Yarmouth

Guest_

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,178
Location
Ireland
Where do we stand on this? I can have sympathy for the trainer who declared her horse....she had already paid the entry fee and the owners were keen to run. But equally you can understand the stance of many of the Newmarket trainers...disgraceful money and something should had to be done about it.

They should have announced their actions before entries were even made.
 
To be honest I think most of them are being arseholes.

Its a 3k to the winner maiden. There are hundreds of maidens with less prize money on the all weather all winter.

Wish I knew they were gonna boycott this, would have sent my mare there and got the easiest 3k ever and a decent hcp mark.
 
Originally posted by chrisbeekracing@Mar 23 2008, 03:01 PM
There are hundreds of maidens with less prize money on the all weather all winter.
Isn't that the problem though...this is not an all weather meeting in the middle of the winter! If you let this become acceptable or the norm it could lead to worse and worse.
 
how is it, its the 3rd meeting of the season. Its a class 5 and 6 meeting.

Just cus its at a big course dont mean its a big card.

The only problem with prize money is no consistency.

These big trainers want to ruin the smaller mans chances of success. Look at your big meetings 10 and 15k maidens. None of the small yards want to touch these.

Problem is too many big owners trying to control the game. Lack of prize money in the smaller sphere is not putting off the smaller owner who does it for fun and a hobby, all its doing is upsetting Cecil and Haggas and the pompus lot who want to win everything everywhere and get big money for doing so.

Funny how there is a 6k maiden at Warwick and none of the big yards even wanted to run in that, yet its near on the same terms as the Yarmouth race.

Its all about greed. If they were training low grade horses they would be happy to run in these races. Porblem is too many well bred "so called" good horses. None of these small races are ever under subscribed far from it.
 
Very well said Chris - if this had been public sooner I'm sure more smaller trainers would have sent horses - what a missed opportunity! Your comments on the motives behind this are spot on

Haggas can afford to lose opportunities like that - small trainers with moderate horses which find it hard to even get into a race are just as entitled to their day out - and well done to Christine for looking after her owners first

From Haggas's comments in the RP, it was a political stunt aimed at Northern Racing in particular and the power of the racecourses in general. I do take the trainers' point that money given from the Levy to Yarmouth has been spent on other courses, leaving the place still at the bottom of the pecking order in the merit table, but there are better ways to deal with this than depriving racegoers and Annual Members in a remote part of the country of much of their interest/value on a holiday weekend day out
 
I take Chris's points entirely and to be fair should there be any difference between a Class 5/6 card at Lingfield or Yarmouth ? I believe not but there is an almost inbuilt assumption that because a meeting is on turf, it HAS to have better prize money.

I don't see that at all. There is of course an argument that there is too much Class 5/6 racing and that may be fair enough.
 
The quality of racing in England tomorrow is shocking.I remember not so long ago the Kempton Easter Monday fixture had a couple of listed races and a major handicap.The Welsh Champion Hurdle is long gone.
Listening to the man from Coral on ATR this morning he was singing the praises of Good Friday opening-plenty of dog racing and virtual racing.
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 23 2008, 08:08 PM
I remember not so long ago the Kempton Easter Monday fixture had a couple of listed races and a major handicap

Its next saturday. Early easter effect
It was a traditional Easter Weekend fixture.Easter being early or late shouldn't make a difference.It seems to me like the English racecourses know they will get the crowds on a bank holiday monday and are happy to put on any old rubbish.
 
According to their website...

Premier Enclosure:
Normal price £19 / Online price £17

Grandstand & Paddock Enclosure:
Normal price £12 / Online Price £11
 
I suppose the fact that the meeting at Yarmouth has been abandoned due to snow and waterlogging won't be lost on anyone.

More serious for the Norfolk Countryside Alliance is the loss of the card at Fakenham - not often that course loses a meeting.
 
A good article with some interesting points in todays RP:


SOME of Britain's biggest trainers on Sunday came under attack for using “bully boy tactics” in a bid to force a boycott of a race at Yarmouth.

Christine Dunnett, trainer of Southwark Newsboy, who will walk over in the final race on Monday's card, was joined by the owners of the three-year-old, trainer Gay Kelleway, and former trainer Bill O'Gorman, in expres-sing anger at the ‘big boys' involved in the prize-money-inspired boycott, including trainers Mark Johnston, William Haggas and Chris Wall, preident of the National Trainers' Federation.

Johnston contacted Dunnett to say he hoped she was “ashamed” to have declared her runner.

Dunnett, who will double her tally for the year when Southwark Newsboy trots past the winning post just after 5.10pm – assuming Monday's meeting passes an inspection – expressed her annoy-ance at what she claimed was an insulting email from Johnston.
The trainer said she supported attempts to boost prize-money, but was not happy about the big trainers deciding to hold a “wildcat strike” after entries had been made and owners had made plans to go to Yarmouth.

It was an email Johnston sent to Dunnett on Saturday that triggered an emotional response from the Norfolk trainer, who replied to her Classic-winning counterpart, saying she felt “the big boys on Newmarket Heath had used ‘bully boy' tactics”.

Dunnett claims Johnston told her how he “makes good money from training fees alone”, adding that “if small trainers go under, my position will only strengthen”.

Derby-winning trainer John Gosden was also critical of the decision by connections to run in the 1m maiden, worth £2,331.72 to the winner.

However, a spokesman for Southwark Newsboy's owners, Southwark News Racing Club, on Sunday said it was solely his decision to run, and that all prize-money would be donated to a brain tumour charity, as Dunnett had lost her husband to a tumour when she was pregnant with her fifth child.

He said: “The first I heard about this was on Friday. Christine spoke to me and said she was coming under pressure from William Haggas and Chris Wall not to declare. I told her that was bad news. There are 200 members – ordinary, working-class people, including bin men, dinner ladies and OAPS – and my first loyalty is to them. I was outraged when I was told there had been a gathering of big trainers on Newmarket Heath.

“Mrs Dunnett asked what she should do, and I told her we should stand our ground, and if it was a walkover we'd donate all the prize-money to the brain tumour research charity Christine works so tirelessly for.
“We'd made a decision we were going to run and, while some big-name trainers tried to arm-twist Christine,I'm glad she didn't cave in. She has nothing to be ashamed of. It was my decision that we would run if we could.

“If Haggas, Wall and Mark Johnston had said, ‘Let's have a meeting and include the small trainers', Christine and I would have gone alongwith it, but it was decided unilaterally by people who don't understand what the lower echelons are like.

“They don't know what it's like for me to have to call up people to tell them to cancel their charabanc on bank holiday. To call a wildcat striketwo days before people have got their day planned is unacceptable.”

Kelleway, who has three horses declared at Yarmouth, was “furious” about the actions of the main players in the boycott.

“I think smaller trainers are being bullied,” she said on Sunday. “They had the right forum at the trainers' meeting in Newmarket, not long before the entry stage for Yarmouth, and I think they could have put their point of view across then, and all trainers would have been united.

“In the end, we've had certain people phoning us up three days before the meeting, when my owners have made arrangements to go racing. My owners work and they want a day out, whereas the big trainers' owners watch it on the television from Dubai.

“I have no intention of boycotting anything, because that is not the way to do things in racing. Mr Haggas would not make a good politician. I find him a bully. This is a man who will not even say hello to me in the morning.”

Kelleway added: “Come and train my horses Mr Haggas, and I'll train yours, and then maybe I'll have the freedom to not run my horses at certain meetings. If he were to come and train my horses then he'd be glad of places like Yarmouth.”

Former Newmarket trainer O'Gorman was disappointed by Haggas's comments about Dun-nett, saying: “I think it's well and truly out of order of Mr Haggas to be pillorying Christine Dunnett. He is prominent in the East Anglia section of the NTF and he is supposed to be representing her interests.

“I find this idea of a boycott coming from him extremely ironic, given that it's been something I've proposed for the last ten years, primarily over 48-hour declarations, and he personally has been extremely noisy in shouting me down.”

If Johnston really said “if small trainers go under, my position will only strengthen” then he's more of an arrogant cretin than I thought.
 
I don't think Haggas, Wall, Gosden and Johnston have done themselves or - in Chris Wall's case - the trainers they are supposed to represent any favours at all, by this arrogant attitude.

If this boycott was planned some time ago, it's great pity they didn't have the courtesy to consult with other smaller trainers, in particular one as local to Yarmouth as Christine Dunnett. As Kellaway said, “They had the right forum at the trainers' meeting in Newmarket, not long before the entry stage for Yarmouth, and I think they could have put their point of view across then, and all trainers would have been united." Several other trainers chose to declare - but they picked on her to bully her just *because* she was so local.

Is it a coincidence I wonder that it's women trainers who weren't 'in on' this decision? Or just any small trainer? It's quite unacceptable imo for one faction of a professional body to try to railroad the small fry.

The point Christine's Syndicate manager makes about disappointing a 200 strong ownership who were looking forward to their day out is well made - trainers like the four who have pilloried Dunnett have no idea how much work is involved in running these big clubs and syndicates.

I'm only sorry the meeting was cancelled - a bummer all round, and all this aggro for nothing...
Fudge, to say 'it don't matter now' is silly - the whole affair has caused a great deal of bad feeling and exposed a huge division in what should have been a united front from the NTF, which can in future again be exploited by the racecourses.
 
