Yarmouth

Venusian.

I don't understand the legal situation. According to a piece in the RP at the time:

"... the OFT is understood to take the view that prize-money in someway represents the price of a racing opportunity for owners and trainers. As such, its argument goes, a commercial transaction is thefore involved, and encouraging a boycott involves influencing the freedom of action of participants -owners and trainers- in the transaction".

When I read that at the time I couldn't understand a word of it and I can't now.

The NTF and ROA did take legal advice which "suggested the OFT may be wrong in their interpretation", but I suppose it would have been costly to test that premise in the courts.

richard
 
The average maidens at Newmarket, Ascot, Newbury would be £10,000 added.

Difference is Dante, I would happily run a horse in a bad race for that amount of money. You run to what you have got. Its nice that people want the levels of prize money to increase but I just can't see it. The only way would be to cut back fixtures but then the problem lies is that the smaller races will be removed limiting options even further for the smaller owner and trainer. I couldn't give a rats arse whether Mark Johnston would run for 3k or Chris Wall or William Haggas for that matter. No one is asking them to run for it. If the small trainers and owners are happy to run for it then what really is the issue. If you add another 1 - 2k to the pot all it will do is make it much harder for smaller yards to place their horses because the big boys will want to run everywhere with bigger guns.

Mark Johnston has been sending his horses down all winter for low grade maidens with low prize money so why is he in this boycott anyway !!!, it would be better if the big yards made a stand and refuseto run at a whole meeting if they wanted to, how about boycott a 0-95 hcp where the prize money is 9k to the winner and 14k added. As in reality you just short of listed class which is around 20 - 25k per race. and getting 7k more for winning a 0-95hcp over a 0-52 hcp, surely is no fair comparison for these big yards.

But they wont do that will they, they will target races which suits them to miss and any small yard that wants a runner with a chance of winning is pushed to one side and slated if they run.

How about all of Newmarket boycott the Guineas as the overall scale of Prize money is no good. That way they wont ***** off the small trainer. When you have horses rated under 60 unless you want to go to ireland you will never win more than 3k. This may not seem fair to some but the horse is only worth 5 to 6k max. So 50% back on your investment per win technically aint bad value in my eyes. I will continue to let my horses run in low grade affairs for minor prize money. It worked out at £470 for all expenses to Wolves when Star won and we got a grand after deductions. That horses profit to that day was £500. Not much no but he won the worse race possible and we all made significantly more backing him.

I understant the big trainers point of view, but surely they only want more money in these races to monopolise races that originally they would have no intention of running in. It makes the calender bigger for the bigger yard and harder for the smaller yard. Least we're in a posistion of not having to face big yard horses in small races, if the monies go up at the bottom level, it will be full of bigger yard horses and small yards are unfairly treated on the ballot. You could be rated the same as a Newmarket horse and have better recent form but that horse will always get in ahead of you in the ballot because its trained in Newmarket or by a bigger yard. The only people who can gain from all this is bigger yards, they aint interested in helping the smaller guy, if they were they would realise this aint there battle and that if 25 horses are entered in a 3k race it clearly shows there are owners and trainers willing to run. Just because the big boys wouldn't doesnt mean those not paying 400 - 500 a week to have a horse in training wont.
 
Havent read right through this so apologies if this replicates a point made already

but....

what would Johnston, Gosdens and Haggas's reaction be if the stable lads went on strike?

And what if the stable lads attached to their stables went on strike not believing in the cause, but only in response to intimidation from elsewhere?

Well we know about Johnstons views dont we?


Would agree that prize money is poor and Pontefract is a course that puts many others to shame. But on the other hand, "poor" prize money is only realistically an issue if the number of owners is steadily declining.... Ultimately the market will give its verdict

...The number of horses in training and number of owners involved is at its highest level ever i believe
 
I bit ironic that Christine Dunnett has a horse in training called Whodouthinkur! How very apt! :D

By the way, I agree with a lot of your last posting, Chris. :clap:
 
There is of course a compromise available. Ms Dunnett could agree to boycott 3K maidens at Yarmouth if Johnson and Haggas agree to boycott The Derby. Judging by the size and strength of their stables this would seem to be a relatively even sacrifice.
 
Originally posted by Sheikh@Mar 26 2008, 12:10 PM
Surely the fact that only one horse has been entered in the race makes the point that the other trainers wished to make. They should have used their common sense and perhaps Christine should have picked up the phone and explained her position to Mr Wall.
Sheikh, Chris Wall is the president of the NTF. He is therefore supposed to be REPRESENTING Christine Dunnett, not railroading her into taking a decision to the detriment of a large syndicate in her yard. She had been phoned by *them* - and told what to do!

