As I mentioned in another post I have been pondering a few things during this season and I think I may have hit upon a few small changes that could be extremely beneficial to all. Firstly let me say that I am in no way criticising what is in place now, trying to undermine anyone or put myself forward as an expert. What we have in place at the moment is 90 -95% perfect so despite the length that this post will no doubt reach my suggestions are relatively simple but would have a huge impact on improving the experience of playing in the league without harming what is already there. These are just my opinions on positive changes based on what I have noticed, mostly from doing the commentaries as it does give you a slightly different perspective on things. But also from my one season as a trainer and from the many lengthy conversations I have had with Doug and latterly Stu. I am not going to throw the toys out of the pram and strop off if I get told they are stupid or not practical and if any of them spark off a better idea from someone else that is fine by me.

Obviously the main aim is for everyone to enjoy the league so that means that there has to be something for everybody and everyone needs to have an achievable but stretching target. For everyone that will be different but fundamentally it comes down to the same thing. Being competitive, both with yourself and against others. Beating your own wins tally, winning higher grade races, identifying rivals of similar ability and beating them, and moving up to the next level. I am sure Meherzad got as much delight out of his win the other day as Paul does winning a G1. What we don't want is people hitting a wall and not being able to progress. This is not just new trainers although we must do something to keep them interested until that win comes. As everyone reading this will know once you've had a winner you are hooked and want another. With this in mind one of my suggestions is for a series of races leading to a finals day like the AW one at the moment but on a slightly grander scale. More of that later, as I need to propose a couple of other things first.

1a. The removal of the rule forbidding horses to make their debut in G1 (G2) races. To be honest I am not sure why this rule was ever implemented in the first place. There is absolutely nothing beneficial about it. No horse gets a weight allowance and it isn't in place in real racing. I can only assume it was implemented at some point in the past when the league was run differently. It is vital that this pointless rule is removed.

1b. Running in conjunction with 1a the sixteen runner limit on G1 races should also be removed. Once again it is not in place in real racing and serves no other purpose other than to protect the top trainers from getting their horses boxed in by lesser ones. To put it bluntly TOUGH. That's life and if it happens it happens. The fact that middle level trainers are supposed to be ok with 25 runner fields round a tight track in their races but the top trainers don't have to put up with it in the top races is nothing more than elitist. Again I assume this rule was put in place back in the day because the rule makers wanted an edge. Real life limits should be in place. Newmarket can take 30 for the Guineas but we are limited to 16. The Derby can have 20. I want to see 25 horses running in the Arc and hearing about hard luck stories of not getting a run. These two rules should be removed as I can see no good reason for them. I also believe the 16 runner one has been broken on at least one occasion this year.

What is the benefit of changing these rules ? - A lot more than you would think. Firstly it would mean that you could do away with the largely pointless first week of G1s masquerading as maidens. If you get a decent run in one of them purely through luck because of the huge fields you can effectively ruin your horses chances of being competitive all season. If the top horses could debut in top races you could move Meydan to week 1 and start the season off with a bang rather than a whimper. At the moment the winter Derby and all weather races in week 1 are contested by horses of G1 standard who then go on to Meydan in week 2. If these races were in the same week some lesser quality horses would have a chance in the big UK AW races. Spreading the honey out a little further already and it is only week one.

With week 2 you could have the big Doncaster meeting with the Lincoln. An extensive set of Guineas trials and bring in some races from the Australian Spring Carnival. This brings me on to my next suggestion.

2. Auto qualifying for big races. For example winners of the Craven, Nell Gwyn, Fred Darling, Greenham, Free Handicap etc get automatic entry to the appropriate Guineas race and the winning trainer can still run another if he wishes. That could of course mean someone like Paul could have 4 qualified runners and then choose to enter another. Not a problem, only one can win so if he enters 5 that's 4 other races that someone else can win. It would be entirely up to Paul to decide how much he wanted to win the 2000 Guineas as opposed to another race on the same week. Just like real life.

