capping numbers is the answer, temporarily.

​Those of us who believe, as I do, that British horse racing is in dire straits should be fearful of what is in store for us in the very near future. The cost-of-living crisis has the potential to irreparably damage our sport. The cost to racecourses to stage a race-meeting will increase at the same rate as peoples disposable incomes decreases, with far fewer people able to afford to attend a race meeting. With the government’s attack on betting, coupled with the same decrease in disposable income, will certainly lower the amount of money returned to racing from off-course bookmakers. As we enter 2023, a perfect storm of damaging consequences will sweep through our sport. Owners will feel the pinch, with the big battalions cutting back their strings, the syndicates, as a result of losing members, will cut back in similar percentages and the one-horse owner will, doubtless, disappear. Trainers will go broke, staff will be lost from the industry and jockeys will have more time to polish their own tack as, other than those with well-paid retainers, not so many of them will be able to afford the assistance of valets.
When they published the 2023 race calendar, the B.H.A. displayed a complete disregard (or ignorance) of what is going on in the world. Less, on this occasion, would definitely have been more beneficial to the sport.
The best suggestion so far has come from Roger Charlton and it should have generated debate amongst the racing public. It didn’t, at least not in my realm of observation.
Capping the number of horses any one trainer can have in his/her stables will contribute to solving two of racing’s greatest concerns. Number 1, it will keep more trainers financially viable, and Number 2, it will spread good staff amongst a greater number of trainers.
Of course, the first conundrum to solve is where to cap the numbers. Pre-government restrictions I would have suggested 150, though taking into account the negativity of what I have written at the outset of this piece, 100 might be the starting-off point. I would suggest that the Gosdens, Johnstons, William Haggas, Richard Hannon, etc, could begin the process by upping their training fees as this would immediately trigger some owners going in search of a cheaper alternative. It must be realised that every trainer must be allowed to make a profit and less horses will doubtless confer less in the coffers of the wealthier men and women of the training ranks.
Next trainers must decide which horses, and perhaps owners, they can get by without. Of course, for example, The Gosdens’ may honour the restriction only to find within a month they have only 95 active horses on their books as 5 have gone lame on them. Do they ask for 5 of their former in-mates to return or do they call-up one of their major existing owners to send along replacements? And then what happens when 1 or all of the 5 lame horses return to soundness?
Yet the benefits, to my eyes, far outweigh the complications of capping. This restrictions should only be approved for a fixed short-term period of time. I would suggest 3-years. At least long enough to see the sport through the heavy swell of gut-busting inflation. Trainers who at the moment are scraping by will receive a fresh intake of horses, with many receiving a boost in the class of horse they train. And with the horses will come the staff laid off by trainers forced to reduce their string.
In some ways the reallocation of staff may well be of the greatest benefit to the sport. The smaller trainer has always had difficulty in obtaining and holding on to good staff. It is a problem written about by Joe Hartigan, Dick Hern’s predecessor at West Ilsley, back in 1975. In fact, he predicted the situation we have now where a select few trainers have all the best horses. The education and care of horses will improve, trainers income will see an upswing and races will be more competitive as horses will be spread over a greater number of trainers and not kept apart as the case can be now.
The capping of numbers in any one stable is not a win-win scenario. The larger stables will lose out, if temporarily, as will their retained jockeys but the sport in particular will be given a greater chance of survival, a survival that in ten-years-time might lead to prosperity. Though only, of course, if horse-racing’s numb-headed/self-absorbed stakeholders can get their heads in sync and source a funding stream that will level up the sport in this country with our competitors abroad.