Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
thanks
Show More
Unable to access the RP article but there is this from todays Guardian Newspaper.
If you are a fan of horse racing whose heart sinks when the sport sets off on one of its regular civil wars, the front page of Monday’s Racing Post was not an ideal way to start the week. What promises to be the latest outbreak of internal squabbling over money and influence, however, does at least come with a novel twist.
Under the headline “Radical new plan for racing structure revealed”, the trade paper reports that the two sides in the sport’s eternal struggle over prize money – the Horsemen’s Group (THG) and the racecourses – are plotting to unite against the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) in the middle. Their aim is to weaken the BHA’s role in the three-cornered Tripartite Agreement, which determines how major decisions are taken.
We are two paragraphs in and already the acronym count is rising. But this being racing, of course, that is just the start. In the HG trench, the battalions include the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA), National Trainers’ Federation (NTF), Professional Jockeys’ Association (PJA), Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association (TBA) and National Association of Racing Staff (NARS). In the other, there are the track owners, including Jockey Club Racecourses (JCR), Arena Racing Company (ARC), the big independents like Ascot, Goodwood and York, and the small independents who just try to keep going from one season to the next.
And somewhere in the middle is the BHA, whose board includes several independent directors who are not nominated by, or beholden to, any of the factions involved.
For the last 18 months or so, as the pandemic wiped hundreds of millions of pounds from racing’s balance sheet and tracks had no certainty on when full crowds might return or whether ticket sales would ever recover to pre-Covid levels, an uneasy truce has prevailed.
But now the crowds are back, and in significant numbers too – and the first response from both sides is apparently to train their sights on the BHA. Their plan, which the Authority’s Board is likely to see for the first time on Tuesday, envisages a future for the BHA only as a regulator and little or nothing more. THG and the tracks would instead take a more dominant role in commercial decisions, on prize money for instance.
The catalyst for this attempt at a both-sides-against-the-middle putsch appears to be the recent breakdown of talks between ARC and THG over prize money at ARC tracks, which mostly operate a quantity-over-quality business model which provides constant (and very valuable) turnover for the betting industry. An extra £5m in prize money was apparently on offer, but the deal fell at the final hurdle when the NTF and PJA withdrew support, due to concerns, among other things, on how a proposal for nine-race cards throughout the winter might work in practice.
Under the proposed new power structure, the £5m contract would presumably have been pushed through, despite the objections of two important stakeholder groups. But the simple fact that THG could not get all of its various constituent parts to support the deal is clear evidence that the situation is nowhere near as straightforward as some of the major players would have you believe.
From top to bottom, everyone in racing wants the sport to prosper. But some at least on the Horsemen’s side will always demand more prize money, and forever insist that they are being short-changed, regardless of the fact that no one is ever forced to own a racehorse. And some of the time, they probably are, because tracks, for their part, have a clear interest in staging the show as prudently as possible, not least if, as is the case with ARC, they have shareholders to answer to.
There is the Jockey Club’s role to consider here too, as it has a size 11 in both camps. On the one hand, its members include many of the most powerful owners in the game. On the other, it also owns – via JCR – many of the most important tracks, including Cheltenham, Aintree and Epsom.
And even within all the individual interest groups, there will be big differences in the needs and interests of individuals according to the level at which they operate.
The interests of a 10-horse trainer at the bottom of the pyramid, for instance, are likely to be far more closely aligned with those of a jockey or owner at the same level, than they are to those of a trainer with a 200-horse string in Newmarket. For them, a more equitable distribution of the prize money we already have may well be more significant than a big boost that will largely go to those who are already at the top of the pile.
Such is the complex web of both complementary and competing interests to which the BHA is expected to bring some measure of order (so that the rest of us can get on with the racing).
It is not perfect, of course, and could easily feel like a brake on progress to some, but the lights on our rickety 250-year-old machine are still on and the wheels continue to turn. The tail end of the most difficult 18-month period that any of us can remember may not be the best time to start fiddling about under the bonnet.
If you are a fan of horse racing whose heart sinks when the sport sets off on one of its regular civil wars, the front page of Monday’s Racing Post was not an ideal way to start the week. What promises to be the latest outbreak of internal squabbling over money and influence, however, does at least come with a novel twist.
