There is a misconception that media rights deals, that have provided non stop greyhound action both online and within the retail market, has brought untold wealth to the promoters who signed long term contracts to provide greyhound racing from their tracks.
On the face of it multi million pound contracts should lead to at least a level of income that would ensure promoters were comfortable and the struggles they endured to get to this point were a distant memory.
Well the real situation is somewhat different and certainly working in the politically charged environment of the greyhound industry has opened my eyes to the trials and tribulations that beset these individuals as they try and balance the needs of their businesses with the demands made upon them from the industry stakeholders.
Trainers have undoubtedly been the greatest beneficiaries of the media rights battle. They are now courted by tracks in the same way footballers are and financially, in terms of retainers and bonus payments, have seen their lot improve dramatically. Not only are they in high demand they can actually make a good living from the sport and long may that continue.
On course bookmakers have also been the recipients of windfall payments from promoters. Tracks that two years ago would not dream of paying a bookmaker to stand have to do so now. The media contract requires the return of an SP and therefore promoters have to ensure it happens even though some meetings are so sparsely attended it is not financially viable for a bookmaker to stand. That comes at a significant cost.
Substantial prize money increases have been made to encourage owners and their dogs to stay at their respective tracks given the unpopular race scheduling that the media contracts require and to attract new dogs to meet the demands of a more challenging race programme.
The cost of all of this runs into millions of pounds and is set against a backdrop of reducing attendance generating reduced turnover, revenue and income but wait there’s more. The industry itself wants to take a share and that share is rapidly increasing putting the promoter in an unenviable position.
It is not commonly known but the GBGB charge all licensed tracks £45 for every race that is broadcast live. This charge is called a special licence fee and it is not capped. Therefore if a track races seven times a week, as some do, the annual figure could be nearly £200,000.
In addition to this every track uses Formnet. This is the industry system that produces race cards and populates the GBGB data base and is charged at £150 per meeting for the privilege. Using the example of a track racing seven times a week this would amount to £55,000 a year. The explanation given is that there is a cost in maintaining and developing the system but the level of income generated by this charge has never been justified by BAGS the owners of the software.
The latest industry generated charge is the capping, by the BGRF, of money allocated to a graded greyhound. Prior to January this year every greyhound received £5 per run and this contribution was made to assist the greyhound owner and trainer through to the greyhounds retirement.
It would appear that because of lack of bookmaker voluntary contributions that mission statement has now become redundant and the £5 payment has been capped at 336 runs per week. Therefore if the payment was maintained by the promoter to every runner, which as I understand it is, the cost of this could be another £40,000 on the bottom line. A policy recommended to the BGRF by the GBGB without consultation and without explanation.
There are a myriad of other charges made by the GBGB such as track licences, staff licences and trainer licences etc and therefore one has to question whether promoters get value for money? I ask this because you don’t need to be an accountant to determine that there is a very fine line between profit and loss in this scenario. The massive investment a promoter has to make needs to be balanced against the income received from the media rights deal and that can be extremely tricky.
It doesn’t help that industry bodies place more and more of a financial burden on the ever decreasing number of licensed tracks without justification or concern for their financial well being. Perhaps they don’t feel it’s necessary or they too are under the misconception that track promoters can afford it. The cake is only so big let’s hope their share will leave more than just crumbs for the promoters.
Anybody wishing to support or challenge Barry’s views is always welcome to do so:
Ed
