The Racing Room - Burnham All Down

A Very Quick Intro (0-1mins)

Andy Burnham: Dodgy Businesses (1-32mins)

Vicky Foxcroft: New Gambling Minister (32-39mins)

Tether Bet: Closed Down (39-41mins)

US Racing: SP Gamble (41-47mins)

Deva Racing: Missing Money & Solutions (47-59mins)

Paddy Pilley: 14-Month Ban (59-61mins)

Rossa Ryan: Appeal Decision (61-64mins)

Your Questions Answered (64mins-End)

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:03

So hello, welcome back to the racing room. We're a little earlier than usual this week, but we have mainly Andy Burnham to thank for that. If you were wondering what the new PM's tenure is going to bring for the gambling and indeed the racing industries, the first signs are pretty worrying. So on Monday, Burnham appeared to refer to betting shops as dodgy businesses. So we go through all the fallout from this, which includes some triumphant reaction from the anti-gambling side, also on social media and the likes. There's also a new gambling minister in Vicky Boxcroft. So we'll have a look at what her appointment could mean for racing, betting, all of that, plus much, much more, including a successful six-figure gamble that involved US horses bet at SP, amongst the stories we're also going to discuss later in the podcast. That's the racing room this week. But we'll get straight into the first topic. No chit chat here with the lads, the usual crew, Anthony Kaminskis, Tony Calvin, and Harry Stewart more. We're going to get into this big story with Andy Burnham, who lights a touch paper that could torch the betting retail estate. So the tweet read on Tuesday. Vape shops, betting shops, dodgy businesses. If you look at your high street these days and think, who asked for this? You're not alone. I'm doing something about it. We're giving local people and councils more control over what opens, tougher pairs to crack down on businesses that aren't good for our communities. For too long, Westminster has stood by while our high streets declined. That ends now. So uh we have to ask, what prompted this uh this comment from Andy Burnham? And I'll just read out a tweet before I bring in the lads. Uh there was particular. I saw a few tweets like this, um, this one from Christopher Snowden. Uh, when Andy Burnham was born, there were 15,644 betting shops. When he first became MP, there were 8,756 betting shops. There are now 5,669 betting shops, and he wants to tackle their proliferate proliferation. There's no excuse for this kind of ignorance. So, what do we think is at play here, AK? You can have first dibs.

SPEAKER_02 2:15

What's at play? Um, probably an out-of-touch Labour government, not um in sync with the silent majority, and often majorities are silent um funders of think tanks um with preconceived ideas and then literature written to support them, um, heavily influencing policy. Probably a dearth of talent in Westminster. Um like Don Butler is seems to be celebrating the aim to permit stuff wholly unaware, it seems, of the trajectory of better shops uh in the first place, and the fact that bar perhaps Boyle Sports who seem to want to invest in UK better shops going forward. Um there's basically no large companies taking better shops at all in the UK. Um I thought I thought the the the uh conservative chap, is he called Louis French or something like that? Um the MP, I thought he was excellent on Nick Luck Daily putting the case. He actually made me chuckle uh when it came to his comments on Dawn Butler. And I think a lot of people you might see names in newspapers and things, and Don Butler's anti-gambling, but if you have ever heard Dawn Butler speak, like literally speak and just listen to her on anything, you'll be shocked that she is an MP. I'd say she doesn't have GCSEs.

SPEAKER_03 3:53

Well, let's let's stick let's stick things we know rather than I can I can uh maybe general studies or something like that. I mean that that we're alienating a lot of people with uh with attacking on general studies. Um she's been around, you know, she's been around a a long time, Dawn Butler, and this has definitely been one of her um campaigns. She does these videos of herself marching around. Is it Harangay? I think is her is her words, which is a very, very deprived uh uh uh uh area of um London. Um the thing is, before we even get into the sort of logic of it, is it uh of the policy itself, is it just seems a really weird place to start with um trying to reinvigorate the high street is attack the things that are willing to um put shops in there rather than try and deal with wider problems uh with the high street. I mean, London hasn't I'm I'm sure everywhere does, but London has an absolute epidemic of shoplifting, for example, um which makes going to the high street a fairly unpleasant experience. Quite often you'll see people just run straight in, grab stuff, run out. There are lots of fights with staff. Um, you now got lots of small shops with bouncers at the door and this kind of thing. Um so it it it it does seem you know uh an old place to start. Basic things like putting bins on high streets might make uh quite a big difference. And it just seems that this is a policy aimed more at um getting likes on social media than actually achieving uh the aim, you know, the deprived areas are not caused by the presence of betting shops in them. Yeah, uh, it is true that betting shops do tend to go to deprived areas, but there are all sorts of reasons for that, none of not all of which are none of which are sinister, usually. Yeah, it's to do with people, you know, if you have people who aren't in work, for example, and you've got something that's open 20, you know, uh during the day to provide entertainment, then that's an area to be in because there are you know there are people around. Um no one is saying I'm certainly not saying that they are um always, you know, they're not medical surgeries, they're not libraries that uh or um or Gales bakeries, but those places are not queuing up. Absolutely is not queuing up to take the uh slots that are going to be um left by uh licensed betting offices.

SPEAKER_02 6:31

And it's it's not even that hurry, it's not even that they're gonna take the place of business uh uh a plethora of vacancies on the high street. Yeah, absolutely. And also up next to a betting shop because there's foot for you can and try and benefit from it if you think they're thriving businesses.

SPEAKER_03 6:48

If you talk to independent shops on high streets, the two things they will tell you uh are making their lives difficult uh that that the government can do something about. One well three, one is internet shopping and next day delivery, two is um business rates, which are very, very high and make investing in the high street very difficult, three is transport, because um, for example, around where we are, um the parking has become so uh aggressively controlled that customers don't drive and park near the the the high street to to to go into the high street, and public transport isn't very good very often. So it would just be nice to think that those are the kind of issues that we were dealing with, um, rather than just let's go and give a kicking uh in the shins to um to betting uh uh you know to like also what does this say about the way that the gambling commission has been licensing people for 20 years?

SPEAKER_02 7:45

If they're dodgy, what on earth has been going on? Well, this is what I thought myself as well. When I read those comments, I was thinking, well, the first people who are going to be pissed off are customers and staff of bookies. Then you might say the people who are in charge of bookies are not are on boards of directors or something. But then I was thinking, you're saying the BHA want to meet with recently they've said they want to meet with a new gambling minister, BGC is saying, How are you, new gambling minister? Uh congratulations, blah blah blah. But I was thinking um yeah, I was just thinking that the the people that the people that are um sorry, I've lost my train of thought there.

SPEAKER_03 8:24

Yeah, you're you're the the the the people responsible for the licensing and and regulation of these shots have not come out of this burn colours.

SPEAKER_02 8:31

If you're the UKGC, are you not going what? Like all this work we've done in the last 20 years, are you saying that we're uh you're saying that we are purveyors and controllers of this dodginess? Yeah, I th I deliberate in our work here.

