£300k savings, £70k income - but a £200 monthly limit after affordability checks

This article, originally published for Members' Club Ultimate subscribers in May, has been republished as part of our Best of 2022 series. To read all of the series, and get the best of our award-winning journalism every day, sign up to Members' Club Ultimate here. Select 'Get Ultimate Monthly' and add code BESTOF50 to get 50 per cent off your first three months.

Before we proceed, there follows a small but significant update.

Last week's column reported an estimated crowd figure for Sandown's Jumps Finale Saturday of "just north of 9,000". That number was the smallest in the 30-plus years for which data is available, save for 2021's behind-closed-doors fixture.

The gloomy projection was actually not gloomy enough. The confirmed attendance, now reported by the Levy Board, was just 8,249.

This time last week we also presented official figures for significant meetings at the likes of Newmarket, Doncaster, Newbury and Wetherby. All had suffered huge attendance slumps in recent weeks and months.

In response to the piece, Musselburgh general manager Bill Farnsworth revealed ticket sales at the track had slowed considerably from the start of the spring.

"It's a pretty grim outlook," he said. "If we can get through this year without losing money, we'll probably be happy."

Farnsworth's fears must be shared by others in his profession, for although some racecourses are making positive noises, the trend for 2022 appears to be downward.

Here's a bit more evidence. Ascot's Royal Ascot Trials card on April 27 posted attendances of 7,797 in 2018 and 7,230 in 2019. This year the final tally was 5,772.

Epsom's opening meeting of the season eight days earlier recorded a four-year crowd average of 5,459 from 2016 to 2019. On this occasion that dropped to 3,691, representing a 33 per cent decrease.

Attendance figures were more than 50 per cent down on the previous norm for this year's two-day April meeting at CheltenhamCredit: John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)

Perhaps most striking of all is what happened at Cheltenham's April meeting. The pre-Covid four-year average combined total for its two days was 22,909. This time that figure plummeted to just 11,223, equivalent to a 51 per cent collapse.

Indeed, the individual crowd figures for the Wednesday and Thursday in 2019 were both greater than the combined total for the two days last month.

For whatever reason, people currently seem less inclined to go racing in Britain than was once the case. To an extent, this is beyond the sport's control and will be linked to the financial pressure being felt in so many households. That said, racing must do all it can to stem the flow. That is not necessarily happening as comprehensively as it might.

Consider, for example, the offering put forward to potential paying customers on the May Bank Holiday Monday. Bank Holiday Mondays used to be filled with interesting action. Now they largely serve up nothing more than run-of-the-mill fare. That was particularly true last week, when none of the five British meetings ran a single contest of any real consequence.

Consider, as well, the extremely regrettable policy introduced this year at Windsor, where patrons in what most regular racegoers think of as the Tattersalls (number two) enclosure will no longer have access to the parade ring.

That clearly has the potential to alienate some racing fans. Already upsetting to some is the decision taken by Arena Racing Company and the Jockey Club to make their tracks cashless environments.

One Lingfield racegoer made the point on Saturday of telling me how much it annoyed him. He will not have been alone.

Thankfully, you can still use actual notes and coins in racecourse betting rings, yet it is in the betting environment that racing faces the most serious imminent risk when it comes to forfeiting public support.

The government's gambling review white paper is expected to be published this month. A powerful anti-gambling lobby has been calling persistently for a series of illiberal measures which could cause major damage not only to bookmakers but also to the racing industry.

The flagship reform advocated by those who want to see radical change is the introduction of compulsory affordability checks, with some believing these should kick in when a punter loses £100 in a month.

As has been previously reported in this column, such checks are already being carried out – and they are infuriating many of those affected.

One Racing Post reader contacted me on Thursday to say he agreed to share extensive affordability data when asked to do so by a bookmaker with which he had bet for many years.

He showed evidence he has savings of more than £300,000 and annual pension income in excess of £70,000 a year. He does not have a mortgage, nor has he ever suffered from gambling problems.

Despite having all that in his favour, he was told by the bookmaker they would now impose a monthly deposit limit of just £200.

"I genuinely give up," says the bewildered punter, admitting he feels "a bit foolish" for handing over the information. He is also puzzled, which is hardly surprising.

"They may be understandably concerned about being able to demonstrate social responsibility, but it's totally disproportionate in my case," he adds.

"It also says to me that if a bookmaker can't separate those who need to be restricted, and those for whom it can be a measured restriction based on facts – I'd settle for £500 a week with each provider – then they need to learn to do it better.

"I'm pretty disillusioned, but what I have done is started using shops again. There's no 'best odds guaranteed' because I won't get loyalty cards to get it, but at least I can have a bet."

Tellingly, he concludes: "I gamble for fun. I always have. I have good and bad – and the odd very bad – days. However, the underlying trend is I do it affordably, for enjoyment and usually make a small profit. Above all, I love it, but it has gone a bit sour with these experiences."

The punter has closed two accounts because of what he calls "the intrusive checks". That's bad news for the bookmakers in question. At a time when the key metric of racecourse attendance is seemingly moving in the wrong direction, it's also another ominous warning for racing.

Read more from our recent series on affordability checks:

Part one: an existential threat - how did affordability checks become such a big issue?

Part two: 'I'm very close to giving up' - the punters suffering from affordability checks

Part three: how affordability checks are already hitting horseracing

Stay ahead of the field with the ultimate racing subscription – and your first month FREE. Enjoy the Racing Post digital newspaper and award-winning journalism from the best writers in racing, and make informed betting decisions with our expert tipping and form study tools. Head to the subscription page and select 'Get Ultimate Monthly', then enter the code FREE to get Members' Club free for one month.

First month free, subscription renews at full monthly price thereafter.

Customers wishing to cancel will need to contact us at least seven days before their subscription is due to renew.