blonde poker forum

Congratulations on your appointment as the decision maker in the new, ITV coverage of British horse racing. You will be on every Saturday for 3 hours, plus the big festivals like Cheltenham, Royal Ascot, Aintree and Glorious Goodwood.

Channel 4 has done it for a few years, both on its own and, previously, alongside the BBC. Their numbers have declined and your brief is to get more people watching, not just the punters but the families, too. It's about informing the public about what's going on, but also selling the brand and the event of a day at the races.

Your lead presenter will be Ed Chamberlin, who previously has been doing Monday Night Football on Sky Sports but is an avid racing fan.

(http://tvnewsroom.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ed-chamberlin-Image-009-432x242.jpg)

You can choose whatever you want, but your brief is to get the ratings up and to keep the racing purists happy (even if they'd prefer it to be like the "good old days" where four middle aged white blokes rambled on while flicking through the Racing Post)

So, how would you go about making your coverage a success? Who are your co-presenters? What do they do? What regular features would you have on: Fashion? Features on owners and trainers? Tours of stables? Explanations on what makes an endurance/sprint horse? How handicapping works? To what extent do you talk about betting?

Who do you look for sponsorship from? Bookies? Clothing companies? Whoever pays the most money?

As someone who quite likes the current format (a little bit of everything, but a leaning towards the betting side of the sport), I clearly have it wrong. Even on a poker forum, I expect there will be some strong views to the contrary.

What would you do?

(https://www.freebets.com/upload/Bet365-Price-Promise-Horse-Racing.jpg)

Think Chapman would definitely be on the firm.

He's marmite, but at least he doesn't just toe the line, and will ask questions others won't.

Get rid of Fitzgerald.

Im watching it now, and Tanya just annoys me more and more every week.

She is supposed to be there as a source of info, and a facilitator. I don't want to hear that she is going to back the "lovely old Hoof it" or whatever is the oldest horse in any other race, I want the opinions of the people you are there to interview, not yours. Get shot of her. Programme miles better already.

Thankfully they are back showing a decent amount of form footage of a race from a furlong or so out, more of that please. The programme was almost pointless when their footage was of the horse crossing the line in a solo caption(whose fucking idea was that in the first place???)

If you have coverage later of seven races, lets have a fair amount of time on each, if its a betting programme, not just the main two or three.

Ring a few more trainers up, say 3 a week for a quick update on some of their big hopes that day.

Bollocks to competitons/stud visits etc.


And Cunningham can go too. Much like me, he loves the sound of his own voice too much, but then I'm not on TV every week pushing my '10 words when 1 will do' verbal diarrhoea down the screen. Let the other person speak you ignorant twat (NB he does this on Racing UK all the time too, so not based on one view today).

No to anything on fashion

No to Rishi Persad

No to Emma, Gina and especially Tanya

Mark Braveheart can prattle on about no betting til the cows come home but he's got Arab patronage and 200 horses.

feel the programme needs it, and bookie sponsors as well as new non racing sponsors too. who is watching it if there is no betting content? not enough people are interested in the racing per se to drive viewers up

Struggle to see how you are gonig to beat Jim McGrath and Graham Cunningham for form content


so Ed chamberlain and a lady co-presenter

Jim and Graham

a person in the ring who can get the lowdown, isn't mccricick and isn't tanya or that bloke Gleeson

someone to interview people in the paddock pre and post race. Probably female

fewer guests who say "you know" at the start and end of every sentence. that rules out most jockeys, you know

your brief is to get the ratings up and to keep the racing purists happy

I don't believe those 2 things are compatible.

For instance, it grates me something shocking to be forced to watch Fashion nonsense during racing, or that Gok bloke, but you mention (correctly) the need to make it more family-viewing orientated, & so that sort of nonsense is needed.

I'd like to see more focus on the blood lines & breeding, but that would only be of interest to super geeks.

It's a shame that everything revolves around ratings, but that is how it is these days.

FWIW, I think Ch4 have covered racing really well, almost as well as the BBC used to.     

I would certainly include Emma & Jim McGrath in the line up. I don't have a problem with Tanya, either, I like to see common people dressed up to the nines.

Not quite sure that is correct.

