Response to SP regulatory commission

Response to SP regulatory system – consultation

Former NJPC chief exec Clive Reams,  recently penned a letter in response to the criticism levelled at the SPRC, after the Grand National, advocating ‘no change’ to the SP system.  When the current mechanism was devised in the 1990’s he argued vehemently against the then proposed system whereby 5 bookmakers could govern the SP returns – as ‘a bookies benefit.’

Of course he was at the time in violent disagreement with a system being proposed where the largest five firms produced the SP’s. And of course he would have been right. To permit those same firms to control the returns, when their off course empires were of such high worth in comparison to a veritable ‘cottage industry’ – would clearly disfavour punters. Any notion of those same organisations using their on course positions to actually bet competitively – and disfavour their huge shop and mobile empires, would have been nonsensical.

Yet now, we see that same official arguing in favour of the current mechanism. Despite the fact that same system has been modified several times, to permit now as low as three trading on course bookmakers, not only to provide an SP, but importantly the shows, otherwise known as board prices

Mr Reams hasn’t been seen in the betting rings for many years to the best of my knowledge.

It’s my conviction the SP mechanism – in its current form, was practicably out of date shortly after its inception and requires thorough modernisation. Not abolishment.

The commission, in its call for responses to the system, makes clear it supports little to no change to the system. That we are afforded a workable and simple mechanism, which provides for such as guaranteed odds against SP. Why the commission feels ‘board’ prices would disappear in any revisions is beyond my understanding. Perhaps to scare people into the false belief that show odds would be consigned to the bin.

We already utilise industry odds in some meetings – Meydan and Longchamp for example. There’s no argument to support the commission’s assertion a system based on track bookie’s odds- is the only one which would support guaranteed odds

It’s rather apparent the SPRC depends upon the advice and views as reported by the press association staff, tasked with returning a fair SP from the racetracks. They are neither witness nor party to discussions between bookmakers – and their customers. Their honesty is not in question here- but they clearly cannot have the ground level experience to report accurately what is really transpiring.

The commission will also consult with the FRB, namely Robin Grossmith for his advice. Whilst Robin is a respected colleague of many years’ experience, it should be remembered that an important part of his remit is to secure payments for on course bookmaker’s data. He would naturally argue the system as working in a satisfactory manner – and without any knowledge or understanding of how the mechanism, currently being employed, affects off track companies. Most track firms care little for the impact their activities have on the wider betting community

The dynamics of betting have fundamentally changed in the last 20 years, whence the current system was put in place. In that time changes have been few and limited in nature. 20 years ago a pitch at Sandown at the top of the rail would have been worth well in excess of £100,000 – and very hard to come by. These days – those same pitches can be purchased for less than a third of that value- and with minimal interest, most certainly not from someone trying to get into racecourse bookmaking as a career! In the same 20 years- the average turnover per race to on track firms would have declined to not less than 1/6th the value of the late 1990’s. Midweek racing has declined in interest to customers to attend. Rings are often ghost towns. Few punters turn up, and in a cashless society they have less to spend with bookies trading. Mobile betting apps have taken over – being more aggressive in nature, easy to use, from funded accounts and related to offers. Racetracks have taken over betting at some tracks –and this new competition to the business a track bookmaker is afforded will have significant impact on their very existence.

My average midweek turnover, as a leading layer, in strong betting positions, is now routinely less than £500 a race- if I bet in any way sensibly. A risible figure. For this reason I rarely attend midweek fixtures. Nor do many of my colleagues. The only way to buck such turnover figures is to exceed exchange odds, then to risk arbing from other bookmakers. If a bookmaker does not offer a pure exchange price on a ‘fancied’ runner- it’s difficult to field any appreciable money for it

Bookmaker numbers have been shored up by some firms operating multiple positions. One bookmaker (John White) operates three positions at Kempton – a small ring as you are aware. Kempton – for example, routinely operates with a sample of around six firms – they are providing prices for a huge off course industry, from a venue where few punters turn up to bet

At the same time as this decline has been evidenced- the off track firms have increased in size, technology advances, and power. Where once betting rings were vibrant and busy, with standard place terms, minimum lay to lose guarantees – and by extension a useful ‘guide’ to SP’s – now they are ripe only to cheap manipulation of their odds. Huge multi national betting concerns can control a weak market with veritable pennies. This imbalance would simply be outlawed in any other financial sphere. It is important for the SP commission to give this point full consideration.

 

VOLUME OF RACING

Since 1995, and importantly in the era of Peter Saville at the BHB in 2005, the volume of actual meetings has soared from around 1000 annually – to 1450 currently. Racetracks have also focussed their business more towards Saturdays and providing cheap funded product. This has had a thoroughly negative effect to the turnover on track and split the punters interest between meetings. Further a customer can now sit at home and watch either ATR or RUK on his satellite – even watch live streaming racing on the likes of Bet365. All have had an entirely negative effect to bookmakers on track. In the same period the expenses of running an on course business have soared. Many bookmakers have quietly retired from the ring

RACECOURSE DATA TECHNOLOGY

In the last 20 years or so most firms now utilise software provided for them by RDT. The build of their system and its layout is specifically designed to facilitate easy wagers to and from exchanges. A wager can be practicably negotiated faster than on a web browser, a whole set of prices backed, or an entire position closed out. RDT receive a commission from Betdaq for such activities. Such software did not exist in said advanced form when the SPRC devised the mechanism in the 1990’s. All bookmaker software on track is designed to facilitate wagers with exchanges. It has caused a sea change in how bookmakers engage in business on track. They differ from their off track colleagues in that instead of being viewed as traditional ‘layers’ – balancing books with real money, they have metamorphosed to ‘traders’

TRADING

What should also be considered is the wholesale change in the approach by on course bookmakers to betting. When the mechanism was put in play, the majority of firms were traditional in nature. That is to say they were in the business of framing a book and accepting risk. This has fundamentally changed. The vast majority now ‘trade’ many wagers away with exchanges to create margin and keep risk levels low. In order to engage sufficient liquidity to make this practice work – prices must virtually mirror those available on exchanges. For example – a firm will typically offer 4/1 a horse for any variance on an exchange from 4.9 to 5.4. If the operator is lucky, he will be able to trade at 4/1 and hedge at 5.4 – bookmakers have become the new ‘arbers’

There’s little discernible difference between ‘show’ odds and exchange odds for the more fancied runners

Off track firms are, by extension, accepting wagers – and risk, on shows therefore based almost purely on exchange odds. This is a far from healthy system – and a central plank for lower levy returns – down over 50% in recent times. Most bets are accepted at board odds- rather than the more ‘protected’ SP returns. Off track firms do not ‘trade’ wagers in the manner in which on course firms do. To boot, since the shows being returned are up to one minute behind changes in exchange odds, off track firms find themselves subject to arbing from punters. This business is unprofitable and most bookmakers close accounts from those engaged in this practice. Such moves are unpopular and leave firms open to unjustified criticism.

THE STARTING PRICE

Let us consider the actual SP – in practice most track firms have stopped trading aggressively, or at all – it’s often too risky to bet to exchange odds and risk a sizeable wager which a bookmaker cannot trade, with the exchange, in the limited time before the off. Prices are revised downwards throughout the ring – or unavailable. Most books are structured and the operator is loathe to change it. Large operators, such as William Hill on course, are naturally particularly mindful to ‘bet well’ with one eye understandably on their important off course entity.  In my experience their returns are given considerable weight in any return. SP’s are, in practice, more favourable to the industry for these simple reasons.