Under the headline “Radical new plan for racing structure revealed”, the trade paper reports that the two sides in the sport’s eternal struggle over prize money – the Horsemen’s Group (THG) and the racecourses – are plotting to unite against the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) in the middle. Their aim is to weaken the BHA’s role in the three-cornered Tripartite Agreement, which determines how major decisions are taken.
We are two paragraphs in and already the acronym count is rising. But this being racing, of course, that is just the start. In the HG trench, the battalions include the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA), National Trainers’ Federation (NTF), Professional Jockeys’ Association (PJA), Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association (TBA) and National Association of Racing Staff (NARS). In the other, there are the track owners, including Jockey Club Racecourses (JCR), Arena Racing Company (ARC), the big independents like Ascot, Goodwood and York, and the small independents who just try to keep going from one season to the next.
And somewhere in the middle is the BHA, whose board includes several independent directors who are not nominated by, or beholden to, any of the factions involved.
For the last 18 months or so, as the pandemic wiped hundreds of millions of pounds from racing’s balance sheet and tracks had no certainty on when full crowds might return or whether ticket sales would ever recover to pre-Covid levels, an uneasy truce has prevailed.
But now the crowds are back, and in significant numbers too – and the first response from both sides is apparently to train their sights on the BHA. Their plan, which the Authority’s Board is likely to see for the first time on Tuesday, envisages a future for the BHA only as a regulator and little or nothing more. THG and the tracks would instead take a more dominant role in commercial decisions, on prize money for instance.
The catalyst for this attempt at a both-sides-against-the-middle putsch appears to be the recent breakdown of talks between ARC and THG over prize money at ARC tracks, which mostly operate a quantity-over-quality business model which provides constant (and very valuable) turnover for the betting industry. An extra £5m in prize money was apparently on offer, but the deal fell at the final hurdle when the NTF and PJA withdrew support, due to concerns, among other things, on how a proposal for nine-race cards throughout the winter might work in practice.
Under the proposed new power structure, the £5m contract would presumably have been pushed through, despite the objections of two important stakeholder groups. But the simple fact that THG could not get all of its various constituent parts to support the deal is clear evidence that the situation is nowhere near as straightforward as some of the major players would have you believe.
From top to bottom, everyone in racing wants the sport to prosper. But some at least on the Horsemen’s side will always demand more prize money, and forever insist that they are being short-changed, regardless of the fact that no one is ever forced to own a racehorse. And some of the time, they probably are, because tracks, for their part, have a clear interest in staging the show as prudently as possible, not least if, as is the case with ARC, they have shareholders to answer to.
There is the Jockey Club’s role to consider here too, as it has a size 11 in both camps. On the one hand, its members include many of the most powerful owners in the game. On the other, it also owns – via JCR – many of the most important tracks, including Cheltenham, Aintree and Epsom.
And even within all the individual interest groups, there will be big differences in the needs and interests of individuals according to the level at which they operate.
The interests of a 10-horse trainer at the bottom of the pyramid, for instance, are likely to be far more closely aligned with those of a jockey or owner at the same level, than they are to those of a trainer with a 200-horse string in Newmarket. For them, a more equitable distribution of the prize money we already have may well be more significant than a big boost that will largely go to those who are already at the top of the pile.
Such is the complex web of both complementary and competing interests to which the BHA is expected to bring some measure of order (so that the rest of us can get on with the racing).
It is not perfect, of course, and could easily feel like a brake on progress to some, but the lights on our rickety 250-year-old machine are still on and the wheels continue to turn. The tail end of the most difficult 18-month period that any of us can remember may not be the best time to start fiddling about under the bonnet.
Reluctantly pay 
Sorry if its the same as above, I dont pay for it for the news, cba read the above, could well be the same just to do the form advertless.
Radical changes to how British racing is run are expected to be proposed to the BHA board for the first time on Tuesday, with racecourses and horsemen seeking to gain a more dominant position over decision making while pushing the BHA towards a predominantly regulatory role in the sport.
The Racing Post understands from sources close to the discussions that, under the proposal, racecourse representatives and horsemen would hold greater sway in non-regulatory and commercial decisions, such as the fixture list, allowing them to outvote independent members of the BHA board when their interests align.
The BHA would instead be relegated increasingly to the role of racing’s regulator, maintaining control of matters such as integrity, licensing and compliance through the creation of a new sub-body of the BHA board that would be free of input from racecourses and horsemen.
