arc

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It’s my conviction the SP mechanism – in its current form, was practicably out of date shortly after its inception and requires thorough modernisation.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 1/6^th 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.

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.

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
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
At least 25 firms must be available offering a full each way service to return an SP
Sample system to be totally abolished on course. All firms betting to standard tattersalls terms to be included in the returns
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.
Four fifths of the new mechanism to involve the 19 largest operators. These operators to include Betfair and racetrack bet
Betfair’s SP can only be taken from their each way market
Industry odds governed by weight of money and by provision of prices to SIS
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

The 2015 cheltenham festival – the grubbie bookie’s view

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.

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

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.

(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?

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.

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??

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.

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.

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

How Good was Friday?

I don’t agree with the whole Good Friday thing. Forcing folk to work on what has traditionally been accepted as a major holiday, one of only 4 days in the calendar free of Racing. Is it fair they get paid their normal rate for giving up crucial times with their families. And for those of you who’ve seen fit to blow off to me such arguments as ‘lieu time’ or ‘religion isn’t such an issue any more’ – I doubt any of you were mandated to work. If you did, I expect it was by choice. Just because your moral standards run to the commercial and nothing else but, hardly argues it right.

And that’s what the decision was. Commercial. Two of Racing’s major stakeholders railroaded the decision via a typically pliant BHA. The same organisation could hardly refuse such a call, having placed itself firmly in support of FOBTs. Nor was it ever likely to refuse Arena Racing and its promises, despite 8 of that organisation’s tracks resting at the foot of the table for prize money in the sport. Often paying as low as £1940, from media rights and Levy, that typically pay more than £7000 per race. We were promised guarantees by Paul Bittar before the decision was made, on prize monies, and on future funding for Good Friday. Have the BHA delivered on that undertaking? I think everyone’s forgotten that promise.

Arena did promise to put on a million pound event. And that’s exactly what they delivered upon. The Bookies were supposed to foot the lions share of the bill. It didn’t happen, with William Hill, Betfred and Bet365, declining sponsorship. Arena therefore took up the prize fund slack. From where did they derivate such a pot? From what they didn’t pay elsewhere perhaps? Check out this table from last year – and the 8 tracks at the bottom.

http://www.racehorseowners.net/en/owners-resources/prize-money-statistics/racecourse-league-table-flat.cfm

I tire of proliferation of all weather racing which for the most part draws crowds so low – typically a few hundred paying customers, and plays to empty betting shops. Precisely what the shop staff are saying, in contradiction to the PR spin. As you and I know, they’re referring to the racing. Machines run themselves, plug and play. Race planning for five year olds, which has Southwell for example, appearing on a gorgeous spring day in opposition to 4 turf meetings, including majors Newmarket and Cheltenham. Who dreams up such fixture clashes and keeps their job? The holy grail of media rights has our tracks falling over themselves to produce rubbish. Neither penalises nor incentivises them for producing proper fields or competitive fare. In short – they’ve become lazy.Racetracks derive income between 30% of a large track to 70% in the smaller venues from Betting. Speaking as a Bookmaker, I’m not comfortable with handing over my fees if tracks continue in so many fixtures to fail to deliver on quality. That’s not accountability. We shouldn’t be handing over our money to racetracks to put on 4 runner races, No Sir – No Way.

In the meantime we’re boring the living daylights out of our fans. Have we forgotten we’re a sport? That we’re supposed to entertain and not drive custom to Football? Is anyone out there listening to the punters? It appears not.

Of course to have an initiative for a series of races leading up to a championship day should be applauded. Would I consider the day a success? Yes, I would, but then I always knew I’d do well and people would come. And I think if well intentioned by Arena, it’s a very positive step towards a better class of programme. Too much of which is poor beyond belief, and riddled with highly questionable behaviour. A subject I’ve covered. Let’s not put our customers off by tacit acceptance of breaking of the rules of the sport.

What would like to see? An insistence on clear undertakings from ARC on prize money for the race series, and a guaranteed underpin for the finale, even if it wasn’t a million.An agreement to fund the rest of their programme more equably than at present. The group are found at the bottom end of returns. I would have a cap on the number of meetings ongoing for Good Friday at two. What came out of Friday most evidently, was that the lesser funded fixture drew a significantly ordinary crowd, despite the holiday period involved. We don’t need a bank holiday style Friday with 9 meetings.

