Who controls racing

Who does control racing? Who should?

umlilo Wrote:

---

> That a handful control, manipulate and direct the industry at the expense of the majority of voiceless (and not so rich) stakeholders should be the concern to correct pronto...... surely?

There was a time, when it was a sport, that racing existed as a club sharing it's assets amoung those willing to participate as members under the rules of their constitution and under the leadership of stewards of the club(s). All fine. No big money, no profiteering and no private agendas.

Fast forward, and now we have major financial investments/expenditure and it's not just a game for fun anymore, and people can get hurt. People have taken to the sport with a commercial view and it's not participation for a ribbon or silver cup, but millions in stakes and huge value in bloodstock. Suddenly the big boys move in and sportsmanship isn't rule no.1 Just as suddenly stewardship doesn't cut it anymore, and neither does the 'club' structure suffice.

I'm not the greatest fan of democracy, after all a camel is a horse designed by a committee, but it is the least offensive form of control. But Umlilo, with all respect to "the majority of voiceless (and not so rich) stakeholders" in any company it's not one man one vote but one rand one vote. Probably in your company too. For a government we need democracy, but it lives off taxes and is non-profit..well, in most countries. But if you run a business as a democracy with majority rule, I wish you well. Perhaps in racing it should be one horse one vote.

It was not long ago when I noticed that a bunch of stewards of a club, with the privileges that came with the title (and they weren't bad if you liked to eat, drink and entertain grandly) each owned a total of a 10th of one horse. Lets just say they limited their exposure to the downside and maxed it to the upside.

Your question above is loaded with political dynamite. I believe there are still members around who are only listed to have access to the Met or July as a social occasion, perhaps less so now with increased membership costs. So who should control "racing", which aspects of "racing" if not those with the most to lose? The reason for the quote marks around "racing" is that I believe that racing is the sum of many components all related but distinct. You pose a fair question and I'm very curious about your opinion as to the answer.

I dont know Jack,its supposed to be the trust..

I would like to see the tracks and telletrack independant from the Totes.like they are in the uk

Hibs

Here, the "tracks" own the tote in a legal monopoly. It's the life blood of the stakes and part of the body, so severance is not an option.

As for tellytrack, or the public window to horse racing in SA, it to is funded and therefore controlled by the tracks and the money from the tote & bookmakers (in some agreed formula I heard). Although I'm pretty sure only the tracks have a say and not the bookies, except for bettingworld, the tote and ladbrokes who all simultaneously have the best odds according to the talking heads there on.

I see I have gone over my 1000th post, way past sell by date. Probably time to semi retire. No one should have that much to say.

@JD & Hibs:

'I would like to see the tracks and telletrack independant from the Totes.like they are in the uk '

That is a partial answer.


'There was a time, when it was a sport, that racing existed as a club sharing it's assets amoung those willing to participate as members under the rules of their constitution and under the leadership of stewards of the club(s). All fine. No big money, no profiteering and no private agendas.'

This is where the intrapolation comes in; sport or business / democracy or financial undertaking (with shareholders)?

The assets of the industry belonged to Province (Gauteng) prior to coropratisation. As Section 21 company (not for profit), the industry (even under the Nats) enjoyed tax break and received property virtually gratis.

Now, for these assets to be transferred into a corporatised entity (company for profit), there was no such directive from the old Horseracing Ordinance, except that, in the event of dissolution / insolvency, the assets realised must go to another sports code or within it.

To the best of my knowledge, Province never ever passed legislation over-riding that stipulation. Therefore, the entire process remains illegal and challengeable.

The assets of the industry were stripped and disposed of, proceeds unaccaounted, etc; is that not cause for concern? The assets belonged not to Province (or Jabu Molekethi as MEC at the time); they belonged to US, WE THE TAXPAYERS, at whose expense the industry flourished.

So, there is a major difference between what would be my own company, and this industry which is a sport, run as a business and also enjoys tax breaks from Government to continue making profits.

Show me one industry that enjoys such benevolence at your or my expense?

The point by Hibs is pertinent. Our situation has been compromised in that the operator hijacked the assets instead of remaining a mere, independant operator as elsewhere. Is there any other country (horseracing) where such a situation is extant?

That would be interesting to know!

These are my initial observations; I look forward to lively input!

Must commend you on your thread!

Umlilo

I don't think you are correct.

The province were not the owners of the assets, they were benerficiaries of the taxes collected possibly.

The assets of the clubs come from whoever donated or contributed in the very beginning, and then built up from the proceeds of whatever they did. The "clubs" were the owners of their assets, or the owners of leases and whatever agreements they had, or of whatever they bought.

The current members control the assets of their clubs under the constitutions of those clubs.

Racing's assets are certainly not for the people, or for the government or province. Those bodies take a cut for allowing the sin to continue if you want to call a spade a shovel. Ideally racing's assets are (or should be) intended for it's continued existence while there are people who want it to continue, and hopefully to improve and ultimately play on the world stage.

For any person or body with no interest in owning or somehow participating in the game of racing to take ownership or control racing defeats the very reason of how it started and why it continues. So it's a shame that their is corporatism, but it came from necessity. It looks inevitable that not-for-profit control of racing will cease to exist soon, and then the entire burden of not-for-profit will fall on the owners.

Still, you haven't said who you think the controller should be.

@jack dash:


'Still, you haven't said who you think the controller should be.'

When I went to the States, I wanted to get more info on the National Horseracing Boards.

These jurisdictions, I believe, are similar to our NHRA, but with far more sweeping powers.

Besides, the officials are totally independent of the operation; they control and regulate the industry.

I would suggest that the NHRA be completely removed from the aegis of the operator (for one, it receives funding from the operator whilst its offcials can come from the ranks of the operator also).

never mind who should be the operator as we can all dream on forever, who does it look like its going to be? What's happening down south with Phum/GC and a possible third party in that demerger of late?

Jockeys control racing. Ask any trainer or owner.

Barry Irwin Wrote:

---

> Jockeys control racing. Ask any trainer or owner.


Why would you say jockeys control racing

We control racing the punter,but were just like the RA and trust our say means SFA