THE ECONOMICS OF RACING

Taranaki Daily News, 15 October 1930, Page 4

THE ECONOMICS OF RACING

RETURNS OF THE BOOM YEARS. THE TOTALISATOR IN ENGLAND. (By “Centaur.” —Special to News.) London, August 14. A friend from Australia lias 'been telling me all about the poor times undergone by racing clubs in that country during recent years. He had facts and figures at his disposal, too, so I could not help being impressed with his story of woe. I decided after some consideration that racing “down under” cannot be in such a bad way when it has been yielding to the Government something more than £6.000,000 each year in the form of taxes and bonuses. We in England remember without difficulty how Mr. Winston Churchill, when lie was Chancellor of the Exchequer, expected to get a sum similar to the one already named from the operation of his betting tax. What a surprise awaited him, to be sure! The six million pounds contributed by racing to departmental funds in Australia is very much more than went through the totalisator in England during a full twelve months. Indeed, it was four times as much. If, then, racing is thought to be in a bad way in Australia, what about the state of affairs here? There was apparently a boom period in the years which followed the war, during which racing executives in England and Australia reaped a rich harvest. Those fat seasons stand as high-water marks, which must always be kept in mind when assessments and valuations are taken nowadays. It is, of course, extremely nonsensical, and the parties concerned may yet find out that the years 19-29 and 1960 can be accepted as truer barometers of, turf finance. Things have become settled and stabilised, and executives must realise this. No use moaning about “the good old days” when people had money to burn. Outcry follows outcry concerning the totalisator in England. On all sides we hear that the machine is doomed to failure, and that the Racecourse Betting Control Board ought to shut up shop. One can only wonder exactly what the worst is going to be. If figures do not lie, we can all see that the Board’s funds must be running low, and the natural query is: How can they be replenished? One would at once expect 6he answer: “By increasing the (percentage taken off pools.” And then comes this argument: If backers cannot be persuaded to patronise the machine when the deduction is only 6 per cent., how will they be roped in if the rate is increased to 8 or 10 per cent? That is the whole essence of this prolific controversy. The public will not patronise the machine in’ sufficient numbers to make it a profitable business from thp point of view of the board. Consequently, the board is losing heavily and consistently. The remedy is hard to find, as most racing people might guess. How is an unproductive, almost unpopular, business to be set on its feet when bankruptcy is staring it in the face? I have always doubted' the temperaments of English racegoers in so far as totalisator betting is concerned, and now I know that' my ideas have been definitely confirmed. They do not “fall” for the attractions of machine wagering. We are told that the sponsors of the totalisator have messed up things all round. Up to a point this is true, yet we cannot ignore the chief fact, which, as I have said, revolves around the human mind. After all, you cart drive a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. t Concerning near-future racing, let me point Out that doubts about Blenheim’s running in the St. Lcger at Doncaster are still in existence. The owner and trainer of the colt remain sphinx-like in their silence on a point which, after all, should be settled aye or nay as quickly as possible. In the meantime, a mild furore for the Beckhampton Colt Parenthesis finds him a 4 to 1 chance, and I think he will see an even shorter rate. As I have said before, Blenheim Would win if he ran, while his absence would open up the issue a lot. Diolite, the Derby third, is genuinely fancied on the authority Of his trainer.