There’s habitually a considerable difference between exchange SP’s and Bookmaker Sp’s

PRICE REVISIONS

It is common in circumstances to hear criticism of course bookmakers for failing to balance books by pricing up horses which they have not significantly laid, at times when they take substantial monies from legitimate hedging activity happening fast and late throughout the ring. Through the year we will hear many examples- the Grand National being a notable one, of an overround which disfavours punters betting at SP.

This is fairly easy to explain- since most track bookmakers are less ‘layers’ than  ‘traders’ . When they do catch late funds for a selection, they are far more about dealing with trading the wager profitably on exchanges. In the 1990’s – most firms would have been trying to balance their books by raising the prices of other runners to compensate, if you will. This is no longer necessary with the advent of betting exchanges and software dedicated to trading

Further, the notion that bookmakers should counter raise odds when there are often no punters to offer those odds to, is fanciful.

Finally, large entities sending money back to the tracks place their wagers as late as practicable, certainly never 20 minutes before the race for example. Again such practices, as in the likes of FOREX, would be viewed as questionable. Is racing somehow different? I am not suggesting they are not fully entitled to boss the SP’s, but there are issues of scale and timing.

 

SAMPLE SYSTEM

The current mechanism employs a bank of up to 25 firms at the largest meetings. At the lesser meetings it is exceptionally difficult to find 25 firms, betting within the commission’s guidelines, to return an SP. The SPRC has revised the number of bookmakers required to return an SP to below the level which caused such upset between the NJPC and the commission in the 1990’s, when 66 questions were tabled on the subject The commission has also modified what it permits to return a show to below the accepted industry standard terms and without requirement for a minimum ‘lay to lose’ figure.

At York’s Dante meet recently, I was one of only six firms in the whole ring, to offer an industry standard ¼ the odds a place in two 16-21 runner handicaps on one day, whilst the rest of the ring were legitimately offering a 1/5th. A bookmaker betting to a fifth in said instance could offer 25/1 a horse – whereas I would only be able to offer as low as 16/1. How does the commission handle such anomalies? Or where the favourite is odds on and all but a couple of firms are betting win only? Once again the sample is nowhere near that required for a fair SP, nor takes into account it is supposed to mirror standard terms off track to be seen as accurate – that is if there were appreciable monies to bet to. There are many examples of such cracks in the system throughout the year, which would not be evidenced if we had a system properly balanced by the true weight of money wagered on a race

We are of course well aware that the Grand National return in no way accurately reflected a fair return. Whilst I would argue that 1.66% per runner is by no means excessive- the truth remains the show embarrassed bookmakers on course, and will lead to customers choosing not to wager at the racetrack at all. Many firms were offering 9/1 the favourite – which was returned at 6/1- at the same time the exchange was offering 14.5 on Shutthefrontdoor.

The simple fact is the use of ‘SP Samples’ as a methodology for returning prices (especially where 5 of the 25 firms in the show represent major off track business) is clearly far too easy, and inexpensive, to control. In practice it’s fairly evident who the firms are that are part of the sample

Bookmakers not included in the sample are routinely ignored. Bookmakers within the sample are often asked to accept wagers at less than the odds they are currently displaying. Particularly at small meetings. Is there clear and incontrovertible evidence that this goes on? No. It is however, quite routine to be asked to ‘co-operate’ on shows in return for the crumbs off of a large concern’s table. If you co-operate – you benefit.

IS this system of hedging fair? Not if a wager is proffered ‘with hooks’. Any discussions with other firms will confirm this is precisely what goes on. It is totally acceptable for a large concern to wager to control a price which reflects the full weight of money. But not where said concerns can control a the market for such a tiny outlay and by openly requesting the bookmaker to cut his odds in return for a nominal wager.

WEIGHT OF MONEY

What should concern the SPRC, is the effect on a fair mechanism of such large concerns wagering with such a tiny entity as three to eight bookmakers trading an all weather track for example. What also should engage thinking, is the possibility of manipulation of weaker exchanges on small markets. Especially when one considers RDT controls well in excess of 90% of on course firms and produces software designed specifically to encourage the practice of trading. In reality, it is Betdaq- the weaker exchange of two, who govern on course returns. In my view this could be viewed as a cartel. It takes a tiny movement of exchange money – typically less than £10, to be followed by several on course layers.

kempton

INDUSTRY PRICES

Why have off track concerns not called for control of their own SP’s to date? Two factors explain this anomaly

First, and rather obviously, where the SP itself is required to be revised downwards, it can be easily controlled in a market devoid of regular punters with a very small ‘hedging’ fund. Large concerns represented on course can constitute up to 50% of those available to govern an SP. Especially as the SPRC mandates that in the strongest rings at our festivals, only up to 25 firms are required to return the show. Hedging can therefore be restricted to just those firms. This is precisely what occurred at Aintree. Indeed one pivotal operator, running multiple pitches, informed me ‘where he was in the sample, he was 6/1, – where he was outside the sample – 9/1 about the favourite’.

If all operators are betting to the same commercial terms – there’s really no need to limit the number who return an SP, and it’s clearly a system which fails the means test in such areas.

Second – what concerns major operators off track, when one considers the issue of industry odds, is how their competitors would behave were the mechanism revised. Would, for example, an aggressive operator such as Paddy Power- buck the general acceptance of a new industry return by producing its own ‘enhanced’ SP. As things stand currently – everyone accepts the status quo, warts and all. Of course most firms would prefer an accurate industry SP, not based on exchange odds on course, but the elephant in the room remains their competitors

With the disappearance of John McCririck from television schemes – a major obstacle to industry odds has been removed

OVERVIEW

Centrally the landscape of betting is unrecognisable – were we to compare it with 1995.

The SP regulatory commission is recommending we keep a system where the ‘show’ odds for fancied horses directly mirror exchanges and where the SP is ‘protected’ by circumstances. Where small time traders – desperate for any bettors can be easily bullied by larger operators and where punters feel they are being cheated (unfairly) by track firms.

We are long overdue constructive change. I welcome this consultation

Proposals.

  1. On Course bookmakers to compile one fifth part of a new mechanism, only where there are an absolute minimum of 25 separate entities available to return an SP
  2. Those 25 firms must be betting to recognised tattersalls standards in every race they are engaged to return the SP. Modified terms can not be accepted
  3. At least 25 firms must be available offering a full each way service to return an SP
  4. Sample system to be totally abolished on course. All firms betting to standard tattersalls terms to be included in the returns
  5. Track bookmakers who wish to include their data in any new return, must undertake to lay any advertised price to a minimum of £100 – to include to other operators.
  6. Four fifths of the new mechanism to involve the 19 largest operators. These operators to include Betfair and racetrack bet
  7. Betfair’s SP can only be taken from their each way market
  8. Industry odds governed by weight of money and by provision of prices to SIS
  9. SPRC to consult with operators to produce a formula which most accurately reflects an operators liquidity – and therefore influence on the SP

Geoff Banks

10 June 2015

SP Regulatory Commission – Two Decades Out Of Date?

A strong market – dominating a weak market?

It’s right we have a scandal. But an SP regulatory body that presides over false returns from our Grand National? Say it isn’t so – but it is precisely that. A false mechanism, condoned by the controlling body, deceiving the customers of Racing – many of whom bet just once a year. What are they to think – and do those responsible for such a system understand it enough to make sure it doesn’t happen in 2016?

It is right to talk about Aintree. It was a very successful event, and our showcase race managed a few more viewers than Toffs In Boats. What an thorough non event that is in comparison to our great race. So why are we permitting anything to take away from the experience?

As a betting man, and you’ll forgive me being a bookmaker here, I fully recognise the SP return from Aintree, for our biggest betting heat as too large with an overround of 165%.

