End of Live Racing on Terrestial TV?

masterK

It's looking like Channel 4 will cease showing horse racing from the end of this year. They had been looking to be payed £8 million a year to continue showing it.

This will have major reprocussions for the whole of racing, not to mention all of us racing fans. With so little high quality racing on AtTheRaces the only option will be to pay €30 a month for Racing UK. BBC will probably still show the same amount of racing as they do now.

Has anybody actually subscribed to RUK? Can't see myself ever forking out that much when I'm only around to watch it on weekends and evenings during the summer.

The thought of not being able to watch any racing on a Saturday is not very appealing. This will be extremely damaging for the sport since a lot of sponsorship and betting revenue will be lost.

fr wishy washy

considering the amount of money involved this is a complete farce.

bookmakers income from the "saturday tv punter" alone would cover it about 10 times over.

make no mistake folks we will all (in ordinary tv land) miss it

decies

what i will say is that At The Races deserve great applauds in covering irish racing ,mind u not everybody has digital tv. Fortunatly it is free on ntl digital which i have.Actually watching the punchestown sat evening meeting on at the races website as i type this. :rolleyes:

Morgans

At the races arent covering Irish racing for the good of their health. Became crucial to the company when most of the Grade 1 tracks signed up for Racing UK.

decies

Well its still great coverage none the less and unlike Racing Uk not a subscription channel.We should be supporting irish racing first anyway since most of the best jockeys and horses are irish.

pro_gnostic_8

Can I ask why it is expected that UK bookmakers should be obliged to pay Channel 4 eight million for the priviledge of terrestrial horseracing coverage. They already pay SIS a substantial sum for a live feed to facilitate their shop customers. By definition, stay-at-home racing fans who watch Ch4 are not betting shop habitues and so are of fringe benefit to the betting shop proprietor. Why should the betting shop industry underwrite the armchair punter? Also the Betting shops in the English high street now gain their largest margins from FOTB's (roulette machines, etc) and their least from horseracing. This eight million contribution was always going to be a non-starter.

And why should the racecourses pay Channel 4 and in return suffer a loss of revenue from a resultant drop in attendance figures. Remember RUK channel PAY the racecourses for the faculty to transmit pictures .......... not the other way around.

Anyway, when the agreement is terminated, it is looking likely that BBC will take on most of the larger meetings for no charge so terrestrial might not be finished just yet. And yes, I too am grateful for ATR's Irish coverage.

goin'_to_the_PS

we'll i won't miss it, attheraces is far superior imo

masterK

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

we'll i won't miss it, attheraces is far superior imo

It's not a question of which is superior, the problem is that AtTheRaces show very little of the better quality meetings, especially during the summer. Saturday afternoon just gone was a good example, while C4 showed Doncaster and Goodwood, ATR were showing a very poor card from Hexham.

The big problem is that lack of terrestial TV coverage will lead to a major loss in race sponsorship which in turn will affect prize money and ultimately the quality of the racing.

pro_gnostic_8

masterK wrote:

The big problem is that lack of terrestial TV coverage will lead to a major loss in race sponsorship

I have still to be convinced that a loss in in sponsorship is the inevitable corollary of a lessening in TV coverage. Sponsorship of Irish racing is well on par with the UK (taking into account per capita figures) and yet RTE only covers 22 meetings in a year.

masterK

Some interesting quotes from todays Racing Post regarding sponsorship

Lack of coverage on Channel 4 will have huge repercussions on sponsorship in racing, as underlined by Nigel Payne, spokesman for Bonusprint and Tripleprint, who sponsored the card at Sandown on Monday.

Payne said: “We would not sponsor this meeting next year if it’s not on Channel 4 – and remember we sponsor the whole day.”

In addition, representatives of the major bookmakers on Monday all admitted that their sponsorship programmes were subject to change in the event of terrestrial coverage on Saturdays being curtailed from 2006.

David Hood of William Hill said: "Should Saturday terrestrial racing coverage be cut back in 2006, our sponsorship of races will be under consideration.

"For sponsored races not connected to commercial deals with racecourses, like the Tingle Creek at Sandown and Sprint Trophy at York, there could be implications in the event of Channel 4 pulling out.

"As a sponsor, you want maximum exposure for your bucks - and terrestrial coverage is certainly a factor.

"I am not suggesting a wholesale pullout of our sponsored Saturday races in the event of Channel 4 quitting, but we are constantly under pressure from our marketing department.

"With so many alternatives nowadays, they are always breathing down our necks, as they see more obvious returns and opportunities in other sports."

Simon Clare of Coral is well aware of the potential clash between his firm's flagship Saturday-sponsored race, the Eclipse, and Wimbledon Ladies' Final day, should Sandown's Group 1 be a target for the BBC.

He said: "We have a small but high-quality race-sponsorship portfolio, and a number of our feature races do take place on Saturdays, most of which are currently on Channel 4, notably the Eclipse.

"Our sponsorship of races is always under review and terrestrial coverage is an important aspect. It is a prerequisite with the Eclipse, and we've always taken it for granted.

"We have a contract with Sandown until 2006 and this year will be our 30th anniversary, so we'd rather concentrate on celebrating that.

"Whatever happens, we won't pull the plug left, right and centre. Let'snot panic unduly."

Damian Walker of Totesport said: "We remain committed to British racing and British racecourses, but our commercial relationship with racecourses, incorporating sponsorship contributions, is constantly under review.