Exasperation has increased in recent months among those involved in the process of making key decisions in British racing, with the structure and role of the BHA and the members’ committee coming under increased scrutiny in light of the last-minute breakdown in talks between Arena Racing Company (Arc) and the Horsemen’s Group over prize-money agreements.
A deal to increase prize-money in return for nine-race cards faltered at the 11th hour after two members of the Horsemen’s Group – the National Trainers Federation and Professional Jockeys Association – baulked at elements of the agreement, with the BHA unwilling to implement a required change to the rules unless all parties were on the same page.
In the wake of the failure to strike an agreement with Arc, Charlie Parker, chairman of the Horsemen’s Group and president of the Racehorse Owners Association, said: “Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall.
Horsemen's Group chairman Charlie Parker: "Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall"
Horsemen's Group chairman Charlie Parker: "Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall"
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
“As ever, we go back to the drawing board and will continue to work on as many routes as possible to improve prize-money and create more equitable distribution to support the sport's long-term future.”
That collapse is believed to have led to an acceleration of a proposal to change how decisions are reached in the sport, with the Racecourse Association and Parker understood to be the key architects of what is to be presented to the BHA board this week.
Sources on all sides of the proposal when contacted by the Racing Post have agreed that changes to how decisions are reached in racing are required, but added that it is highly unlikely anything presented on Tuesday would be immediately adopted and that work on restructuring British racing would continue into 2022, with input from all members.
It is also thought that the BHA will strongly resist the changes being proposed by racecourses and horsemen as they stand, with independent board members likely to be unwilling to sign up to a deal which would potentially weaken them in key industry votes.
Additionally, with government pressing for greater independence in matters of sporting governance, as prominently outlined in a new code for sports published by UK Sport and Sport England this year, the Racing Post understands the BHA is concerned the proposed plans would be a move in the opposition direction to that advice.
Currently, decisions in Britain are made through the Tripartite Agreement between the BHA, RCA and Horsemen’s Group (consisting of the ROA, Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, NTF, PJA and National Association of Racing Staff) with unanimous agreement needed on certain matters, such as prize-money agreements, and a majority on others, such as applications for new racecourses.
Peter Savill, co-owner of Plumpton racecourse, has been a critic of the Tripartite Agreement signed in 2015 and refused to sign up his track to the document.
Instead, the former chairman of the British Horseracing Board, a forerunner of the BHA, believes the sport would be better served by channelling decision-making through a stronger BHA board rather than reducing the organisation's role in the process.
He said: “I was actually the racecourse that refused to sign. The reasons for that were that I thought it would paralyse the decision-making process, which I think now pretty well everybody agrees that's exactly what it's done.
“Secondly, I have always been a great believer in having as strong a governing body as possible and I felt that the decision to go to a tripartite agreement seriously weakened the BHA.
“To me the answer is you have got to go back to having the decision-making process made by the BHA. You are still going to have your Horsemen's Group, you are still going to have your RCA, and that's fine, but you have got to channel your decision-making process into one organisation. Why can't that be the way the industry is run?”
Peter Savill: "It has become a bit of a mess all round"
Peter Savill: "It has become a bit of a mess all round"
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
Savill admitted it would potentially be a stretch for racecourses and horsemen to back a bolstered BHA board, but argued that having an additional member from each of the two groups, taking the overall board up to 12 people, would balance special interests with the experience needed for clear decisions and governance.
“Will that happen? I don't know,” he said. “It will be a big test of whether the RCA and Horsemen's Group are willing to see that as not giving up power but having a proper representation on the board where decisions can be made.
“What we've now got is a structure that's got far more conflict — or potential conflict — within it than we had at any stage, even when I was surrounded totally by special interests on the board when I first took over.”
He added: “It has become a bit of a mess all round but I think it is solvable, and I think it depends on the players in the industry believing that there has to be a strong governing body.”
Sorry if its the same as above, I dont pay for it for the news, cba read the above, could well be the same just to do the form advertless.
Radical changes to how British racing is run are expected to be proposed to the BHA board for the first time on Tuesday, with racecourses and horsemen seeking to gain a more dominant position over decision making while pushing the BHA towards a predominantly regulatory role in the sport.
The Racing Post understands from sources close to the discussions that, under the proposal, racecourse representatives and horsemen would hold greater sway in non-regulatory and commercial decisions, such as the fixture list, allowing them to outvote independent members of the BHA board when their interests align.