SPEAKER_03 8:48

There was a suggestion that he didn't mean licensed betting offices when he made his video. That suggestion's wrong. Uh you just need to listen to it more carefully. He he made it perfectly clear he means uh licensed betting offices in addition to adult gaming centres. I mean the the real thing I think is that he gave me the strong sense of someone who uh had not who wasn't fully on top of his brief. Because that you where, for example, on any analysis, LBOs are important to the to the funding of horse racing. Um for a policy just to say they're dodgy and I want fewer of them, to ignore the fact that there is this other hugely important element of them to another industry which employs 80,000, 90,000 people, um, does suggest he didn't know what he was talking about to me at the at the point he did it. And I just think we're getting into an a broader point, is that we we just seem now to be being governed on the basis of um uh policies that are going to look good and get lots of clicks and likes on um on X and other social media. And he all of his policies so far seems to have been um delivered through the medium of him wandering around various um establishments um chatting to a camera.

SPEAKER_00 10:09

Uh yeah, it it definitely has shades of Boris Johnson because one of his one of the many criticisms leveled at him that he picked a popular policy which wasn't really grounded in fact and it just ran with it. And then if and then if it and when it unraveled, he quickly backtracked. Now Burnham's already done this on a couple of issues. Uh I'm just wondering with this whether this will be another one. It it's actually just staggering how nobody has briefed him on the closures of betting shops and already, yeah. And indeed uh the adult gaming centres, which I think anybody would would have a very sterner view of than than than betting shops for obvious reasons. But but even there was one thing I know you had an exchange with Rob Davis. I just went to have a look at it, and I think he's deleted the thread. Um he said the decline of adult gaming centres is not entirely accurate because they changed the way they were um they were licensed in 2013-2014, and it was like they lent it more to uh representing themselves as bingo type centres rather than adult gaming centres. So he he actually challenged the decline of the adult gaming center, but even so, um I initially thought he did get it mixed up, but the subsequent video that came out, he actually specifically you know chiseled out both of those and name-checked them. I I just think it's staggering of a government um and include Dawn Butler in this. They're running with something that it's just just short has no basic effect.

SPEAKER_03 11:45

Surely what you need to do before you come up with policies like this is you have to, and one of the difficulties we've got, of course, is almost no prime ministers nowadays arrive on the back of any kind of mandate, and he's just the latest uh uh example of someone who's pitched up because various members of the Labour Party wanted him. Um is what you need here is an explanation of his government's policy on gambling before you come up with policies as to what you're going to do to gambling, because that's that is a reductive gambling policy. That's perfectly legitimate. You know, you can do that. Government uh governments have have have deregulated and uh gambling at different points and they've um tightened screws on it at certain points. That's perfect, you know, you can expect it to go both both ways. But what we need to understand is what is their view on gambling, because it's a complex question. Do they make the distinction, for example, between casino products and sports punting? Or are we now in the world with a government that doesn't like either, that just says all gambling is bad? Because that's a hugely important question for people like us, and particularly for the people who run horse racing, to understand. And at the moment, it sounds quite like they just don't like gambling to help deal with the consequences, and that is an extremely worrying and important development if it's true. And if it's not true, they should explain what their basis, what how are they going to govern gambling? What is this nation's approach to gambling under this government going forward, other than a video about how um uh Andy Banner's going to tidy up the high street? And he knows that a lot of people think that LBO is part of the problem, and in certain court and in certain respects, they're right. I think that you know, I do think that the addition of properties to uh uh to licensed betting offices has made them a more controversial uh site on the high street. I I think it's hard to argue against that, but it this is dealing with this is sort of trying to treat a an ailment before you've begun to uh explain what it is that the ailment that you say exists is. Um and I just think it's very frustrating. And we're we're obviously going to have to slowly work out. I mean, I strongly suggest, I strongly suspect that the reason we haven't had an explanation over what their approach to gambling is is they don't have one.

SPEAKER_02 14:02

They don't have one, they don't have one. It's what the what the think tech tells them is their approach. Yeah, it's an absolute farce, it's a total, total farce, and it'll continue for the next two years minimum. And we're saying that the guy at the top hasn't a rashes, he's appointing people. Like, how can you trust anybody they appoint in the first place? What is the story with gambling ministers changing every fucking six months? Like, put somebody in place who's gonna be. Well, this is it, like it's an absolute farce. Like, how can you expect them to understand? Because they're not on long enough to understand and appreciate the nuance of it. Like, we've been in this industry, I've been in this industry since I was 18. Like, how can you get these people to understand when they're doing a million dollars?

SPEAKER_03 14:49

This is a pitch for the job of gambling minister, aka. Is it's is it's I'd love it, I'd love it, I would love it.

SPEAKER_02 14:56

Yeah, be in a bloody bad ass anyway.

SPEAKER_00 15:00

One thing that puzzles me in all this, given that what he said is so easily challenged and brushed aside, that there it's been a lack of an authoritative voice from from bookmakers, and you know, the as far as I'm aware, as of 11.01 on Friday morning, the BHA hasn't come out and actually said anything. And you'd have hoped they would have been leading publicly and as as well privately, but you labro Labrador uh boss Stella David said this this morning. When you think about the contribution of our real estate to horse racing, I think the number comes to about 50 million if you add in the levy uh and the media rights. Also, it's the ecosystem that keeps people interested in racing. Now, it seems to me that it there may have never been a kind of like uh a powerful voice that you went to uh if you wanted a an accurate and authoritative quote from a leading bookmaker or me, but i it there just seems a kind of like uh there just seems a vacuum, uh a vacuum of uh of of power and like I said, uh a strong voice from the regulator and the betting industry.

SPEAKER_02 16:12

No, there should be, you know. I think there should be. I think you should be the BGC for all its pros and cons, I think is just uh it's a fairly empty vessel with a lot stuff. There probably needs to be some kind of organization because it's getting like also now with the million organisations, where there's literally just four participants, and it should just be Flutter, NTM, Bet365, and BetFred. It should just be um maybe Hills, maybe uh while they still exist. It should maybe just those going in and just speaking collectively saying with a very, very strong presence. This is what 80% market share thinks, like very, very directly. It's the only people we see ever quoted, and it kind of gets lost in the wind, I think. The only people that are having a go seem to be Stella David at Labrooks and Joanne Whitaker at Brett Fred, two women. That's all I see. I think Bet365's lack of comment in the whole thing over many years is a disgrace. I think Flutter's lack of any serious comment is a disgrace. These people should be standing up for the industry, and I I genuinely think we're talking about how many bookmakers there are today. Do we want to do a spread bit on how many there are in 12 months' time on the high street? Because I'm gonna go for 4,000, perhaps. Like you've got at least two years of this. Labour are six to four for more seats at the next general election. Like you could potentially have seven years of this. Like, if you're in any way under pressure from a cost point of view, these have got to be going. And as we've made the point numerous occasions, the amount that goes on media rights and is propping up what's left of horse racing, your levy number very soon is gonna collapse. I think it's gonna collapse, it's gonna be under serious pressure. And I also think if you're an online bookmaker, I just do not get why they're putting any money into horse racing, unfortunately, under these current conditions. Like, it has to get stripped back. You've got now you've got a gambling minister who's saying that she wants to crack down on advertising and potentially putting ITV racing, unless there's a carve out, your racing channels under serious pressure. Like, I know I get a reputation for saying the future's pretty bleak, but like the next two years are gonna be bloody bleak. Survival is gonna be fairly key. And I also think just with a lot of this stuff, is the tipping point going to be a major bookmaker just saying we can't operate in this jurisdiction anymore? I think it's highly not something we should, it's not desirable at all. But when I look at William Hill and I look at 1.8 billion of debt and I look at Labrooks despite a market cap of 3.5 billion losing money still every year, I'm just like, at what point is an organization gonna go? It's actually gonna be more beneficial for us to be outside the jurisdiction here. Like that isn't that far away, I don't think, on this trajectory.