As a racing programme, I bet no one switches over to look at fashion tips. They know its a racing programme, so if they have no interest in racing they wont watch. So make it the best racing programme you can, and pull in everyone that loves racing. That should be enough to please the ratings guys.

no the problem is that there is more competition for leisure time. fewer people have got interested in racing. this is accelerating, so if they just do racing stuff, viewing figures fall further

diversfying the content (and maybe being able to attact non bookie sponsors as a result) is right, but not fashion please

I beg to differ.

If you dilute the programme, I wont watch any more. You broaden it, and I bet my wife still won't watch it. I suspect that is a fairly common view.

Find me a person that doesnt watch it now and ask what it takes to get them to watch it, and I bet they just say if its to do with HR, they just wont.

I thought the bbc were always terrible at covering racing.  No time at all for Julian Wilson or Willie Carson.  Rishi Persaud still seens fairly clueless despite all his time on both channels.

Fashion can all go in a half hour program after.  Today's fashion at Ascot.

Got to say I used to love John McCririck when I wasn't that serious.  Think you need a loud personaility.

I like Emma too.  The new female lead is supposed to be very knowledgeable and has presented in Australia.  Think she seems a fine choice.

Definitely lots of betting moves and stuff.  I used to love that when starting out.

Love Jim McGrath too, more of him.

They need to sign up Tikay.  Hear he is a big winner at the gambling.  Also get his sidekick Chompy on to get the reality tv crossover audience.  Would love to see them two on the fashion slot.  

Lovely old Hoof It, Tanya knew.

LOL. Give you that one. Although she didnt tip it, I just looked for the oldest horse when writing! :D :D :D

All the great racing this week, and still the NAP is landed at the death, with Tanya's fave moment being Hoof It :D

LOL. If you follow Tanya, you are an even bigger mug than you tell us you are! ;)

Reading comprehension problems in your old age mate?

;D

Thx Tanya

Never gonna please everyone in these spots. I like Rishi for example. In terms of racing knowledge, Luck and Willoughby should both be in, even though I think they had a big fall out one evening on RUK.

I like Nick Luck, and of the RUK lot, I think Mellish & Lydia are probably the ones I prefer overall.

I'd have a regular feature: Steve Palmer's Nightingale System. Get him putting on every race. Was comedy on that BBC documentary a while back, "this will not be beaten, this will not be beaten...oh, it lost."

:D

Started reading his book last month when I was in having my infusion, and he's com.

Didn't realise he had a book out, will have to get that! Love the degeneracy.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=born+to+punt

I would hire a bloke to throw a custard pie at at someone every week, preferably a winning trainer or visiting dignitary.

The viewing figures would go through the roof. Even I would watch.

Would you watch if there were more horse racing history pieces? Maybe more about how horses have been critical to the development of western civilisation?

You can change the presenters, contents, channel as many times as you like but it ignores and wont solve the underlying issue.

Week to week horse racing just doesn't interest 99.5% of the population. They may have a small mug bet on the National or Derby but they have no real interest and have no desire to either.

I take people/arrange trips to racing perhaps half a dozen times a year but they go for the socialising, drink and food. They have zero interest in racing other than having £2 e/w on races because they are there.

None of those people (and they are the ones who come to the racing once or twice a year) have any interest in the sport or TV coverage.

Even guys who love poker. The vast majority of those don't give a toss about racing even though it involves betting.

Don't know how the sport changes that fundamental issue.

^^^^^

Nail & head, 100%.

There are just not enough genuine horse racing fans to get the required ratings.

So it either gets dumbed down with fashion nonsense & the like, or it disappears.

BBC tried, Ch 4 tried, & now ITV are going to try. Unless they change it radically, it'll disappear from ITV in due course, too.

ATR & UK Racing both do "proper" horse racing coverage, but the viewing numbers are eye-wateringly low.

99.5 is a proper fact?  Good use of the 0.5 to give it a bit of accuracy.  

Think it is more an ageing support base and the fact we can watch races differently now.  I was at a kids party for the stewards cup so watched it on the phone.  I caught up at night by watching a couple of races again on the sporting life site.  Much of the time, I am doing stuff and just watch the actual races.  I simply don't watch tv as much as I did.

I think there is too long between races for the general public, I took my other half to both horse and dog racing recently she would previously have treated oth with the same contempt at the  horse racing she hated it too much faffing around she said.  With the dogs much more action she wanted to go back.  