"Obviously, should Channel 4 cease coverage of racing, that will be a factor as to the nature of our future sponsorship programme."

fade2black

I love watching people shooting themselves in the foot.

pro_gnostic_8

masterK, I have read the Racing Post article a few times now and can only find one instance of a sponsor (the Bonusprint franchise that doesn't have a real synergy anyway with racing or racing fans) who is adamant about withdrawing their sponsorship. The likes of David Hood of Hills was less committal ( a lot less so). And, Coral's Simon Clare says:- "Whatever happens, we won't pull the plug left, right and centre. Let'snot panic unduly." . I am also certain that there will be no difficulty finding a replacement sponsor when (if) Bonusprint do withdraw their support.

It needs to be said that the captive viewing audience for Channel 4 racing in the UK is actually quite small. Whether we like to admit it or not, televised racing is a niche market comprised overwhelming of betting/punting race-fans who are already quite au fait with whoever sponsors the larger races ......... i.e., they know that the Epsom derby is the Vodaphone Derby and the Leopardstown Gold Cup is the "Hennessy" Gold Cup. Not that these viewers actually care anyway ........... and very few non-racing people will settle down for an afternoon of televised racing. So very little gain for the advertisers/sponsors there. The real Titans of the advertising campaigns on channels such as ATR are the "Ocean Finance" operators and credit betting firms who offer products of interest to the gambling enthusiast.

Greyhound racing, a sport with amongst the largest attendance figures in the country, has for years attracted very large sponsorship while offering virtually no television coverage. Similarly with quite a few other sports. Glanbia pours a small fortune in sponsorship in to horseracing at Gowran without a single meeting being televised. The purpose of the sponsoring companies is to pander to and ingratiate themselves with a specific target public that has a shared interest with the sponsor (horsefeed, four-by-four utility vehicles, drink, etc)) . And also of course it is an opportunity for said companies to wine and dine their VIP customers/clients in a pleasurable environment. Television coverage is a secondary consideration.

Finally, the savvy stay-at-home gambler nowadays does his punting on the exchanges. So, in light of this I have to repeat the question as to why should the Bookmakers be expected to donate 8 million to CH 4. Wouldn't it be much more appropriate for Betfair to come across with an offer.

Sorry for appearing so argumentative ............ it's just a debate

decies

I see attheraces are showing royal ascot or royal york :eek:
And for the latest on the topic::http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/horse_racing/4587785.stm

masterK

On the point of sponsorship, put yourself in the position of a current race sponsor. For races you sponsor you currently have an audience of let's say 100,000 people (not sure of the actual figure), you are now faced with the prospect of that audience being diminished to just the numbers that are actually on course, that would have to make any sponsor rethink.

The bigger races such as the Derby will always be OK for sponsorship because of they will always be televised. It's the general saturday afternoon racing that will feel the brunt.

I would view the Irish and English situations as completely different as racing is less of a minority sport in Ireland, it enjoys a much higher profile in Ireland. Just look at the amount of TD's that turn up at racing here as opposed to MP's that go racing in the UK.

I think the bookmakers position on sponsorship is slightly different, did you ever notice the types of races they usually sponsor, usuaully 20 or 30 runner handicaps. These types of races are their biggest earners so are more than happy to sponsor them.

I agree that C4 looking for £8 million is redicolous and should not be given into. The funny thing is that they claim that the lost £4 million from racing and think they could make another £4 million by replacing racing with something else, I never thought showing a 1950's black and white movie could bring in such revenue.

CiaranC

Finally, the savvy stay-at-home gambler nowadays does his punting on the exchanges. So, in light of this I have to repeat the question as to why should the Bookmakers be expected to donate 8 million to CH 4. Wouldn't it be much more appropriate for Betfair to come across with an offer.

Having worked in a call centre for a major bookmaker, I can assure you that turnover is vastly increased both there and on the web when there is live racing on terrestial TV.

pro_gnostic_8

Fair 'nuff, Ciaran, but you will agree that those races covered by terrestrial TV are of a much higher grade than the normal fare. Punters are always more inclined to bet on a Grade 1 race at Donny than a Banded race at Wolverhampton. Indeed, I have to agree that turnover will increase for televised races but the big winners in all this are the exchanges. Most of those stay-at-home horse players who have credit accounts with a Bookmaker will also have a Betfair/Betdaq account. I have a Vic Chandler account because they "sponsor" my RUK subscription but my main betting is done on the exchanges. So why isn't there a greater demand for Betfair to underwrite Channel 4 instead of expecting the Bookies to do so?

pro_gnostic_8

masterK wrote:

The funny thing is that they claim that the lost £4 million from racing and think they could make another £4 million by replacing racing with something else,

Unfortunately mK, the bald economics of the situation might just suggest that they are correct in this claim. The audience figures for TV horseracing are simply not sufficient to achieve break-even profitability for a non-State run terrestrial broadcaster. It would seem that RUK had the correct and only workable business model -- you have to charge for live horseracing to make it pay. It's the way of the world .......... even the large viewership sports are moving towards pay-to-view.(Rupert Murdoch's march towards world domination!) And lets not kid ourselves that ATR is free -- it's not! ATR is part-owned by SKY and you need a valid subscription card (ATR being encrypted) to watch, and this entails paying a monthly scrip to recieve the SKY package.

If only RUK could force its way onto the Freeview platform we might have a dependable and comprehensive coverage of quality live racing. But you'll still have to pay.

CiaranC

Fair point Gnostic, but theres no doubt that TV pictures are a factor in the increased turnover, and not only for top quality racing.

Comparing how busy the bookies are even on weekday nights with Sky Sports coverage of Wolver, Cartmel & Beverley with the nights they arent on shows this to be fairly apparent.

The casual weekend gambler wont pay a subscription for racing, nor will they bet if they cant watch their race.

It lowers the whole profile of the sport, which is fairly damaging.

Anyway, the post has news that C4s deadline for agreement has been extended, so maybe they will reach a compromise.