"History shows us, that it isn’t a great strategy" - Floyd's opinion

Greyhound racing changes with BAGS

We ended last week’s analysis in 2015 with a plan by the major bookmakers to carve up the greyhound industry to their own liking. 

(Apologies to former Greyhoundstar readers that some of the following may be familiar . . . ) 

But before going forward, we need to look back to the early 1960s and the formation of BAGS. It was an organisation set up to deal on behalf of the newly legalised betting shops with afternoon greyhound racing. 

As time passed and greyhound racing reached 21% of bookmaker turnover, BAGS became more powerful and in some aspects found itself crossing the border into NGRC territory in terms of the integrity of racing. 

Although they were seldom, publicly, seen to usurp the powers of the regulatory body, they didn’t need to do so. 

Too many winning favourites, empty traps, betting market outside their ‘suggested SPs’, too many trap ones, too, many T1-T6 forecasts. . .or more simply put  . . . too many winning bets, and the individual tracks would be reminded that their contract might not be renewed. 

Eventually there was however a second organisation formed, the Satellite Information Service (SIS). 

It was created in 1986 and went live early the following year following the change of legislation that allowed live pictures to be broadcast into betting shops. 

But the betting world had changed in the quarter century since the formation of BAGS.  

In the early days, there were dozens of medium sized independent bookmakers and even the ‘Big Four’ to emerge, Ladbrokes, Corals, William Hill and Mecca, had a comparatively smaller share of the market. 

As a result, the non-profit BAGS was primarily an administration organisation. 

SIS was altogether a different beast. It was created to make money and was primarily owned by a handful of big bookmakers (Ladbrokes were the biggest shareholders) and venture capitalists. 

The BGRB had attempted to secure a stake in the fledgling SIS but were dismissed. 

So – BAGS would pay a fee to SIS to film greyhound races, with supporting prices, commentaries etc and broadcast them to the shops. 

Unfortunately, the big bookmakers weren’t satisfied. They wanted more power. 

First, through SIS, they attempted to dominate the major horserace courses by laying down the law as to what they were prepared to pay for the rights to broadcast their races. 

The racecourses were seemingly incensed by arm-up-the-back tactics and decided to leave it. 

It went to court, where SIS was represented by Tom Kelly (later to be the CEO of GBGB) and lost. 

Threats from the bookies that they would bring the racecourses to their knees by not taking bets of their races, and thus depriving them of levy income, were soon in tatters as one major bookie after another, starting with William Hill, broke ranks and signed individual deals with the Horserace Media Group (HMG) who broadcast their races through Turf TV. 

But SIS, dominated by Ladbrokes (maybe we should throw a few ‘allegedlys’ in there) were confident that greyhound racing would roll over far more easily. 

It was at the time that Government were increasing pressure on the greyhound industry to improve its welfare status, and BAGS (allegedly) told SIS to reduce its delivery fee. 

It was a classic ‘who needs who?’ stand-off. 

So a plot was hatched. A senior bookmaker figure, no longer in the industry, was soon on a tour of a select group of greyhound tracks.  

His spiel went something along the following lines. 

‘There is a new sheriff in town. We are about to kill off BAGS. We have decided that there are way too many tracks that we don’t take bets on. We only need about a dozen.  

‘We can concentrate resources and welfare on those dozen tracks. The others are on their own to wither and die. Not our problem! 

‘But to be one of our chosen dozen – which will include the two Ladbrokes, two Coral and two William Hill tracks – there will be a point scoring criteria. Too many winning favourites, too many empty traps, betting outside the preferred SPS. (etc etc) and you will lose points and ultimately your contract.’ 

What could go wrong? SIS held all the aces. 

Well – they clearly didn’t read the room. 

On 9 August 2016, 11 tracks including all of the ‘potential six’ announced the formation of the Greyhound Media Group (GMG).  

Their media provider would be SIS’s great rival, the Arena Racing Company (ARC), who also owned or were affiliated to a string of tracks outside the HMG. 

Unsurprisingly, its administrative function was taken over by BAGS.  

While it was a great ‘eff-you’ for SIS, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the 11 GMG tracks were equally indifferent to the survival of Henlow, Harlow, Mildenhall, Doncaster, Pelaw, Shawfield and Towcester. 

Almost overnight, SIS set about fence building around the ‘seven pariahs’ and big contracts saw tracks like Henlow drawn back from closure while almost trebling their prize money overnight. 

So much has happened since then, it would make the skullduggery and double crossing in Game Of Thrones look like Coronation Street. 

The first big shocker was (SIS shareholders) William Hill selling Newcastle and Sunderland to ARC, who also bought Nottingham, Central Park and the remaining GRA tracks. 