On TV she just says it's very boring too many pompous posh twats.  I guess you can't change that element though as they have the money and invest in the horses to the plebs can bet.  

For the TV coverage I'd like to see more behind the scenes stuff what do the jockeys do, what do the trainers do what's a typical day not for the big earners but for guys just scraping a living in the game.  

I'd try and get pro gamblers up against the books so it wasn't just PR.  

Yuh, don't think there's a need to racing on TV aside from RUK. Wish ATR would gtfo too. Surprised more didn't follow the likes of Exeter and Ascot, and jump ship. Awful channel.

This is very true.

Try playing a round of golf with a gambling mate and get through 18 without someone telling you a result.

You don't need to be at home on the tv to enjoy it.

Ok 99.5% isn't a proper fact but you get my point.

Within the circles I mix in, basically work, friends and poker, I can list on one hand the people into racing on a regular basis.

I'm taking 20 people to the Ebor on the Saturday. There are 3 people including me who have any really interest and I mix in circles where I'd expect the interest to be a lot higher. And these are people who are actually bothering to buy a ticket to the event.

I know its not a scientific study (and I know you like to be analytical) but its clear the vast, vast majority of people have no interest in horse racing. They certainly aren't going to watch a horse racing programme or racing whether its live or on the internet.

You and I might watch a race again on sporting life site but joe bloggs just isn't interested.

The large race horse meetings have had to find other ways to get people through the door. Racing for a lot of people who go now is purely a social event sometimes with a band thrown in at the end of the night. The racing itself is almost secondary even to the people who actual attend.

Anyway, back to the original point, nothing the TV programme does will change the current trend.

So, like the racecourses themselves, the move for the TV coverage should be away from the racing fans and towards the wider market of entertainment.

You want more races over a concentrated period and more pieces about general interest, so that there's a more accessible product for a wider market: if they find a racing programme fun, even if it isn't as much about racing as it used to be, they will be more likely to come to watch it live and enjoy the experience.

You want to keep "form guides" like Cunningham and McGrath, who - for want of a better expression - will tell you which horses they think will win, rather than looking for value against a confusing betting market.

Let's take Sky's F1 coverage. It is a highly technical overall product but the main race programme is fast-paced and shouty.  They save the really nerdy stuff for separate shows, even though they're generally bolted to either end of the main programme, like Ted's Notebook.

Would you use a show like The Morning Line for the high level content and perhaps an evening show to review the day's events? This would leave the main show for a more accessible, mainstream product.

There are more betting site adverts now than there have been on tv generally. Where does this feature in your new format?

I think this is a good idea.  I think you could have a better product for the morning line for the purists and punters.  I think maybe a a show 2/3 times a week looking at the background and whats going on would be good and then after racing perhaps at night before match of the or even on the Sunday a review show with realy good analysis. 

But at what point does it become overkill? 

They don't bring on the dancing girls at half time in the football or in the middle of a grand prix. It is a racing program.  No more people are tuning in for the dancing girls and racing fans will switch off in their droves.  The jibber jabber in the football program is about football and in the f1 program is about f1.  Sure you might get a bit of history or nice pictures of monaco, but mostly they just concentrate on the sport in question.

Suspect they could can a few adverts.  I know it is what pays tge bills, but they are far more intrusive in the racing than they are on football, f1 etc.

racing has such limited appeal outside of people who are interested in betting.

a load of the girls from work love going the races, i've been a fair few time and a lot of my mates go regularly too. but watching horses run on tele? no thanks.

is it actually a sport?  -to me its races being run for the sole purpose of people having something to bet on. it's harldy laden with sporting drama. maybe focus less on the betting and try to paint it as a proper sport. sportify is a horrible word but a proper focus on any jockey / stable / horse championship that exist  [they may already exist, but betting is the sole focus] could maybe get green people like me into racing.

betting is so opaque. unless your dad or some mates can get you interested few people have a clue what to do.

either get people into betting, or appeal to the girls and lads who to the races to be seen / have a piss up. gok wan describing shoes or tim lovejoy giving it his best new lad schtick - i doubt it'd work anyway.

fwiw i have a passing interest in betting, and have been to the races for a social, but theres no way i'd ever watch horse racing on the television. dumb it down, talk it up all you want. its a boring spectacle for me.

Stop showing the horses completely and replace with non-stop pictures of spinning fruit machine reels.  This seems to work in my local bookies.  No one's interested in the racing but they're 3 deep watching whoever's doing the housekeeping money on the FOBTs.