The BHA would instead be relegated increasingly to the role of racing’s regulator, maintaining control of matters such as integrity, licensing and compliance through the creation of a new sub-body of the BHA board that would be free of input from racecourses and horsemen.
Exasperation has increased in recent months among those involved in the process of making key decisions in British racing, with the structure and role of the BHA and the members’ committee coming under increased scrutiny in light of the last-minute breakdown in talks between Arena Racing Company (Arc) and the Horsemen’s Group over prize-money agreements.
A deal to increase prize-money in return for nine-race cards faltered at the 11th hour after two members of the Horsemen’s Group – the National Trainers Federation and Professional Jockeys Association – baulked at elements of the agreement, with the BHA unwilling to implement a required change to the rules unless all parties were on the same page.
In the wake of the failure to strike an agreement with Arc, Charlie Parker, chairman of the Horsemen’s Group and president of the Racehorse Owners Association, said: “Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall.
Horsemen's Group chairman Charlie Parker: "Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall"
Horsemen's Group chairman Charlie Parker: "Once again I fear the structure of racing has been its own downfall"
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
“As ever, we go back to the drawing board and will continue to work on as many routes as possible to improve prize-money and create more equitable distribution to support the sport's long-term future.”
That collapse is believed to have led to an acceleration of a proposal to change how decisions are reached in the sport, with the Racecourse Association and Parker understood to be the key architects of what is to be presented to the BHA board this week.
Sources on all sides of the proposal when contacted by the Racing Post have agreed that changes to how decisions are reached in racing are required, but added that it is highly unlikely anything presented on Tuesday would be immediately adopted and that work on restructuring British racing would continue into 2022, with input from all members.
It is also thought that the BHA will strongly resist the changes being proposed by racecourses and horsemen as they stand, with independent board members likely to be unwilling to sign up to a deal which would potentially weaken them in key industry votes.
Additionally, with government pressing for greater independence in matters of sporting governance, as prominently outlined in a new code for sports published by UK Sport and Sport England this year, the Racing Post understands the BHA is concerned the proposed plans would be a move in the opposition direction to that advice.
Currently, decisions in Britain are made through the Tripartite Agreement between the BHA, RCA and Horsemen’s Group (consisting of the ROA, Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, NTF, PJA and National Association of Racing Staff) with unanimous agreement needed on certain matters, such as prize-money agreements, and a majority on others, such as applications for new racecourses.
Peter Savill, co-owner of Plumpton racecourse, has been a critic of the Tripartite Agreement signed in 2015 and refused to sign up his track to the document.
Instead, the former chairman of the British Horseracing Board, a forerunner of the BHA, believes the sport would be better served by channelling decision-making through a stronger BHA board rather than reducing the organisation's role in the process.
He said: “I was actually the racecourse that refused to sign. The reasons for that were that I thought it would paralyse the decision-making process, which I think now pretty well everybody agrees that's exactly what it's done.
“Secondly, I have always been a great believer in having as strong a governing body as possible and I felt that the decision to go to a tripartite agreement seriously weakened the BHA.
“To me the answer is you have got to go back to having the decision-making process made by the BHA. You are still going to have your Horsemen's Group, you are still going to have your RCA, and that's fine, but you have got to channel your decision-making process into one organisation. Why can't that be the way the industry is run?”
Peter Savill: "It has become a bit of a mess all round"
Peter Savill: "It has become a bit of a mess all round"
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
Savill admitted it would potentially be a stretch for racecourses and horsemen to back a bolstered BHA board, but argued that having an additional member from each of the two groups, taking the overall board up to 12 people, would balance special interests with the experience needed for clear decisions and governance.
“Will that happen? I don't know,” he said. “It will be a big test of whether the RCA and Horsemen's Group are willing to see that as not giving up power but having a proper representation on the board where decisions can be made.
“What we've now got is a structure that's got far more conflict — or potential conflict — within it than we had at any stage, even when I was surrounded totally by special interests on the board when I first took over.”
He added: “It has become a bit of a mess all round but I think it is solvable, and I think it depends on the players in the industry believing that there has to be a strong governing body.”
I think I am in the mitolo camp, anything that mentions the two words 'horseman's group' sounds incredibly pompous before you even start.
Racings problems started when racecourses effectively took control of the fixtures. We now have a product that is bloated and boring.Any further steps taken to give them more of a say is a another step towards mediocrity.
The product has disappeared so far over the cliff there is no way back.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539