But ARC were struggling to match the SIS payment scheme, given they had the Entain (Ladbrokes, Coral) contract which amounted to around 45% of betting shop share. 

ARC dramatically reduced their schedules and started offering loans to their contracted tracks in order to compete on prize money levels. 

The reduction/loss of betting shop meetings, followed by Covid, saw the loss of Poole and Belle Vue. 

But one move that nobody saw coming was Entain joining ARC to become Premier Greyhound Racing.  

How bizarre was that! 

As a result, SIS lost significant income which led to reduction in payments to their contracted tracks. 

So now what? 

Having, monitored the decline of the second highest spectator sport in Britain, for more than half the time of its existence, it would therefore be the easiest thing in the world to view greyhound racing as a sport preparing for its last rites. 

Alternatively, you can see dog racing, in some form or another, as a great survivor. 

Track numbers have tumbled but so have many other social activities including pubs. 75,000 in the 1970s to fewer than 39,000 today. 

Speedway and stock car have faced massive decline. Other spectator sports including rugby and cricket also attract way smaller crowds than they did half a century ago. 

As we await the closure of Swindon in December, it is an open secret that Suffolk Downs will soon be back in operation, under the SIS banner, and Dunstall Park is ready and set to replace Perry Barr.  

The most recent intelligence suggests that provisional plans for the closure of Hove are off the table. We will see. 

Here are three broader issues that I believe the industry urgently needs to address 

Governance: 

Mark Bird’s agreement to stay on as GBGB CEO, combined with appoint of Sir Philip Davies as chairman should provide the impetus for a massive restructuring of the industry. 

The GBGB board of directors should be reduced by at least 50%. There are too many token directors who contribute little or nothing to this industry and take out hundreds of thousands of pounds. 

In short – we cannot afford so many hangers-on. 

The BGRF (The Fund) should be wound up. It was created in a different era where bookmakers felt the need to monitor their contributions. 

The current dynamic is entirely different and ‘The Fund’ should be a sub-committee of GBGB. 

Administration:

I was tempted to call this ‘industry promotion and marketing’ but it is a much bigger job than that and quite frankly, GBGB aren’t up to it. 

Thus far, they have shown minimal flair or capability to be able to promote greyhound racing, defend its corner, or create any type of strategy for its long term survival, barring doing a very able job in managing and monitoring welfare. 

The most recent ‘underground attack’ on the industry wasn’t defended by the Board, it was left to Greyhoundracinguk to tackle the social media campaign. 

I don’t blame the current CEO. Whether Bird could have delivered a long term strategy when the Board had its eight figure income is purely speculation. 

Somehow I doubt it. The promoters wouldn’t have let him.  

As it is, there is ZERO budget to take the industry forward, and sadly no sign that the only two organisations capable of funding it, PGR and SIS have the appetite to do so. 

It appears that SIS don’t have the resources and I see zero sign that PGR have any goal other than to make money from the fixture list. 

Realistically, why should we expect any different?  

GRA didn’t set out to make greyhound racing into a national pastime. It was a business venture. 

We should expect no more or no less of PGR – or SIS. 

The future:

Here is the rub though, in the first instance, do the media rights providers and their customers the bookmakers, see greyhound racing as a long term project? 

Something that is cheap and manageable and fills the space between other betting opportunities, while extending shop hours? 

Because they are the only ones who can deliver it. 

Realistically, on its current trajectory, the sport is not sustainable in the medium term. 

The issue of five-runner fields will only exacerbate with the 2023 breeding slump which saw a decline of 20% in breeding, and which was then maintained in 2024. 

The ‘Jim Reynolds/Richard Devenish trainer generation’ to name two dog men of similar vintage, are departing the industry. They will continue to do so and are not being replaced. Nor are their kennels. 

How many adverts can there be for tracks demanding new trainers? 

Will the bookies – so far seemingly oblivious to garbage racing – eventually call a halt and demand the level of product that greyhound racing once delivered? 

Or to view the problem in a different way - is there an obvious alternative to dog racing in the betting shops? 

If we assume that dog racing is a worthwhile ‘product’, both SIS and PGR will have to step up, starting with a managed combined fixture list. 

They will need to find a way to increase the numbers of owners, trainers and breeders, . . . . .OR  finance the whole shooting match themselves. 

Promoter Kevin Boothby is already the sport’s biggest owner. How long until SIS/PGR are forced into buying dogs, or even breeding them? 

History shows us, that it isn’t a great strategy. 

GRA set out that way, and soon discovered the financial benefit of a wider infrastructure. 

Every owner, trainer or breeder that leaves the industry increases that cost.