I was in a ladbrokes shop last week. They had kabaddi on. The girls behind the counter asked what it was. I explained the rules as I understand them to be. Their response was "Why would anyone bet on that?!"

I couldn't help myself...

"You've got virtual horse racing on every five minutes and there's a woman over there shouting at a fruit machine!"

Haha.  Great response.  It seems that shouting at the FOBTs is a tactic used by most that play them.  As is hitting them. 

And these are the people you need to interest in racing. We don't have a pari-mutuel monopoly so we kid ourselves that it's us against the bookies but they are just agents. Losers pay for the winners and a successful ITV programme will increase the pool.

Crank up the razzmatazz. Make it all about life-changing winnings: accumulators; Pick Sixes; owners' syndicates winning prize money (bonuses for syndicate ownership?, syndicate only races?).

Terrestrial racing coverage nearly disappeared ten years ago. It was only the Tote paying £3million to Channel Four that saved it. Now the huge increase in bookies' marketing budgets has made racing a valuable property. It won't be judged on how many ordinary viewers switch over from Cash in the Attic but on how many Oi Oi lads tap tap boom and sign up and bet.  I just have to accept that the racing coverage that is in my best interests is not the racing coverage that I would want to watch.

[Deleted self-quoting, ffs.] (I'll go blind).

I couldn't have Chapman for free, he might speak his mind but his voice and style just fks me off.
Would want Mcgrath no probs there, also keep the lovely Emma  :D

 

Definitely gtfo with the fashion.

Tbh, I only started betting on horses early this year, by way of a friend getting me into it.  Before then I couldn't watch a racing show on tv at all, had no interest whatsoever.  Now though I'll watch c4, atr, ruk all for fun, whether I have bets on or not.  I'm all of a sudden interested, I love it.  Yes it's because I have an ulterior motive, to pick up whatever info I can to help my betting cause, but that's my point: horse racing and betting go hand in hand.

 Any show content has to be directly relevant, no bullshit fashion or any of that crap.  I actually enjoy the history element, previous winners and notable races etc, its nostalgic to an extent even for me who hasn't seen the older meetings and big memorable races, I also like the trainer interviews and think training yard/stable features would be a plus.  The problem is people who aren't interested in racing aren't going to watch, end of.  The answer for me is to get more people betting, however that maybe.

http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/fitzgerald-latest-to-land-prize-role-on-itv-racing-team/2147110/top/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'm rather pleased by that, I enjoy Mick's contributions. Fair to say, he knows the game pretty well even if many disagree with his opinions.

And if you are going to employ an aftertimer, why not employ the World's greatest.

"There ya go"

Was everyone else busy?

Oli Bell a great signing though. Can see him winding up on the BBC ten years down the line.

I knew they'd employ him. You only have to look at his recent form to see why he got the nod. The bookies got this one all wrong.

:D

V good tal

Might be a lol sample, but anything he tips up BEFORE the off is pretty much an auto-lay?

So what are thoughts on the new production?

I like it. Especially Lucy ;D

In all seriousness, I think they've done a good job.

I'd have preferred they left Micky Fitz on ATR, and brought Nick Luck over, but on the most part it's good.

I didn't watch the Saturday morning Opening show until last night but I just didn't get it. What's the point of a preview show to whet the appetite that only covers one race in any real depth and then only really talks about the studio guests mount in the big handicap of the day?

Very little betting news in the preview too.

It was more a magazine type show that could have been aired at any time or day of the week if you took that 10 minutes out of the show.

I really like Oli Bell, Harvey is maybe too excited for his own good but he's like a kid that gets paid to do summit he loves so can't fault him too much and tbf he nailed the race he talked about too. They had a weather girl on that actually talked about the weather but they didn't really attach that to the going at the meetings or possible going changes that weather might bring. She just said it might rain at A and will be foggy at B.

On New Year's Day I flicked over from RacingUK on the off of a race just to see how it was covered on ITV, why would anyone that has RacingUK chose to watch a race about 6-7 seconds delayed on ITV instead of live on RacingUK?

I turned str8 back over and haven't been back yet.

At a guess. I think they're aiming to attract people who know about as much as I do about racing, and leaving the more specialist stuff to the other 2 channels.

