WHY NOT RUN RACING YOURSELF?

A lot of 'debate' goes on during the course of any given week regarding the manner in which racing is run and the role played by the operator.

Criticism is easy. You simply post something. Everybody then slings off for a couple of days whereafter the topic rapidly disappears into cyberspace somewhere on page 136. If it gets really personal it may hang around a little longer whilst the protagonists vent their spleens on each other. Once everybody is satisfied that he or she is in the right we move on to the next burning issue.

But one topic that never fails to elicit a passionate response is this : By and large very few posters are satisfied with the manner in which the sport is being managed by Phumelela. It doesn't matter whether the strategy being employed is ultimately good or bad for the sport. A large number of people are just not happy with it.

So here's my recommendation for ALL OF US couch critics : Why don't we get busy and reclaim the control of the sport? Or at the very least make ourselves into uncomfortable 'peas in the mattress'. ( I make this suggestion with my tongue very firmly in my cheek as I know how apathetic we all tend to be when asked to actually do something! ).

I'm NO EXPERT in formal structures but this is how I understand things work :

1.) 35,26% of Phumelela shares are held by the Racing Trust.

The RA apparently provides 2 of the 4 seats in the trust. By my calculation this means that 50% of the trustees(?) are provided by the RA.

So start off by taking ownership of the RA! This means we all have to join. Then we ACTUALLY ATTEND meetings ( that will be a first for most! ) and drive whatever agendas and demands we wish through that body. Instead of just whinging.

2.) The next major shareholder is Sanlam with 8,98%

Make a lot of noise on twitter, blogs etc., about the immorality of a respected institution holding shares in a gaming group. Those of you who hold Sanlam plans can write directly to them demanding that they disinvest.

3.) Form a syndicate and start mopping up the shares. ( On a risk/return basis it beats the hell out of buying yearlings. Lol ).
If you acquire 15%+ of the shareholding you have a virtual direct/indirect controlling interest in the operator.

What do posters think? And what makes a strategy of this nature unworkable?

To answer the final question; bank balances!

Cheers again Garrick but when the favs are winning I love racing,so I have been busy. I am an RA member and the point u make is valid, when I do attend meetings the majority do appear happy with the current status. At this time in life I personally have no inclination to de throne the powers that be, but do get upset when many valid customer complaints get ignored by the operators.
I really enjoy my hobby and social times racing and feel we give a good platform to the man in the street to voice his opinion.
I feel that ABC makes a great contribution to racing and basically most racing people are pleasant when I meet them face to face but behind the scene we are still outlawed by most, "not all" but most.

My question remains..."how is it possible that the 2 directors representing owners and trainers on the Phum board are not directors of the RA?'

I was giving the whole stakeholder idea some thought. more specifically whether or not customers are stakeholders and lastly should a customer have a say in the business operations. I found the following on Wikipedia and we have to wonder why punters are not properly represented?

Stakeholder (corporate) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


For other uses, see Stakeholder (disambiguation).

A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[1] The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

the meetings are a waste of time because nobody turns up - that is not the RA's fault