SPEAKER_00 19:19

No. What what do we all think about the kind of like the triumphalist nature of the anti-gamblers and think tanks, etc. Um, which Dawn Bun, uh Dawn Butler obviously famously responded to, you know, that laugh out loud response to a Matt Zarb cousin tweet. Now, this is just one of many um tweets from Matt Zarb cousin. He he said, I have told anyone in the gambling industry who will listen time and again, get your house in order because the public fucking hates your guts, and it will take just one prime minister who is entirely compromised by the gambling lobby, and you're going to get whacked. Here we are, exclamation mark. Now a lot of people have been very sh uh must be very, very sheepish about what's what's been said and reported this week. Um what do we think of comments like that?

SPEAKER_03 20:10

Uh it's inevitable, isn't it? Because I mean he he he he uh that that's what he um that's what he wants to happen uh and he lobbies for it, so you know he's just doing what he does. I don't I I don't think I don't think we should become frankly, I don't think we should become too distracted by it. Uh obviously it's gonna be frustrating by for for people on the other side of it. But like, yeah, it people grow when they're winning things, you know. That's not um I think it's more I think it's more disappointing for Dawn Butler now that she is um uh I think she's part of the government, is she part of the government, or she's certainly uh part of the governing party. Um, because you do you do have to remember that when you're part of the governing party, you govern for everyone, you govern the country. Uh, and there are an awful lot of people who are going to be uh hurt by this decision. And so I think it is disappointing to see um uh her crowing about a policy that while she might think it has net benefits, um, she should surely be able to see that there are going to also be uh cases for people who who very much um uh have suffer as a result of policies like this. Basic examples being the people who work behind the tills in um in the shops. Um so that that's somewhat uh disappointing. But I think AK is right that I don't think he's actually right. I don't think he's I don't think he's right that most people I think the social license is definitely shrinking. Uh and that that is a problem that gambling has failed to deal with defin completely. I'm not even sure it should be tried to deal with it. Rather going back to the point that AK was making earlier. Um I think there was a feeling that enough people like doing it that it will always be there. That's increasingly I think it's true. I think there are an awful lot of people doing it, and gambling will always be there, but that doesn't mean it's always going to be licensed gambling. And I think that um and I think that that's where the gambling in Industry has been complacent. I think it's thought there'll always be demand for our product, and therefore we'll always be okay because and we we generate a lot of tax um and we keep a lot of people employed. So we'll always be okay. I think they need to give their heads wobble on that subject if that's if that's really how they're thinking. Um there are an awful lot of people who like gambling. Um, you know, Matt Zarb cousin put up another tweet saying, you know, uh he he gets very into understandably, um, he gets very irate when he hears stories of bookmakers not paying out and says that this is yet further, he implies that this is yet further evidence of why they shouldn't uh be allowed to carry on. Well, the people who know that are the people who deal with our bookmakers all day long. Um and they still people want to do this. This is their hobby, this is their pastime, they still want to do it. Um and I think that we do harp on about the black market here, but the danger in all this is what we're doing is we are uh simply pushing gambling underground increasingly. And um I think that those who do uh want to ban gambling, who are the anties, for example, need to be very careful about what they're actually going to achieve here. Um because the regulated sector certainly has its faults. No one is saying that that the faults are less than they used to be, in my view, significantly less than they used to be. But it certainly has its faults. The black market is a very, very, very different thing. Um it is the people who control a lot of those websites are extremely sinister, and um it would be nice to hear people on the anti-side broaden their concerns to black market gambling as well as just the easy, the easy, low-hanging fruit of kicking the guys who are actually, you know, trying to do it the right way, not always succeeding, but trying.

SPEAKER_00 23:57

But do we think what one of the questions I've got written down here and underlining do bookmakers have to take a bit of responsibility for their actions in the last 10, 20, whatever years for the way the public and the um and the politicians view bookmakers? I mean, I I heard uh Ollie Bell on Nick Lup Daily on Wednesday painting a very rosy picture how bookmakers are still community betting hubs, etc. Which I think is just poppycock. Uh well some are, some are, some are. Well some are, some are they are. I wouldn't I wouldn't paint them like that, but I mean Anthony, you know, because obviously you you've done a fair bit of trading in in betting shops and section, they actually turn a lot of people away and don't want business. So do you think the way the bookmakers have acted with punters, not only in shops but generally, has has fuelled this kind of burn and response?

SPEAKER_02 24:55

Yeah, I think I think there's a lot of resource been stripped out of them. I think I think they're not that profitable. They're very high on management and very high on just the the costs associated and the time that's spent managing a retail estate, for example, for what you get out of it, I'd imagine it's fairly like I've one shop. I've got a shop that's open 10 days a year at the store race course.

SPEAKER_03 25:18

And can we put this question slightly differently, AK? Because I'm interested in your answer to this. If you knew what was going to be happening um now, and you were in charge of gambling 10, 15 years ago, and you had that 15-year run-up to this, what would you have done differently to avoid this happening?

SPEAKER_02 25:36

You know what, right? Because I sat, this is God's honest truth, right? I sat in an organization, not prizes for guessing what, and we had emails going round. There was an email chain which was literally it was essentially district managers, essentially. And I remember when the the FOBTs came in, and I remember I remember how incentivized district managers were to increase turnover on that stuff at the expense of all else. So I kind of agree with you. I agree with you. Competitions on machines, all that all this carry-on, everything geared towards what was essentially uh the easing money at the time. And I think the problem you have in that regard is again, it's a regulation problem. It kind of went too far. And I think that any sensible person would have, from a regulatory point of view, would have dragged it back at that point. I'm talking like 2010, 2011, that kind of that kind of time zone. Um it would have made total sense for regulators to get in and go, Jesus, GC, but then I think the problem you do have, and I think this it's one of the problems you have with private enterprise, I think, is that the people that are here today aren't here in five years. Like BEC, yeah, but but that's that's not quite the question.

