Why do they use Neil !!!!!!!

Is it just me or why the hell is this Chop used as he is without a doubt full of shit.. Tips 13 horses in a 12 horse field...

Does anyone actually follow what he has to say ???????? :evil:

.....different stokes for different okes......for me Neil is no CHOP....he is one of the better on course presenters in the country.....he has an eye for well turned out horses and knows more than most about what he is talking about.....he may be a bit at sea because he is not from PE
....and his prep was done on the plane....give him a few races to settle in....then pay pay... :whistle:

Muhtiman wrote: .....different stokes for different okes......for me Neil is no CHOP....he is one of the better on course presenters in the country.....he has an eye for well turned out horses and knows more than most about what he is talking about.....he may be a bit at sea because he is not from PE
....and his prep was done on the plane....give him a few races to settle in....then pay pay... :whistle:

Noted and accepted different strokes for different okes but which one of the entire field that he chooses do you go with Mutiman ????

Will wait and see if he really nails his colours to the mast then see where that runs....

Have no problem with Neil specifically ,but Why do we need costly presenters that merely verbalise what is in Computaform...............and even worse why 2 of them.
When you have the kind of T/O local racing has, profit is simply a case of managing expenses, so why the unnecessary wastage!

.....I see that you are a newbie here and from that neck of the woods.....BTW Neil has a big following here and when he was pushed out of the Cape many here complained.....so the only patch he can get a gig in is not that familiar to him.....he generally looks for the well being of horses on looks more than form.....If all horses look more or less the same.... then he says so.....must be hard in PE because they all race week in and week out same fit horses with mediocre chances.....nothing really stands out to make a difference.... :dry:

FP, I think they are paid to nominate at least half the field, the idea is to get as many people as possible to put as many horses as possible in all the exotic bets. Every horse in every race just about must at least go into the back end of quartets. It is all bipot, PA, P6, JP, exactas etc etc etc - drives me insane and really poor marketing imo, less is more sometimes and I now rarely do those bets cos I am so sick of them pushing and pushing them. An occasional mention might peek my interest, boring me to death and making me scream in frustrated annoyance does not That is not the fault of the presenters.

It seems to be the worldwide norm these days for nearly every sport Rob. I agree with your sentiments, why? the expense is astronomic and most harm rather than improve the enjoyment factor. Football "analyst" commentators for example - 90% are absolutely woeful, imhumbleo of course

I enjoy Neil... maybe he was not having his best day (I did not watch)...remember they also have their favourite centres..

Interesting for me is what has happened to McCurdy??
I understand there was no love lost between him and Neil!
One reappears as one disappears ............coincidence??

They are told to talk about the whole field.

Blondie wrote: They are told to talk about the whole field.

with all respect, but from where I am sitting talking about the whole field and just about tipping the whole field are as diverse as you can get as a pundit

there more presenters than horses at greyville :ohmy: :ohmy:

just for the record.... Neil's job is a presenter and not a tipster.
if he wasnt bound to talk about all horses he sure can lable the best looking in the ring(without looking at a card or betting)
He is topclass if you ever have the time to see how he can pinpoint them in the ring and canter down and he is not rushed .
to each his own but will like to have him next to me in the ring and canterdown...