view raw text
ENGLISH RACING EXPENSES. Following the contribution on "The Financial Aspect of Racing," by Lord Hamilton, of Dalzell, to The Illustrated Sporting News of London, the writer goes more extensively into the same subject in tiu September "Badminton." In the course of a most interesting article Lord Dalzell says: "It costs owners of racehorses taken as a body nearly Ave pounds in expenses to win a sovereign In added money. The method of arriving at these ligures Is a simple one, and the estimates on which they are based are of the most conservative nature. In making the calculation only horses actually In the trainers hands are taken Into account, and only the bare necessary expeases of these horses are considered. Nothing is reckoned for cost of yearlings whether bought or bred till they go to the trainer, nor for depreciation In the value of the horses, though It need hardly be said that these are Items which hugely swell the figures. "It is calculated that on the average throughout the year there are some 4,000 horses in training in Great Britain. It will be generally allowed that 200 is a very low figure at which to place the keep per horse for the year omitting entry money and forfeits, but including training, travelling, jockeys, veterinary, and other expenses. These 4,000 horses will, therefore, cost at least 800,000 per annum to keep in training. "The stakes run for in Great Britain in 1905 amounted to 495,082. Of this sum it is calculated that the owners provided at least two-thirds, and the race funds at most one-third. In making the first calculation nothing has been charged for entrances, sweepstakes and forfeits, so now nothing is credited for that part of the stakes which Is provided by owners. The ligures deal with the whole body of owners, and therefore two-thirds of the stakes can be left on one side, as they go out of pocket of one owner into that of another. The remaining third is what is really run for. This amounts to 165,-027. It is thus seen that it costs owners of racehorses SOO,000 to "run for 105,027 a proportion of 4 10s. lid. of expenses to each 1 of prize money. "To give one instance a days racing took place at Windsor on the Saturday after Ascot this year, a date which for obvious reasons was a peculiarly favorable one. The prize money for the races amounted to 1,112, of which 509 was provided by the owners In entrances and forfeits. Half the surplus from two selling races almost sure; to be a large source of revenue under the circumstances transferred another 320 from the pockets of the owners to the race fund. There were also the various fees for entering 1G 15s., weighing 8 7s. Cd., and for stakeholder 11, amounting together to 30 2s. Od. The total amount found by owners was therefore 925 2a. Gd. It wouldbe interesting to hear what were the takings .on the day.B racing the amount given .by the company for ..ownejJto run op ;jtrajalyUL7ii. Od-f-, ,, "There is a method by .which the balance Irnlght be fairly held between race, course and .racehorse owners. It cannot be claimed, that it would make the added money balance the expenses, but.it would at all events make it certain, that the owners got a fair share of anything that. was. going. Tim possibility of the adoption of such .a course was suggested to the writer by a gentleman, of great experience in public affairs, who once raced, extensively himself,-and still takes great interest in all that . concers racing. This method would consist of an adaptation to the needs of the turf, of what are .known in Parliamentary committee rooms as the gas companies .clauses. The principle of these clauses is that a monopolist gas company is not allowed to charge more than a certain sum per 1,000 cubic feet for its gas nor to pay more than a certain amount lcr cent, as a dividend ou its share capital. But, if it sells its gas cheaper it is allowed to pay a proportionately higher dividend. "It would be fair enough and easy enough to introduce such a principle into any new racecourse licenses which may be given, and- it does not seem that there is any equitable reason why the existing licenses should not be revised and such a clause Inserted. There would be difficulties, no doubt but a careful consideration of each individual case on its merits ought to provide a fair working arrangement. The method of doing it would be roughly this in the case of a new license; the company would have to produce a statement showing the amount of its proposed share capital, and of any debentures which it was proposed to raise. It would have to satisfy an accountant that this money was to be actually expended In acquiring or making the course and stands, and in providing a suitable work-iug capital. The accountant being satisfied-on these points, a maximum yearly payment towards debenture redemption would be agreed upon. A standard dividend of say six per cent, would then be fixed. It would be provided that the company was obliged to give a certain sum say 10,000 in added money yearly, and that unless that sum was exceeded no higher dividend than the standard should -be paid; but that for every additional 1,000 given in added money another half per cent, might be paid. The terms of the license to be subject to revision In either direction every five years. It would also provide that in the case of companies which gave free stabling or other advantages- to- owners, these- should be assessed at a certain yearly sum which -might be considered as part of the companys contribution to the stakes. In calculating the contribution made by the company account would only be- taken of money actually paid by It. In the case- of the catchpenny stakes, common at certain meetings where owners run for a sweepstakes of 10 each starter, with 200 added, and where the conditions carry a clause as to a 4 entrance concealed In their tail, like the sting of a wasp, only the money which the race actually cost the racecourse proprietors would be taken into account. These entrances," for some mysterious reason, always go to the race fund, whether that fact is expressly stated or not, and are often equivalent to the whole of the so-called added money. "In the case of a course which had races under National Hunt as well as Jockey Club rules, a special tariff would have to be settled, probably by arrangement with the National Eunt Committee, as to the contribution which was to be made to races under their rules. It might also be arranged that when a company made an Improvement In its course, which was allowed to be a benefit to owners, an agreed sura might be added to the capital on which dividends might be paid. "Supposing the adoption of such a system or of any other comprehensive method of dealing with the question to be desirable, it is obvious that the only body which can possibly carry it out Is the Jockey Club. A body such as the Racehorse Owners Associationof which the writer Is a member, but of the limitations of which lie. Is fully sensible-can only deal with the fringe of the matter. With the countenance of the ruling body it should be able to arrange many details to which the stewards cannot be expected to devote their time, and in case of trouble with recalcitrant clerks of the course it might conceivably strengthen the hands of the stewards if they had an organized body of owners behind them on whose support they could count. But any such scheme as Is sketched above must be initiated and carried out by the Jockey Club." The Paris correspondent of the London Sporting Life commenting on the Dalzell article declares that he has become convinced of "the advantages that owners in France have over the same class In England. I see it stated that out of the 495,082 distributed as prize money in Great Britain last year, more than 330,000 was contributed by the owners themselves In the form of entrance fees, sweepstakes, and forfeits, the actual value of the added money being only 105,027, or about one-third. Now In France the added money Is three - times as much as the total of the entrance fee, etc. Taking the figures of the Soclete dEncourage-ment alone, we find the value of the prizes given In Paris, Chantilly, and the provinces last year was 180,410, and of this the amount provided by owners was only 47,400. The stakes distributed by the Soclete des Steeple Chases and the other French societies are in the same proportion, showing that owners have a much better run for their money here than in England. In Belgium the entries are less than one-fifth of the value of the prizes, the owners supplying about 14,000 out of the annual prize money of S0,000. These figures cannot be impressed too forcibly upon English owners, and upon the rules of . the English turf. They should prove very instructive."