In laymans terms, this means (roughly) a bookie should clear roughly £65 profit for every £165 taken. That’s if he manages to lay every runner, a minor red herring, in actuality, the number of horses a bookie lays has considerable bearing on the overround. However, I don’t dispute journalists rights to question it. It is, though rich of those same journalists who ‘bullied’ bookmakers  into betting to 5 and even 6 places in the National to complain about whether or not we profit from the principal event in the betting calendar– this has a massive effect on the potential to profit. It’s likely anyone betting to five places were hammered by McCoy finishing fifth. I’m unclear why an entire industry betting on a premier event should be subject to such criticism. Are we supposed to trade to zero profit to suit folk? Why the surprise? Not as if there’s a journalist out there who’d buy a pitch at Chelmsford City is it?

What’s also true – almost nobody takes SP on the National. It would be a fraction of the percentage of wagers laid. Even novices naturally take a price- wouldn’t you take a price rather than take the system you don’t understand- SP?

1792-85667

Surely as many have suggested, the bookmakers at the track who are totally responsible for the betting ‘shows’ are simply taking the punters for a ride, with a knock on effect to the considerably larger betting empires off course.

Well, the latter part will always be true – what’s good in the SP’s will benefit anyone laying bets on the event. However, the former is manifestly false.

What we’re being asked to accept, and taking the favourite as a clear example here, was that customers at Aintree couldn’t wager on the favourite to any reasonable weight of money above 6/1 at the off. Big firm reps were running round like flies backing a variety of horses near to the off, and you can take it as read they expected those sample firms to co-operate on returning a favourable SP. Is that necessarily unfair on the consumer – or a reflection of the proper weight of money off track. I will let you decide. For me, I think big betting should be part of the mechanism in the first place

Should bookies who lay some horses be ‘tugging’ unbacked horses to compensate? Well in practice they rarely have the time, and when they do, the inclination, when there’s no one there to bet to.

It’s useful to examine the Betfair returns vs starting prices – since they pretty much govern on course returns.

Shutthefrontdoor 27/1 (?)    (6/1) SP

Rocky Creek 11/1                (8/1)

Soll 12/1                               (9/1)

Balthazar King 12/1              (17/2)

The bookmakers at Aintree reported that 9/1 was ‘widely available’ at the track, and looking at the Betfair return(which people have suggested could be an error, bear in mind that Betfair had technical difficulties prior to the race) it’s still easy to see that offering 6/1 Shutthefrontdoor when it was evidently drifting significantly on the machine, would have made absolutely no commercial sense. We know most play into exchanges- if there were indeed such a significant ‘arb’ do we honestly believe the SP regulatory return of 6/1 or the bookmakers assertion that that return was fictional and it was at least a widespread 9/1. Why wasn’t that offer price returned?

apm

If Shutthefrontdoor was correctly returned at 9/1 as opposed to 6/1 we would have a percentage difference, on one horse, of 4.3%! Now we’re down to 161%. If you carry this argument forward to include the other runners backed by big betting, to include certain ‘outsiders’ then the actual overround was nothing like 165%. I would hazard a guess at best prices representing about 125% with an average on board margin nearer 140% with most firms near the off.

OK, I hope I’ve convinced you it isn’t simply just the little bookies having a field day. But what is actually occurring?

The SP system is flawed .  Anything that is that cheap to manipulate can only be assumed to be rife with integrity concerns, and disadvantaging consumers

Allow me to explain this point. I read on twitter and the Racing Post one James Knight, senior horse race trader from Coral decrying returns from the track. Well that would indeed be laudable were his on track operators not influencing the returns, virtually assuring a hefty margin, instead of producing their own SP’s- which would be logical – but clearly more expensive.

Truthfully, I’d like to hear a little less from the Coral PR machine. The latest utterly perverse decision, from BHA Towers, to permit Simon Clare, of Coral, the archetypal ‘wall to wall racing’ specialists, to sit in on the engorged committee on jump racing. Perhaps as a blocker to necessary and positive change to the sport? Quite why such clear vested interest is contemplated on a committee to improve racing is totally beyond me. But I digress

What started out as a fair spread around of the betting cake has warped. Of course it’s right for the big players to hedge into on course markets. And they were all emptying themselves on Saturday to ensure a variety of horses they had laid, contracted by the off time.

But what used to be an on course rep running around trying to shorten a 9/4 chance into 7/4, by first taking 9/4 – and then 2/1 and so forth until he achieved his target, has become a rather grubby exercise in manipulating returns. Now the ‘player’ walks up to bookmakers offering 9/4 and tells them privately he will take 2/1 if they go less than that at the SP. Now how is that viewed by the gambling commission?

photo-72

For the track bookie, he gets to lay the horse at less than he’s offering. Right or wrong, he’s never going to turn down that is he? Should he care about the wider off course market. Since that doesn’t put bread on his table in the morning, one can’t blame them really for failing to consider that.

A couple of points to clarify. Those placing wagers for large concerns on track are naturally enthusiastic to please traders and directors of these impressive organisations by achieving goals laid down to them. The practice of manipulating weak markets by taking less wouldn’t be fully appreciated by directors of said firms. I don’t mean to tarnish the reputation of any firm in this regard, as some of their ‘cogs’ are doing their best and don’t appreciate its questionable practice.

Second, it isn’t the ‘fault’ of off track empires if the SP regulatory body has been out to lunch for decades. Why would a responsible commercial entity not continue to take advantage of a system that permits 3 grungy little bookies at Kempton to return the SP’s for a colossal empire off track?

Going back a decade, the on course market was very strong. There wasn’t the coverage of sport as there is today-competing for spectators. There weren’t the betting mediums we have today. People bet on horses by habit. Racetracks were extremely well attended. Today’s SP mechanism was born out of such healthy markets, fairly representing the weight of money.

That’s not true now. Many tracks attendances are decimated, particularly midweek, as they put on a product geared for betting. Bookmakers have become sparse and rarely take more than £500 a race turnover at such meetings, particularly at the all weather.

On track firms are basically desperate at many meetings, and large betting knows it. They throw them a bone in the knowledge they will co-operate. It’s widely accepted the practice of taking a lesser price from some firms has been going on for a few years now, it’s happened to me on numerous occasions, from different firms, and I confess up until now I had never appreciated there could be a problem.  I throw myself at your mercy for my failings, as a fair man.

EmptyBettingRing

So what happened to the 9/1 STFD?  Because the SP regulatory body has determined a maximum of 24 firms shall determine the SP’s. It’s called being ‘in the sample.’ In practice, it’s easy to know who is ‘in’, – the better, more sensible layers, who lay substantial wagers on demand at standard each way terms (ie no win only) are chosen from the rank and file. Is there a list of these put up for bookies reps to know who’s in or not? No, but it’s very easy to work it out. Are those returning SP’s doing it fairly? No.

So in practice, if you want to boss the SP of the Grand National, on several runners, you simply wager with those firms ‘in the sample’ and ignore the other 200. You bet late enough so the possibility of adjustment to other runners doesn’t take place

Final piece of the jigsaw? The large concerns are all in the sample every day, it’s in their commercial interest to bet just that bit better than the small on course bookie, and the SP returners favour their shows often disproportionately to the volume and size of wagers they are taking. They are there of course, in large part, to govern SP’s.

614364_10151974632495012_823036704_o

The SP commission for example permits a system where one company – Betdaq the exchange, governs the prices on course, via an insidious relationship with RDT. Racecourse Data Tech are a major provider (over 90%) of on course betting systems. They benefit from every hedge a bookmaker places with the exchange. Isn’t this simply a cartel?