Another thing we must remember is that we don't have to hamstring ourselves by sticking to the calendar 100%. Something that is particularly evident in the first part of the season is the same race in effect being run week after week. For example Craven Stakes, 2000 Guineas, Irish 2000 Guineas, ST James Palace. Quite often largely the same field and from last season you can throw the Kranji Mile into that sequence too although that does at least include the fillies. Moving the Irish Guineas to the same week as the English one and introducing the French in the same week would give 6 different horses a G1 win. Even the elite trainers don't have 6 G1 3yo milers so other people are going to get a shot at a big prize early on. At the moment it is possible for just 2 horses to take all the Guineas races. Also with the qualifying system all 3 winners of each sex would qualify for the Royal Ascot races St James Palace/Coronation creating a mouth watering clash.

3. Putting the transfer window back a week to after Royal Ascot. In real life most trainers break the season into segments and most use RA as the end of their early campaign. This is why a lot of the late maturing 4yos win the Ascot handicaps and then go onto become group horses. The benefits for us are numerous. Bringing horses in on a week where they are ineligible from most of the races makes no sense and results in some ridiculous size fields in the races they can run in. Also having the window after Ascot would encourage people to bring back good handicappers for a second season to run in the big early season handicaps knowing they could retire them after Ascot. After Ascot is a perfect time for a week off as well and would be beneficial to the handicappers who would have more time to re-evaluate horses handicap marks. It is a pivotal point in the real racing calendar so it makes sense to make it the same in ours.

4. The introduction of a championship series of races to replace the current Bonus Race set up. Instead of running between 2 and 6 bonus races on the Wednesday. I would suggest we run 2 per day. These could still be shown on TOM as they are now but just run 2 each day. The exact format of these races should be agreed by all but I would tentatively suggest 2 races per week for an AW championship say 0-85 over varying distances culminating in a 5 or 6 race finals meeting in week 12. 2 races per week for a Turf championship 0-100 in the same format culminating in a 5 or 6 race finals meeting in week 13. This would give lower end horses a big race to aim at the end of the season. At the moment the AW finals are run in a week where the qualified horses have many other opportunities so sometimes the fields are quite small. This finals series would be a good balance to the G1s at the Breeders Cup and the Australian races. Something for everyone to aim at and look forward to in the final weeks. The other two races could be used for a weekly maiden race or a gamebred series. Gamebred is interesting as it would really give newcomers a chance to compete whilst they got the hang of league play. There are some issues though with the possibility of people turning G1s into sellers etc but in reality people could be doing that already and it doesn't seem to have been a problem. This could be counteracted by making the gamebred series for 2yos. If I am correct I believe the horses race record transfers to the CK when you export it showing wins/runs and rating. If the only horses allowed were unraced 2yos this would be extremely even and potentially very interesting as no one would know what they had until it ran in the league. To achieve this I believe you would have to increase stable size to 25 with 5 gamebreds. Something which I think is worth considering anyway.

5. Making all G3 races after the transfer window handicaps with a maximum rating of 120. This is probably quite contentious but G3 hcaps are commonplace in the NH and making them hcaps on the flat would make them more competitive and give those horses who are just that bit too good for the prestige hcaps but not quite G1 somewhere to go. Listed races could remain conditions events but with a 120 limit so the G3 horses had level weights options and they weren't farmed by G1 horses.

6. To make 5 more achievable I would suggest not allowing G1 winners to run in anything other than G1 or G2 races until they have been beaten twice. (This may not be possible on TOM or some may feel it hampers the top boys too much).

That is probably enough for now. Discuss at will. Brand me an idiot or a genius I don't mind which. Hopefully there is some food for thought there and some of it can be implemented or spark a better idea from someone else.

Idiot

i like no.2, multiple entries/two guineas in the same week it would definitely add to the excitement if winners of both turned up to the St James palace. Only issue would be trainers could possibly have a pacemaker for their other horse, hopefully no one would do that. Or should that be allowed? (like Aidan O'brien/adds to the realism) not sure.

