. A French Open final won by a fox with nice legs. The Derby festival has competed in the past for critical airtime and exposure with England World Cup qualifying games and matches against Brazil.

The same is true abroad, with their own sporting events in direct opposition to The Derby. Overseas markets are crucial to the success of British Racing’s commercial arm in selling Para Mutuel tickets and sponsorship. Our Sport also managed shoot itself in the foot by adding 8 other race meetings to the mix. It’s all quantity. I hate using the term madness to such thinking, so I will use a different and less evocative term. Is JCR the only culprit in such activities? Absolutely not. York’s fabulous Ebor, Goodwood’s Stewards Cup. A couple of examples of races that are losing their identity.

I hear Channel 4’s Epsom figures as down 25%. That’s a very significant drop. Some would argue the format of the show as wrong. I’m no expert in television. I do, however, believe the network cannot be advantaged by forcing it to transmit in competition to so many other major sporting events, as well as air our sport in a more lucrative spot than Wednesday. I do believe Channel 4 should be beating on the door of British Racing to demand a better product to transmit.

Are such heritage events totally under the control of our racetracks as to when they are put on, or does the ruling body have to approve the change? I suspect the BHA has some control over such matters and if so I believe it’s time to resist further calls from tracks to move events to Saturdays where attendances gain, whilst the Sport unquestionably loses. I would go further. I think it’s time the sport restricted payments of Media and Levy to any more than two Premier Race Meetings on each Saturday. Broadly this means events such as the July Cup – would not be funded in opposition to Newbury and Chester’s big meetings on the same day. Is this so radical? Not really. Is it easily done in a BHA board with such a hefty racetrack bias? Ehm, er, well..

It’s time for a complete re-think on how we further the Sport both commercially, as in sales of TV rights and Betting abroad, and in its profile. Paralleled with providing improved midweek racing, to encourage traffic into our betting shops. We need to spread out the jewels – not compete for air time, coverage, newspaper space as well as for Betting by hosting The Derby on the same day as England vs Honduras. And yes, I’ll say it, less racing to deal with the issue of small fields. I don’t think people fully understand the negative impact on the sport when five runners set out to post.

And if you’re sitting there thinking the Oikball can’t compete with our Derby because we’re so fabulous? Bear in mind 1.5 Million watched Australia’s romp, and 7.5 Million watched the brainless ones flop about the field in a friendly. Let us not also forget sponsorship for the Derby was only recently saved by Investec who came in at the eleventh hour two years ago and doubtless saved themselves a few quid. Would a Wednesday Derby have been in the same boat for sponsors? Such investments prosper from sporting events from exclusive coverage and exposure.

It’s time to stand up to the racetracks on this subject – and force these iconic sporting events to be moved back to their original midweek slots for a host of good reasons, contra their natural desire to profit more from a Saturday. At the end of the day ‘ownership’ of the top races in the calendar carries a responsibility to produce more than numbers through the turnstile – although I doubt the Derby’s Saturday figures are that much better than when it was hosted on a Wednesday. I recall queues of traffic for the Derby. Last Saturday I breezed in. The race has certainly lost some of its mojo.

We should enthusiastically place Premier race events midweek with a rights and levy structure which encourages movement off of weekends. Why do we permit Chester, York, Ascot and Goodwood on one day and Leicester, Ffos Las, Windsor and Ripon on another? What are our expectations here? Would you walk into a store if the quality varied so much from one day to the next? Why was Newmarket for example permitted to move its July Cup from an unchallenged slot – to one where it competes and denigrated other fixtures, as is the case on ‘Super Saturday?’

Broadening the appeal of Racing involves dealing with the huge holes in the fixture programme left by top tracks abandoning midweek posts in favour of more lucrative weekend slot. Our winter and the great sport of National Hunt is dying on its feet, if you hadn’t noticed, with the smallest fields on record and a movement toward Cheltenham for the top horses which leaves months of high class, well-funded racing either subject to small ‘match’ races or worse simply won by lesser horses. Such issues are partly driven by a lack of control over racetracks and structures that permit horses to laze about in their boxes instead of being forced to compete in a qualifying number of races each season. We need tighter controls if we are committed to a quality product.

There’s only one Derby

Geoff Banks

June 2014

BANKS RAISES TRADING ROOM CONCERNS

Rails bookmaker and Racing Post columnist Geoff Banks has taken up the issues of licensing and the situation regarding on-course trading by Betfair – particularly in their sports lounge at Ascot – with the Gambling Commission, writes Jim Cremin.

Bookmakers remain upset at the variance in tax and expenses they face compared to internetbased exchanges. One gripe is over facilities that appear to be on-course trading rooms that they say attract people engaged
professionally in laying bets but who are regarded as recreational punters in taxation terms.

Provision of the facility has become important to some courses, with substantial fees being paid by in-running traders to use corporate boxes. However, Banks has been told by a Gambling Commission compliance officer that the
Ascot facility does not constitute a trading room. Bets are, in effect, taken through a separate company, Betfair General Betting Limited, which is a bookmaker, and then hedged into the exchange.