The commission has also reduced the number of bookmakers included in the system. It allows just three tiny bookmakers, standing in the rain, betting to fresh air, to return an SP, and govern the multi-million pound empires off track. I mean honestly, how ridiculous a situation is that? Why hasn’t Lord Donaghue, the Chairman of the SPRC done something about that a long time before now?

We must have a regulatory body presiding over s system that accurately reflects the true weight of money

Who should be interested in this report? The BHA most certainly as the regulatory body in charge of the sport, the SPRC and of course the gambling commission, who’s remit is fair play, and the protection of punters as well as bookmakers.

So Lord Donaghue, – you need to read this accept the old ways are out of date. We urgently need a new and fairer mechanism

Time to move to a new and fairer mechanism, which fully integrates big betting, exchanges, tote, on course markets and racetrack bet. And not a decade before time.

Rules Regulations

The 2015 cheltenham festival – the grubbie bookie’s view

1489328_10153566948910012_1046682886_n
I suppose all racing fans grew up with great memories of Cheltenham in March. I recall as a boy, betting in the underaged class, on the Cheltenham rail into the members enclosure, nobody was surprised in those days to be served by a 13 year old – that you just couldn’t move for the absolute crush of humanity. Most of whom appeared to be called Mick. Although a few were Paddy’s. These days we’d invent a quango to count them by age, sex, social class and type of BMW

I prepare for Cheltenham months in advance by calling up the babestation offices to see if any of their talent is free. I got one. Brandy Brewer was her stage name. I think we should all have stage names, don’t you agree? So we downloaded an app (and you said I was a dinosaur?) put in our names and received new ‘porn star’ equivalents. I was Dan Cucumber. I was quite pleased with that.

I added two more lusty girls, bearing in mind sex sells. That I have absolutely no morals whatsoever. That it would upset the gambling commission. That some fellahs would hang around even after I’d emptied all their pocket change, asking daft questions like – how big are they when they’re out? You get the picture

Just in case any mary Whitehouse types were lurking, I threw in a couple of old grizzlies who have worked for me forever and never break a nail. We jumped into our Bentleys for the Cotswolds. And Mulllins.

mullins
It’s all about Mullins you see. Henderson has voted himself a non runner these days, as he declares the entire season to date as ‘soft’. The galactacos of racing who’ve won very little of late. One day they’ll whisper in his ear that cotton wooling of stars is a miserable failure, horses need to race, and the giant that is Seven Barrows will wake up to find Paul Nicholls has been eating his lunch for months. I’d like to see that, Henderson is a decent chap and we desperately need competition

The run up to the great party gives our beloved journalists to call up their three favourite trainers. Pre requisite to any convo is to get in early and often the phrase ‘it’s a privilege’ – or you’re struck off ze list of approved hacks. Lesser trainers don’t have phones and who’s interested in Hobbs or Bradstock anyway?

ATR extend ‘Bookie hour’ to a 3 hour slot daily. Tarts..

It was all about Faugheen, Vautour, Douvan, Un De Sceaux, Annie Power and Don Poli. Throw in Peace and Co for good measure. The average SP of the first 4 mentioned this year in all races? 3/10. Gripping stuff we’ve been treated to. Thanks Willie- you deserve a few quid extra in your wages at Cheltenham

Of course we know now – only one got beat, courtesy of the biggest howler in racing for many a years as she grinned at the crowd and paddled the last. Been a long time since I heard such a moan. Genuine shock – the biggest fail at the Festival since I tried chatting up Emma Spencer. Multiple bets up and down the land were waiting on her due diligence. Walsh set it up and she fluffed her lines

ap
There will be those of you, reading this, who take the view betting is the dirty end of the sport. That it’s all about breeding and the majesty of the horse. You’re the type who adores a 5 runner race. You don’t care if Faugheen is 1/6 as he powers away from horses two stone inferior. You don’t care if The New One or Annie Power are doing the same in Haydock or Leopardstown. It’s all magnificent.

Actually, you’re already dead and on the Eastbourne hall of fame. Check yourself

Well for those of you who don’t care about betting or the bookies, give yourself a pinch. Because I assume you care about the finances underpinning the sport? You want owners properly rewarded, yes? Well to educate you, the Levy Board was about to have a crisis meeting had Annie duly obliged, such would the whole have been in the finances of the sport.

ap2

(so good – I put it in twice..)

You see, racing is about the punters – they fund it. You think Steve Harman’s ‘racing right’ is coming to save you? Ha! The commercial acumen in racing has always lain with the bookies. They did their stones at Royal Ascot, King George and sundry other ‘biggies’. But you’re looking at their bottom lines – aren’t you?

trilby
Modern racing festivals these days in betting terms are characterised by ‘offers’. Credit to some firms ie Betfair (did I just plug Betfair? I need a shower! Who described their offers as what they were- free bets. Companies who did not distinguish themselves led by Paddy Power and Boylesports, who fronted with money back offers – that were nothing of the kind. I think this odious practice should be stopped. Cats being kicked into trees has to stay 🙂

On the plus side, firms like Paddy Power are giving their customers some amazing offers – I’ve never seen the likes of some of the deals they do, even if you’re only getting an extra bet, it’s still a lot more than in days of yore. What concerns me, is they’re mainly targeted at racing. It simply cannot be good for the sport for the number one festival the vehicle for ‘new business,’ rather than profiting from the racing itself. Take Peace and Co for example. A rock solid 2/1 chance for months- 4/1 in the morning. Not good, not good at all.

Brewer08_main
Thursday morning, Brandy broke a nail. It was so sudden I don’t think any of us expected it. The wailing and sobbing was akin to Annie Power’s departure from the festival. One moment – ten perfect porcelein fakes – the next- nine., Brandy wasn’t in the best of spirit. Punters were clambering over each other – not for her – but to press guinness sodden fivers in her hand for horses, fart and leave. What’s this about? This never happened at Babestation. She only had to flash her tatas and the phones would buzz. Anyway, to her eternal credit, this girl has guts for sure, she knuckled down and gave Vicky (AKA – Ritzy Jiggler) and Stephanie (Tara Cream) a hand in fending off the drunken. Some of which were bookies, a lot appeared to be jilted ex’s of Stephanie. Brandy will be back next year to entertain the masses we hope

In keeping with gambling commission edict 198.259 sub section 5 ‘dealing with total morons’ – we checked with everyone if they were over the age of 13 and not in fact in the paid employ of the commission itself trying to catch us out.

By Friday morning – I was in a shell shocked state, given depressing results, and the prospect of shaming myself on the Morning Line Saturday- my office had taken the phones off the hook and the website down. Come back Ffos Las, all is forgiven. Results outside the championship races were pretty fair – especially the ridiculous plunge on China Doll in the Queen Mother Champion Chase. Surely more likely to pull up than compete seriously?