SPEAKER_03 26:59

What I'm trying to say is that like people are even in this what could the gambling of industry done about the way that it conducts itself that might have, you know, if it had more foresight as to the way that that that the world was now turning, were there things it could have done to to to to remove the political space that appears to have been created in which to attack it?

SPEAKER_02 27:22

Yeah, I think I think just uh I think the proliferation of FOBTs probably wasn't ideal. Um is my opinion. The way you hear that, guys. No, no, it's true. It's genuinely true. I also I also think that unfortunately the way it's developed is now you've got a model that's because they made money out of FOBTs, yeah, that the suppliers of everything else from a sports book perspective saw that these shops were making more money, jacked up the price of everything else. Yeah. The loss raising industry then became very, very reliant on that. Massively so it jacked up money.

SPEAKER_03 27:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 27:59

Now when you strip out the thing that made the money that allowed everything else to be dripped, the air is being let out of the balloon. Yeah. Things close. Um, and I I don't I just don't think people uh understand. I I think it's like we I think the announced record levy last year was it 110 million or something, and it's been parroted as a massive triumph. And I as I said to you at the time, I think that is much increased margins on sports bets because everything else is under pressure. No, Chris, UK regulated sports books from being from a liquidity point of view on the sports books. When you have liquidity, you can tolerate more winners, you can like liquidity, like I've always said from from dead dot liquidity recently has been stripped out of the system at every single at every single juncture. So it just puts absolutely everything under pressure. I think levy is I think levy could fall off a cliff. And I think that regulated sportsbooks, we try and compete on price here. It's very, very difficult. We compete on price on any event, we make a net loss on that event after everything tax, after after product fees, everything. If I bet an event hard, I'm just putting that event into a box and saying I'm gonna lose 5% on that event. So you competing on price is very, very difficult. And I think what you then get is this people complain about homogenous prices. Oh, look at that horse race, every every single bookie on that check is 11 to 10. Well, it has to be that way unless you're willing to accept making a loss. And uh I just think that the increased levy recently has been from increased margins. We're talking about, we've spent the last two weeks talking about people complaining about SP overends. And what direction do you think those overends are gonna go? It's not gonna be the way that you want. It's not gonna be the way you want.

SPEAKER_03 29:47

But you get the get the strong sense that these are not points that are occurring to Andy Burnham, or is it by them?

SPEAKER_02 29:53

We were talking about like he was the the glib point was mentioned that stake.com were on the front of the team of the shit that he supports.

SPEAKER_03 30:01

Um he has direct control over the sports.

SPEAKER_02 30:04

100% not 100%. They're on the sleeve of them now. And people say, oh, they're not UK facing anymore. That's just to be that's just to be to for an international audience like some. And that shouldn't be a good idea. Well why do they why do they advertise in the concourse and the huge news stadium as well, though?

SPEAKER_03 30:23

And the hugely important thing is it's a you know, surely advertising here should be one of the benefits of actually bothering to be licensed here. You know, it should be restricted to the people who are who are who are actually bothering and spend and spending the fees, you know, uh spending the money, doing the compliance, theoretically at least, and generally certainly, um, complying with the regulatory requirements. So again, it's just another really good example of a proper problem that he could have tackled first, rather than go for this, you know, easy, uh easy low-hanging fruit.

SPEAKER_02 30:59

You you need you need benefits to being licensed in the first place.

SPEAKER_03 31:02

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 31:03

And I think my concern with the direction of travel and we're at now, and I'm just I'm just more interested in where everybody thinks the tipping point is, where it becomes, and there'll be different tipping points based on if you're a new entrant, if you're an incumbent, if you're an incumbent saddled with a 1.8 million billion of debt, there'll be different tipping points for each business. But I'm just interested and slightly concerned where people think the tipping points are for it becomes more beneficial to be unlicensed because it's it's it's the direction of travel is that way.

SPEAKER_03 31:40

Well, I mean, when you say there's plenty of people already doing it, they're just not yeah, they're just not they're not they're not um they're not uh listed companies as far as you know yet.

SPEAKER_02 31:50

Sure, 100%. But like like we when we talk about, and I'm listening, I don't want it to happen, but when we talk about companies saddled with debt that might have a player base of four million users or however million users built up over time that they can't market to, they can't do anything with, they have to restrict to a thousand quid over 90 days or whatever, whatever the rules are. Like when you're talking tipping points, yeah, I'd be concerned that you're bloody near one there.

SPEAKER_03 32:20

Um okay, we're being told uh um uh Ronan's bored.

SPEAKER_01 32:27

Not bored at all, just time conscious. Uh I enjoyed I enjoyed the chat. That's uh however bleak it may be, uh, that was well teased out between you all. Um we do have a lot of other topics to get through though, so uh we'll move on to the next one. So a new PM and also a new gambling minister. It's gonna be Vixie, Vicky Foxcroft, who has previously said she supports a ban on gambling advertising and live sports. So she's gonna take over from Baroness Toy Cross um uh news that was uh broken by the Racing Post earlier the week and confirmed later. Uh Tony Talvin, I'll bring you in here first because you uh took issue with the the Betting Gaming Council chief executive uh Grania Hearst's comments after this, uh, how she kind of reacted to that news.

SPEAKER_00 33:13

So if you want to bring in that that quote and um I was very surprised given that this happened after the the Burnham story. Um Gronya Hearst commented on um Vicky Foxcroft being uh confirmed as gambling minister. We look forward to working with her to champion Britain's casinos, betting shops on online betting, gambling, and business uh bingo businesses, an industry that brings enjoyment to millions of people, sustains 109,000 jobs, contribute billion pounds to the economy, and provides vital funding for some of Britain's best loved sports. Now, I get that she kind of has to say that, but saying we look forward to working with her to champion casinos, betting shops, etc., after what Burnham said seems to me a bit tone-deaf. Um and uh and also, I mean, if you've listened, you mentioned, I think AK mentioned um uh Louis French on uh Nicknap Daily on Thursday. He didn't sound overly positive on this appointment, um, and it's been picked up on and run with on a couple of places. I I read uh piece in The Spectator on Foxcroft uh and the whole situation. Um and given uh you know she supported uh the gambling advertising ban in live sport, the spectator said it's likely to be a big push for a uh ban on gambling adverts during sport. Once that's done, there will be a new target. Uh and Louis French said on the Nick Gluck Daily, I don't see a sweeping change back to uh some common sense over the issue of gambling. Now it could get worse. I mean, if if if Foxcross takes Burnham's brief and runs with it. It's gonna, you know, if if kind of like racing doesn't get a carve out in that live gambling um uh advertising, it's it's you know it'll be curtains for ITV racing. So ITV Racing, you know, get a hell of a lot of money back from sponsorship, um, obviously advertising between the race uh between uh various segments. Uh you know, if if the if she does run with what Burnham wants and it it really could be really bad news. You talk about the actual betting finances, you the actual promotion of the sport could be directly challenged here if if she's indeed uh gonna go with what everyone believes she believes.

