gold circle and phumelela put this in your pipe and smoke it

I think the adage that the top 10% gain 80% of what's available, is the reason for those 'big' owners mentioned Karl.

However that leaves us 90% scraping for the remaing 20%.

So you're right, lower the stakes and leave it for those who can afford 'yatch's and a mistress' = 50 - 60 owners, 400-450 Horses?
Cool 2 - 3 Tracks, plenty of money to spread amongst those few remaining - just like the 'Golden Days' huh?

That's just what I going to do.
I'm outahere.

game is run by incompitants

...and i thought for a moment we were getting somewhere.

how is racing funded, sharkie? ask yourself how many different ways a racing company can make money, maybe take a look at some of the big ones around the world, then count how many of those revenue streams do P and GC really, truly maximise? there's only one source of revenue that is important enough to get a mention on P's published financial results.

they are not in the business of racing, fellas - they are betting operators (not very good ones at that) and their interests are different to yours.

getting rid of the bookies or the open bet, increasing or decreasing the stakes pot are all sure fire ways to make things worse, not better. look to the structure of the industry.

So Greenbook you are of the opinion that Phum and GC must fund the whole horseracing show, which the bookmakers can then use as an how they want.

Btw, can I use your car and house for a couple of months. I will also need a credit card for food and petrol. If I can spare some money, I will leave some when I leave.

Why not? Bookmakers uses the racing product like that all the time.

no mate, i'm saying you can't blame the bookies for paying nothing, because neither the law nor, arguably P, requires them to do so on. if you want to fix it, don't ban bookies because the betting will just carry on illegally. rather set up a system where racing benefits equally from both according to a formula that aligns everyone's interest (ie. a % of their betting profit).

and while i agree with Karel that the stakes pot could probably cope with a reduction, i certainly wouldn't promote the idea. the only immediate and measurable effect of reducing the stakes pot will be to increase P's bottom line, which I don't believe is in anyone's interest.