As I've pointed out before, expecting a 200 strong syndicate of working people to cancel all their Easter bank holiday arrangements at 48 hours notice when they have bought badges, booked coaches and meals etc and no doubt booked the baby sitter, is arrogance of the highest order. It takes days of phone calls etc to organise a run for these large syndicates, as I know form experience
 
Originally posted by fudge@Mar 26 2008, 03:24 PM
Maybe the people that pay the bills were too thick to understand what a benefit it would be to them in the long run to play ball then. Hopefully it has put her on the map and she might win maybe 3 or 4 more low grade races this year for no money.
What a despicable attitude, did you pick that up from your boss?

Dunnett has made it clear that on discussion with her Syndicate manager, he insisted she declared the horse as the 200 strong syndicate had booked their day out. He stated in the RP that it was his decision alone to declare. She was then vilified both publicly and privately by other trainers, who had embarked upon this course of action and THEN informed the other smaller trainers what they were to do.

I really think that Chris Wall should resign his leadership of the NTF immediately. He is clearly unable to behave in an impartial manner and so far as I can see has acted in the interest of the big battalions at the expense of the small trainers - for whose position he seems to have no understanding whatever
 
.. and ironic that it was cancelled anyway due to the bad weather! :brows:


Agreed, Headstrong.

When you have a syndicate, whose horse doesn't possibly run very often, and you get the opportunity to go to your local track, meet up with other friends from the syndicate, catch up with Christine who is always very sociable, you would probably jump at the chance! Plus it's a Bank Holiday so you know you are going to be off of work. You then get a call from Christine to say that a trainer (who some of them have probably never heard of) has called and asked if Christine will back their protest and not declare the horse to run. I can imagine a large percentage of the syndicate who are probably not members of the ROA, are not involved in racing politics on any level, and were just looking for a good day out would say "stuff it", the horse gets declared as we are going for a good day out.

Syndicates for smaller trainers are often their lifeblood. It's social, it's relatively cheap and it counts as a good day out for a great many people.

Chris Wall should bear this in mind when he plans his next race boycott.
 
Originally posted by an capall@Mar 27 2008, 08:37 PM
There is of course a compromise available. Ms Dunnett could agree to boycott 3K maidens at Yarmouth if Johnson and Haggas agree to boycott The Derby. Judging by the size and strength of their stables this would seem to be a relatively even sacrifice.

I agree with An.

I would love to be the fly on the wall when one of the three elite trainer's phone up one of their prestigous owners to ask for their support by not declaring their horses in The Derby.

"Is that you Sir Clement. Yes, it's me. You remember me, surely. I train a horse for you. Yes, that's me... rhymes with trout. I'm the other important "Sir" in this Sport of Kings.
That world beater I purchased for you to run in the 2008 Derby. Yes, that's the one the one that I told you you can stick thousands of pounds on as I have set him up for the race.
Sir Clement, I need to ask you a really massive favour..... Sir Clement, Sir Clement...?"
 
...but that was the start of a plan of protests which they were planning to do in one race at a few different meetings coming up and wanted every trainer to join them. [/QUOTE]

THIS is precisely the point. The decision was taken by a small group, not democratically by the NTF as a whole


<< that is why everyone was annoyed with Christine Dunnett for being the only fool trying to pull a fast one. >> [Fudge again]

It's down on record that the Syndicate Manger instructed Dunnett to declare the horse
 
Originally posted by fudge@Mar 27 2008, 10:08 PM


I know how hard it is to keep owners happy some stitch you up for no reason, some dont pay bills, some think they know better than trainers that have been doing it for years. But most of all they employ a trainer to do a job so if they cant listen to them for advice and to do what they pay them for why dont they get their own licence out!!!

Dear oh dear. Fudge you are missing the crucial point that the OWNERS employ the SERVICES of the trainer to train THEIR horses. Trainers are a supplier of a service. They are NOT God! Your arrogance is quite astounding to be honest. The people that will benefit more than anyone from an increase in prize money is the OWNERS! The trainers will get a bigger percentage as will the jockeys and everyone else that is lucky enough to get a slice of the cake. If anyone needs to make a stand about the lack of decent prizemoney it is us the owners. With the support of trainers and jockeys and all the associated bodies, our voice can be heard and we can make people listen if any protest is carried out in a correct and proper manner.

