Small fields

[Supermaster]

A good example today:
Kempton 7 races good going 33 runners (as of now)
Cork 7 races good going 88 runners
Not much difference in total prize money.

How have we got to this and can it be sorted out?

 

[Zachx02]

A good example today:
Kempton 7 races good going 33 runners (as of now)
Cork 7 races good going 88 runners
Not much difference in total prize money.

How have we got to this and can it be sorted out?

Too many low quality meetings, in Ireland they only have 1 flat and 1 NH meeting a day here sometimes we end up having 5-6 of the same

 

[FinalFurlong91]

How many more tracks and meetings are there in England?

 

[opatcho]

Aleatoric runs in this 2 mile listed race at Kempton
Rated 87, opportunity to walk around and pick up ?2,132

 

[Quevega]

How many more tracks and meetings are there in England?

approximately 60 in UK
28 I think in Ire & NI.

There are some close together in the UK that should get closed IMO. You don't need 3 or 4 courses within 50 miles of each other if they are low grade.
Stratford, Warwick, Ludlow Hereford & Worcester are all close together with Cheltenham not far, at least 2 of these could go and we wouldn't notice.
Catterick is another one in a well served area that wouldn't be missed by many.

Enabling/Propping up, non profit making aspects of a trade/Sport for sentimental reasons does not serve the Sport best.
Just weakens the whole lot.
Cut off the bits that are rotting and move on.
That's my Motto.

 

[Quevega]

Ludlow is a prime example.
They have approx 21 meetings allocated per year, and only one at a weekend.
The annual attendance figures are approx 25000.
That's just over 1000 per meeting on average.
Whats the fucking point in that.

Hereford approx 12 fixtures, average about 900 people at each.

 

[Supermaster]

Too many low quality meetings, in Ireland they only have 1 flat and 1 NH meeting a day here sometimes we end up having 5-6 of the same

Yes fair point I checked the first week of jumps meetings after the flat ends (Nov 7-13) and there were 17 British jumps meetings and only 6 Irish meetings. The UK is bigger of course with it's own particular racing regions (applies to Ireland as well) but I don't think this is such an issue in flat racing.

 

[Outlaw]

The 1.00 at Exeter Tuesday is now a novice hcap instead of a beginners chase and still attracts a mighty lineup of a match... that’s been a good condition switch then...... , thou you can't blame the BHA for changing it to try to attract what has been a poorly attending race.

 

[Mighty]

Plumpton has 3 runners in the 3.40 novices chase tomorrow. What’s the point? I love Plumpton, lovely little course, but some of these meetings need to be combined for bigger fields. Sedgefield and Kempton today both had small fields of 3/4/5 runners - does racing a disservice.

 

[Winging The Last]

The way I see the issue is that there are too many meetings per day and too many racecourses. Obviously the reason why there are so many meetings is because all of these courses need to have the meetings in the first place to keep the course going. By having so many meetings the number of horses is spread very thinly over too many races for the number of horses we have in the sport over on this side of the Irish sea.

Also the more races you have the less money each race has in terms of prize money. The way I understand it is that most prize money comes out of one centralized pot, meaning the more races the less prize money each race gets. Winning a race and only getting 2k isn't even enough to pay the fees for that horse for the year. Surely at least getting one win a year should be enough to fund that year in training for the horse. Then you also look at the other end of the spectrum and the races at the Cheltenham Festival don't have as much prize money as they should. I'm sure that the Dublin Racing festival nearly has or does have just as much prize money than the pinnacle of our sport. (I'm sure that novice hurdles have bigger prize pots than their equivalents at the festival, the supreme etc). Winning a race at the festival should way surpass the winnings of any equivalent race on our calendar.

If you compare the number of races in this country to that of Ireland and France, it shows you how much prizemoney would increase by reducing the number of races and that in turn would lead to bigger fields because of less races and bigger pots.

 

[Quevega]

The way I see the issue is that there are too many meetings per day and too many racecourses. Obviously the reason why there are so many meetings is because all of these courses need to have the meetings in the first place to keep the course going. By having so many meetings the number of horses is spread very thinly over too many races for the number of horses we have in the sport over on this side of the Irish sea.

Also the more races you have the less money each race has in terms of prize money. The way I understand it is that most prize money comes out of one centralized pot, meaning the more races the less prize money each race gets. Winning a race and only getting 2k isn't even enough to pay the fees for that horse for the year. Surely at least getting one win a year should be enough to fund that year in training for the horse. Then you also look at the other end of the spectrum and the races at the Cheltenham Festival don't have as much prize money as they should. I'm sure that the Dublin Racing festival nearly has or does have just as much prize money than the pinnacle of our sport. (I'm sure that novice hurdles have bigger prize pots than their equivalents at the festival, the supreme etc). Winning a race at the festival should way surpass the winnings of any equivalent race on our calendar.