SPEAKER_03 35:45

Going back to that question about what the BHA w will say about this, it puts them in a very difficult position because of the um the broadness of the way that the uh the attack appears to have been uh mounted. Because of course, if it now comes out and says LBOs are very important for horse racing and you're going to re-damage the sport, that can very easily be um presented as horse racing supporting FOBTs and the scourge of FOBTs on the high street. So I think they're in a difficult spot at the moment. They are going to have to come out and say something at a certain point about a generalized attack on licensed betting offices because of course they're not just you know, this seems to be the the debate appears to be premised on this idea that LBOs are just uh boxes for FOBTs and their customers. And what seems to have been either ignored or discarded in this is that there are plenty of people in there that are doing other things that are doing things that we supposedly don't consider to be nearly so problematic.

SPEAKER_00 36:45

Um, VK silence is the prudent thing to do in the short term.

SPEAKER_03 36:51

I I think I think you've got to take a few days to think about what you're gonna do in these circumstances. I would hope that what they're doing, it's a t you know, it is mid-August, but I hope that what that what they're doing is they are trying to get clarity from uh the government on what that means what it is about LBOs they don't like. Is it horse racing they don't like? We need to know that. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 37:14

They don't like Graham Rason.

SPEAKER_03 37:16

No.

SPEAKER_02 37:18

Not anything left. Um okay.

SPEAKER_01 37:22

Do you want any any small comment there on Vicky Foxcraft AK, or we can make it?

SPEAKER_02 37:27

I just think I just think similar that she's been appointed to continue down this path, I'd imagine. I'd I'd be absolutely beyond shocked if she had any depth or comprehension of of the subject. She's just probably here's your think tanks report, here's the here's the wind where the wind's blowing, go and do something here. Like it's gonna not gonna be I'm not expecting anything more in of more depth than that. Um the Louis French interview again on Nick Look Daily is worth a listen, seven minutes of common sense and talk, but even he seems to be revived uh yeah, of the opinion that it's uh resigned to the fact that it's 2029 and onwards where change could be affected here, and not to expect much in the in the next two years. Uh, the only problem I have with uh Louis French is that every time I think of him, I think of Louis Spencer and whoever and into Parliament.

SPEAKER_03 38:18

Well, it would be it would be one way to do, but probably more active than anyone's been in some time. Um, just to interrupt, I've just seen on my Twitter feed that the Sun is reporting that the BHA have uh asked for an urgent conversation. Uh the uh we are seeking an urgent discussion with the new gambling minister. This is Jack Elson reporting uh in the sun.

SPEAKER_01 38:43

So well, we'll be back again back again on Monday. That's this uh another another podcast. Um let's see what we're getting at one o'clock.

SPEAKER_00 38:55

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 38:56

Um our next story we're going to talk about Tetherbet. So this was a story broken by Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrand uh on Wednesday. So Tetherbet, the offshore gambling empire in which George Cottrell uh is involved, is shut down weeks after we revealed it was implicated in potentially criminal wrongdoing in the UK. Its website now states we are sorry to announce the tetherbet.bet brand is no longer operating. AK, can you shed any light here on what what's going on?

SPEAKER_02 39:26

Yeah, just I've just what I've seen with you. My only exposure to Tetherbet was somebody DMing me in about 2020 when I was gambling the whole time saying if you want to get money on you should try and use these guys and trying to intro me then to me to them um years and years ago. Um so I'd imagine that if that was happening six, seven years ago, I'd imagine they're of a fairly big size now. I don't know what they are, I don't know where they're based, I don't know anything about them apart from what I've read. Um my understanding is that there's a lot of crypto involved. I am probably the most anti-crypto person in the world. I wouldn't hold crypto for any amount of money. Like I wouldn't use it, I wouldn't advocate its use. Uh I see the people that deal with it in general. Um it has no interest to me whatsoever. And when I see crypto coming up, and you can do this in crypto, and that two amount it turns me off a lot of a lot of stuff. So I'd imagine they're of a significant size. I I I wouldn't know, but I'd imagine if I had to guess hundreds of millions, I'd be probably way under, I'd imagine. I'd I'd I'd my guess there would be they are huge.

SPEAKER_01 40:48

Um by the way, uh okay, let's uh get on to this um this gamble that I mentioned in the intro. So Tony Calvin, you you brought this to our attention in in the WhatsApp group earlier in the week, and it was very interesting when you did, and uh the the WhatsApp was lighting up uh through the next couple of days, just reacting to what was potentially happening. And uh just read you out what did transpire. So a six-figure betting coupe was allegedly pulled off in betting shops in Britain on Sunday after four out of six horses won. A group of five horses who until recently had been trained at Gulfstream Park have been dubbed the Fair Hill Five, as they all hailed from the training centre, the same training centre in Maryland. Uh, the winners had little form to recommend them, a running off uh the back of significant absences. The alleged starting price coupe could have been even greater as another horse involved finished second at Colonial Downs and another lost, but two runners were set to run on Monday. Uh three dots Anna Dadash was scratched at Presque Eel Downs due to being on the vet list while Bravo Rough is uh predicted one to nine favourite was scratched for reasons alone uh at Mountaineer Park. So uh Tony, I'll give you first tips here. If you were on the story from the start, what did you make of it all?

SPEAKER_00 42:08

Yeah, someone got in touch with me on Sunday evening just saying, even though this sounds actually preposterous and ridiculous, he said this is a a hundred percent a genuine story. Um so you just a background, like you just summarised what you just said. Over the course of Sunday afternoon and evening, six horses ran at three American tracks. All of them were coming off long absences, all of them have recorded their most recent workouts at Fair Hill. Uh, four of them won at industry starting prices of 14 to 1, 13 to 2, 7 to 2, and 2 to 1. So if the other two have won, you could be looking at serious money. Now, the interesting part of this is it was an SP gamble, it had to be an SP gamble uh in the UK because no bookmakers offer prices, uh early uh early prices on it, and I imagine a fair few don't offer even the SP option. But it sounds like um the guy told me at the time, and it's been trotted out since, that five bookmakers in the UK were hit. Um they you depending on who you speak to, we took out hundreds of thousands. Uh, I'm not sure they've been paid out yet, uh, but I imagine uh they might have some difficulties there. Um and uh really interesting. The guy told me on Sunday night, um, he said he said people actually flew in from the US to actually go around the betting shops on Sunday morning to do this. Now, like I said, it seems like the stuff of nonsense, doesn't it? But it sounds like it's it's 100% kosher. If you want uh an ex uh expanded kind of like explanation of what's going on here and the horses and the and the individuals involved, go and have a look at uh Peter Four Natale's piece on the ATR website. Um it's a fascinating story, but uh are these people Are they gonna find difficulty in getting paid here?