Between Cheltenham’s outstanding festival and Aintree, Racing typically consisted of 75% all weather fare, and low field rubbish to boot. Fans don’t want this, the press won’t publish our cards, and we do not need to spend fortunes with Deloitte to establish the obvious. Newcastle, Catterick and Great Leighs want to turn to the lucrative surface, and that should be rigourously opposed. We hear Betfred keen to race Great Leighs once fixtures are assigned, on Christmas Eve. If the same arguments hold sway with the BHA as per Good Friday, are we now to see Christmas to be sacrificed to the altar of media rights?

Has Good Friday become ordinary Friday? Is this yet another weekend of Racing, Friday through Monday? Why in fact with most of the country on a four day break, do we need the fourth to provide yet anther day’s racing. Has it really grabbed the wider attention of the general racing public? I seriously doubt that.

A major positive from ATR, whose coverage was both lively and enthusiastic. Clearly it was a big day not both for the network, but its stakeholders Arena also. I felt sorry for Chapman trying to interview a sour faced Ryan Moore after Grandeur’s victory. Evidently Popeye dared to criticise Moore for a ride in the past, a huge no-no for reporters. The same attitude evidenced in a similar interview at the Breeders Cup. Get over yourself Ryan, you’ve become an insufferable bore, talent notwithstanding. Your business is to entertain, or have you learnt nothing from Dettori?

In bookmaking terms? More interest and turnover. It was profitable, despite three bankers obliging. Broadly the more competitive it is, the wider spread of bets I take. It wasn’t a burster, more like a quiet Saturday in volume terms. Money for the Levy? Yes. But would we have taken the same money had the meeting taken place on the Saturday, or even the Sunday? Yes. But the machine take would have suffered. For Arena – a breakthrough event with a major bank holiday now opened up. Clever boys. I’ve never said racetracks weren’t smart. They do, however lack a cohesive plan to deliver on a sport of the highest quality possible, it’s all too disparate. I want – I get.

Yes there were 9000 there, and that’s a success, even if driven by two for one deals – entrance to the Premiere at £11. Somewhat less than Musselborough’s £20. Racing was competitive, prize money was excellent, exactly what we’ve been asking for. Surely though we cannot strip the programme elsewhere to produce such events, to base a whole industry on festivals and Saturdays. The all weather typically delivers but a few hundred paying customers for most of its fixtures. There simply isn’t the appetite for the product, and I struggle to understand why it requires more fixtures. Of course we cannot have super competitive racing every day, but we certainly can deliver on a better product and field sizes if we do not spend our time bending the knee to Coral Racing – and their calls for racing every ten minutes from midday to 9.30pm, to feed their little empire. And we do not need the all weather in opposition to major meetings. Truly pointless – and never the intention at the outset of sand.

One final point reserved for one of our finest tracks on Good Friday. Musselborough is a smart little venue, but managed just 2800 on Good Friday, despite location next to the major city of Edinburgh. That’s a very poor return. Before we all run around slapping ourselves on the back and adding another two tracks to the melting pot next year, bear this in mind – if the racing isn’t competitive, full field and decent prize money, then the people won’t come in any force. I’ve seen plenty of enthusiasm for the event from reporters, and I can respect that, however I wait to evidence the general public outside Surrey’s green belt embracing the day,and if the same public has an appetite for four days of it in a row over Easter

Without the million pound event, it becomes just another Sunday. For how long will Arena support what the Bookies won’t put in? Is this a sea change in our thinking- a commitment to quality over quantity. Because if that’s the case- sign me up, although I struggle to see the need to race on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and so forth.

For the healthy future of the sport, we have to commit to quality and lose some tracks, horses, Bookies and reduce the programme. Not substantially, but at least to redress the current drive away from quality. I’m not asking for a draconian cut. 150 fixtures – 2 meetings a week. We can deliver that, and harvest a better return. I do not accept we have to fund bad horses in poor field events, to keep a small band of owners standing in an empty paddock holding a fruit bowl and a betting ticket. I’m part of a syndicate – and I enjoy my ownbership. I do not have to invest hundreds of thousands to enjoy the sport. My syndicate uses top trainers, Hannon, Haggis, Charlton, Hobbs and the like. The horses run at Newmarket, Ascot and York. The argument small time owners cannot enjoy the sport if Wolverhampton fell into a giant hole in the ground has no merit. Let the ground subside.

