|
|
 |
| |
|  |
Racing Department's Blog
Welcome to the Racing Department's blog. We will be updating this page on an occasional basis with the latest news, views and developments from the Racing Department at the British Horseracing Authority.
Rescheduling of Races
Ruth Quinn, Director of Racing
9th February 2010
The weather has played havoc with the fixture list since the cold snap hit in mid December. This must be so frustrating for all those who work with, or own, horses and my department has been flat out putting on replacement and new fixtures, as well as looking at the replacement of a number of big races. It seemed apt to use my blog to highlight the process that operates when we’re looking to reschedule races and the complexities that we face in this country.
The rescheduling of a major race lost as a result of a meeting being abandoned occurs increasingly frequently compared with in the past. Indeed, there is a now a general expectation that all such races will be found an alternative venue. Rescheduling requires concerted and coordinated efforts involving all parties associated with the staging of the race. This includes the BHA, the connections of the runners, the Levy Board, the original racecourse and its sponsor, potential new venues and broadcasters.
To reschedule a major race, these parties must successfully address a number of issues within extremely tight timelines and an absence of support from just one of these parties may jeopardise the entire process.
1. IS THE RACE WORTHY OF RESCHEDULING?
When a major race is lost to the weather, the first question that is asked is whether the race is sufficiently important to render it worth rescheduling. This involves consideration of factors such as:
- The longer-term significance of the race
- The strength of runners in the original race
- Whether alternative options already exist in the near future for the affected horses.
As a result of these considerations, Pattern races are almost always the most likely candidates for rescheduling. The associated Black Type status can have a significant impact on the future value of horses, particularly on the Flat, whilst the co-ordinated programme of races within the Pattern means that it is highly unlikely that an alternative race of equal stature is pending.
Conversely, high class Handicap races generally have less long term significance (albeit that their prize money can match or even exceed the levels associated with a Pattern race) and are also programmed far more frequently.
2. IS THERE A FORTHCOMING FIXTURE AT WHICH THE RESCHEDULED RACE COULD BE STAGED?
As well as there being the obvious logistical issues associated with staging an additional fixture at very short notice, with no 'criteria gaps' in the fixture list, it is usually only commercially viable to stage a rescheduled race at a fixture that is already scheduled.
In attempting to identify a possible venue, factors that are taken into consideration include:
- Suitability of the racecourse for staging the race including similarity with the original venue (flat/undulating, left-handed/right-handed)
- Date of the fixture (i.e. proximity to original race)
- Weather forecasts and likely ground conditions
In addressing these issues, the connections of the principal original entrants are consulted to establish their intentions and, more specifically, under what circumstances they would run in the rescheduled race. Clearly the attractiveness of the rearranged event is generally enhanced if it is scheduled at a relatively similar racecourse in the same part of the country, within days of the original race and in reasonable ground conditions.
Discussions also take place at this stage with the possible venues for the rescheduled race to ascertain whether they would be prepared to stage the race at its existing fixture; racecourses generally react positively to such proposals.
3. IS THE NECESSARY FUNDING AVAILABLE TO STAGE THE RACE AT THE ALTERNATIVE VENUE?
The biggest hurdle to overcome when rescheduling a major race invariably relates to securing sufficient funding. In order to get the race run, a pragmatic approach often has to be adopted when determining the prize money value at which the rescheduled event is to be staged.
Regrettably this may involve an amount below the minimum value for the particular class of race. However, there is clearly a level below which the prize money on offer would be so low that the race is no longer viable.
The original racecourse inevitably makes no contribution if the race is subsequently restaged elsewhere, whilst the new venue is unlikely to be in a position to provide any support itself. Hence, the largest single contribution to the prize money (i.e. from the hosting racecourse) is reduced to nothing.
The position of the race sponsor varies, with some sponsors agreeing to retain their support for the race at the new venue, albeit sometimes at a reduced level. For most organisations, this is a commercially based decision and will be affected by factors such as:
- Whether the rescheduled race will be televised.
- Whether the sponsor would still be able to entertain its invited clients at the rescheduled event.
- The identity of existing sponsors at the fixture – this can be particularly significant, for example, if a race originally sponsored by a bookmaker is moved to a fixture that is already sponsored by another bookmaker.
Finding a new sponsor at very short notice is most unlikely. Losing a wealth of major Pattern races from the 2008 York Ebor meeting, for instance, clearly demonstrated to us that the loss of the sponsor’s contribution in each case (in addition to the racecourse’s contribution) would have made it almost impossible to reschedule important Group 1 races such as the Juddmonte International, the Darley Yorkshire Oaks and the Coolmore Nunthorpe with an acceptable level of prize money. Thankfully, in this case the very generous continued support from the respective sponsors enabled us to reschedule the races very quickly.
Owners’ stakes are also likely to be significantly reduced; the standard treatment in Group 1/Grade 1 races is to refund the stakes of those horses which opt not to enter the rescheduled race and, in the event of reduced prize money, to refund an appropriate percentage of stakes paid by those that are entered. In other races, the original stakes for all horses are generally refunded with the entrants for the new race charged a reduced stake (in line with the reduced prize money).
To reschedule the race, it is therefore usually imperative that the Levy Board provides additional funding to the new venue. This is not a straightforward decision for the Levy Board as this may require providing significantly greater support than will be generated in levy by the race itself, especially if it does not prove possible for the race to appear on terrestrial television.