SPEAKER_02 44:05

Do we think? I don't know. I don't know specifics of that to be honest with you. I don't know what was had on. I've spoken to a few people who would work for companies that have shops and uh uh it's it's a hundred percent genuine. Um like I say, if you're taking bets that have you I think a lot of people have this thing around SP being bomb-proof and bulletproof, and SPs on American Racing in particular. We've we've been doing a bit on American Racing recently, Raw, and uh uh AK bets, and the the the industry SP returns, quite frankly, can have no semblance of uh the actual reality of the horse's true price, shall we say? Um you you're looking at there'll be certain syndicates that are looking at some of these tracks where there's thousands, there's small thousands in the pool, and they have very, very easily manipulated pools. And I think if you're laying American horses, putting my bookmaker heart on here now, if you're laying American horses, especially at certain tracks, but more widely as well. It's a country that doesn't have a fixed racing product, it's a tort product. A lot of the tracks are on the absolute bread line, doing deals with to get their prices into other jurisdictions. Um, you've got torts that are turning over small four figures, very easily manipulated. If you're laying horses at 13 to 2 and the industry SP is 13 to 2, what what is the liquidity behind that 30 to 2? I would imagine it is paltry. And if you want to lay bets to large limits on American racing as a UK Irish facing boatmaker, I would say that is a misstep. Um I think what you might see with a lot of this stuff is people realising those facts a little bit quicker. Um and I think you might see what similar to what we had to do at Paddy Power with Greyhounds, which was you literally specify the tracks you will take bets at, and they have to be at a price, or we don't take SP at certain tracks, um, and then it leaves you to. I think you see it with a few of the firms, I don't know, 365 or not, Powers definitely were returning their own prices. They weren't going off industry SP for a lot of the American stuff. They really they have trading teams that return their own prices and that look at this stuff a lot more closely than just taking an industry SP with the Grayons. We literally had to stop taking bets at Shelby Park when I was at Paddy Power. It's an absolute disgrace for the standard for the standard track in Ireland, but you couldn't take a bet at Shelby Park bar an Irish Derby here or something like that because you would get unexposed dogs running on Wednesday nights and people going around the shops to bet them at SP and then interest in SP returns. You you just don't want you don't want liabilities where there's no liquidity and pricing confidence basically. And I know that we got some kind of uh very very minor pushback when we did the same for English racing, um, and double price a lot of the garbage till midday, but I just do not want do not want liabilities on bad stuff with low liquidity. It's as simple as that. And I think that'll be the trajectory, and I think a lot of the big bookmakers might have to have to sustain some losses to realise that that is the optimal approach.

SPEAKER_00 47:34

Fascinating story.

SPEAKER_01 47:36

Yeah, a fascinating story, uh a crafty, crafty put-together gambling, uh, in fairness for their side. Um, do they you might recall um previous podcasts we uh talked about the Diva Racing Syndicate? They were barred from running horses in Britain, uh, following a bit of controversy there. That kind of story has developed a little bit this week. So in the racing post the red, Michael Owens Manor House Stables is among the yards caught up in the fallout from allegations against the Group One winning syndicate that was last month barred from running its horses in Britain. Diva Racing, whose director is Ryan Tung, are alleged to have failed to pay their syndicate members' prize money winnings, oversold shares in their horses, and left outstanding fees owed to trainers. Hugo Palmer said the Cheshire stable is owed money by D.V. and described the situation as a very sad state of affairs. Uh, Palmer said, I can't remember a time when we haven't been chasing Diva to pay their bills. We have two horses from them and are owed comparatively little compared to other trainers and syndicate members who seem to be missing their prize money. Uh, last month Tong did not respond when contacted by the Racing Post, although an automated reply from his official Diva Racing account said he had been signed off by the GP due to a serious medical issue and was unable to respond to emails. Um, so I don't know if there's much to be said on this, Tony. Um, if you wanted to make any comment, but uh that's the latest state of affairs.

SPEAKER_00 49:02

Yeah, one of the shareholders has been continuing in touch with me. Um I'm not gonna itemise what he actually said, but it's incredible sums he's talking about, incredibly worrying about how this area is governed. Um, like I said, if if all trainers collectively are getting knocked, um the you know, this you know, the fact this escalated to the point that it's done, um, is like I said, is very worrying about the areas of you know the syndicates and shareholders, and I think the BHA inevitably are gonna have to tighten their rules on the back of this. It it's thrown up the discussion about you know about money to have the horses in training, you know, the money should be lodged at Wetherby's, you know, for future payments. So, you know, it's like you know, if you pay, for example, if you rent a property, you know, you give them a deposit, etc., whether you're paying in advance, whether that needs to be done as well. I mean, there's been loads of bad payers, owners.

SPEAKER_02 50:03

We have to do it in islands as boatmakers. Oh, do you? We actually have to lodge money up front uh if you're getting a bookmaking license and taking out pitches, and your pitches can be used as security against any debts you don't honour as well. I think for me, these cases are going to keep happening, and I think one of the simplest solutions, like there's definitely sorry, can't say definitely, I'd imagine there's probably I'd imagine there's a surplus of money here that's that's uh for unaccounted for for reasons we we we can't say we can't speculate on or say for sure. Um when you've got that many horses, the majority of horses don't make money if you're overselling shares. Sure, if you have one or two horses that exceed what they what they've cost and what the running costs are, but the majority of them won't be anywhere near that, and you should be making more money if you're overselling shares, and imagine that's part of the bloody problem. Um so there's I'd imagine there's m plenty of money going missing here, especially if you're not. I don't know how you can't not be paying training bills as well when you have that structure, assuming that's what the structure is. But I think one of the big solutions here and should be introduced is it becomes it becomes mandatory to disclose when you buy a share. So if I go to a syndicate and I buy five percent of a horse, you get some kind of login to the BHA system, and you can see the shareholders in that horse. And every single so it becomes it becomes par for the course that when you buy a syndicate, here's your login to the BHA. When you log in, it shows what percent of that horse you own. That becomes standard and mandatory, and it would stop the overselling. If that became commonplace and everybody knew, did you get your login for the BHA there just to check your shares are registered? You couldn't oversell a horse then. Like, is that not the most simple solution to this problem to stop this happening again?

SPEAKER_00 52:02

That might be one of the upgrades that's gonna happen uh in the uh protracted new website that starts.

SPEAKER_03 52:08

And it would get a bit tricky with these micro share syndicates, wouldn't it? If you have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.

SPEAKER_00 52:14

Yeah, it's it's it's it just seems like a different minute, but it's doable. Yeah, it's just just bizarrely, if your horses in your syndicates are useless, it it's not a problem if you oversell them. It's when they it's when you get a group one winner that's earned hundreds of thousands, and you start people you start after paying people out. That's when the problems arrive at. But no, it's it's it's something's got to be done, you know, financially based about you like said, paying in advanced training fees, etc. Because, like you said, you speak to any amount of trainers, and there are a number of bad payers out there, and there's been some very, very high profile owners that have done that and have moved horses around on the back of it before before you know they've gone bust and left the sport. It's it's yeah, it's it's an area that's could you have something?

