Punchestown

Over the last few months, when I have talked to people about my on-going bemusement about the arguments that continue to rage in the racing industry about what I consider to be non-existent issues based on lack of understanding about the mechanics of our business, the reply I have most-commonly received is that people don't think that racing is, as I keep saying, cutting off its nose to spite its face.

There is, people tell me, little evidence that, as it pursues its quest to get more money out of Betfair, the racing industry worldwide is merely giving up money on a promise to nothing. Two in the bush, in other words, is worth more than a bird in the hand. And my continued references to this ten-year battle are, I am told, a waste of time, since racing might as well fight us for more cash even if it is unlikely to get it, particularly as it isn't losing out on anything in the interim.

And then this week, there's Punchestown .

Need more be said?

Well, perhaps one thing.

In case anyone should think this is an isolated incident, I could also point to an identical situation Down Under earlier this year, when our proposed (and agreed) sponsorship of the Magic Millions sales was killed off because we were the backer, and in the end went ahead without a sponsor.

Or the offer to a major British racecourse to become title sponsor of a three-day meeting at a cost north of £750,000, which was agreed by its commercial manager but was rejected by its Board with a "thanks, but no thanks. We think you're bad for racing."

Or, indeed, the offer we made to the BHA three years ago of £250,000 a year to put on races which had been abandoned because of bad weather. Our only condition at the time was that the re-arranged fixture should not be set for a day when there were already five meetings.

The response on that occasion? Again, "thanks, but no thanks. We think you don't pay the right levy, and until you do, we won't accept anything from you."

Fair enough. I guess we can spend it somewhere else.