In summary, rescheduling major races is hugely dependent on the ability to raise enough finance to support the race. Without a significant Development Fund to support this process, this usually comes down to the attitude of the Levy Board and race sponsors, and the absence of sufficient support from one, or both, of these parties can make the process unviable.
4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Ensuring that as many people as possible can see the rescheduled race means that, ideally, it would be covered by terrestrial television. As explained above, this can also assist the funding-related challenges by encouraging sponsors to maintain their involvement.
It must be recognised, however, that this objective has to be considered alongside the various factors already mentioned, not least the plans of connections and the willingness, or likely ability, of other racecourses to stage the race. We also need to be aware of the likelihood of prevailing weather conditions causing the loss of other significant upcoming Pattern races and how this might impact on our rescheduling plans.
A related issue is that television schedules may dictate that the rescheduled race could only be televised if coverage of an existing race is dropped. This can have implications for a racecourse and its relationship with an existing sponsor (who expects, or has contracted, to have their race covered on television), and, therefore, can impact upon the racecourse’s willingness, or ability, to stage an additional race.
A separate issue that is sometimes relevant relates to the availability of the leading riders as rescheduling a race at a meeting when the major jockeys are elsewhere may impact upon connections willingness to run their horses.
It is worth noting that Rule F(11), which we introduced in January 2009, now enables an existing race to be cancelled and replaced with a rescheduled race if considered to be in the interests of the sport. This may be necessary if, for example, the racecourse would not have sufficient stabling capacity to facilitate extra races and/or simply would not have the time to stage extra races in addition to their originally scheduled programme. This option, however, should be seen as a last resort.
5. SCHEDULING EXTRA FIXTURES
In addition to rescheduling major races, there are occasions when additional fixtures are created. These usually arise in one of two situations:
- Additional AWT fixtures to replace abandoned Jump fixtures
- Jump Replacement fixtures following a spate of abandonments
Throughout the winter the Racing Department is constantly monitoring weather forecasts and contacting racecourses, when necessary, to discuss their prospects of racing. When the outlook for Jumping appears bleak, the Levy Board is contacted with a view to providing financial support for additional AWT fixtures.
The Levy Board’s position is that it is keen to ensure that at least two fixtures take place each afternoon. Throughout the core winter period, one AWT fixture is scheduled every afternoon and, therefore, if Jump fixtures are (or look like) being abandoned, the Levy Board would usually make the finance available for a second AWT fixture. This usually totals around £35,000 per fixture (£25,000 for prize money and £10,000 towards assisting the racecourse with the cost of staging a meeting at short notice) and, on this basis, the Levy Board is certain that these fixtures are levy positive.
Although the Levy Board is prepared to make the finance available, it is most unlikely that the Flat horse population would be able to support this volume of additional fixtures on a daily basis for a prolonged period. With a view to providing the most competitive racing possible, the Racing Department scan the latest horses-in-training data and review recent races that have involved eliminating horses so that it can determine just how many additional fixtures Racing could facilitate and the particular races to programme. As a result, in practice, a variety of measures would be considered and may include:
- Only staging additional fixtures towards the end of the week (Saturday, Friday and, possibly, Thursday) when betting turnover is at its highest.
- Staging additional AWT cards as Mixed Meetings, including NH Flat races.
- Starting scheduled Twilight fixtures earlier so that they dovetail with the afternoon fixture.
Once emerging from a period of numerous Jump abandonments, as we are now, the Racing Department is also likely to seek to stage a number of Jump Replacement fixtures to provide some additional opportunities for horses which have been unable to race in the previous weeks.
Previously the Levy Board would sanction the funding for such fixtures only once 50 fixtures had been abandoned during the levy year (i.e. 1st April to 31st March). The current Levy Board executive has indicated that it will adopt a more pragmatic approach, supporting such fixtures providing they are programmed in slots that would maximise levy returns.
Once the funding has been made available, the Racing Department invites all Jump racecourses to apply to stage these fixtures. Following consultation with the Inspectorate, the fixtures are then allocated with a view to providing opportunities in those regions particularly impacted by abandonments, and/or those regions to which the greatest number of trainers are likely to have access. The programmes for these fixtures are put together with considerable care following a review of the latest relevant data and discussions with trainers.
In exceptional circumstances, additional measures are employed if these are considered to be practicable, and in the interests of the sport. These have included:
- Delaying a Jump fixture that would have been abandoned on a Friday afternoon so that it can take place 24 hours later, with weather conditions improving, thereby providing a Jump fixture on a Saturday afternoon that would otherwise comprise solely of AWT racing.
- During a prolonged cold snap, contacting all Jump racecourses at the beginning of the week to ascertain whether the conditions in any part of the country are less extreme, thereby making it possible to stage a Jump fixture on the Saturday afternoon. This approach was adopted in January 2009 and resulted in the creation of an extra fixture at Ayr on an afternoon when all other Jump venues were unraceable, and was also done last week, although we ended up losing the two new fixtures to the weather as well!
It is important to note that the creation of an extra fixture or any similar measure is always undertaken on the basis that it is in the best interests of the sport rather than simply responding to an ad-hoc request from a racecourse, which would be unmanageable and, possibly, only in the interests of the racecourse itself.
6. CONCLUSION
Co-operation and co-ordinated efforts have resulted in major races being rescheduled and additional fixtures created. Indeed, with reference to the former, there is now an expectation that this will happen on every occasion that a meeting involving such a race is abandoned.
I hope this highlights the various issues that have to be addressed to facilitate a rearranged race and, more specifically, how easily the entire process can be de-railed as a result of a decision from just one stakeholder.
|
|
|