We do not all have to live our lives from the gospel as according to Coral Racing. Nor do we have to hope their machines do well. If a few shops and a few tracks close down, that’s simply natural selection, and we don’t need to wail at their loss. Corals influence over this great game has become unhealthy and not in the best interests of Racing. To my mind, their influence is driving the sport very much to the dogs.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/22/lingfield-all-weather-meetings

BRITISH CHAMPIONS DAY – A DAY TOO LATE

Orfevre, Treve, Toronado, Camelot, Novelist, Declaration Of War, Intello, Moonlight Cloud, Sole Power, Sky Lantern, The Fugue.

Germany, Australia, Japan.

Most of the O Brien and Hannon yards.

None of the above chose British Champions Day. Now if you’re sitting there saying ‘well this reason and that’ – you’re not on the same page. Move straight to Holborn and collect £200

What we did get, Dawn Approach, Cirrus Des Aigles, Estimate and Talent. Speaking with my Bookie’s hat, these were the Bankers for the bettors at Ascot. With the exception of Estimate (and Farhh) both of whom had been out for months, it was confident Morning Line for me. The Bankers were readily opposable. In the case of Cirrus and Dawn, it’s fair to say their form for most of the year was nothing short of miserable. Yet they found themselves at the head of the markets. The cream of the current French Crop could and would have beaten them senseless- as has been proved the case in Races Like Le Marois. (Olympic held that form up in outstanding style, and for me was the best performer in the crop on BCD)

So, once again speaking with my Trilby and Shades on, these Bankers were considerably under-bet. Cirrus and Dawn were notably weak and whilst I was prepared to stand both for lumps, it proved impossible to field adequate sums at the prices I was forced to offer and ended up actually losing with Farhh and Olympic Glory. The point I’m making isn’t what I won or lost,- I mean who cares if I lose? I’m guessing most Bookies won yesterday, but not perhaps as much as the casual bettor would imagine. But if our Championship Finale is made up of so many notable absentees, suspect favourites– not to mention every potential Fast Ground performer out there – it’s clear to me we will end up with a product which caters only for soft ground specialists or second tier performers. Nor can it compete with a 4 Million Euro Arc in late October.

Let’s get something out of the way. I’m thoroughly in favour of the idea, and I absolutely enjoyed yesterday. Ascot is the perfect venue and it was right for JCR to concede the point and support the move. We did get a stirring finish to the Champion Stakes. We do need a seasons ‘end’ bash. It’s excellent for turnover and betting – the engine of the Sport. I get the impression some members of the Establishment view Betting as somewhat ‘dirty’, but the roots of the sport more originated in Betting than Breeding. The securing of Sponsorship from Quipco for the series has been a major achievement. And we should take very great pride in that.

A few negative points to consider. The crowd was well down on the previous year, and struggled to reach a level commensurate with the occasion. No Frankel or Excelebration .Equally no Treve, Moonlight Cloud or The Fugue. Two similar races in the QE2 and Champions on the same card, and an oddly sited apprentice race. Predictably it rained and we suffered several notable withdrawals in the lead up to BCD, and every horse who contested the Arc card was beaten. What effect will that have on future entries? I foresee a clear choice, Arc Weekend or BCD – and not both for the many superstars critical to the day.

I’ve been critical of the BHA and in particular Great British Racing on the subject and I want to put this in context. I’ve said openly the broad idea is a good one. However, in my opinion the day needs major tweaking if it’s not to remain the sub card to Longchamp or the Breeders. Supporters of BCD have been critical of the Breeders Cup. I’m not sure where they’re getting their material from because year on year it’s been supported by some of the best horses on the planet. What I do find as distasteful – the BHA’s consistent failure to properly engage with the Racing Public on the positioning of the day. Ask a question of them and it’s ignored. Their Press Officer tweets only to advise of carefully worded press releases. Evidently the cushiest job in Racing is PR for the BHA. There’s no discussion of decisions, nor the reasoning behind them. ‘I know nothing – Nooothing..’

