Paul Bittar on the Fixture List

[Posts: 1507Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 21:58Location: Stratford-upon-Avon]

From his speech to the ROA

The information we have clearly indicates that a reduction in fixtures would result in a reduction in industry revenue, so the contention that less fixtures would result in higher prize money is simply not supported by the data we have.

And following consultation it is clear that demand for fixtures from both the betting industry and racecourses remains (at least) on a par with that of 2012.

What is also clear is that with a declining horse population, maintaining current fixture numbers whilst operating in the same way is likely to impact on average field sizes. This is an area that an objective body such as BHA can demonstrate its value to the industry and we need to be much more innovative about our handicapping and racing policies to encourage more starts per horse per season.

As an example, in New Zealand - where as I mentioned I race a horse - horses start on average 5.8 times per season. This statistic is similar to Victoria where I most recently worked but is one full start per season more than horses start on average in Britain. If we could achieve one extra start per horse per season - which can only be a good thing for Owners - we would deliver an additional 20,000 runners per season which would cure all of our concerns about the size of the fixture list. The BHA should be leading the analysis and debate on how to achieve this outcome.

I don't know any owners who turn down an opportunity to run so it's difficult to see how he can get every horse in training to run an extra race each year. If this is the only strategy for dealing with the declining horse population then we are going to have to get used to increasingly smaller field sizes.

[Posts: 847Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 23:52Location: Croydon]

I'm probably being over simplistic, but if you had less racing then surely you would have better prize money and bigger fields?

[Posts: 103Joined: 18 Dec 2002, 21:54]

Though some want to praise Bittar to the skies in the racing media, this latest statement is wholly unimpressive.

If every horse runs once more, that equals 20,000 extra runners (really, 20,000 horses in training?) which would justify extra meetings (can't think who wins from that scenario?) so, far from fewer meetings, let's have even more filled with all these horses having one or two extra runs each.

It appears the alliance of bookmakers and racecourses who run racing these days are going to make sure we continue to enjoy a full repast in 2013.

I assume no one has provided any evidence that more races does in fact bring in more revenue and as long as Owners are happy to run for £1250k, the Class 6 handicap is safe.

[Posts: 321Joined: 01 Jan 1970, 01:00]

Great stuff, enough to leave a bittar taste in Ms. Hood's mouth.

[Posts: 61Joined: 26 Oct 2009, 20:53]

Perhaps Mr Bittar should take a look at Met Weather - this is not New Zealand. He might also like to look into what happened to the prize money from NH meetings cancelled due to bad weather. Would like 5.8 runs in this country with the state of NH prize money.

[Posts: 1069Joined: 12 Jul 2002, 10:58]

What consultations has Mr Bittar had on this or anything else with the punters that actually provide most of the funding?
Absolutely none.

What does Mr Bittar know about the UK racing population?
Absolutely nothing.
There are only 15,088 registered horses and many of those are not in race training.
Of those 10,825 with a nominal flat rating there are 8,600 rated below 80.
As courses have safety limits on number of runners then this bulge of low rated horses is not going to get into an extra race even if the owners wanted.
Meanwhile, we have increased top prize group races with 5 or so runners. Many so weakly contested that the favourite is long odds-on.

The real problem is that even those in racing let alone punters are not the slightest interested in 95% of current races - just a bread and butter exercise at best. Many of the extra attracted to attend racing don't even watch the races, nor bet.
From the posts on TRF even the root enthusiasts don't bet very much and many cannot get a bet on with "UK bookmakers" (mainly based overseas so pay no levy), so where is any extra income coming from?

[Posts: 4415Joined: 14 Mar 2006, 11:35Location: Doha, Qatar and Co.Clare, Ireland.]

Dont know how viable Mr Bittar's proposal is, but its refreshing to hear an idea that doesn't involve Racing raising the white flag on a third of its current product.

Its also heartening to hear that service providers to two of Racings fundamental customers (racegoer's and punters) believe there is enough demand to maintain service volume at current levels.

[Posts: 2267Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 16:22]

Well said!

[Posts: 257Joined: 09 Jun 2012, 14:35]

I'm probably being over simplistic, but if you had less racing then surely you would have better prize money and bigger fields?

And you would be paying double the entrance fee if they slashed fixtures! hard enough to get people in for £20 when you can just about get 3 nights dinner in Tesco's for that.

[Posts: 2267Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 16:22]

Tesco finest meal deal for two with wine is still a tenner so that should be 4 nights?