JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, March 15, 2025

Money matters for revival of local horse racing

by

Andre E Baptiste
2013 days ago
20190911
Andre Baptiste

Andre Baptiste

The fifth and fi­nal nom­i­na­tion for the Trinidad Der­by takes place to­day and if, as ex­pect­ed, all 10 hors­es hold their ground, then a to­tal of $38,280 would have been paid in sub­scrip­tions dur­ing the five nom­i­na­tion stages. Five nom­i­na­tion stages spread over less than six weeks.

In­ter­est­ing­ly, the third nom­i­na­tion stage for the Di­a­mond Stakes al­so takes place to­day and in this case, if the nine hors­es who paid the sec­ond nom­i­na­tion hold their ground, a to­tal of just over $11,500 would have been paid over the three weeks of nom­i­na­tions.

What is in­ter­est­ing about these nom­i­na­tion events and the amounts paid by con­nec­tions of these hors­es is that, notwith­stand­ing the nom­i­na­tion and pay­ment of sub­scrip­tions, con­nec­tions of the suc­cess­ful hors­es should not ex­pect to re­ceive any pay­ment un­til next year.

It is no se­cret that the Ari­ma Race Club (ARC) con­tin­ues to owe horse­men con­sid­er­able sums, with win­ning con­nec­tions on­ly hav­ing re­ceived their pay­ments for races run-up to late Jan­u­ary 2019. This means that over sev­en months of win­nings are owed to horse­men, notwith­stand­ing the re­ceipt of nom­i­na­tion fees for past races in the Clas­sic Di­ary as well as pay­ments from the Bet­ting Levy Board (BLB), al­beit at re­duced lev­els.

This is rem­i­nis­cent of what hap­pens when an or­gan­i­sa­tion is run­ning con­sis­tent loss­es and as such, all mon­ey re­ceived is be­ing di­rect­ed to fund deficits. Against a back­drop of deficits, it can on­ly be ex­pect­ed that the ARC will seek to con­serve/re­duce ex­pens­es at every op­por­tu­ni­ty. It is very dif­fi­cult to say if that is what they are do­ing, though re­ports of pos­si­ble in­creased salaries for some em­ploy­ees would tend to go against that trend if true.

So while it has been stat­ed that a group of own­ers are con­tact­ing promi­nent lawyers to seek re­lief in the courts for debts (own­ers' stakes) owed by the ARC and to check if there is any ra­tio­nale or ba­sis for ac­tion against the cur­rent di­rec­tors of the ARC in terms of in­dem­ni­ty, this can­not be good for the sport. Let us hope bet­ter sense pre­vails in this re­gard.

One of the chal­lenges fac­ing the ARC is the re­duced earn­ings by the BLB from its tax­a­tion of the in­dus­try in gen­er­al and the pri­vate bet­ting shops in par­tic­u­lar. This rais­es the spec­tre of in­ad­e­quate mon­i­tor­ing and mea­sure­ment of the turnover at the var­i­ous pri­vate bet­ting shops. This is­sue has plagued the rac­ing in­dus­try since cen­tral­i­sa­tion and if any­thing, has on­ly got­ten worse over the years. The rise of pri­vate mem­bers' clubs has ex­ac­er­bat­ed the sit­u­a­tion.

Anec­do­tal ev­i­dence sug­gests that the turnover at the pri­vate bet­ting clubs is con­sid­er­ably un­der­stat­ed, if the ev­i­dence of at­ten­dance at the shops and com­par­i­son of BLB tax re­ceipts from the com­bined pri­vate bet­ting shops, com­pared to the ARC, on days when there are on­ly for­eign races (such as Ken­tucky Der­by Day) is to be be­lieved. Sure­ly, in this the 21st Cen­tu­ry, there must be sci­en­tif­ic and pre­cise ways for the BLB to keep track of the turnover at the pri­vate bet­ting shops and by ex­ten­sion, ver­i­fy that they are re­ceiv­ing ac­cu­rate pay­ments. This is not rock­et sci­ence.

Every­where else in the world where there is a pri­vate book­mak­ing in­dus­try, the pri­vate book­mak­ers are the main spon­sors of the lo­cal horse rac­ing in­dus­try, since they recog­nise the sym­bi­ot­ic re­la­tion­ship. Un­for­tu­nate­ly, as in many oth­er ar­eas, T&T is an ex­cep­tion to that gen­er­al rule. Most of the ma­jor races in the UK are spon­sored by pri­vate bet­ting shops and it has been that way from time im­memo­r­i­al. This is sep­a­rate and apart from their tax­es due.

Notwith­stand­ing the many chal­lenges, it is to the cred­it of the lo­cal horse rac­ing com­mu­ni­ty that they con­tin­ue to sup­port the sport and the ARC. The rac­ing in­dus­try em­ploys thou­sands of in­di­vid­u­als but it is not those in­di­vid­u­als who keep the sport rolling. To a large ex­tent, it is the own­ers who con­tin­ue to pay the bills for the sport even though no re­turn (oth­er than any­thing earned on gam­bling) is be­ing re­ceived.

There is lit­tle doubt that this can­not con­tin­ue in­def­i­nite­ly but all in­volved in the sport must be look­ing for­ward to some­thing pos­i­tive be­ing un­fold­ed by the new ex­ec­u­tive of the ARC. In­ter­est­ing­ly, while the lo­cal in­dus­try is lit­er­al­ly on its knees, on near­by St Lu­cia, they are fi­nal­is­ing plans to com­mence the sport of kings with the back­ing of pow­er­ful Chi­nese own­ers. This pos­es a sig­nif­i­cant risk to the lo­cal rac­ing in­dus­try since it opens up new pos­si­bil­i­ties for own­ers who might be able to prac­tice their love of the sport on an is­land much clos­er to T&T than the cur­rent al­ter­na­tive of Ja­maica. The prospect of St Lu­cia as an al­ter­na­tive to T&T is re­al and those re­spon­si­ble for the lo­cal in­dus­try must recog­nise it and adopt ac­tions re­quired re­tain­ing the sport in this coun­try.

While the love of the sport re­mains, it is the mon­ey that will keep the sport around. Hope­ful­ly, they re­alise that be­fore it is too late.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored