Any other ROA members out there???

Not sure about that. Only 1 ticket for JC tracks now. What new tracks?

There are different schemes Sage(at least there were) but it has changed a bit this year. It seems you now contact the tracks direct for ticket(s). I'm not aware of extra tracks being added but the JC seems to have reduced its allocation.

The new admission scheme would be good, if it actually worked. I've been trying to book tickets for the Craven meeting, but all I get on the JCR website after clicking on Newmarket, is a blank page. Same with other JCR tracks I've tried.

I've notified the ROA, who confirmed that it's not working and was told they would inform us when it had been sorted out. Which won't be this weekend, as the office is closed.

Slightly off topic, I'm a member of the Racegoers Club which gives me access to parts of the ROA website and a daily email of the actual racecards and usually a fiver off admission at certain tracks. I don't know if I should have done but I got an orange carpark badge which allows me to park in the owners car park though I seldom travel by car and if I do, the few yards closer doesn't make much difference to me.

sorry 'Manoleeds'

Owners deserve much better than this - surely it's time to ring the changes on the ROA board
Peter Scargill
Deputy industry editor

The ROA has failed to represent owners' interests
The ROA has failed to represent owners' interests
Credit: Edward Whitaker
"Incapable", "pathetic", "retrograde", "useless", "toothless" – these are just a selection of opinions expressed by owners about the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA) in the wake of the representative body’s latest initiative.

The comments came after the ROA appeared to inform owners at the end of last month that a longstanding and popular racecourse access scheme operated in conjunction with the Racecourse Association (RCA) was being curtailed. The scheme entitled owners to free badges to go racing on days they did not have a runner, if they owned a certain percentage of a horse.

Owners were given one day’s notice of the apparent termination of this significant benefit – or less than that actually as the email was sent to ROA members at 3pm on the day before the scheme was not renewed.

However, less than 24 hours later, the ROA had to send a clarification email – on April Fool’s Day – saying the badge scheme actually wasn’t ending. Instead, the association was launching its own equivalent product rather than continuing to work alongside the RCA. This was no apology, but a ‘reminder’ to members that actually the ROA was doing them a great service.

As tends to be the case when the ROA takes control of something, chaos has ensued. Remember its bungled leadership of the cross-industry ownership strategy that cost racing in the region of £1.2 million yet resulted in next to nothing being achieved? This has been little better, with owners immediately reporting difficulties using the new system.

Louise Norman, the ROA’s head of ownership experience, came forward to explain what was going on and what benefits owners would get from the change. Speaking on Nick Luck’s podcast, Norman talked about taking back control, issued promises of better times ahead and claimed owners were being put first.

Norman also admitted owners were not yet able to access all courses as they had done in the past, that there would be more admin for owners to go through and that access at courses might not be at the same level as it was previously.

If you are not an owner, or a member of the ROA, you may think this is ‘storm in a teacup’ territory, but that is far from the case. Instead, it is another example of the disregard owners are held in by those who claim to represent them and further points to a body not fit for purpose.

When the racecourse badge scheme was set up, it was seen as a major benefit for owners. It cost the ROA somewhere in the region of a high five-figure sum annually, but former board members have said it was regarded as “critical” for maintaining and growing membership, allowing owners to benefit from their involvement and investment into British racing throughout the year. Now the ROA has unilaterally pulled the plug on the arrangement, to the considerable surprise of its members and racecourses.

The reasons for the ROA’s decision, based on Norman’s interview and what can be ascertained from other conversations, appear to relate to attempted cost savings and to gathering more data on members.

Norman spoke about how the ROA was “resetting the dial” by taking the scheme in-house so it could better understand owners and create methods for re-engaging people with ownership in Britain for the good of the sport (oh, if only racing had been given £1.2m to create an effective ownership strategy to implement instead of having to resort to these methods).

The ROA has become a membership organisation with waning benefits and a representative organisation that does not know, or seem to care, what those it represents want. For many owners, it is an infuriating symbol of how racing politics rewards underachievement and meekness.


Charlie Liverton: ROA chief executive
Charlie Liverton: ROA chief executive
The chief executive, Charlie Liverton, emboldened by a weak board seemingly unwilling or unable to effect the change that is so blatantly called for, has many questions to answer. The organisation he leads is now seen by many as too remote and unaccountable.

It shouldn’t be like this. The ROA should be an organisation which engages with its members and offers them superior benefits and representation; an organisation that campaigns for and upholds owners’ interests, challenges itself and others, and helps to modernise a staid sport.

Look at the National Trainers Federation (NTF). Why hasn’t the ROA been calling out racecourses as NTF president Ralph Beckett has done? Why hasn’t the ROA been energising and effectively organising its membership as Paul Johnson, the NTF chief executive, has done?

Last year, I and others called for members to vote against the re-election of leading figures on the ROA board. Those calls went unheeded, and one could argue that people get what they deserve. But no owner deserves this representation. Surely, surely, it is time for change.

Thanks for posting that MrC, appreciate your help.