Evesham Road and Philip Byrnes winning at Clonmel© Photo Healy Racing
Last Tuesday was a watershed moment in the history of the Association of Irish Racecourses (AIR) with 5 racecourses breaking away from the other 21 in relation to Media rights for the sport.
The 5 racecourses - Limerick, Thurles, Kilbeggan, Roscommon and Sligo - weren’t happy with their allotted share of the €47 million a year that was negotiated on their behalf by a Horse Racing Ireland subcommittee which would see all Irish racing’s TV coverage remain on RacingTV for a further five years.
The deal these five racecourses have rejected was negotiated on behalf of all 26 by Horse Racing Ireland’s Media Rights Committee and appears to be quite different in many respects to the deals that have gone before. The new five year deal is not a flat fee for TV pictures for each race meeting and is instead based around betting turnover generated by individual race meetings.
According to HRI “there are significant safeguards built into the new arrangements for racecourses with each venue guaranteed its 2022 average per race income in 2024. An easing-in provision has also been included for the first three years of the new deal to assist smaller racecourses as the model moves to a turnover basis. Virtually all racecourses are forecast to achieve higher revenues in 2025 than at present.”
The last sentence of the above quote from Suzanne Eade, CEO of HRI, would suggest that there is a possibility that some racecourses, most likely the type of smaller racecourses that have rejected this deal, could end up receiving less than they currently do per meeting.
The five racecourses that have rejected this deal intend to accept a counter offer reputed to be in the region of €100,000 per meeting from rival broadcasters Attheraces and SkyTV.
Aside from the obvious mess this creates for AIR it appears that HRI are not at all happy with the outcome and that doesn’t bode well for the breakaway group of five racecourses.
The five racecourses cannot under current legislation sign off on a deal with ATR/SkyTV on their own. They will require the HRI Media Rights Committee to engage with ATR/SkyTV on their behalf. This could well reignite one of their initial grievances which was that they consider HRI to be taking too big a cut of the money in the first place.
There is potential for further fallout once the five racecourses have secured their own deal. The breakaway courses will need to mend broken bridges with HRI if they are to function normally going forward. They depend heavily on the support of HRI which subsidises the prize money for each race they run. HRI also determines the fixtures and races they are allocated each year and provides racecourses with Capital Grants for track improvements. It’s no wonder the breakaway group has sought Government intervention.
Another interesting aspect to this squabble is that all the money this row is over is directly related to gambling. In fact all the money the industry receives from both Media Rights and from the Government through the Horse And Greyhound Fund is linked to gambling, yet punters are very much considered second class citizens when it comes to the sport of horse racing.
The racecourses in general bend over backwards to please racehorse owners with free tickets, free lunches, reserved bars, etc, but hardly give a second thought to the punters that actually fund their businesses.
The fact that the new five year Media Rights deal that has caused the split within AIR’s ranks is based around a model whereby “each racecourse (will be) receiving revenues largely derived from the betting turnover on their respective individual fixtures” may finally put a spotlight on the importance of punters for the sport.
With the Media Rights money now linked directly to betting turnover it will be fascinating to see how this influences the type of races scheduled in future years. Racecourses will not be inclined to run non-competitive Stakes races with three or four runners if low-grade handicaps are generating more betting turnover and are ultimately better for their bottom line.
Sticking to betting related matters, Charles Byrnes was slapped with a €6,000 fine and precluded from running his son’s horse Ellaat for 90 days following a running and riding enquiry at Gowran Park on Wednesday. The horse’s rider Gearoid Brouder was also suspended for 21 days after the stewards deemed that both the trainer and jockey “were in breach of Rule 212A(i) in that both were involved in the running and/or riding of a horse in a race, who deliberately or recklessly causes or permitted a horse to run other than on its merits.”
Ellaat shortened from 3/1 to 13/8 with bookmakers on the morning of the race but by the off had drifted back out to an SP of 3/1. The Gowran Park stewards “referred the betting pattern of Ellaat to a Senior racing Official for further investigation.”
24 hours later Byrnes got back the value of his fine when another horse he trains, Evesham Road, was punted from 33/1 in places down to an SP of 5/1 before winning at Clonmel. The Clonmel Racecourse Maiden Hurdle was coincidently worth precisely the same €6,000 to the winner that he had been fined the previous day.
Of course it’s not all plain sailing for gambling yards like that of Charles Byrnes. One hour after Evesham Road landed a touch at Clonmel the stable’s I Am Spider Man (2/1 to 5/4) crashed out at the fifth hurdle and the following day at Kilbeggan Workforadime (25/1 to 100/30) could only finish in sixth place in a Maiden Hurdle.
News from Hong Kong last week that Silvestre De Sousa has been caught up in a betting scandal and banned from riding for 10 months comes as quite a shock. Knowing how lucrative it is for jockeys riding in Hong Kong and how strict the racing authorities are over there in relation to any indiscretions, I found it hard to believe a jockey of his standing would jeopardise it all.
De Sousa pleaded guilty to the charge that he facilitated fellow jockey Vagner Borges (also banned for 12 months) to have a bet on a horse he was riding in a minor race at Happy Valley in April, but the three time British Champion jockey has lodged an appeal against the penalty imposed for his role.
“There was no evidence before the Stewards that Jockeys Borges and De Sousa had ridden their horses in the respective race with any intention other than to obtain the best possible placing for their mounts.” This is an absolute given for Borges who has admitted he backed his own mount.
Imagine if jockeys were permitted to back their own mounts to win, but were simply required to register this interest in advance? It would certainly encourage increased betting turnover on races if we knew a jockey was after having his max on his own mount and it might also help reduce the number of non-triers.