SPEAKER_02 53:05

I don't even like the I don't even know if the trainers would want this, Harry. You'd have more visibility of this when dealing with trainers, but could you have something that if it has to be its statutory or its standard or it's enforced that if you don't pay your training fees for three months, you you lose the horse? Trainers wouldn't want it.

SPEAKER_03 53:23

I know they want, but then I know, but it's it's you know, it it's it's a very yeah, you know, the the problem is the problem is it's very expensive to um train horses, you're getting very little value for it as an owner, other than the enjoyment of ownership. Um and so to then add on top of that, you know, what you would call friction uh to um to the ownership experiences. Oh, I you know, I haven't paid my invoice in three months, therefore I'm gonna be um uh uh you know deregistered. I just I just think that it that that that the the level of demand wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't withstand it.

SPEAKER_02 54:04

Can I tease that out further? Like similar to the horses that are banned for non-triers and they're off the track for 40 days or whatever.

SPEAKER_03 54:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 54:13

Do you have a situation where a guy owns a horse, they bought the horse, they send it to your yard, it doesn't pay your training fees for three months, the horse is banned from running. So there's no incentive.

SPEAKER_03 54:23

Because I think what the situation you get at the moment is Well, you can do that, you can apply for the horse to be put on the forfeit list. I can't remember what the criteria is.

SPEAKER_02 54:31

But people bad debt, the problem with it at the moment is trainers are like wearing the bad debt because they don't want to lose the horse, basically. Isn't that the case? Yeah, and there'll be another trainers who who will take it.

SPEAKER_03 54:45

Yeah, 100%.

SPEAKER_02 54:46

So if you create a system whereby a bad debt, there's no the residual value of the horse can't be transferred to somewhere else, so you can't have that those conditions existing. That a trainer just says, contact the BHA, I've tried now, it's three months, he hasn't paid me. This is the paper trail. I've not been paid, I don't want this horse to run and it can't leave my yard, and I want to try and sell it to or buy it or find somebody.

SPEAKER_03 55:12

Well, trainers have a lean-in, generally speaking, over horses anyway. So in response to unpaid training fees under the trainers' agreements when they remember to enter into training agreements, which is um not as often as perhaps they ought to. Um so uh it is uh there is also there are mechanisms, but the fundamental point and an answer to all of your questions is the balance of power is with is with owners. Uh and and rather like um uh you know, owing the old adage of owing a bank £100, you have the problem, um, owing the bank a million pounds, the bank has the problem. Um, the more the debt builds up with an owner, the m in some ways the more powerful that owner becomes because you become more and more concerned about them not paying it. Um and and and more and more reliant on them actually paying it. So it it it it just it comes down to the power in the game. You know, trainers are not trainers not providing a huge amount of value on one analysis for the sums that are being paid for that for the um training of a racehorse in in terms of anything outside of the enjoyment of owning a racehorse, which which is why most people do it. But it does put them at a at a difficult commercial negotiation um position.

SPEAKER_02 56:26

I just think you just try and remove that power then. You remove that power by saying if you don't pay for three months, the horse is remains in the yard, you don't own it anymore, and you try and recover that debt. So there's no incentive to the guy who spent X amount on a horse to not pay.

SPEAKER_03 56:46

But then you get the reputation of being the trainer that does that.

SPEAKER_02 56:49

No, but you have to make it mandatory, you make it mandatory for every trainer, you have to do this, or you get him fined if you don't do it. Everyone plays by this system.

SPEAKER_03 56:58

You just literally I don't know. I understand the logic to it. I understand the logic. It's a very, very fragile um uh ecosystem. I hate that word. Um, but it's very, very fragile. And I think that the last thing that anyone really wants to be doing is this, you know, is putting up more boundaries for ownership. I agree that one of the boundaries, you know, it shouldn't really be a boundary to pay your training fees, but I'm afraid that there are a lot of owners who approach like um approach approached, well, there are a significant number of owners who approach training fees like they approach their tailor, uh, which is they pay when they feel like it. And um, and and uh that doesn't mean that they're small uh time owners or they don't have the money. Um it just means that if if if you did things like this to them, you you would you you you would risk losing them from the sport and the sport probably can't really at risk. But listen, I perfectly understand the logic of your point, and maybe it would work, but I suspect the reason that no one would try it is is for fear of annoying owners, you know, and and indeed trainers who would then become very worried about, you know. Imagine you're a trainer and you've got you know an owner with half the horses in your yard um hasn't been paying, and you've got a week left, and you don't want to fall out with this person because they do always pay eventually, or you believe they'll pay eventually, and you've got a week before all these horses are automatically um decertified, you'd be you you wouldn't be very happy. And you'd also have to assume that these horses are worth anything, and you know, they mightn't they mightn't be worth the training fees that they're outstanding. I just think that's I think that's more desirable than than this. You may be right. I'm just I'm just saying that that's what I think is the thinking behind not doing things like that.

SPEAKER_01 58:38

Yeah, yeah. It's kind of like with the jockey situation, trying to put something in to help them with the the two meetings a day thing, but probably most jockeys would probably say they want to ride two meetings a day, but you're trying to put something in to help them, but they'd vote against it anyway. It's uh it's that desperation, I guess, to succeed, yeah. To to to not give up anything, I suppose, in the game. Um, speaking of jockey, we do have a story here on uh apprentice jockey Patty Pilly, a former former apprentice jockey Patty Pilly, who's been banned from racing for 14 months after pleading guilty to placing bets while holding a licence and laying horses. He cared for the rider, was charged with the breach of rules J5, J6, and J19 on May 19 this year. So rule J5 prohibits a jockey unless an amateur not riding in the race to bet, while Rule J6 prohibits stable staff from laying a horse in their care, and J19 refers to a person acting prejudicial to the integrity, proper conduct, and good reputation of racing. So just to give you an idea of what Piddy did, so he placed 10 bets while he was a licensed jockey between August 15th and October 2nd, 2020, and placed 12 lay bets when on the stable employee register of trainers Tom Dascombe, Charlie Appleby, and Daryl Holland. And between September 18th and November 24, 2023, he also placed 42 lay bets on horses trained by John Butler. While he worked for the trainer at the time, he was not uh on the stable employee register with the trainer failing to enroll him. Uh Harry, what did you make of this story? Does this uh set a precedence going forward or well?