Good on the girls for saying their bit and standing their ground. How dare they be bullied by those that feel they are superior to other trainers.

Christine Dunnett is a lovely, kind, softly spoken and extremely hard-working woman. I went to her 50th Birthday party last year and she was the perfect host. She has the most amazing children too. Well mannered, well brought up and an absolute credit to her after losing her husband so suddenly. She adores her family and her horses. I am so pleased that she (and her owners) stood their ground against the bully boy tactics.

As for Ms Kelleway, well if you have met her you will know she speaks her mind and good luck to her. She only has about 30 horses but she gets the best out of them from quite a small yard.

Thanks for posting up the article Gamla Stam, I will be firing off a couple of e-mails to Christine and Gay telling them well done! I have never met William Haggas, although a friend had a horse trained with him last year. I hope he decides never to put another one with him having read this article.
 
At the end of the day this should be the owners boycotting the race meetings NOT the trainers. If the owner wants to run the horse then that's the way it should be. How do the trainers think that boycotting this meeting is going to have a direct impact on the prize money. I will be writing to Paul Dixon from the ROA this evening and asking for his opinion.

Who the hell do the Newmarket mafia really think they are? There is obviously a bigger picture. Perhaps they are just sick and tired of Christine Dunnett being so successful at Yarmouth. :) Talk about "them and us" Is it a coincidence that neither Gay nor Christine speak with a plum in their mouths and they are both female. I wonder what other trainers were bullied into withdrawing their horses.

I think there should be a full investigation into what went on, and those guilty of the bullying are taken to task. Disgraceful behaviour.
 
I've met Willie Haggas - briefly - and quite liked him, but I wonder where he'd be in the NTF pecking order if he weren't Lester Piggott's son in law [he is isn't he, or have I got that wrong too LOL]

The other two culprits had horses for the CA 'Fight The Ban' syndicate I was involved in about 4 years ago, training the horses for nothing; I only met MJ who was very charming and attentive to members. Both have plummeted in my estimation after this incident. Gosden had nowhere to plummet, he's always been at a low point on my list :P

I'm going to email the ladies as well.... I too have met Christine [she trained for a friend until recently, he doesn't have a horse right now] and found her really friendly, straight, down to earth and altogether a good thing. This must have been a very unpleasant experience for her
 
Christine Dunnett's set up is not on the scale of the Newmarket trainers. A lot of her owners are very loyal to her and love it when she has runners at Yarmouth as it is local track for her and for them. I bet they have a great time. Christine may never have a Group or Listed winner but she does what she has to to make a living. I would be very surprised if she makes a healthy living from her training fees.

The snobbery involved in this absolutely stinks. To tell Christine that she would benefit if she followed their lead is beyond comprehension. She may have been waiting for weeks/months for a run for her horses, so why the hell should she call her owners and say that she has been advised not to run her owner's horses (strangely enough she owns some of them but not all of them) at her local track. If I were Christine I would have said that the ultimate decision lies with the owners and let Haggas or MJ speak to them direct and let them put over their point of view and then tell the owners how well they are doing from their training fees.
 
I have to admit that I couldn't imagine this situation arising amongst the NH trainers. There is something a lot less pretentious about them and if they had a similar problem I am sure they would find a much better solution rather than picking on some of the smaller trainers whose livelihood absolutely depends on their horses winning races, any races at their local track.

Let's face it there can be many owners (unless you own some of the really top rated horses) can be entirely happy with the way that prize money is distributed.
 
I'd wager that all these four guys charge twice what she does in training fees - but she still has the same staff wages to pay

I'm going to email Yarmouth too to tell them to give her the winner's fee at least for her charity, for sticking it out in their support

HARUMPH :nuts:
 
I don't have a strong view on the Newmarket Trainers' action. I merely find it curious. Mark Johnston has been happy to strongly contest the 3-y-o maidens at Lingfield, Southwell and Wolverhampton.

Last Wednesday, he ran ALWAYS CERTAIN in a 7-furlong maiden at Lingfield that was worth to the penny the same as the contentious Yarmouth event so is the protest about prize-money in general or about prize money at Yarmouth in particular ?

At Kempton (also last Wednesday), the 3-y-o auction maiden was run for only a fraction over £2k (the Class 7 bandit event went for just £1,365).

Everyone looks at this from a different angle - owner, trainer, breeder, racecourse - and the picture looks different to all. IF we are entering a new period of economic hard times, I strongly suspect the sums on prize money and even the owning and breeding of racehorses will need to be re-appraised by all parties.
 
Difference is Stodge they think just because it's Yarmouth there should be a "Newmarket Attraction" Prize fund.