I don't have a problem with the 20/25 runner handicaps we get on occasions, that's exactly how it is with most races at York and other tracks. Personally i love big field handicaps. In regards to taking the limit off the G1 field sizes, yeah don't have a problem with it. However, one issue that may arise is that some horses will have their handicap marks ruined as a result.

I'll give a quick summary of my feelings about Martin's suggestions. I will come up with some of my own once I have had a couple of days to think about it.

1a: I have no issue with this rule being removed but there is a potential issue if a race is oversubscribed. At the moment if a group race is oversubscribed then the lowest rated horses will be balloted out. How do we solve this if there are lots of unrated horses?

1b: I agree as long as there are realistic limits that mimic real life (20 in Derby, 25 in Arc etc.). Is the 16 limit coded or manually controlled?

2: Not really a fan and I don't think there is much need for it. Pretty much all trainers, top or bottom tier, will spread their mix of horses around. I cannot see anyone having multiple 3yo who all want the same distance just for the sake of a single race. I know the fields are often very similar but the tracks and ground differ and we regularly get different results.

3: Neither for or against this, however if the restriction on horses debuting in group 1's is implemented then the actual transfer date becomes less important.

4: I think the championship series on the flat works perfectly well as it is, maybe 0-90 is more viable than 0-100, but it is fine. Having a few races for gamebreds is great, we used to have a few but they were not well subscribed. Unless, as you say, we increase the stable size and make the additional slots gamebred only there may not be enough gamebred horses around to fascilitate a series. The unraced 2yo has a major flaw unfortunately that if the horse runs green first time it will on every occasion in the league and be useless (although this could be a fun concept).

5. I am happy to leave these as they are, they are an opportunity for horses just below group 1 level, although to be honest with the inconsistency in results there is precious little difference.

6. No, as long as the horses carry the correct penalties I don't have a problem although this did spark some debates half way through the season.

Darren

Some very well thought out points Martin I have no issue with any of them I think this post shows
how much you have grown to care about the league which is fantastic.

Your point about the rules im not sure who implemented them I agree with you why do we need
a rule that you can't go straight into G1 Company and the max field of 16 could also be removed

I think they were bought in after my time but I would very much doubt they were bought in to
give anyone an edge I think that's a bit harsh I honestly cant remember when or why these rules
were bought in.

I'm all for making changes so everyone can enjoy the league.

The Rules about 16 runners I remember someone saying I will not say who but is not running horses in the league anymore saying we should limit the amount of runners as he was blaming the size of the fields and I am going to say it that Bad horses was running in them and this was causing problems for their horses getting a clear run we know why it was brought it whinging gits.



Gray

Points

1, I have no problem running Grade 1 races in week 1 BUT after week 2 all horses must of run to enter group 1 races we cant have horses making Debuts in derby etc.

1b, Get rid of the Limit this is harder to do if we ever get a big group of new players joining but this is why we should have a limit 16 maybe moved to 25 and then we should have a min rating of 80 and then if more than 25 lowest weight drops out first if we extend to 2 runners a Trainer then the Grand National rule kicks in all trainers get a runner and we kick the lowest rated horses from the trainers that have 2 runners.

2, We don't have all the races Named in the schedule and are run over nearly the same distance and same time of year and it is just better to extend to two runners a trainer in the guineas than go through this process.

3, I see no point in putting back the transfer window we have it at week 5 so trainers can get enough runs into any National Horses that get uploaded in this window the trainer must look at week 6 and week 7 to see what kind of horse to upload in the window.

4, The all weather Championship was made for this reason I have no problem having some game bred series but we need each trainer to have game breds for this to work and extra slots.

5, I would keep all group 3 and instead make them Max rating races say 115 or 110 and min rating 70

6, will be restricted by 5 above and any group 1 winner earlier in the season might lose its rating going through the season be able too drop down to group 3 towards end of season.

Gray

I have obviously spent many hours chatting to Martin about these issues and probably a little more in depth.

Transfer Window - I believe pushing the window back one week is for the flat only and not the hunt.

With game bred....personally, and I might be wrong but I don't think the big trainers would enter game bred horses. I would consider it in the hunt but not the flat.
Maybe we just allow game bred horses to new trainers and trainers who struggle or don't have strong teams.
I also take note of PJ's thoughts on trainers 'massaging the game' to get gun game bred horses.

In general I am in favour with Martin's suggestions....especially his thoughts in the first week of the league each season. "If the top horses could debut in top races you could move Meydan to week 1 and start the season off with a bang" Top horses should also mean experienced trainers in the first week. Chances of a new trainer having G1 horses I would say is remote.

I am glad people are chipping in with their points. This is exactly what I hoped would happen so it is great and good to know that we are all looking at potential changes in a positive way and for the league as a whole and not just for our own ends.

To respond briefly to a couple of things.

Actual game limits on races is what I would propose. If you go into the entries section in your game the actual number of permitted runners is stated. I would suggest using that. Wouldn't take long to whip through a season and jot them down. I'm sure we will all be playing a season or two before next season starts ! Maybe ensure there is another race of similar distance that balloted out horses could be diverted to. As for rating well technically unraced horses have no rating so they would be the first balloted out. I have no problem with 25 runner handicaps and wouldn't want to alter them. I just think we should, where appropriate have 25 runner G1s as well.

Horses can debut in the Derby in reality so why not in SO6. It is highly unlikely though that anyone would have a horse and not run it for 4 weeks. A minimum rating to enter in the latter part of the season is a good idea though

Reasoning behind moving transfer window is to encourage returning horses for handicaps at Ascot, knowing you won't have to keep them for a whole season. And also to avoid the huge fields we had in the races new horses were allowed to run in that week. I think that was the week of the ridiculous maiden that John ran where half the field was tailed off after 3 furlongs.

Maybe allowing multiple entries is a better option than qualifying through prep races. I see no issue with regard to pacemakers as the horse would have to be exported with pacemaker instructions for whole season and am not sure anyone would want to do that.

Points 1 and 3 are the real biggies for me. An adaptation of 2 would be good and I think the expansion of a lower rated finals series would be very beneficial to new trainers. Qualifying for a final in the first few weeks would keep them interested until the end. Sadly wee have too many drop out very early on.

Some great points made by all and really I think they can all be adapted to benefit the league in someway & now for my tuppence...

1. Yes agree removal of field sizes & adapt to more realistic numbers, although I believe this should go hand in hand with if you run in a group race you must except the penalty of the grade part of the reason so many of us lesser beings run in group races is for the entry, and a 65 horse running and coming last does not appear to be penalised harsh enough for taking its chance, yes, this would limit race entries for lesser trainers sadly, but as I believe we handicapped before, if you want to enter there is a cost, this would keep field sizes down automatically.

2. I like this, competition for the bigger races same week as Martin mentioned, 2 horses can pick up the lot and it is very repetitive process in the first few weeks watching the same horses compete over same distances whether on different course or ground, similar to watching the NH bumpers last season. Tho not sure it needs to be a qualifying process for the later races, although prospect sounds exciting and we need to allow other trainers the opportunity to get their feet wet at this level, again if the handicap penalisies, then trainers wont just run anything.

3. Why not... ? trainers will have to have their National horses in from week one.

4. Probably something we should increase, the AW champs is great, but no reason (other than time) not to bring in a further championship on the turf we have low handicaps which can be placed in a Turf Champs, so lets have a further championships for the lesser trainers as we need to give them as many entries at their race grade, especially if we follow the penalised group theory.