It was a festival for the new. The performance of the meeting wasn’t the unchallenged Vautour for me – nor Faugheen, but the Denman-esque performance of Conygree. By the start of the 2nd circuit, he had many class performers firmly off the bridle. He quite simply ran them all into the ground. And who WAS that jockey??

conygree
Surely the BHA should lamp Bradstock with a 60 day ban for ‘upstaging Mullins’? Well done to the authority, however, for having the last ‘laugh’ as usual and a whip ban in the gold cup to a lesser jockey – they never disappoint

Was it the best Festival in modern times? – that’s hard to say, Loads of talking points.  it certainly was out with the old and in with the new. Everyone knows I worry about the all enveloping nature of it. Months of discussing five runner graded events and odds on chances is something a caring authority wants to take very seriously, with the prospect of a repeat next year.
I have one suggestion, which will have some people nodding in approval, the purists in horror,  and the BHA copping a deaf un. That Mares race. 6 years in a row a grade one animal reducing the worst rated event at the meeting to somewhat of a procession. Not really the point is it? Not good for the finances non plus. Perhaps an upper rating level of some description? We all know Annie Power will line up again next year – but in reality she should be in the World Hurdle, and not hiding away in selling class.      NAP

I always mention the whiners. Taking a break from the Betfair Forum. Those who moan about Channel 4’s coverage could only be uber impressed at some of the amazing images treated to our screens, the features, the slo mo’s. Fine, I’m an occasional guest, but I’m entitled to an opinion and in comparison to the beeb? No comparison. Enjoy the float race Clare. Dreadful choice over the Grand National, really it is. But we’ll have Luck and Gok- fair trade.

apm
And finally, yes, you made it. To one jockey. Given the amounts of cash I’ve heaved out over the years over this man, the times I’ve cursed the man, you might be surprised I’m as teary as the rest of you at the departure of a legend. I think to put it into some kind of perspective,  the British public admire most the total and unadulterred energy he put into every ride. His iron will over sometimes doubtful horses. It’s a shame Jonjos stable has been in such miserable form this season or he would have signed off with more winners. AP has carried himself wih humility and class and gave every punter 100% commitment. That’s why they love him. And I will very much miss the very engine of National Hunt Racing.

The BHA – Acting in the best interests of Racing or Stakeholders?

It’s become routine these days to hear and read informed commentators, pundits, industry experts discussing the issue of small fields in racing, indeed last year the BHA undertook an expensive consultation into fixture levels in an attempt to combat the issue of small fields and lack of competitiveness in racing.

The result? More fixtures in 2015

BHA announces races attracting small fields will be deleted from the programme

The result? No races removed, a three month trial period suddenly introduced, and one deleted race restored in the face of opposition from horsemen

9 new board members with little, or no experience running racing, at the BHA. Two of these new directors have been appointed to ‘bed in’ six of the others. Tell me you’re joking, or have the stakeholders grabbed two important ‘blockers’ on the board?

The BHA announces the scrapping of small field events to address the appeal of the sport.

The result? The BHA backs down in the face of opposition from the trainers involved in the race and the NTF. It goes further in placing an NTF official to the BHA Board. I’m sure he’ll be supportive of an initiative which followed an expensive consultation.

What’s the value in an authority that doesn’t govern the sport with its best face in mind? Someone tell me.

After the removal of the best politician we’ve ever had in charge, Paul Bittar, from the equation we’re left with an entiely new board, in every sense of the word. Opposing these new directors – the stakeholders. Betting, Owners, trainers and racetracks and their interests. And they’re clearly out for what’s best for them, even if the sport cannot progress

Do you care? Or would you classify yourself as one of the silent apathetic ones- to criticise the sport is wrong, it’s just not done. To my mind, constructive criticism is a requirement and you should get involved and stop taking the guided tour

BITTAR

Quite what the Australian did wrong or whether he had just had enough is unclear. Nobody is asking the question. I didn’t always see eye to eye with Bittar during his tenure, I’m always going to take issue with the pace of change, but it’s clear he shared many of the same concerns. Particularly in regards to ‘stakeholders’ and their negative impact on the sport, and integrity issues relating to low funded racing we seem determined to produce more thereof.  He was capable of pulling the disparate parties together given time. Continue reading “The BHA – Acting in the best interests of Racing or Stakeholders?”

Cheltenham Open Festival- The Bookies Eye

I know the National Hunt season doesn’t really end with Aintree, it burbles on without it’s stars through the summer. I’d like to see it curtailed for a month – perhaps in June when Racing is so resplendent with riches such as Ascot and Epsom. For me, though, the season really starts with Cheltenham’s excellent ‘Open’ Meeting.

It needs a new title, because Open doesn’t do it justice, and we need Festivals in the winter, perhaps they should call it ‘The Tweed’ – it’s the only venue which accepts folk in that ridiculous garb. Children point and stare  – you can’t blame them..

For me, it’s suits. I pack several to go with the alternating seasons Prestbury affords us. I pick up the delightful Miss King and head off into the rainstorm. I talk, she texts her boyfriends and updates her facebook. It’s an odd relationship. I’ve become dull

10411931_10154738849685012_2876135868607848212_n

There will be a few of you who accuse me of using sex to sell betting tickets. All true. Don’t write to your MP or call the cops. I admit it.

We stop at what used to be the Hotel De La Bere, to pad JP’s income.  I read the paper, Stephanie has a text argument with one of her spotty friends. The office bombard me with calls, on bets we shouldn’t be laying. Disappointingly for a Bookie who works indoors at 72 degrees ambient, the sun has come out, and will wreck my takings

The bastard.

Friday isn’t as busy as Saturday for the Bookies. We work hard at offering a service not only at Cheltenham, but at the ‘away’ meetings. I’m glad I had Mick and Vicky dedicated to paying out, because Wolverhampton was on.  Hitler should have bombed Dunstall, I wouldn’t have minded speaking German then.What I made at Cheltenham, i gifted back to those betting at Wolverhampton. The decent people of Jockey Club stop by for a chat, they’re comfortable in the product and with good reason. People vote with their feet, the attendances are good, and racing needn’t always be seen as a vehicle for the Ladbrokes Life. JCR are experts at Festival meetings and I admire their sense of decency.

I’d like one day to persuade this influential body to see exchanges outlawed from bookie software on course , it’s a thorough cancer on service, and emptying the sport of money it deserves. Make sure you support me here if you value the flavour of the betting ring or I will ignore you at parties.

As a sidebar, people who bet at the All Weather don’t wear tweed, they’re known as bonus junkies. They scout around for ‘free bets’, – never go racing, – just sit at home in their underpants ‘greening up’. Sand racing is for camels, but we’re stuck with it, it seems. Don’t blame me, I can’t stop the fascination with grunge. Saville is a sick man, he’s hoping Jesus makes a comeback and performs a loaves and fishes trick on field sizes, with rocking horses to bolster poor fields. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear 68 fixtures being awarded to Comet 506b  (taken from York.) I mean it does have the perfect racing surface..

It’s not busy on friday, so Mick finds time for a hug. He’s a charmer and ‘The Rinser’ doesn’t work that hard. Here’s one of her, not on her phone, with my main man

10411931_10154738848795012_9165484243064064907_n

Friday night is a predictably boozy night in a gorgeous country pub. Everyone tells stories, – mostly lies. My favourite is telling everyone I was in the SAS, which I think everyone believes. Mick orders the fishcakes and is crestfallen when they offer us free fishcakes, by way of canapes, at the bar. He doubles up anyway.

Saturday dawns, The Morning Line tips all the favourites, Paddy Power makes me chuckle and the show hums along in entertaining style. They have someone on from Timeform, I’m glad he didn’t launch into an explanation of ‘Sectionals’ – probably gagged I expect. I wish people would stop whining about Ch4, we’re all so damned fussy about what we want to see, and my good friend Barry Orr and his x ray specs represent good value as a stand up comic 🙂

We arrive early at the track, the crowd looks substantial. Entrance fees are very fair, the track looks the business. Cheltenham is the class of National Hunt. Except for those odd plastic beakers they dosh out to customers in their lovely Golden Miller bar. The only mild blemish for me. I give the catering boss a hard time for flogging me an £85 bottle of Veuve in a kiddie cup. He tells me glasses are a health and safety issue. I ask him what the champagne comes in. He says he will feedback my comments..