Some trainers may think they walk on water but without the owners employing them, they will be looking for a new way to put food on the table for their families. Those trainers that charge so much from their fee's that they don't care whether horses leave the yard to go racing and are happy to boast about that fact - well those statements speak volumes about the trainers concerned.

Some owners and trainers become good friends. It frequently happens. Many owners tend to stay loyal to good trainers as they become part of the family in many ways and support them through their ups and downs. The one thing that Christine has done absolutely correctly is to realise that she answers to her owners and for that reason she declared their horse to run. It was their wish and their call. She understands obviously that they pay her wages, and that of her staff. She can of course advise them, but as they pay for the horse, the training, the jockey, the race entry, the vets (you getting the picture yet?) then at the end of the day, they call the tune. Some owners admittedly would take a different viewpoint if they were supportive of the action that Chris and his merry men were attempting to take.

I do hope you learn some important lessons if you are ever thinking of taking up the position of a racehorse trainer. You will certainly win no prizes for your rudeness and generalisations towards those people that effectively pay your wages. I would love Chris Wall to read your responses on here and let us know if he agrees with your viewpoint. From where I stand, you still have a lot to learn.
 
Kathy I think you are personally being a bit hard on Kevin in many ways, I'm pretty sure he understands the importance of owners and he would have had dealings with owners at the races being travelling head lad.

The problem is it all depends on certain owners. The general fact is many owners would like to be competing for more money but don't see it as a be all and end all.

No one is expecting big sponsors to drum up sponsorship for lesser races. I see how Kev has looked at this as "trying to help the smaller trainer" but if you look at reality, if a 3k maiden becomes a 5k maiden this means better horses will run in it, this doesn't help the smaller trainer as in a ballot a horse of Sir Michael Stoute will always get preference over say Brendan for example. That being said it is apparently random (random my arse !!!!). Also if you have more money in 0-60s and 0-70s it will only encourage the bigger trainers to keep training lesser stock. Had their been 4 or 5k on offer for 0-60 handicaps I doubt Roger Charlton would have sold us Stargazy, especially for £5000. You have to remember the bloodstock market is at a low and value in purchasing is being restored and if you go to South Africa or America you are getting much more for your pound now. The fact is whilst the big owners are letting stock go to ease funding the smaller syndicate is regaining strength as its easier for ten men to find a grand at present than one to find 10k. This is enabling better stock to go at the lower end of the markets. This wont happen if prize money goes up as your bigger trainers will happily keep training the 10-20k horses if they can pick up 4 or 5k for winning. How does this help the smaller trainer, it doesn't.

Prize money is a core basis and I sometimes wonder if our racing system is designed all wrong. Take a look at it in footballing terms. I play for a Sunday league team who ain't half bad for our league and we all get paid £25, plus £5 win bonus or £2.50 goal or assist bonus. This means a good week your contract is £35. We are some 5 leagues off the Blue Square South but we are effectively your banded horse. In the Blue Square my cousin plays for Grays Athletic and he is on £170 a week. Nothing he can live on but it supports his other job. Then into league One (3rd highest tier) where my other cousin plays for yeovil, he is on £1000 a week. Now I know when you get to the prem the wages are outstanding (for some) but look at this big picture. the real factor is down the bottom its pretty dire. If you take a percentage scale to my level £35, to Joe Cole's level 100k, we are on 0.00035% of Premiership wages and 0.035% of league one wages, now when you consider the Derby at 500k as compared to the banded race at £1400, you get 0.0028%, now this may not sound a lot but its still higher than the footballing pay structure from bottom level to top. Now if you consider the average premiership player to be on £20,000 their comparison to the bottom is 0.00175% but the average big race is £45,000 compared the banded race of £1400 is 0.031%. Now it clearly identifies to me that that in relation to football the bottom grade racehorse is earning more than the bottom paid footballer, so ask yourself is it wrong, and this is before you say footballers are on too much. This is clearly an indication of maybe compared to racings elite to racings bottom basement they are.

