THE £60-MILLION BLACK HOLE.

​The agile minds of Racing Post journalists were put to work a few weeks ago (April 28th edition) in an effort to come up with a sensible and sustainable method of achieving a new finance stream for horse racing. Bill Barber, Lee Mottershead and Lewis Porteous presented between themselves 10 diverse options. Whether they convinced themselves that any one of the schemes they presented was the definitive solution to the problem I very much doubt, though a combination of the better ideas would, I am sure, make a statement if not actually improve racing’s finances.
Which of the three great minds came up with following cricket’s lead and overturning the very principles and heritage of the sport with racing ‘goes twenty20’ I doubt we shall ever discover. If it were Barber, for instance, I would suggest the other two should seriously consider sending him to Coventry, though there are worse places to live in purgatory, or send him to the company’s shrink. Mad, bad and dangerous is the category I would place this idea in. Horse Racing is a life, a daily routine. It has evolved over centuries through natural progression. To upturn the heritage of the sport is tantamount to saying that the sport has gone terribly wrong over the years, when all the evidence suggests the sport is healthy and continues to be much loved. Championship Horse Racing and City Racing are nothing more than pie in the sky. The Racing Post gave this idea 4 Jeremy Corbyn’s. Why Jeremy Corbyn’s? That passed me by, I’m afraid. I give it zilch minus one. Mad, bad, dangerous and rather insulting to the fibre of the sport.
The best idea the triumvirate put into print was the formation of an in-house on-line bookmaker. It’s the nice friendly elephant in the room, isn’t it? Every other ‘racing jurisdiction’ has its own tote and no one reads about journalists coming up with ideas in those countries to solve their financial problems, do they? The Racing Post gave this 5 J.C.’s. And I concur. Buy one of the big on-line bookmakers and convert it into a British Tote.
The idea of aping Ireland and having all the big meetings start late afternoon has appeal, though only limited appeal. Firstly, if horse racing is lost to terrestrial television than the game is truly up. It was an inspired choice to go with I.T.V. but will they give consideration to televising York, Chester or Glorious Goodwood, to name but three, on the main channel at a time when their viewers are used to seeing Emmerdale or Coronation Street? And the idea only applies to flat racing, the least attractive of the two codes when it comes to viewing figures, due to the fall of night for most of the year. On occasion, this is a good idea. The Racing Post gave it 2 J.C.’s, while I thought it worthy of 3.
I was surprised they only gave the idea of improving the diversity of those who attend racecourses 2 J.C.’s. As I have said when criticising the idea of C.H.R. & City Racing, if you want to entice more people through the turnstiles send a fleet of coaches to every large city and town in sequence and give free travel and entrance to anyone who wishes to sample the ‘racing experience’. In fact, free entry would give racing an advantage over most other top-level sports. Not Royal Ascot, of course, or Cheltenham, Aintree and the big meetings. No one would expect free entry into blue-riband events but the ordinary fare should be free entry, with profit made from what is found inside the racecourse. This idea has potential. I rate it 4.
Fewer fixtures is a no-brainer. Not wholesale elimination of meetings but a maximum number on any one day and no two meetings to be staged within fifty miles of one another. And if bookmakers’ close shops at the rate predicted, I see no objection to the occasional day with no racing at all. Everyone must chill at some time. The Racing Post gave this suggestion 2 J.C.’s. I give it 4. Not because it comes close to answering the question but because it is simply a perfectly good example of excellent housekeeping.
The idea that revolved around extending the levy to money bet on foreign racing confused my less than agile brain. It must have confused the Racing Post too as they only awarded it 1 J.C.
As someone who has no love of the ‘Pattern’ and the proliferation of races designed simply to award black type to the owners of fillies and mares for the purposes of artificially boosting their value come the sales, the Robin Hood approach to the problem found rich favour with me. The Epsom Derby would lose none of its kudos if it were worth fifty-per-cent less to the winner than advertised this year. Million-pound races are, in fact, an abomination to a public who view racing as nothing more than a rich man’s entertainment. My view of horse racing is that it is a working-class sport underpinned by the fabulously rich. Of course, the Derby should have a first prize larger than any other race on the flat but it does not need six noughts following a one to the winner. The value in winning the Derby comes once the winner goes to stud. Routinely cut 30% from the first prize of all Group races and give that money to the lowest levels of the sport to encourage more people to own horses, to give syndicates a greater chance of making a profit. And cut the number of Group races altogether and rid the programme of listed races. The Racing Post rated this 4 J.C.’s. I give it 5 as this is a good example of radical housekeeping at work.
To my dismay, the Racing Post got most excited by the concept of ‘reimagining what racing could be’. Yet another example of racing shooting itself in the foot by suggesting that the product is broken and in need of an overhaul. It is not broken. It is healthy and exciting. What is needed is not an overhaul, not even a make-over but more dynamic governance. Not 3 or 4-furlong races. Not teams of horses or jockeys. Or north versus south trainers’ competitions. Or relay races, match races (so last century) or time trials. The Racing Post say 5 J.C.’s. I say zilch minus two.
My best idea to produce a new finance stream? A super-bet on the lines of the I.T.V. 7. If a £50,000 pot draws 100,000 entrants, what would a monthly £500,000 pot draw? The National Lottery is not well-loved. Here is an opportunity, not to replace the Levy, and on its own it will not provide the solution, to draw the eye of the non-racing public. If a super-bet were to bring in only £100,000 a month …..
In summary: a weekly super-bet, with a monster monthly super-bet. Promote horse racing as a working-class sport. Free racecourse entry. Adopt a Robin Hood approach to the distribution of prize-money. Fewer fixtures. And racing’s own on-line bookmaker business. Not ‘simples’, I confess.