Banks pointed out this route covered punters backing horses on the exchange, but not the laying of bets. He said:

“Course bookmakers are strictly controlled. We face tests as to our probity and pay fat fees, but then someone can in effect stand near us and lay horses without control. Somebody’s having a laugh.”

Banks also raised with the commission concerns about some in-running betting where broadcasting time delays enable on-course exchange players to lay horses who have already fallen.

However, Banks was directed to the Gambling Act 2005, which states:

“A transaction may be a bet despite the fact that (a) the thing has already occurred or failed to occur, and (b) one party to the transaction knows that the thing has already occurred or failed to occur.”

A debate in the pub about who won the FA Cup in a certain year is cited as an example of something that leads to a bet, despite the result being known.

Originally featured in The Racing Post Tuesday, March 8th 2011

LONG RUN MAKES IT A LESS THAN SUPER SATURDAY

LONG RUN MAKES IT A LESS THAN SUPER SATURDAY

I think everyone missed their traditional Boxing Day outing, but a treat was in store in January. A high-quality nine-race card, plenty of concessions and
the promise of Kauto Star, win or lose, to boot.

I was hopeful the old-timer would get round safely and provide a good test, which he did, and he lost little in defeat to the winner in tacky ground.

Two things came out of the King George for me. First, I will be standing Long Run for his boots in March. He hasn’t got home at Cheltenham, or jumped the stiffer fences well enough. Second, if Kauto Star wins the Gold Cup, I shall turn up with my toothbrush and clean his stable. That will have Mr Nicholls rushing out for toothpaste.

Kempton also delivered on the promise of affordable racing. A massive crowd turned up to enjoy the day for only £15 in the main enclosure, and in doing so a leaf was taken out of York’s book; that track leads the way with high-quality racing, excellent facilities, cheap champagne and good entrance prices.

Kempton has shown what can be delivered in the south and I know we’ll see more of this as some twilight meetings, for example, are to be free. For the bookmakers, it meant plenty of business; for the punters the day meant Nicky Henderson. I’m starting to dislike him. Five winners, which should perhaps have been six, and the forecast up in the King George. We practised our paying-out skills, honed by what appears to be a year of poor results on ‘Super Saturdays’.

Binocular was the most expensive for us – as I suspect it was for most – landing a string of big bets. I’ll admit that we managed to win on the day, a feat right up with the loaves and fishes trick. We bet late, and never more than ten minutes before each race, in part here because it took 20 minutes to pay out on the previous race. We found prices had moved somewhat in our favour as larger rates had been taken by then for the fancied runners. Long Run, backed in to 9-2 from 7-1, won very little. But it was a different story in my office, where glum faces greeted me. Traders Elder and Dave had started placing the office furniture on eBay as it was one of the most expensive days of racing for a year. There were a series of wagers on the Pricewise tip, Long Run, including a single wager of £2,000 at 13-2, and oddly enough very little for Kauto Star. Ladbrokes declared the day to be lousy and I would endorse this description. I’m guessing the day was a disastrous one for the off-course firms. I sent my cv to Ronald McDonald.

MORE QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY

The big betting news of the fortnight was the punishment meted out to the individuals involved in the Sabre Light episode. Such incidents tarnish the image of our sport and doubtless put people off betting. You can hardly blame those who abandon wagering on events that are subject to this behaviour. But it was good to see the BHA robust in pursuing this case. However, I would like to see recognition of the wider responsibility for the root causes of these affairs. Races worth £1,700 simply don’t pay the bills. The Horsemen’s Group has it right, recommending a tariff for races. Owners should withdraw their support if those values are not met.

Racetracks enjoy a bookmaker funded bonanza with the new picture-rights deals. They should not be encouraged to feed us a diet of poor-quality, low-prize-money affairs. Such events, often riddled with gambles, are counter-productive in levy terms. Racing is funded by the betting cake and condoning the
current set-up is to accept less levy. Quality and quantity. Precious little of the former; far too much of the latter.

UNIFORMITY’S NO FUN

I Struck up a conversation on course recently with a gentleman who came up to shake my hand and pass the time. What he had to say gave pause for thought. He was in his 50s, well turned out and evidently a long-time punter, the type of client we should be concerned with.

He said that the uniformity of odds on course tended to put him off having a bet these days. He used to frequent the betting ring and found it normal to see a wide variance of odds. Punting was fun, as indeed it should be. Part of the sport was grabbing the best odds and, of course, everyone offered the same place terms, so that wasn’t an issue.

While the best value for the punting dollar remains on course, competing with exchanges has become uniform practice. Certain short-sighted layers may have persuaded the Levy Board that was the route we should take, but in fiscal and service terms it has been a mistake.

Originally featured in The Racing Post Sunday, January 23, 2011

	Geoff Banks Racing on The Vision of the Anointe…
	Geoff Banks Racing on The Vision of the Anointe…
	Will on The Vision of the Anointe…
	Alex on The Vision of the Anointe…
	William B on The problem with Gamstop