As for viewing, I've got RUK now, but never had previously, and will pick the channel dependent on who is working. I like Mellish & Hislop, but can't abide Nevison.

I've not been impressed with the new show so far either -  and there seem to be quite a few glitches causing dodgy handovers and loss of sound in stark contrast to the smooth Highflyer productions I've grown accustomed to with Ch4.

I'm also intrigued as to how they plan to increase the number of viewers while hiding the show away on ITV4.

5/10

The reality is in 2017 horse racing is such a niche sport that is TV gambling adverts were banned there probably wouldn't even be coverage on a mainstream channel.  In a similar manner Sky sports are PAID by BAGS and the greyhound board to show the live sky meetings to give the declining sport a show window to the bigger public outside of the immediate industry.  Sky don't pay a penny towards the cost of producing the show as they know they all the power and said they would simply drop Sky dogs show unless what they demanded happened.  The numbers just wouldn't add up outside of the big 4 or 5 festivals annually for horse racing hence why it is on ITV4 and not ITV.  It is hardly like Saturday afternoon is over flowing with top quality programmes on ITV anyway on a typical week.

In turn ITV have to dance to the tune of the piper the sponsors of the show Hills and that means not much discussion of the exchanges which is where the prices are formed.  Having Champan in the betting ring in 2017 is pointless because all he is doing is reporting on on course bookmakers being a slave to the machine.  With hills sponsoring the show though they have to convince their potential customers that the betting ring does still rule the roost in 2017 and not the exchanges.

It would be much more interesting if Chapman went into the hospitality boxes of the in running on course boys at the track using the fast pictures to see how the betting market really works in 2017.

Ed C is a true pro surrounded by a bunch of novices tbh.  Still can't believe he left being the main man on Sky sports for this gig.  Amazing.

Loves racing more than he loves money and football, I guess.

He might have even had a pay rise you never know.  I always got the impression he wasn't paid inline with the Gary Nev's/Henry etc for the great job he did quietly fronting the show for years whilst others took the spotlight.   Barring a Keys/Gray moment it was a job for life though surely?  Certainly can't say that about ITV racing!

Can't see he's getting more for this, than he got for fronting a massive show on Sky, even though I'd definitely think you're right on him being paid a fair whack less than the ex players.

He wrote a piece on for Sporting Life shortly after he was named, and said it wasn't even a hard decision. Racing is top for him, and he said on one of the podcasts that his first job was at a bookies. Think he joked about being terrible at it, and moving on pretty quickly :D

Guess he's pretty confident he could hop back over if it doesn't work out with the racing?

C4 stopped using Highflyer in 2012?

I thought it was Ok so far , the big meetings will be the crunch though.

FMP ;)

i had a bit of trouble with the coverage

Chapman was constantly saying "xyz wins at 9/2, that means if you put £2 on you get £11 back" etc

so its catering for a new to betting public. However why would a new to betting public be watching racing purely by the act of it switching from Channel 4 to ITV or ITV4?

The Morning line equivalent had no betting content.  I do think that the old Channel 4 programme often had too many jockeys masquerading as tipsters but the ITVprogramme went too far the other way to me. Wanting to focus on the "human interest" side of racing is fine but outside the derbty, grand national etc the racing viewer doesn't much care i suspect, yet the produers seem to think they have alighted on a huge potential audience of racing newbies. I highly doubt there is one on a random saturday on ITV4.

that said, big fan of Ed Chamberlain. Luke Harvey should try less hard though

Wouldn't "try to create new horse racing bettors" be one of the objectives of the show?  So spoon feeding info about betting would be part of this?  They want to try and keep casual viewers with as much inclusive material as possible.

From a "growing the sport" point of view it's a pity we don't have a decent Tote any more.  US style exotics - eg a "pick 6/5/4" over the races being shown on the TV could provide low cost betting entertainment, discussion points etc.

it is, but for the derby, grand national, ascot etc where you are going to have casual viewers fine. try and keep new viewers

for ITV4 in mid january i doubt there are many new to racing viewers at all, so your balancing act (new viewers, regular punters) can be skewed away from "put £2 on and get £11 back" and more towards content that will energise them.

doesn't need to be one size fits all weekends.

This is the key to its success long term.  There are two different products here effectively which is why they are on two different channels.  If the same customers were watching the same show every week it would always be on itv not itv4.