SPEAKER_03 1:00:19

I mean, it's always been it's always been the case that um that connected parties can't place um you know, like stable staff like owners um can't place uh uh certain types of bets, or depending on exactly who they are, any bets in the case for a jockey example on um on horses. But um I haven't got I haven't gone through I'm not sure of the written reasons out, full full written reasons out on this. I'm not sure if they are I haven't read them. So I I don't wanna I don't wanna um uh overset them up. I think that you're asked yeah, you're asking for trouble in those circumstances. I would have thought that there is enough education to explain to people working in the industry that they shouldn't be doing that. Um so uh it it sounds you know it was a 14-month ban, I think. Um I don't like to see five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten year bans to people whose lives are only racing. Um but obviously you need something that um does send a message in in this type of case on on those facts. I mean listen, it's important to say we don't know whether they were what these bets were, how big they were, whether they were net lays, net net bat, you know, we we just don't know what they were. So yeah, I I I don't really want to to to comment on whether it was an appropriate penalty, but just to say that um it it's not setting a precedent as such because it's always you know it's been the case for a very long time, probably probably forever, really, um that that that you can't do that.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:56

Indeed. Uh and Harry, take another quick word from you on the Ross Ryan case, the written reasons were published for it on Thursday. Anything to note there or or how did you find it?

SPEAKER_03 1:02:05

Uh no, not really. I mean it it comes down to the panel finding that um he could have he could have lost the this is when he when he puts his hands down just as they uh come to the line um and drops his hands. And the uh panel found that the horse could the horse uh he could have maintained the lead over the finish line, but that's not saying to say he would have done. Um and so they reduced the ban. They did find that he shouldn't have uh done it, but that the penalty wasn't appropriate, so it was reduced. I think that if people there will be people, I I I don't have a strong view on this, I have to say, there will be people who say that in circumstances where you mistake make a mistake like that, that the the presumption should be when it's that close that you would have uh kept the race had you ridden the horse out. Um rather than it I'm not entirely sure who it is for who to prove at the moment, whether it could or would. Um uh and that doesn't appear to have jumped completely out of the reasons to me. But I think there'll be people who say, Oh, come on, when it's that close and you've dropped your hands, um that's your lookout pal, not not not you know, I don't care what clever arguments you can come up with about what what what counterfactuals might have happened. But as I say, I don't actually I don't actually have a strong with you on it.

SPEAKER_00 1:03:30

Yeah, you you think if you were the stewards on the night though, and reading those reasons there is an element do you think the stewards would expect to be backed up? I know it's an independent opinion.

SPEAKER_03 1:03:42

I think they probably I think they possibly would have done on that one, um, for the reason I give, which is that it was it was very close. He did make a mistake, it was right at the finish. Um to get around it because he could conceivably still have lost a race. Um that seemed difficult. And I uh and you know the other thing I I suppose you've got to remember is how quickly decision stewards tend to have to be able to make these decisions, and are they gonna get overturned every time because there needs to be a much bigger analysis of whether a horse could have in fact finished three inches in front of three inches, you know point.03 of a second earlier uh than it otherwise did.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:27

Okay, um, we will finish with the uh unfortunate news that Bo Echo has been retired after a minor setback. Um so bring you in here, Tony. So the horse has been retired after winning all six of us starts uh with what has appeared seems to be a relatively minor injury. Don't know the full details of it, uh, and is going to stand as a Darling Stallion um next year, etc. So excellent horse, looking forward to him running again. Uh people talking about best since Frankel, etc. And now he's he's gone. He's uh we're not seeing on the race course again.

SPEAKER_00 1:05:05

Yeah, reignited that old debate about uh flat horses uh you know here today, gone tomorrow. Um listening to again the Nick Nap Daily uh extensive interview with uh trainer George Burry on I think it was on Wednesday, and it really was an uh an in-depth interview. Uh Burry admitted it was a very, very minor injury. Um he said if it was if it happened at the start of the season, they would have just given him a little time and kicked on again. If it happened a little bit later, maybe they would have trained him towards you know, you know, the back end. Um, but they just decided to draw stumps mainly because it's obviously a very, very um, you know, it's a he's very kind of like uh a big it'd be a big cash cow for him when it goes to Dali uh to be a starter next year, and they didn't want to take any risks whatsoever. Um So yeah, I mean a lot of people were unhappy about it and wanted more details about what the minor injury was. Um but yeah, if you go and listen to Nick Lut Daily, then you'll get as an extensive um uh assessment of that uh as anybody has done. Um yeah, it's uh yeah, it's like I said, it's it's not ideal, but like I said, if you own that horse and something had happened and it was gonna be make you absolutely tens, hundreds of millions in the future, you wouldn't take any risks whatsoever. So I understand the decision. As uh disappointing as it could be. Um yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:37

And anyway, do we want to talk? Maybe do a little Kia Klaxon. He's uh uh sending his horses to uh National Hunt racks. So this could be interesting in the new season. Anyone want to have any dibs there?

SPEAKER_00 1:06:48

It's the biggest non-story, it was the lead story on the racing post and the sporting life. And I think I think Nick um did the exclusive again on his podcast. Um yeah, it's just he's got a 50% share in a horse that's going in training over jumps. I mean, it's just just a ridiculous non-story. What is a story is that uh he uh one of his mega purchases, 4.4 million pound purchase in 2024 as a yearly, finished second of six at Windsor on Thursday on her belated debut. So uh the fiddle is called partying, uh, and I imagine he won't be on the back of that. 4.4 million, and it finished second of six at Windsor uh on its belated three-year-old debut. So yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:37

How long how long do we think that he'll have to get that stallion to pay for the whole thing before it all falls apart?

SPEAKER_00 1:07:44

Yeah, but the first quarter of it. Yeah, it's you know, there's like I said, he's buying Phillies and they've got some residual value for the for the shit, etc.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:53

But it's just absolutely spending 4.4 million on this and then watching it finish second in a thing at Windsor. Like, uh how would you even look at that? Do you even look people in the face after that? I just feel like that's mad. I don't know what I don't care how much money you have, it's that's just unvadelessly. Anyway, uh any other business, any other business gents, or we'll call it a day.

SPEAKER_03 1:08:18

Yeah, all good. Uh, one thing for me, Renan, very quickly. Uh I was reading that Sun article. Apparently the BHA have called the um to speak to the new gambling minister on affordability checks um rather than on this most recent development, but I imagine that this most recent development will come up. But that just to clarify, that was the sun article.

SPEAKER_02 1:08:40

I I uh I enjoyed the headline, one of the headlines I read which used the adjective demands, the BHA demands. I don't think there's uh I don't think there's much demand going on then uh with this weak position that we have.

SPEAKER_03 1:08:53

Absolutely not.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:54

Yeah. It's great to have some when I say any other business, it's always no other business. It's great to have some business this time. So uh very good, very good, Harry. Thank you for that. Um, thank you for listening. Thanks for the last or contributions. Uh I imagine it'll be Monday week when we're back. Bar, there is uh another deluge of uh news coming through over the weekend. We'll we'll see, but it could be Monday week before we're with you again. So we'll talk to you then. Thank you for listening again and cheers.