The Centaur has a brash new screen, 6 hard working Bookies, the Magic Sign and Tote. They serve clods of Guiness, so everyone has their bet, farts and leaves us with the smell. I suppose given the results that’s about fair. We massage a victory. It’s very busy. Do we bet a bit better than outside? Yes we do, a half a point here and there, but we’re in business and our focus is service, not begging a bet. Besides, most traders outside don’t understand the concept of ‘sustainable margin.’ Punters are a fair lot. They just want to be treated with respect and I find most would rather they found Bookmakers who lay a fair bet and pay up with a smile. We don’t do ten pound offers, we leave that to the really BIG bookies. I’d see that outlawed when I’m in charge

We take just over 2000 bets, we don’t have any hedges, they’re for gardens. Results go in favour of the punters but I catch a break with one favourite actually winning me money and I walk away heavier than when i arrived as the punters clap me out. We peel off the bets as fast as we can and try to pay out with the same alacrity where possible. A customer with his money in my pocket isn’t wagering in the next. Punters climb over the weak and infirm to get on, experienced pensioners trample young fit men to get on. As far as we know we didn’t lay any 17 year old Gambling Commission stoodges any bets. But you can’t be too sure..they’ll write to me I expect. I don’t fancy my chances with Mrs Williams

64371_10154738849160012_7955380457167465481_n

There’s no other way to describe the Racing on offer than exhilarating. Horses that looked done in, walked all over, came back to win or held on. We were lucky with one of Geraghty’s- Druid’s Nephew, who ran too free and got under his fences, but jumping is the game. Cheltenham tends to offer some of the most unpredictable finishes in the Sport. Some horses turn in going easy and flop, and others, like Caid Du Berlais, whose jockey supplanted whip for cattle prod. It’s the very soul of National Hunt racing. I understand why the track dominates the code.

I recall one slightly inebriated looking fellah who walked up to me, gambling commission plant methinks. I lay him a bet.

‘tenner each way on Budweiser’ he slurred, displaying his opt out of gambling forever card

‘Don’t you mean Buywise Sir?’

‘Err, yeah, sorry, er, repetition, you know, – been drinking for four days, – where am I?’

He loses his money. Well, to be fair, 13 year olds shouldn’t be betting- and no mistake..

A couple of suggestions to friends in charge to improve the quality of winter racing. Do away with both Jumpers bumpers on the all weather, as well as ‘racecourse gallops’. It’s time to force the stars back to work in races which struggle for quality entrants. I know you’re all looking at each other round the board table at that one.

Saturday night is predictably good, another beautiful Cotswold pub and a few bottles of the firm’s champagne to reward the team for looking after my clients. They guzzle as if its their last, particularly ‘The Rinser’

1236011_10154738846740012_4261694464974786075_n

Sunday is predictably quiet, although the racing remains competitive. The day starts with the shock news of Dessie Hughes’ passing. A minutes silence is strictly observed as we watch replays of the mighty Hard Eustace, as if we needed reminding! Many Bookies turned their boards off and I didn’t hear anyone talking in the ring. A great tribute to a legend.

One odds on chance at the meeting is all,  a load of great finishes, punters and bookmakers alike celebrated a great trainer, the gate staff are the same people the track has employed for years, the views remain beautiful, – the Open became a showcase for two decent fellahs, Phillip Hobbs and Richard Johnson. Little wonder the season tends to revolve around this jewel in the Cotswolds

Put fifty pounds in the box on your way out. Thanks

Open Letter To Jenny Williams – Chief Exec – Gambling Commission

Hey Jenny!

Thanks for my bills, the three grand one arrived first, fractured the concrete under my letter box – ha ha! I didn’t pay them immediately, – you know me, such a joker, I love that ‘pay up or we put you out of business letter’ ha ha ha ha, -you know? The one you send three days later. Brilliant! Think more government agencies should adopt your ‘licences revoked’ angle -refreshing and direct. No more fumbling about..well done on bringing that one in. Make sure you don’t send it to Ladbrokes though – that WOULD be a blunder!!

We had some fun in the office trying your ‘fees calculator’ on the GC website – but the numbers it came up with seemed so fantastic I was sure I’d pressed the button which said I was ‘Betfair’. How we laughed! How do you get away with it?

gc1

Anyways, I called your executioners about the ‘we’ll put you out of business’ letter, they told me not to worry, ‘we always do that with the small fry’ – and I wasn’t to take it too personally. What nice guys, I’d already called the job centre!

Things have gotten a bit complex this year- all the new licenses and fees I have to pay. And the forms – you know the ones that asked me if I lay wagers to 9 year old drunks, and what colour my servers are, and whether I took ‘bets’ – that sort of thing!  Anyways, I worked out i’d need three different licenses, a HC45 ‘small fish off track non casino’, a P45 ‘Racecourse arber’ Special, and a UB40 for the website Phew! I must say how impressed I am by the whole process, how complex you’ve made it, and how many people I’ve had to ask what a ‘transitional license’ was. Little did I know it’s a vehicle to charge me another grand! Fell for the old trick heh!

Excuse if I make the distinction between independent and major betting chain, they seem to do so well out of the whole deal. I pay 10% of William Hill’s fees for my little website?? I hear you’ve been screwing the small shop operator with a similarly penal rate in comparison to the multiples, ten times the fee for a little guy? I wonder if the DCMS sat down with the big bookies to work out the fee structure? I hope so.

I see those bad boys Bet365 have absconded their whole shooting match to the wonder rock, even after point of consumption. Terrified of inquiries into their activities in the grey market? I hope you get them good and proper of course, and bang up that Ray Winstone for life. He gets on my nerves. ‘Mmmmmmm tasty..’ Not as squeaky clean as we thought that mob!

Anyway, I digress. How relieved I was to hear the thump of another envelope land on my mat with a bill for £13500 for the website – brings me up to sixteen grand, price of a small family hatchback ha ha! You guys are amazing!. Just dock it from my Diners Club and I’ll joyfully spend the air miles on a trip to Shanghai. Do you know anyone else who gets away with billing small firms sixteen grand’s worth of licensing fees?

gc2

What’s even better? According to this, my online business is worth 11% of super goliaths William Hill! I’m off to the City in the morning to pop the firm onto the stock exchange and really start coining it in. What a lucky guy! It’s a bit like the shop bookies paying TEN times in fees than the multiples pay, we’ve all got to do our bit to keep you in work!

I must say how upset I was to see you getting lamped by those grubby MP’s on that select committee thingy. Horrid little men, Damian Collins and that awful Philip Davies, the Conservatives attack dog, questioning on what it is you ACTUALLY do apart from make us waste days of our lives filling out forms?  What a disgraceful slur. You were quite right to front it out over your wages, people don’t realise how hard it is for a gal to scrape by on £170 grand a year. Especially when you turned down a three grand bonus. I felt quite choked when I heard! Well done there. Don’t panic, I doubt they’ve any clout with the minister. He doesn’t mind wasting money- if it’s just Bookie money!

Quite right to dig your stillettos in over fee structure hun, independent firms are a pain in the proverbials. You have to visit them every three years or so, drink their coffee, make sure they fill out their forms. That kind of stuff. Invoicing them must be a nightmare! I hear some of them ask to pay their fees in instalments? Ruddy cheek! Good news though, the little guys dropped by 17% last year (seems a lot?) – gobbled up by William Hill and their mates. Any luck there won’t be an independant about in 5 years, now you’ve helped put them out of their livelihood.  After all, it’s clearly not your job to help them stay in business is it? I don’t think anyone properly appreciates how great you’ve been- running about trying to find people in shops with a gambling problem. A bit like walking into a pub and asking anyone if they’ve a drink issue.. Little surprise you found 0.4% of gamblers declaring they ‘had a problem’ with betting, playing the fruit machines! May I ask were they the ones wearing dog collars? Anyways, you’re doing a great job encouraging the proliferation of gambling adverts on the telly..

btw love the whole self exclusion idea- you know where they say they have a problem – then bet down the road? Brilliant..so many innovations!