I'm not saying the prize money is good but lets be honest, Fudge answer truthfully. Say 5 years down the line you have your license. You train say in Newmarket. For 2 months over the cold winter mornings you have this 51 rated 5f handicapper that needs a bit of juice in the ground, a nice level track and is not a great traveller. On Easter Monday you spot a 0-52 5f handicap at Yarmouth. £2,300 to the winner. Now this horse is owned by some loyal owners that always pay their bills early and loyally support you despite not having massive amount of funds, but always come up trumps on pay day and leave you to train their horse and get enjoyment out of it running. Now chances are you've noticed this race some 1 month in advance and had told these owners this is the likely race day. However 5 days before this race which is perfect for your moderate animal, Mr Wall or Mr Haggas approach you upon first lot and say see this 0-52 handicap for £2,300 at Yarmouth which we have no intention of running anything in, well we want to make a protest about prize money being low and want you not to run. Think carefully now, this horse has been targeted at this race, the owners know, the horse is 100%, its local and gonna cost you no more than £300 - £400 to go there, meaning owners can get a nice £1,600 - £1,800 if it wins profit for going an hour up the road, and your horse is not a great traveller. Are you telling me you would not run this horse, if that is your answer you will be in for a rough ride as the owners wont be happy, you would have canceled their planned day out, but most of all the one race you have targeted at for this horse, is now smoke and mirrors, all that hard work for weeks is canceled out because the hierarchy of British trainers feel they need to make a protest which has no bearings on them whatsoever. These trainers really have gone about it the wrong way and I for one can't see how you can't see that.

Kathy is 100% right in the fact that she says owners employ a trainers services. I have been delighted to have my horses with Bill Turner, someone who I got on well with whilst working in racing and always offered a hand with a spare lead up in my time when he was stuck. When I offered him two what were in his opinion 2 lovely horses last year he was delighted.There are 17 trainers within 25 miles of where I live but I selected him because with what I had he was ideal. I have struck up a good rapour with Bill and get on very well, we chat at the races, I help him saddle at other meetings, got pally with his owners, get on really well with his staff, I go down once a week. We chat about all his horses and ideal races, even chat about friendly things. This is all you can ask for in a trainer. I pay my bills on the 1st of the month and never qualm if he wants to go to wolves and I want to go to Ascot, so to speak. He lets me do my own entries but then we look for whats best with the horse. I can safely say I would happily support Bill from now on and hopefully Star will still be running in 5 or 6 years at the ripe old age of ten, he would make a fantastic daddy for the babies in years to come and I would be delighted to help Bill out in anyway. For a small trainer you can't always find these owners and when they come along you take them with open arms, their input not just financially is crucial in a small yard. Those that get on well with lads and go out for nights out with them, leave drinks in the yard, the lads are happy to see as they know they are not looking down on you, you also find it creates a bit of happiness in a yard even when the chips are down. I don't own no superstars or any world beaters but I haven't the money to purchase that caliber of horses and even if I did I probably wouldn't. I have my couple of horses there which are loved by the lads and are actually trained. My trainer aims my horses are their standard of races, there is no big line production as there is in big yards where the rich get richer and the ###### get sold. Each horse has every angle covered to try and achieve the best possible. My only chance of a cut at the big pie is if a horse I've bred comes good or my horse that was once in a big yard really does come good. Its not impossible or likely but you never know. The fact is my £2,600 a month would mean nothing to the likes of Sir Michael Stoute or Henry Cecil or probably even Chris Wall for that matter but the difference is they wouldn't want to train my horse, so why should they be interfering with the prize money that I want my horses to run in.

If my trainer is happy to run in these races and so am I the owner I don't see what it has to do with the big guys in the Al Bahathri club. If prize money increased to where it attracts big yards, all it will do is finish off the small man, also remember if horses are competing for more , trainers will feel they can push their prices up as a reflection. Then this may force me to have one horse instead of two, and it will do the same to many owners.

Take a look at the likes of Kathy and myself, we're the people with horses running at this level and for this standard of prize money. if we weren't happy we would be clubbing together with many other small owners and saying lets boycott Saturday night at Wolves because the prize money is poor. The fact is the average racehorse owner is not concerned with the level of prize money. You don't go into this game to make a profit. For an owner it's not a business, a trainer yes it is, but not an owner. If suddenly 3k races become 5k races, sponsorship will have to double. I'm paying £1200 to sponsor a 0-70 handicap this season, where the prize money is £5,000 added and £3,300 to the winner. now if this increased to £7,000 added, the racecourse would probably want £2,000 off me, which would probably make me not want to sponsor the race. Pontins are sponsoring near on every race at Wolves this winter, not because they are paying £1000 a race like if you or I sponsored there but because Wolverhampton racecourse have accepted an offer for sponsorship of say 200 races which benefits them.