I can't stand Mark Johnston and whoopy ###### he makes his money from his training fee's alone. I hope the Sheikh's read that turn against him and take away all their horses, god i can't wait for that day.

I wouldn't have thought Chris Wall was in his posiition however and it surprises me he boycotted. He does have a nice bunch of horses and does cater for some bigger owner but I would have thought he would target lesser horses at these races.

I've always liked Christine Dunnett and Gay Kelleway and the next Boycott, I will hopefully enter both of mine at the meeting. Big trainers need to learn its the owners money not theirs so let the owner decide.

I can't imagine Sheikh Mohammed ringing up Mark Johnston or Willie Haggas and saying not to run, I bet they don't even know or care what amount of prize money they are running for.
 
Obviously, just like farmers, trainers couldn't organise a *****-up in a brewery. They might take part, mind but organise it? Nah..

Am in total agreement with Heads and Kathy on this one.

If they wanted to organise a boycott (and in fairness, everyone has bleated on about prize money for so long and nothing's been done, so it is about time proper action is taken), then the correct move would be for the ROA and the NTF to hold an open meeting somewhere central (or maybe several regional open meetings) and educate the owners/trainers as to why boycotts are necessary.

One race at one meeting is useless and will be a three day wonder at best. A boycott of a whole week, under both codes, might start getting them somewhere.
 
Interesting article from Greg Wood today in The Guardian

Botched boycott obscured real issue of prize money
Like Greg Rusedski on ice skates, the sight of racehorse trainers acting like assembly-line workers at Dagenham has been painful to behold
Greg WoodMarch 25, 2008 1:12 AM
Mark Johnston, William Haggas and Greg Rusedski are not, on the face of it, the most obvious of bedfellows, but in the aftermath of the botched attempt by some trainers to boycott a race at Yarmouth yesterday, they just might squeeze under the same duvet after all. It is nothing to do with Rusdedski's long record of occasional success and more frequent, slightly goofy failures on the tennis court. Instead, it is the memory of his more recent attempts to ice-dance on Sunday evening TV.

Like Rusedski on skates, the sight of rich, successful racehorse trainers trying to agitate and organise like assembly-line workers at Dagenham has been painful to behold. It is not what any of them were designed to do, and so the end result was misguided and clumsy.

And when the Newmarket trainers who cooked up the idea on the gallops one morning realised how silly they had started to look, their reaction was both spiteful and aggressive as they tried to bully Christine Dunnett into submission.

Dunnett, who trains a small string near Hingham in Norfolk, was the only trainer to declare a runner for the race that some of Newmarket's "big boys" had decided to boycott.

This enraged not just the plotters from headquarters, but also the ever-bubbling pot of brimstone that is Mark 'Mascherano' Johnston. It is 204 miles from Middleham to Newmarket, but North Yorkshire's finest - and chippiest - trainer could not resist the urge to get involved, apparently firing off an email to Dunnett that suggested she should be "ashamed" of herself.

Dunnett, to her great credit, refused to be intimidated. She not only sent Johnston a detailed defence of her actions, but also had the good sense to copy it to the Racing Post.

Clear and measured, but with a well-judged undertone of controlled anger, Dunnett told Johnston where to go, which was - to paraphrase - back to Yorkshire and his string of 180 choicely bred horses, each one of which brings in upwards of £400 per week.

Dunnett acquires many of her horses from sellers and claimers, but she is a shrewd judge who often coaxes a few extra pounds of improvement from new recruits. If one result of the weekend's row is that an extra owner or two finds their way to her yard, it will not have been entirely wasted.

The real shame of it all, though, is that there is certainly an issue over prize money at Yarmouth and elsewhere - as Dunnett herself was happy to acknowledge - but it has been obscured by the trainers' ham-fisted approach.

Yarmouth, after all, is part of the Northern Racing group of courses, which has been owned since April last year by the Reuben brothers, who are best known as property developers. If, as the trainers concerned suggest, Yarmouth's prize money is not merely poor, but getting worse all the time, then we would all like to know the reason why.

Are the new owners trying to run it into the ground in order to cash in on the land value? Will it be Yarmouth this year, and Newcastle the next? Or are they just being greedy and keeping as much for themselves as they can, as racecourse owners for generations have often been minded to do?

These are important questions, but Northern Racing seems to have been let off the hook by the Warren Hill gang, who turned a chat on the gallops into a PR debacle amid accusations of ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy and bullying.

The number and variety of British racecourses is one of the sport's greatest assets, but a good part of that heritage is in private hands. If prize money is slipping at Yarmouth, it is the British Horseracing Authority, on behalf of the entire sport, that should be making a stand.
 
Back
Top