I’ll be ok though, I’ve got my Diners card and my Dad left me 285 Billion in roubles when he unreasonably left to bet upstairs. What annoys me the most is these people saying everywhere you read that you’re a thoroughly useless quango, tell them you’re only good at sending out bills, when only last year you found 7 or 8 illegal fruit machines – worth the sixteen million-

I had some fellah down the pub, rambling on about backing a horse that had already fallen on the exchange, I mean so what eh? All those fellahs sitting in trading rooms at racetracks investing upwards of a hundred grand in software on their ‘hobby’. People have to have their fun – isn’t that what gambling’s all about ? I backed this horse like and it had fallen and broken its neck but i got 999/1 on it, did I think it was a value punt? Some people call it fraud on a grand scale, backing things that are already out the race? They need to read the small print!

Anyway, I’ve taken too much of your time, about £4800 worth I calculate whilst I drone on. I thought I’d write a letter to remind you I’m a bit miffed I keep sending you money which you bank and I only see your inspectors once every five years no doubt I can expect a snap inspection!! Ha ha ha ha! I’ll get that cheque in the post – right pronto this time! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I know a lot of operators take the view your defence of the ridiculous fees you charge is merely to preserve your sad little regulatory existence. 

 

Strange paradox, the companies you are supposed to defend us from, those who bombard us with constant advertising encouraging us that casino gaming and the like is the new utopia, the companies who avoid taxes and regulation in Gibraltar havens, who do business with states like China, in contravention to their laws are the ones you charge the least to regulate.

Lots of love and kisses

Geoff

ps. call me!

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

‘The Malton Strangler’

My Father – John Banks built a career out of bashing Ladbrokes Chairman Cyril Stein, who spent the companies’s cash trying to put JB out of business. Standing horses for some breathtaking amounts, such as the £110,000 liability on Prince De Galles for in the 1970’s Lincoln. No computer to guide – just an experienced clerk and his pencil, – a head for figures and balls they wheeled in after him on a wheelbarrow.

1489328_10153566948910012_1046682886_n

The Old Man knew a thing about betting. He told me jockeys were the worst tipsters on the planet- This still holds true.

Of course the old time jockeys used to peddle their wares to Bookies. Always looking for a few quid for tipping one they were on, that’s how it worked . Unfortunately they were given to tipping EVERYTHING they mounted – eventually one would win and the hand came out! One meeting at Newmarket, as I sat with him in the Rutland Arms a small jockey who rode occasionally for my Dad walked over, – we’ll call him Teddy Brewster shall we? So he walks over to the Guv’nor, holding court. ‘Got one for you tomorrow John’.

The old man cast him a baleful look. ‘Teddy, Leave me out will you, everything you’re on is off for it’s life’ The little fellah smiled and skulked off. Years on, I remembered this story, having done both right and left Bollock on one at Goodwood. The head lad of the particular stable’s favourite having told me it ‘had been working badly.’’ It hosed up by 13 lengths. I haven’t seen him since. Odd that.

When it came to treating punters with respect and banter, I don’t think my Father had an equal, and I can honestly say he was a very fair man. There always appeared a mutual respect. They got on at better odds,- he laid it again. As a punter himself though, he could be utterly ruthless with the other Bookies. There are many stories I could tell you, but one particular one might tickle your fancy

He had his own horses. And of course he wasn’t above a gamble on them. At Wetherby one cold winter’s day he had the favourite which according to the form could only be bested by one other animal. Of course as the race approached, the other Bookies watched nervously to see which one he would be backing. With ten minutes to go, he sent his team out to back his own horse at 7/4 – ‘get down the back line and take up every penny available’ – off went the lads. The ring exploded as his men rushed about asking fiddlers for £7000 to £4000. Knowing full well nobody would lay him much more than a hundred in the back lines. The price collapsed as the second favourite drifted to 5/2. Helped by one John Banks shoving the price out vocally.

You’re ahead of me here? Yes? Well of course his own horse wasn’t off a yard and Teddy knew future work depended on getting this one just right.

i.e. 2nd.

Unfortunately for Teddy Brewster , the Old Man’s horse would have won the race had he been pulling a tram, and he struggled to keep the head in as he cantered all over the second in, -these days one would joyfully have bet it at 1.01. Give him top marks for skill as it got beat a neck and the gamble was landed, to groans in betting shops around the land. Teddy dismounted from the confused beast lathered in sweat – and that wasn’t from his exertions going forward..

The next day’s Sporting Life made for an interesting headline

‘Teddy Brewster – The Malton strangler!!‘

Honestly I appreciate you won’t believe me because all Bookies are CROOKS and VILLIANS and we NEVER lose – I have never involved myself in the soft underbelly of the sport. Although I’m super aware it’s mush between the ribs and we don’t mention it at parties. There’s a reason why I don’t bet at Wolverhampton. It’s called the ‘lay’ button. The plague on fair play.

Some folk reading this will assume all racing is crooked. And that’s certainly not true. A journo asked me this morning if I felt the sport was in a worse state now in integrity terms than it was in my Dad’s day. And I give you the same answer I gave him. The lower the prize money, the more low grade racing we put on,  – the more connections will be out of pocket for keeping and racing horses. By extension stables will struggle for owners. All will be tempted with record low levels of prize money in many races to cheat. With the advent of exchanges to boot, and a BHA struggling to on 1548 fixtures on a tiny integrity budget-then with such a heady mix I unhappily conclude racing is in the worst state in its history as far as the security of racing is concerned. Those advocating the current level of racing – with so many poorly funded races, should consider this before they press on with this much racing.

Credit and internet betting is my core business these days, as the on course market only survives on trading- and whilst I accept it’s possible to massage a profit at Wetherby on a cold Tuesday afternoon by taking £20 and passing £18 back to the exchange – I just can’t be bothered. My office runs in huge winning or losing cycles, and takes over 60% of it’s business on horse racing. That’s distinct from a company like Ladbrokes, who might take half that figure as a percentage of revenue.

Is it an easy game? Well, of course not, or the land would be riddled with independent bookies. Fact is the little bookmaker shop numbers declined by a staggering 17% last year alone. It didn’t headline the racing press, nor the networks. I expect if we had an advertising budget like Coral, I’m sure we would go around telling everyone to ‘stick one on it’ – they’re a class act.

Punters are a strange breed. There’s the track novices who stand in a crush at Cheltenham betting on a 24 runner handicap (remember them?) as you yell at everyone, over and over, to only wager giving the horse number.

‘50 pence each way on Basher Bilk please’ He profers a fifty pound note.

He thinks he’s doing me a favour with that pound. Wouldn’t buy me a racing post. I wonder why they’d wager less than it cost them to park? Anyway we take the bet and Naomi shoves him away with violence.