To be honest Kevin when you start training you need these races to put yourself on the map, if every race was fiercely competitive with the big yards filling them up all the time, a, you would never have runners and b, you would never get many winners. That will result in no horses and no owners. Ask yourself anyway why would Mark Johnston want a 0-55 handicapper ?, there much harder to train than a 80 horse.

Also these big yards are targeting maidens and not handicaps for a reason, this is because they have 100 new maiden's a year, and want to win as many races as possible. Why should the Levy and the BHA fund their greed. why should Stoutey be able to run a 500k colt at Wolverhampton against the lesser mans future 60 horses, the reason is he won't if the prize money is 2.5k to the winner, make it 4k or 5k he will come. Theres only one loser if they increased prize money the way the big yards want and thats the small trainer. Ask yourself something why despite your trainers position on the NTF, why would he seriously want to help a small trainer, when he deep down knows he has no intentions of running in these races unless prize money goes up, that tells you something already and I'm sure many owners like myself will totally agree with me. I know 3 trainers that also agree with my comments, you would be surprised but this is the general feeling in the smaller yards and believe me your stay away tactics from the small races will not deter the small trainers, the big boys can all stay away and wait for the Newbury's, the Newmarkets and the Ascot's many small trainers will feel its better that way anyway.
 
An interesting and informed view, Chris - thanks for that.

We have median auction races for the benfit of the cheaper horses - maybe we should also have races which are defined by the number of horses a trainer has in training or possibly a basic training fees per month banding?!
 
Originally posted by clivex@Mar 27 2008, 01:43 PM


...The number of horses in training and number of owners involved is at its highest level ever i believe
Nevermind the quality feel the width



Don't know what all the fuss is about anyway, Christine Dunnett made a questionable reverse of her original decision not to run her horse under pressure from a clown of an owner who says he prepared to run for 10 quid (no doubt he gets other mugs from the syndicate to pay the training fees) and she was criticised for it and she replied to the criticism, what's the problem?
Have you read Mark Johnston's email to her Kathy?
What's surprising on here is the lack of condemnation of Yarmouth & Northern Racing, as has been said earlier their idea is to put up as little as possible that they can get away with at their tracks when they can clearly afford a lot more.
The difference between Fudges 52 rated handicapper 5 years down the line and Christine Dunnetts horse would be ability, the only chance Christine's horse would have of getting a place is in a walkover.
Don't know how picking up Stargazy for 5 grand after he cost 125 grand 12 months earlier justifies low prize money though.
Horse racing's not all about owners and trainers anyway what about the racing public, all they "see" a lot of the time is a sea of mediocrity. Most people want a bit of quality, look at the dross today at the 3 all weather meetings, what's your estimation of spectators at the 3 meetings today where the total prize money at the 3 combined only just exceeds one Irish meeting.
No wonder so many good horses go abroad with a lot more to follow, what's the point of keeping them here for so little prize money, only recently one of top all weather owners Nigel Shields said he was transferring most of interests to the States because of the situation and who can blame him.
 
Good post again, Chris.

Dante, I have been in communication with Northern Racing and Yarmouth racecourse about the incidents of the weekend. They are fully aware of the the problems of prize money, espcially in light of the Bank Holiday weekend protest and are willing to talk and to listen. Will anything change, I don't know BUT at least the lines of communication appear to be well and truly open. Ironically, Northern Racing and Yarmouth racecourse responded within hours of receiving my e-mail. Paul Dixon of The ROA hasn't even acknowledged receipt of my e-mail let alone responded to it. I wonder what I should read into that? shrug:: :)

With Christine Dunnett taking the stance that she did it has definitely had the result of getting people into the open to discuss the issue of prizemoney, especially at some of the smaller tracks.

I am not happy with the level of prizemoney, as I have said on this thread already, but as an owner, I just feel there are better ways of going about addressing the issue. Yes, some may say (mostly punters in my experience) that there is a lot of dross at some of the UK racetracks, and this is another issue that needs to be discussed.

Clearly nothing is going to change overnight but at least people are talking about it and if Fudge's opinion (hopefully not an opinion mirrored by his boss) about other trainers being fools and her owners being stupid then perhaps someone needs to try and build a few bridges between those trainers that they feel are the elite, and those smaller trainers that are doing there best with the ammunition they have at their disposal.
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 28 2008, 08:43 AM
Paul Dixon of The ROA hasn't even acknowledged receipt of my e-mail let alone responded to it. I wonder what I should read into that? shrug:: :)

Maybe he's left the country :laughing:
 
This incident, and thread, has brought to the surface a lot of the attitudes that exist inside racing....greed, snobbery, lack of respect (contempt) and a total lack of objectivity or ability to see the other side's point of view.