Would be nice to do un raced GB 2yo's but as people have mentioned it needs to have most enter & not in favor of too many GB's as we know the game can be manipulated easy enough to get the best GB's, this is strange as I probably have more GB's in my stable than most (tho mainly in the NH)

5. Not sure, I am more in favour of less group races all round, on the other thread we all discussed the carnivals etc, we try to cater for too much and that includes group races in the UK, I mentioned we have to be practical and not be ruled by we need "Everything"

6. All for trying to curtail the elites but prob think it is a little un-fair, but if we place some of the other process mainly point "2" this will slow down.

To come to an agreement will be difficult I am not sure what it takes to implement some or all, time I guess, I am happy to offer some more of mine if it will help the issue.

Are we still thinking of making 5 horses return ??? to entice this we need handicaps from week one including 4yo+ and both 0-110 for the elites and 0-90 for the lesser elites.

As we know Mark has posted that SO7 will be 2018 and I imagine it will not be before the summer, so we are about to have, up to 3 seasons more, so I do believe the time to change is now & lets look at what it will take to change and who can assist, I know it is easier to continue along the same path, but I think we all thought a new S07 would be sooner and excepted things as they are in the hope of the change being placed upon us, this is not happening now, so if anything we should try and move forward not stagnate.

With regards to the NH side of things I haven't posted anything as yet for 2 reasons:

1. There isn't a great deal wrong with it in my opinion ..... and
2. I am scared Gray will ban me if I try and suggest to much tinkering in NH

However, I would suggest points 1 and 3 and whatever we come up with for 2 should be implemented as well.

I also think an expansion of the SO6 series of races would be good. The turnout for the finals was pretty disappointing and we need a big end to the NH season. After Cheltenham, Liverpool and Punchestown week 13 is a bit of a damp squib. I would suggest pulling Punchestown back to the final week alongside an extended SO6 series encompassing 2m 2m4f and 3m hurdle races with 2m2f 2m6f and 3m2f chase finals. I would also change the Paul Moores to one 4m final with a qualifier every other week. This would give plenty of opportunity to qualify GN horses later in season.

The only other 2 changes I would suggest are scrapping the handicap range for all chases over 3m 2f as at the moment Gold Cup and Hennessy horses can't get into the National which they do in real life. I.E Any horse that has run over 3m 2f can run in any distance upwards.

The big change I would make is with regards to Novices as a lot of people get confused about what can run in what and why. Also technically speaking there is nothing stopping people declaring their best horse as a novice rather than open. Therefore I would suggest:

4yo and 5yo - Novices
6yo and up - Open.

But also allow novices to run in open races but not vice-versa.

These ideas should all find there way onto polls, else your'll never keep track of who is in favour of what.

I can implement all these quite easily so from Tom's point of view there is no issue except with anything to restricting races to game horses or limiting number of game horses in stable. This is impossible so will require manual checking and thus extra work for Gray. Also the same game horse creates a conflict in the race kit so there are a number of problems here

That is good to know. So it will probably be harder to come to an agreement than implement it then. Lets hope our form of democracy gives a more universally palatable result than the UK election or Brexit !!

I like Martins points, and I agree very much that already the league works very well. Be careful to fix something that aint broke.

I understand the need to implement and keep the interest in new trainers, but as a new trainer myself, I wouldn't want it to be too tailor-made so that it doesn't feel like an achievement to get a win. But some more handicaps would be nice, and bigger fields in G1. Even though my horses would finish half a mile behind in a G1, it is always something extra to have a horse in such a race, even though it is virtual.

I have had a horse in the Grand national this year and it was great, even though it didn't have a chance. But just to see my horse running around Aintree competing with other trainers horses, was as close as to the real thing i could get and I was buzzing.

I was realistic in terms of my chances this year, but I wanted to see what the level was like. I think it will be difficult for the top trainers to improve a lot, but easier for us lesser trainers maybe to take bigger steps and slowly get nearer.

I think it must be ok for someone to dominate and be best, I actually think that is great, but it is also nice that there are races that we smaller trainers have a chance in. And that will give us the motivation to join the wolf pack who will chase the best trainers.

Small improvements are always good, it prevent things being stale, but implement with care and keep what works today.