News reached me this week of the departure of Ralph Topping as CEO of WIlliam Hill. This will prove a right shock in Betfair Towers – they’ve been eating Ralph’s lunch for years. He’s to be replaced by a his subordinate James Henderson – expect more loving posters of FOBT’s in shops given the figures of late. He looks like he hasn’t missed a meal.

james henderson

 

Track bookies haven’t learnt that they were more entertaining when they didn’t resemble the modern day Tote. When they had tic tac men and wore all wore suits- not jeans. They whine about margins- then follow exchanges. They form themselves into secret associations all over the country, The Northern, The Scottish, The Rails. Disaffected, untidy, and poorly led, they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. I’d lead them if it weren’t for the fact the most useless and empty vessels, some who don’t even own a pitch,  make the most noise and they’ll never agree because they’re obsessed with what goes on next door..Not a plan for business. Racetracks will have to decide if they can do without course bookies, or maybe just a few as they explore the RiponBet scenario. I don’t fancy their chances if the media rights bubble implodes, and I fancy the punters will end up with a pretty raw deal. Don’t get me wrong- there are some great track bookies out there, but their skills are lost in a Betdaq soup. Peeeuuuuwwwwyukkkky

ae99d16541728b2601feed3a9b5480d5

HSBC have closed accounts held by track bookmakers. Some of these have been operating for over 20 years- without blemish. I suppose HSBC’s excuse for this, frankly disgusting move is ‘money laundering’ concerns, raised recently by the European Parliament. An investigation that came to nothing I should add, but probably cost a bit in lunches. Money laundering in a ring taking pennies- what a joke.

It’s a bit rich – a Bank fined over 6 billion for money laundering for drug cartels in Mexico and for misleading customers with its sales to close down accounts with spotless records. No pinstripe suit graces Wormwood Scrubs.

1792-85667

I arrived back this week from a few days away to find the industry betting 19% overbroke on the Eclipse. Led by Coral – who decided to offer The Fugue at 4/1 instead of the industry leading 9/4 quotes elsewhere-t include exchanges. Supporters of Racing. Yes yes. The same company entertaining the great and the good in their considerable hospitality offering at Sandown. That’s how it’s done. Anyway the great race- The Eclipse that is, proved a real tonic to the sport and I don’t mean the price, with old Mukadram – one of the most honest horses in racing running the legs off of the field. These are the moments.

Reading one punter’s rather accurate quote – ‘it’s the Bookmakers who have created the arbing and bonus environment. If we take up more than two or three offers and don’t bother with anything else- all of a sudden we’re Arbers!’ I had to smile at that one. 10 out of 10.

Casino Operators sort Punters into broad groups these days. Bonus Junkies, Arbers, traders, ‘Value seekers’, Morning Price specialists, In running thieves, free bet whores, homeless, Gambling Commission 16 year old entrapment plants, racing journalists (Lay), mugs, super mugs, habituals, FOBT obsessives and casino muppets. Which one are you?

My first serious wager when I took over the Old Man’s business was £4000 on a 7/4 chance at Newbury. Pre-exchange days of course. These days the same thing would be 6/1, laid for it’s life… Ridden by Micky Fitzgerald. I had exactly £600 to my name, – it was Old Style Bookmaking. That’s to say lay the bet wearing your running shoes in case it wins. I went to Newbury and ran about putting £2400 back. I still stood it for more than I could afford, but I’ve always been a bit that way! The favourite cruised all over it and that was that- I was off in the shoes of the fisherman. The biggest wagers I’ve ever stood were on Kuato Bloody Star at 7/4 and Wichita Lineman at 9/2 at Cheltenham, on the same day from a firm who was well behind with me at the meeting. I had my shooting boots on. So did that irritating git McCoy. Some people view him as a God. I wish he’d retire and leave me in peace. Doing a quarter of a million on one Friday at Cheltenham was the low point in my career – I think it’s fair to say. I never said I was any good at the game, but i learned to stand a bet.

Dad bet mostly on the rails, in those days an environment of serious layers. Often standing next to Stephen Little as they sucked up the liquidity like a Dyson. It was the Derby and Teenoso was the firm’s choice to shorten. Cyril Stein, – the urbane Ladbrokes boss walks into Stephen betting next door. Now, I think I should explain, Cyril was one of the slowest payers on the planet in those days. His money was his and grappling it out of him was a task Hercules would have abandoned.

‘what price is the favourite Steven?’

’7/2 Cyril’

‘Put me ten on’

‘No problem Cyril – stick it in’ For those of you unfamiliar with this phrase – Steven was inviting the Ladbrokes Chairman to pay up front. Nobody messed with the Little and he had earned his respect for the guts he showed in laying a bet. The place fell about laughing, but I believe Cyril had the last laugh by 3 lengths.

York, Hamilton and Ascot stand out as examples of racetracks displaying a set of standards and indeed morals. Everything is done in the name of quality and not always about the bottom line. Of course Ascot is my local, but a trip to York is a highlight of the season. I never forget a hot day in August – standing on the Rails for my Father in the lead up to the Gimcrack. He was, as typified the top Layers of yesteryear- in the coffee bar. Not for him the 30 minute betting obsession. He wanted to come in late after the empty vessels had done in the stupid prices.Me? I knew it all, I was betting in his absence next to another legend of the sport – Colin Webster

‘Webby’ was equal to John Banks in every department except in my Father’s tendency to over stand some horses. Unlike John Banks- he spent hours carefully researching his ‘cards’ and arrived at the track well armed not only to lay – but to back. They always got on well, but my Dad was rightfully suspicious of any bets he laid to the Yorkshireman. He hadn’t survived so long because he was a mug. Colin bet next to my Father at York.

Webby turns to me,  What price is So and So in the next- I consult my card – the one emanating from another great layer – Leslie Steele. ’6/1 Colin’  ‘Just a 5000/800 then lad’

‘Righto Colin’ err..

I knew I shouldn’t be laying him, but bets to lose 5 grand then were chicken feed. Anyway – ten minutes before the off, the Guvnor turns up, coffee in hand – ‘any action?’ ‘Nah, nothing significant, – oh, wait one small one from Webby – 5000/800 So and So’

‘WHAT?! He thundered. Most of the Rails and half of Tatts looked up. I viewed Webby cowering next door, He’d have called the bet off, but he knew the Old Man would have told him to go forth and multiply. ‘I leave you for two minutes with the chalk, and like a big shot you lay Webby. WEBBY OF ALL PEOPLE! -Think he came up the Ouse on a bike?’

‘Wait a minute Dad, it’s still 6′s everywhere, I can dump it? ‘ I says hopefully.

‘Hedges grow in gardens.’ That was it. The no win bet. If it got beat – No comment. If it won, I was all the buggars, useless no good for nothing half witted brainless Son of.

They burst out of the gates. The bins focussed on one particular 1/4 tonne woth of brainless. It sleeps in the stalls and emerges 3 lengths behind the field. ‘Aye Aye’ he calls in triumph – that one for Webby next door. 18 horses going hell for leather (18 honest, that’s what used to be norm in Racing!)

Don’t need to tell you. The brainless one weedled his way through the entire pack, this way and that, emerging to a stunned rail to lead in the last furlong going away. Not a word from Webster. Discretion the better part of valour.

‘You are a useless bam, I leave you for two minutes. ta da – ta da.’

I sensed the Coral wagons circling to last week’s report, and the support it received from so many concerned punters and Racing folk, for which I thank you.

 

614364_10151974632495012_823036704_o

I fancy one day I’ll end up absorbed by one of the multi national empires. It’s the way of the world. and in doing so they’ll probably make me sign a disclaimer asking me to shut up! In the meantime I promise to push back on their nonsense. By then though the Sussex Stakes will be the ‘Wallmart Gold Cup’, or we’ll be drowning in a sea of plastic cups every time we go racing. I pray for us

 

 

Geoff Banks

July 2014

 

A BLUEPRINT FOR RACING

    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?

Andy-Hornby

 

‘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.

Fixed odds betting terminals

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.

lbo2

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.

july

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?

Racegoers celebrate after the William Hi

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.

gb5.jpg

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..

 

coral

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. buses 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

 

photo-72

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. BlcYya1CMAArtbN

 

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. football

 

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.

epsom-derby

 

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