Not a fan of the two league model and you can get to the same place with just the schedule adjustment, you can also then have the lower tier in G1’s and there are a lot who seem to like to do this already, buggering up the race for the rest of us elites sorry could not resist. But also the top tier in handicaps if there horses are bad enough.

Also whilst it is easy and likely convenient to simply label that as a Josh Horse and thus a tff cheating all conquering G1 uber beast, you should also consider we do have handicapper horses also, not reasonable to assume just because it is mine it’s a monster. Truth be told if we did split the schedule, i’d split my team and enter some naff ones deliberately for the handicaps, oooo the horror of it.

As for the numbers, good thing with numbers you can usually with a little effort get them to support whatever metric you want to project. But it not reasonable either with some of the above, and there are always horses that even given a 0-30 handicap will never likely win a race outside a walkover, they mess up your bottom tiers really and make the top seem further away. Not saying it is perfectly balanced, but it is still a work for reward mechanic at its core, and pretty sure we’re not all millennials looking for a free ride just yet

This is more important than the best trainers trying to keep most of the top races for themselves or the lower down trainers trying to get more wins , this is about what's best going forward for the league in the long run.

To be Honest I think Josh it hit on the head he would spilt his horses Good horses and then poor horses for Handicaps I expect the top trainers could do that now if they wanted to and you don't know where you be from season to season..

We can only try and balance the schedule me and few others have been around long enough to know that the Flat schedule has been altered most seasons to try and sort this out but every season around about this time we get things picked up like I can only get so many entered this week or not enough low handicaps we don't get it so much with the jumps.

All we can do is alter a few things we pick up over the season add more or less little things we don't need big changes until we get a mass input of trainers we really can gage because we say about 7 or 8 Top Trainers out of around 30 with only some having big stables.

Gray

38 races per week.

19 group and listed
19 handicaps from 110 down.

Simples.

All largely academic if Jim does actually quit, as I doubt the league will continue with me gray you and jango only to run races. I can take a larger share this week as the wifey is working, should Jim merely need a week away.

All I mentioned that week 8 on the flat was tough for 2/3rds of the trainers to be competitive and it appeared in favor of the minority, I still believe this to be the case.

Its a pity, that as usual, someone feels the need to quit, through a few posts with nothing that I can see was detrimental to any individual, a group maybe....

I would have no problems with top tier trainers having genuine handicapped horses that bounce around between 65-90, stable management they would call it, maybe in light of this, more handicaps would lead to better management & more thought required than breed, clone, breed, repeat, which must be getting boring by now however much time you have.

All being said, Gray is right, its the same posts from this time last season and from the season before, we all have our agendas and want to sculpt the league to what favors each individuals methods which is understandable, but quitting is not the answer nor is keeping stum! a problem aired is a problem shared

Now lets all play nice....

As usual the point is being totally missed here.

It isn't about picking on the top trainers or squeezing them out of things its about sharing the opportunity out a bit better. Doug, Stu and Me aren't always discussing this because we want more winners for ourselves. We want the gaps between the levels to be a bit more even. Trouble is the top trainers think we are having a go at them. It would be nice to hear the elites coming on here and going yeah you are right we do actually get to much of the pudding. But they don't and that is the sad bit.

I would quite happily sacrifice 2 or 3 of my meagre 12 winners to people in the division below if it kept them interested and playing and subsequently improving. How often do the top people say that … usually they are just concerned about how it will affect them … and that is a bit of a shame. Instead of saying lets se if we can find a way to spread the wealth and the opportunity every time this happens at least one top tier trainer behaves like a big girls blouse and threatens to quit.

I understand the point completely Martin, but it is also a lot about perspective. Everyone in the top tier as were calling them, has worked incredibly hard to get there, and it is not a holy grail either as has been shown on a number of occasions where people have broken through.

What annoys me with the repeated subject is it feels like your trying to cheapen that, and want to even out the wins by taking from those that work for them to give them to those that don’t.

But of course that’s not true really and that’s all a little too black and white, and I do agree we need more people joining the league, staying with the league, contributing to the league, indeed I would say all the top tier would echo the same, likely why so much information is freely and willing given out so people understand what and how to do it.

I do not know what the answer is, but it is certainly not the tit for tat battles that happen on the forums, all these do is damage the league further and likely make it even less appealing if your looking from the outside in. But everyone wants the same outcome here, we just need to find a method that is agreeable to most and lose all the them and us stuff. I also think it will be a cold day in hell before Jim quits from top of the dcc, so I also agree some of the emotional reactions that I have also been guilty of, are unnecessary.

Even split of races does this, does it not? Or is there something missing in that?

Thanks Sirius, believe I only had the 1 in the Nursery though.

For some reason I thought you had two. I got you confused with trainer Fisher. Congrats on your 3 wins this week!