If you compare the number of races in this country to that of Ireland and France, it shows you how much prizemoney would increase by reducing the number of races and that in turn would lead to bigger fields because of less races and bigger pots.

I agree.
It seems that some more sentimental types would baulk at the idea of a cull of the lesser racecourses around the country.

But I think as long as they close the right courses strategically then fans of the Sport should not suffer and still have a local track to go racing.
The tracks that stay open should benefit from more attractive race meets and attendances should improve.

The filteration should do what you describe, increase the number of runners and competitiveness of the racing, including more accurate handicapping, and increase in prize money.
The tracks that are forced to close could be given plenty of notice and help financially, but thats would be for the number crunchers. Yes, people would lose jobs, but this is life, and jobs may be created at other tracks if attendances increase pro rata, due to the better undiluted product getting more take up.

The number of horses in training argument does not stack up and I doubt they would need to kill the lower grade animals like some have suggested in previous discussions on this topic, as there are plenty of spaces in the races being run at the moment and no fucker is running them. Same with the breeding industry, it just doesn't relate IMO.

 

[Captain Chris]

Completely agree with what's been written. I've only become really interested in the sport in the last 10 years, but it's amazed me how many decisions are made to water down the sport and make it less of a spectacle. I read a quote in the Henderson stable tour that went along the lines of "really like the horse, could be special, hope we find a nice, easy race next time". Sums it all up to me! If someone with the best ammunition wants to have a walkover, then I wonder what the tier two trainers look for.

When a UK track somehow manages to attract a half decent field (16 runners or so), they try and split the race in two :cower: It completely baffles me! Off the top of my head, the worst example of this was the October Chepstow bumper last year. Knappers Hill won a 4 runner race (9 non-runners) at 2/5 and Flying Sara won a 4 runner race (8 non runners) at 4/1. 25 runner bumpers aren't really necessary, but the following day Newton Abbot had a bumper and on the Tuesday Hereford had one.

This week has, ignoring low grade handicaps, seen/will see 8 novice chase opportunities.
Monday - Plumpton 2m4 (3 runners)
Tuesday - Exeter 2m2 (2)
Thursday - Ludlow 2m (5), Carlisle 2m4 (3)
Friday - Cheltenham 2m (5), 2m4 (5)
Saturday - Cheltenham 3m
Sunday - Aintree 3m

One race over each of the 3 distances would have been sufficient. As we move into the NH season proper, maybe having 2 options a week is the ideal number.

If it's not averaging 8+ runners over a 3 year period, the race should be culled in my opinion.

In simple terms, I'd be halving the number of races and doubling the prize money (appreciate that it probably isn't that simple).

The amount of time I spend daydreaming about the changes I'll make when I finally get to be head of UK race planning...

 

[Quevega]

Completely agree with what's been written. I've only become really interested in the sport in the last 10 years, but it's amazed me how many decisions are made to water down the sport and make it less of a spectacle. I read a quote in the Henderson stable tour that went along the lines of "really like the horse, could be special, hope we find a nice, easy race next time". Sums it all up to me! If someone with the best ammunition wants to have a walkover, then I wonder what the tier two trainers look for.

When a UK track somehow manages to attract a half decent field (16 runners or so), they try and split the race in two :cower: It completely baffles me! Off the top of my head, the worst example of this was the October Chepstow bumper last year. Knappers Hill won a 4 runner race (9 non-runners) at 2/5 and Flying Sara won a 4 runner race (8 non runners) at 4/1. 25 runner bumpers aren't really necessary, but the following day Newton Abbot had a bumper and on the Tuesday Hereford had one.

This week has, ignoring low grade handicaps, seen/will see 8 novice chase opportunities.
Monday - Plumpton 2m4 (3 runners)
Tuesday - Exeter 2m2 (2)
Thursday - Ludlow 2m (5), Carlisle 2m4 (3)
Friday - Cheltenham 2m (5), 2m4 (5)
Saturday - Cheltenham 3m
Sunday - Aintree 3m

One race over each of the 3 distances would have been sufficient. As we move into the NH season proper, maybe having 2 options a week is the ideal number.

If it's not averaging 8+ runners over a 3 year period, the race should be culled in my opinion.

In simple terms, I'd be halving the number of races and doubling the prize money (appreciate that it probably isn't that simple).

The amount of time I spend daydreaming about the changes I'll make when I finally get to be head of UK race planning...

Ahem !
Assistant to the Assistant head

 

[Supermaster]

Interesting point that larger fields would lead to "more accurate handicapping"
Though hard to test it does seem to me that certain horses can handle the hurly burly of large fields better than others - I think this applies to flat races like the Hunt Cup and the Cambridgeshire - so I look for a horse that has run well in a big field in the past in those races.

Most of the festival races are big fields, esp the handicaps, so it helps if a horse has more experience in those kinds of races.