Fine, if we’re talking about integrity, there’s perhaps an argument to keep matters ‘in house.’ However for issues such as British Champions Day, we’re met with silence. It’s almost as if ‘we’ve made our decision, it has to be right, you don’t understand, belt up.’ I find the whole manner the organisation engages with the Race-going public arrogant beyond belief. Has the arrival of the Australian lent itself to a mild easing of the wall of silence? Or is the Godolphin-Sungate-Egan merely proof nothing’s actually changed here except the face? It’s time to stop acting like a secret society.

Further, there’s far too many entrenched views in the organisation. Committees are formed of like-minded folk, and the same well-meaning individuals involved in various differing quangos. I’ve seen it in Public School boys Clubs everywhere, – and it’s got that same whiff of establishment. It’s time to move away from such cultures and employ people to make decisions whose views offer a broader spectrum. Such failures at the head of the industry isn’t assisted by a super pliant Racing Post editorial. That’s left to the Guardian and the Independent.

Whilst we’re on the subject of the British Horseracing Authority, why should it be the organisation lacks even one single Betting Expert on its payroll? So many decisions the Authority undertakes are affected by, or affect the Betting ‘cake.’ The only examples you’ll find at the Levy Board’s once a year Bookmakers Committee. Made up of the 5 biggest stakeholders in Betting. Hills, Ladbrokes, Corals, Betfair and Bet 365. Casino operators. I can only deduce the reasons for so many committees making decisions at number 75, without input from those thoroughly versed with Betting and its importance can be put down to pure snobbishness. I stand to be corrected of course. Policemen they have, Betting men they do not.

There’s a solution. There always is you know. It isn’t complicated. It may mean upsetting the French and the Irish. But the Irish have shown they won’t be hostage to the age old Pattern. And why shouldn’t the most powerful racing nation do so also, or is that not the British way? France is famous for bucking the rule book in so many regards. Should we feel obligated to respect their sensibilities? We could simply move British Champions Day back a month to Ascot’s September slot. Oh no, that’s just not cricket? Surely it’s just business – and good business? Give ourselves the best track, ground and poach the fast ground specialists from the French. Allez..

As to the ground yesterday – described as soft. Was actually ‘bottomless’ in places according to William Buick, heavy said Hughes and led to the first race – despite Championship status, being over 15 seconds slower than standard. Indeed every race was significantly slower than the ground report suggested it would be. Champions Day on jumping ground? Don’t be silly guys.

We simply cannot compete with the prize fund offered by the Arc, but we can compete on the quality of our racetrack, October ground issues in Paris and just getting our heads in front in the calendar. To boot, we may deal with possibility that those who took their chance at Ascot yesterday – who also participated at Longchamp, simply will not attend next year. Better horses – equals more prestige, attendance, network coverage, sponsorship deals. Last but by no means least, a horse participating on British Champions Day will make the Breeders Cup. Something people seem to forget. Bonus.

One other associated point. Future Champions Day. I very much understand the very excellent Jockey Club racecourses trying to preserve something that is distinctly Rowley. But a Friday bash the day before Ascot is simply unworkable. Nobody would drive 20 miles by choice to get to Newmarket on a Friday, worse the dismal trip home. Anyone going to Ascot on the morrow would need a helicopter – pure and simple. It’s a decision I would revisit. Fine – I don’t run Racetracks, but I’m as certain as Veuve is my tipple the loss in attendance, and by extension sponsors, will seal the fate of the meeting. Go the whole hog and move it to Ascot or tie it into the Cesarewitch. I know not to criticise the Baz, it would have been his brain child to move BCD from a track I know he loves, but there’s not enough petrol in the world to get most of us to Rowley for a Friday bash.

Here I sit, 9 hours after Lord Street’s show, listening to the thunder outside my house. The roads are full of deep washes, cars can barely pass. Bath is abandoned. Ascot simply would not be racing 24 hours later. Last year the participation of the great Frankel– even the event itself was in some doubt right up until 10.30am on the morning of Champions Day. Is this really something we should leave to chance? And do we really want to be slotted in between the mighty Arc and Breeders Cup cards, or do we just show them our rear end?

Geoff Banks

20 October 2013

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