Martin You and Doug had the schedule last season so you know what needs to be done try and divide it 19/19 38 Races but you can't mess around with Ascot's week and you cant alter Group races into listed what needs to be Done is maybe get rid of 0-100 lower them down to 0-90 then 0-90 down to 0-85 etc etc. This may get to even out a bit more you can get this schedule from me now and you and Doug can work it Now as you got plenty of time before next season so if you and Doug would like the schedule back let me know and we can get on with this Current league.

Gray

As I said in my first post about this I don't know the answer either. In fact there may not be one. Maybe the figures have been skewed by the stable size increase. I am certainly not suggesting taking winners away from the top what I am saying is the top are winning too high a percentage of the races because the races are framed in their favour. Even though it may not at first glance appear to be that way.

If a top trainer has a horse rated under 100 and it wins a 100 handicap that is fine and no one should argue with it. But the sad fact is that quite often 70 or under 70 rated horses have to run in these races which they have no chance of winning. If there are say 5 G1 races then it is fairly safe to say a top trainer will more than likely be in the mix in all of them. In 5 handicap races a lower tier handicap trainer will likely have 3 out of the handicap and 1 or 2 with a good chance if he is lucky.

The big problem is we try and cram too much into the pot. A whole years worth of big group races crammed into 13 weeks is just too much. I want to see you and Paul and John running in top grade handicaps giving lumps of weight away to the likes of Darren H, F1 Follis, Derek, Stu, Doug, me etc. But at the same time there need to be races where that second group of people are giving lumps of weight to Meherzad and Alex and the new players.

That the issue for me.

If lets say there were to be 5 One mile races in a week then one should be a G1, one a listed or G3 and then one should be a high rated handicap, one a mid rated and one a low one. Too often we have 3 or 4 G races that are in effect the same because with no breeding value to protect there is really no difference between G1, 2 and 3. As someone who is in it to win it you are obviously going to run in races you think you can win … and so you should. What I am saying is if you have 3 group class milers there shouldn't be 3 separate Group races you can get them in. You should have to run at least one in a handicap and give chunks of weight away.

In a nutshell what us three trouble makers are saying is that its too Group race heavy. But … and this is the big but we want the top trainers to be able to run in the top handicaps and not always be weighted out of them. If I run a horse rated 99 in a G1 it isn't going to win against the top trainers 115 horses but if I run it in a 0-120 handicap against them and am getting a 21lb pull it is worth entering as I have a chance. I can then chose whether to take top weight in the 0-100 or bottom weight in the 0 - 120. That is what we need more prestige high rated handicaps and then a few extra really low ones. But instead we keep trying to cram in all these major G1 races from around the globe. I know its nice and inclusive to use different countries but if we are trying to keep any sort of reality involved having a horse running in Dubai, Australia, England , Singapore and Ireland all in the space of 5 weeks is plain daft.

Just for the record 60% off all races in UK are handicaps that's leaves 40% for maidens, listed, group 1, 2 and 3 plus sellers claimers, apprentice races so you can see even if we have a 50/50 split it is still too high.

Doug did a great job with the changes he made but he was hamstrung because it was over crammed already and he didn't want to appear to be taking away from anyone. Also there were races which he wouldn't have felt comfortable changing. Group 1s should be sacrosanct but there is no reason on earth why we can't make listed or Group 3 races 0-110 or 0-120s. When I suggested this a couple of seasons ago at the same time as the foolish double entry idea that everyone ridiculed it was dismissed at the drop of a hat … and how everyone loves it now.

Also I didn't help Doug out at all as I intended to as I was too busy trying to stay alive so I rather let him down a bit there

Wait a cotton picking moment , I've been on about this long before u came in the league so u should be quiet for a moment . I said its too top heavy and it needs changing a bit but not the wild changes u want.

Take a deep breath Martin, maybe sit down. I actually do not disagree with a single word you have written. Even though, in your model there will be group races the top tier will win being taken from the schedule and replaced by handicaps that’s the top tier might win. So avoid being direct as you want, fundamentally that’s the outcome you seek, wins from the top being passed down the ranks. And you know what I am ok with that, i’d just adjust the make up of my team accordingly and carry on.

It is also a model that is perhaps closer to the hunt where none of these issues seem to surface, and it is all but impossible to get a hunt win at the top of the handicap, so those decent g3 and g2 handicaps are up for grabs, personally I try and avoid them already.

So given your saying 50/50 is still not fair and that 40/60 would be, I think we should also at the same time consider protecting the quality of the remaining top grade races and make them min rating entry, or strictly limited on entry numbers by rating, the same could also apply to the 120 handicaps to a lesser extent, which if lined up with Dougs big prize cup races, or more G1H races (as there the only flat G1’s I have a sniff at anyway ) could all be a positive move.

Still needs someone to carry the torch and propose the schedule.......

Well John, if you said it long before I came into the league then how am I supposed to know you said it when I wasn't here.

But its good to know you agree with me