I AM reliably informed, by those who have done it, that in racing the only thrill that is bigger than taking the bookies for a small fortune is that of losing a big fortune owning racehorses.
Punter eternal that I am, I never could see the attraction of ownership, as I bravely told some of the leading lights from the Racehorse Owners' Association when they held their first council meeting north of the Border at Kelso last week. Why did it take you 60 years to get here, guys?
According to ROA members and the Racing Post's supplement on ownership, which appeared on the day as the Kelso meeting, apparently there is no feeling quite like watching the horse that you own winning a race, be it a banded stakes at Wolverhampton or the Epsom Derby.
With the blue riband less than a week away, some owners are even now laying out their best morning dress for the big day. They will be at Epsom in the best seats other than the Royal Box, simply because they own a horse which is taking part in the meeting.
That always seemed to me to be the only advantage of owning a horse: you get into the course free, if your prized possession/scrofulous nag - delete as appropriate - is running. You may also get some inside information from your trainer on 'a sure thing', but as one Scottish handler pointed out to me last week, if every 'sure thing' in racing was indeed a certainty, why was he still a trainer when he could be retired to some sun-drenched tax haven?
As an owner, you will also get a delicious free meal at Ayr racecourse, but is that any compensation for watching your 'sure thing' -- running in your colours and on which you have bet a large sum - being soundly beaten by a 50-1 outsider, as happened to some owners at Ayr on Thursday? And indeed, for some owners the joy of ownership never encompasses victory, and they spend a lot of money to appreciate the philosophical delights of losing.
The point about ownership is that unless you are in a syndicate, buying a horse and funding its training fees can be very expensive. You will easily pay 50,000 guineas for a decent handicapper these days, and training can cost anywhere north of £20,000 per tail with some leading Newmarket trainers. Such costs are the reason why even supposedly- wealthy individuals are forming syndicates.
Most owners go into racing with an acceptance that they are likely to lose money. Most will also tell you that it is their hobby, and they are happy to pay up. But that is no excuse for the current situation in Britain, where prize-money is so low in many races that the vast majority of owners have no chance of breaking even, never mind making a mint. Yes, there is the occasional lucky sod who lands a Classic with a colt or filly from the bargain basemen - such as Speciosa, which cost €25,000 as a yearling - but such 'touches' are few and far between.
The ROA have long campaigned for a general increase in prize-money, and promises of improvements were made from Britain's racecourses. What happened, though, was that prize-money fell by £8m between 2003 and 2004, while courses tried to plug gaps left by the collapse of their satellite television deal. It led to severe fallings-out between the ROA and the racecourses.
Prize levels are only now recovering, and the ROA and the Racecourse Association seem to be working together better, at least in Scotland, though a rift still exists over plans to move to a 48-hour declaration system, which would earn British courses millions from overseas broadcasters. The owners want their cut of the new cash, and a deal to guarantee that money is in the offing, but the ROA and RCA remain at loggerheads.
Alas, the one sector of racing who should be paying up to increase prize-money are collectively sitting on their fat wallets. Despite their soaring profits, the big bookmakers have not increased their input into racing sponsorship by anything like the same percentage by which earnings have risen. Indeed, the bookmakers crow that racing's share of the betting market turnover is significantly down: those dreadful fixed odds betting terminals, or addiction machines, in bookies' shops have seen to that.
Sponsorship of races is perhaps the most effective way of ensuring that owners get the chance to win some of their money back, but it has been left to the Tote and some independent and online bookmakers to put new money into sponsoring races, while the big bookmakers have not increased their sponsorship budgets in line with their massively growing income.
As one ROA council member told me: "We helped them in their campaign to have betting shops open in the evening, but there has been no quid pro quo."
It seems that the big bookies are happy to take the profits provided for them - if you look at it logically - by racehorse owners. After all, no owners means no horses, no racing and no betting. The bookies should realise that, and support the owners via generous sponsorship.
source : scotlandonsunday.com
