Thinking Twice

Jap - I am also very interested in how the income flows and what actually goes back to racing. Eg Is money earned on international races channeled back to local racing or is this being syphoned out of our local pools. Is the Soccer 6 contributing to racing or is this being syphoned out of our local horseracing pools? If it is, then owners should be making a noise about this not about bookie operations.

Barry,

i understand your theory and of course you are correct that "live racing" needs to be invigorated. But my point is a few years ago my when my father left Europe and went to Africa he wrote his mother once a week and phoned once a year. A mere 50 years later he phoned here weekly and a mere 10 years later i now in Europe spek to him daily and see him on my laptop and he sees me.
The same applies to punting wisdom, a few years ago a "bookmaker" could offer up a book of 140% and get away with it, he could offer 7/10 about a team that was 9/10 overseas and people accepted it. But the world she is smaller and people now talk to each other, there are only 2 things keeping sa bookmakers alive.

1: Credit 9and weekly settling)
2: FICA

But please believe me once betfair overcome the foreign exchange monopoly control bookmakers in sa will start to cease. Punters will no longer need to take 12/10 about a 6/1 Mike de Kock horse running abroad.........

Easy, I understand all that.

But the sport of racing to be viable cannot take place in a vacuum. There has to be a real live, vibrant event and only people at the track can do this.

Credit is a very strong lure, especially for gamblers, both of the addicted and casual variety, because the sickies are ill and the casual players are optimistic. So they take the credit, the sickies hoping against hope they can pay it back, and the casual types getting off on the risk of it all.

So without some sport, all we are left with is a bunch of punters in trouble or looking for some!

It may be shocking to some of you, but there are people out there interested in more than placing bets with bookies!

Lots of good posts on a subject on which there will never be any agreement.
Several thoughts,1 nobody compels anybody to own horses.2 If you believe that you will make profits rather try some other avenue for your energy.
One can get lucky and buy a champion and get huge offers and sell,but over 10 or 20 years this will not happen too often.Before De Kock and Dubai horses from the RSA were really only sold to Mauritius due to AHS, and not the best horses.
Regarding the tote and stakes.
Can anybody give the % of tote turnover returned in stakes for Gold Circle and Phumelela.
In the days of seperate Race Clubs Milnerton paid a greater % than Kenilworth and both paid more in % than Natal and Transvaal clubs.Of course their turnover was far greater so their stakes were higher.

Geri says:

"Of course their turnover was far greater so their stakes were higher."

What has happend to this turnover? Has it gone away or is it now being spent with bookmakers instead of the tote? A pathetic stakes agreement by Gold Circle, guarantees the Cape stakes at 6% below that of KZN without taking the turnovers into account. My info is currently that the Cape makes up only 29% of the GC turnover. This is the main contributer to no stakes increase for GC. Niarac was about to do something about this and .............is no more.

Cape racing is perceived as crooked hence poor turnovers.

Not true, but the Cape has absolutely no reason to be bothered with the tote. Why should they, it does not affect their stakes.

Oh so only people who are interested in providing stake money for the owners bet on the tote?

So if I understand the last few posts correctly, turnover generated by a particular meeting is paid to the centre where this meeting is hosted i.e. A punter has a bet on a Phumelela Tote in JHB; this forms part of the turnover and GC claims this turnover as their own. Therefore if there is a Ken meeting and Turfies meeting on the same day, which happens often, GC sucks the hind teet.

I am not sure if its a timing thing, but I also notice that the Tuesday Cape meeting has been replaced by Turfies. Does this happen every year at this time or has GC land lost this day?

P and GC has an agreement, based on turnovers. In terms of this agreement P get +-60% of the takeout, whilst GC obviously get +- 40%. This "profit" is used to fund the entire racing industry. Bookmakers make a very small contribution, and so does Betfair, but it is small compared to the tote take-out.

With their +- 40% GC funds the entire racing operation of KZN and the Cape. In terms of a stakes agreement between GC and Cape racing, the Cape stakes will at all times be KZN stakes minus 6 %. When this agreement was concluded the turnover split between KZN and the Cape was +- 55%/45%. This turnover split has changed to where it currently stands at KZN 71% and the Cape 29%. GC can not do anything about stakes as an example as at the time of the original agreement it was not linked to turnover. If it was the situation would not have deteriorated to the extend that it has. In simple language Cape racing as it currently stands is a bancrupt business, kept alive by KZN subsidising it.

So nagboy, it is the entire racing operation in the Cape that is currently HEAVILY subsidised by KZN, not only stakes. The fact that stakes was never linked to turnover is the major cause of this. I believe that the Cape could be the leaders in promoting bookmaker betting, the open bet etc. It would have been no problem if their stakes was linked to their tote turnover as by now they would be racing for +- R 20,000-00 for Maiden Races. Now that would have caused a major revolution..................

I can hear people saying that if that ever happened that they would run to Phumelela......, and therein may just lie the main reasons for the recent troubles in GC. So, nagboy, it is not as simple as you are trying to make it. GC or let's say KZN is subsidising the Cape racing with big money each month. Cutting the stakes in Cape Town in line with performance , will start adressing the problem. How do they increase their turnover performance? Read what Barry Irwin has to say in this tread.

Alcaponee, what basically happen is that P and GC split the take-out on a percentage basis. In terms of this split each operator has a number of race meetings that they have to have. When it is a P meeting GC still gets their agreed split, but as the overheads and stakes are paid by P for the day, GC makes a handsome profit. The next day when it is a GC meeting the process is reversed and P makes the nice profit.

Each of the operators have a minimum number of meetings that they have to have each year in terms of the agreement. So, although it suits an operator ito profit to cancell their meeting, they can not do so, as they have a commitment ito the number of meetings.

sharkie i have been told that whatever turnover is done in phum region they benefit solely and likewise in gc country..apparently the 60 40 agreement is about telebetting on line betting etc...i stand to correction on this and would be grateful for an official statement regarding this issue