I wonder if things will change as a result.....no feckin' chance! :(
 
Originally posted by Dante+Mar 28 2008, 08:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dante @ Mar 28 2008, 08:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Kathy@Mar 28 2008, 08:43 AM
Paul Dixon of The ROA hasn't even acknowledged receipt of my e-mail let alone responded to it.  I wonder what I should read into that? shrug::  :)

Maybe he's left the country :laughing:[/b][/quote]
Yes, I have that affect on people, Dante! :brows:
 
Originally posted by Colin Phillips@Mar 28 2008, 09:23 AM
This incident, and thread, has brought to the surface a lot of the attitudes that exist inside racing....greed, snobbery, lack of respect (contempt) and a total lack of objectivity or ability to see the other side's point of view.

I wonder if things will change as a result.....no feckin' chance! :(
I'm glad you agree Colin, what's your nap for today? :p
 
Colin, the whole point of these discussions are for people to air their views. It's a heated debate and with good reason. People clearly take their position.

If everyone (yes, including me) is able to see it from other people's view points then it's at least one way of digging out what are the real issues.

Racing is always going to attract snobs and snobbery, but the beauty of racing for many is that there are also many, very ordinary working class people are involved too. These ordinary people come in the form of trainers as well as thousands of owners and their opinions are as valid as the next persons.

Racing is not just for the elite and titled, it is a sport for everyone for enjoy. Paul Dixon in this months Racehorse Owners and Breeders magazine spouts on about how he is just an ordinary working bloke from a modest background who has worked his way to the top. Good for him. Let's see him work some of his magic on getting people around a table to discuss the real issues affecting racing from everyone's point of view.

To quote him:

Question: What frustrates you most as an owner and breeder?

Paul's response: " The level of prize money in British racing. We have more fixtures than ever before and prize money is being spread ever more thinly. I would like to see all the racing factions working together to make the product better, something we are trying to achieve through the Horsemen's Group"


Anyone any idea who are the Horsemen's Group and what they are doing? shrug::
 
Originally posted by Dante@Mar 28 2008, 08:08 AM
Horse racing's not all about owners and trainers anyway what about the racing public, all they "see" a lot of the time is a sea of mediocrity.
I would contend that racing is all about Owners! You can have trainers, breeders, stable staff and jockeys but if you don't have owners willing and able to pay for the above, you have jack sh*t. Sure, it's also necessary to satisfy the great racing public too but they don't come first.

As a commercial breeder, I'm well aware that the person I have to satisfy is the guy who is going to end up owning my home-breds. I have to supply a product he/she is willing to spend their money on and that's the only criteria I have to work to, unless I am going to race them myself.

To avoid the potential problem of increasing prize money at the lower grade tracks meaning that the bigger trainers will pot hunt even more, there has to be an overall increase in prize money across the board.

If we're prepared to put on races which are aimed at cheaper horses, then do the same with regard to yards with smaller numbers and who offer a more basic 'product'. We have races confined to sex, age, price etc - Jeez, we even have races confined to grey horses!! So why not extend that to specified race conditions for trainers too!?!
 
I see that the NTF is represented on quite a few industry committees and working groups. I see they are represented in The Horsemans Group :clap: (still don't know what this is or does :rolleyes: ?) and the "Strategy Liason Group" . :rolleyes: I haven't heard of many of these working groups.

Representation

The NTF is represented on the following industry committees and working groups:
Animal Health Trust Infectious Diseases Committee
Animal Health Trust Industry Committee
British Horseracing Authority (BHA) Race Planning Committee
BHA Fixtures Allocation Group
BHA Flat Pattern Panel
BHA NH Pattern Panel
BHA Owners Marketing Group
The Horsemans Group
British Horseracing Training Board and Training Advisory Group
British Racing School Trainers' Committee
Equine Research Liaison Committee
Industry Committee (Horseracing) Limited
BHA Racecourse Committee
BHA Veterinary Committee
National Joint Council for Stable Staff
Northern Racing College Trainers' Committee
RCA Technical Group
Racehorse Transporters Association Council
Racing Review Committee
Strategy Liaison Group
Tattersalls and Doncaster Bloodstock Sales Liaison Groups
 
Back
Top