Bill Bridge: Divided racing industry should not make hasty decisions on its future

Chief among the causes is the massive drop in income from the Betting Levy, down from a forecast 91.1m to 76.5m, which has brought calls for a thorough review (yes, another one) of racing and, from other sources, demands that the numbers of meetings and horses be pruned.

But it is essential there is no quick-fire attempt at solutions. Cutting back on the numbers of horses capable of running only at the lowest levels would inevitably bring to an end the careers of a large group of trainers, whose owners can only afford animals of modest quality.

Fewer trainers would mean fewer jobs in racing. Similarly, without the horses to make up their cards, smaller courses would be forced out of business; more jobs gone.

If racing was only about the Derby and the other Group One races then it would be less an industry than a hobby for a few rich people, which, of course, is how it started.

The Levy issue is one for Downing Street as much as Middleham High Moor with bookmakers, whose livelihoods for years depended on racing but does so to a lesser degree with today's betting across the whole canvas of sport added to the delights of "virtual racing", slots and poker machines, at the heart of the argument.

The Government has been trying to sell the Tote for some time but cannot find a buyer. If racing could for once put aside its internal squabbling and put together the money, the Tote would be a starting point in turning the tide.

Then we could follow the Australian model with bookmakers allowed to bet on racing only on the course, all off-course betting being run by the Tote with profits going into racing.

That would not solve all the problems, but it would be a start.

WHISPER it among family and close friends but do not start the celebration party just yet; there are rumblings in the shires that Twenty20 cricket may not be the golden egg that some of our county clubs thought it might be.

The indications are that public interest in the bastardised version of the one-day game is dwindling with gates on an uncomfortable slide.

Defenders of the shortened game point to the counter-attraction of the World Cup in South Africa as a reason for a drop in crowd figures; opponents say that the best summer in years should have led to increased attendances.

Others suggest that ticket prices have been too high and that the increased number of fixtures has led to people picking and choosing which matches to attend. The fact that people have less money to spend on entertainment must also be considered.

But as the county clubs discuss possible changes to their Twenty20 format there are also mutterings that the way forward for some will be a franchise-based game, similar to the Indian Premier League, with the "clubs" based on the larger, Test-match staging grounds.

Thus we could have a league made up of teams based on Lord's, The Oval, Headingley Carnegie, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, the Rose Bowl, Riverside, Trent Bridge and Sophia Gardens.

And that, as the England and Wales Cricket Board well know, would lead to a split within the domestic game; the "haves" enjoying the income from the new tournament, the "have-nots" being left to accept whatever might come their way in terms of a share of the profits.

You can be sure that with the financial problems facing several of our larger counties, that share would not amount to much more than crumbs.

Such a division might be the first step in a revolution in the game.

IT was not the best of weeks for the BBC, but then few are.

At the same time as it was revealed they had spent almost 5,000 on business-class tickets to allow one of their executives a weekend in South Africa during the World Cup they also managed to make a hash of the Open Championship.

How much they lavished on an aircraft to show us aerial views of a particularly boring stretch of Scottish coastline – the beauty of St Andrews is all at ground level – we do not know but hiring the beast in a week when the weather forecast was for the weather to make flying difficult and visibility patchy was not the brightest idea in these frugal times.

Then there was the commentary. Dear old Peter Allis still trots out the clichs – like "he must have been disturbed by two butterflies mating in the bottom meadow" – and it has not taken long for Jean Van De Velde to follow the buffer's example.

Looking at one rolling green Jean resorted to the not so much tired as expired "they must have buried an elephant under there."

But worst of all was Ken Brown and Mark James, that comedy act from the Ryder Cup of years ago, confusing Tom Watson and Miguel Angel Jimenez. One is 60, the other 46; the elder is slim as a pencil, the younger edging towards the portly; and – this is the giveaway – one has his hair in a pony-tail. Which is which, boys?

and another thing...

THESE are hard times, as our leaders tell us every day, but there are still some people, not least in sporting circles, who think they can escape the pain.

The majority of us grumble about paying tax but don't take those grumbles to Downing Street, which is what the European PGA Tour, the All England Club, UK Athletics and the organisers of the London Marathon are doing in an attempt to persuade George Osborne there should be exemptions from a tax which – they say – dissuades overseas stars from coming here.

The Revenue tax people like Tiger Woods on their global endorsement earnings for every appearance they make in Britain. If Woods, for example, played five tournaments here in a year he would pay five per cent of his endorsement income in UK tax; playing this year in the Open and Ryder Cup will cost him two per cent.

So he, like many other superstars, does not come as often as our promoters would like. Promoters need sponsors and TV coverage; to get them they need stars. But stars don't like paying tax and they – unlike us – can do something about it.