Complete Agreement with the Mighty Mullins on the Goal of Doubling Prize-Money …. But definitely not just for Grade 1 races at the Festival

Only nine more days of waiting for the commentator to declare: “And they’re under orders now for the 2015 running of the Supreme Novices’ Hurdle” ….. and the hair-tingling roar of the crowd. The mere thought of it is having me box-walking far more than even our super Flat three-year-old, Jolievitesse.

Last year I was foolish enough to make some predictions of winners and have no intention of repeating that catastrophe, so I was more than grateful to see a very interesting piece in the Racing Post with Willie Mullins demanding that more is done to reward jumps owners at the Cheltenham Festival. The most interesting comments were: “The prize-money in jumps racing, given the costs, does not make sense and it cannot last. That, to me, is not fair and it’s not on for what owners do for the sport of racing. The meetings are there, but the prize-money should rise. All we see is the prize-money edging up a bit every year …. Prize-money for the graded races at Cheltenham could be at least doubled, if not more. It would give meaningful prizes for racing horses. Someone should really break out and say, ‘We need to reinvigorate the sport’, before it goes down. The bottom end of racing is disappearing.”

A lot of our friends and owners would do anything rather than follow blogs and Twitter. Those who do will have seen that Willie Mullins’ comments triggered an avalanche of views, both positive and negative. These are some typical examples from the ether:

“So often prize-money barely covers the van costs and entry fees. Mr. Mullins is dead right.”

“The bottom of the market needs the extra prize-money, not the top end.”

“Owning a horse is a choice. How far do you push the financial remuneration for indulging in a hobby?”

“If there are no owners then the people who work in racing lose their jobs. The sport needs to be sustainable.”

“Before we start stuffing more money in Willie Mullins’s and Rich Ricci’s pockets, let’s have more money for the little guy who runs his horses at Fontwell, Ffos Las, Towcester, Carlisle and Catterick.”

“Willie Mullins is absolutely right, the prize-money needs to be increased even just for running and finishing in a race at the Festival, as it is the owners who pay for and keep the show on the road.”

There were certainly three clusters of comments: the whole of the sport needs more money, and prize-money should definitely be increased at the lower end; racecourses and bookmakers make a huge amount of money out of the Festival, and more money should flow back; and a concern that trainers of the stature of Mr. Mullins and his rich owners are more than prepared to invest huge amounts of money, so much so that it is disincentivising the average owner. On balance I agree with all these views, to the extent that I fired out ten Owners for Owners views on prize-money into the Twitter space. (I can hear the comments of “Get a life!”)

1. Willie “Double the Prize-Money at Cheltenham” Mullins’ view is one we definitely support, but on a far broader basis …. it needs to happen everywhere.
2. Prize-money should be a top three priority of the BHA, to double prize-money by 2020 # racing needs a more strategic approach.
3. Owners invest £0.5bn a year in British racing. Return on ownership is 25p in the £. # make ROO a strategy of the BHA.
4. Boost it from the bottom up. The ordinary owner is giving racing up, not the Rich Riccis. # time for step change in strategy.
5. Get real on costs vs. rewards. One of our horses wins £250 for coming 4th in 16-runner race. Cost £600 to race him.
6. Does racing want more or fewer horses in training? If more, you need more owners. # boost the cash: boost the owners.
7. What is the optimal number of horses in training? Does anyone know? What is the BHA view? More: the same: or fewer?
8. Once there is a BHA view on optimal horse / owner numbers you can align prize-money to that goal.
9. Without the owners there is no racing. They are the #1 stakeholders in the sport. # treat them better and the sport is strong.
10. Make the lowest place-money at least cover the owner’s costs. Start from that position and work back to win-money.

As you can see, quite a blast of views. Doubtless we’ll be covering them in far more detail through the blog.

I am always interested to hear your views so please do leave a comment. If you can't see the comment box at the bottom of this post then navigate to the post using the right hand navigation or click here > and scroll to the bottom of the page. Look forward to hearing your views. Thanks very much for sharing them.

“Big E” and “Little e” Resolutions for the Racing Industry

Apologies that the blog is a day late. I went to Ffos Las yesterday and underestimated how long it would take. As Jamie Snowden said to me – it’s easy to get there, just head towards Ireland and turn left!

Years ago when working in a huge global company, the CEO told me that every year he made a distinction between “big E” and “little e” projects. I received a pretty withering look when I asked him what that meant. “All that really matters is that you focus on the biggies”. So what would be your “big E” and “little e” resolutions? In this blog I’ll share my views on some of the big ones.

“Big E” racing projects – the ones that would really make a difference 

1.    The racing industry needs to know exactly what their “big E” projects are, and how on earth they can achieve them. At the moment the industry is in a complete strategic mess. The BHA, in particular, has a dismal track record with a long list of failures and weak leadership. Some sort of strategic coalition is needed to weld together all the major parties in order to frame that strategy.

2.    The starting point of the strategy must be far more clarity on precisely how racing should address its deep-seated funding and, in turn, revenue maximisation issues. Yes, you can spend a lot of time bickering and fighting over how to divide a pot, but it is far more constructive to have a strategy that builds a bigger one. Without that, prize money remains on a downward spiral.

3.     Long term (3-5 years +), our greatest asset is the quality, variety and (despite a few high-publicity incidents and the belief of some punters) extremely high level of integrity. The “big E” challenge is how to leverage that asset. One strategy is about capturing a bigger slice of the global betting market and for the profits from that to be channelled into racing, rather than just the pockets of the bookmakers. The industry could set up its own bookmaking venture in conjunction with racecourses (after all, if the BHA hadn’t been so useless, we would have owned the Tote), and then actively compete with bookmakers who continually tell us that racing is no longer that central to their business. We would soon find out whether it is or not. Don’t argue with them, just take them on.

4.     Medium term (1-3 years), levy funding is well past its sell-by date and definitely no longer fit for purpose. It should be scrapped. Equally, the way in which funds are allocated is not meeting the strategic goals of racing, nor the day-to-day requirements of trainers, owners, breeders, customers and bookmakers. One option would be for race meetings to be put into three bands. Group A would consist of the highest quality meetings, on which the brand of racing and the quality of the breed depend. Prize money for all races at these meetings to be well above tariff. Group B, the next tier of meetings, should have prize money at a tariff level agreed with the Horsemen’s Group. Group C fixtures, with the lowliest races acting as betting fodder, should receive no funding at all and be sponsored by the racecourses and bookmakers themselves.

5.     Short term (2013), BHA to drive a strategic planning exercise to a successful conclusion. If they prove incapable of doing that, then heads should roll. One important aspect of the review must also be a fundamental assessment of the costs of running the BHA and the woeful inefficiencies that exist within the transactional side of racing. Anyone who has ever tried to register a racehorse knows what this means in practice. Administration is not joined up, needlessly laborious and the process cost of it is huge. Racing’s bureaucracy needs a wake-up call.

As you can see, a long journey to Ffos Las and back gave me time to think quite deeply about racing. The fact that our horse didn’t run particularly well, and probably has a serious underlying physical problem, put me into a gloomy mood. In the next blog I’ll come back to some of the less weighty issues.