Weinsteens attitude towards RA Members>:D

As per usual (which is not a bad thing as an issue gets disccused from many points of view), this is going round and round; I'm just going to try and state my opinion clearly on this issue one last time and then let's agree to disagree:

1. I am a registered owner with the NHA (and enforced membership of this esteemed body is another issue altogether - racing under the lap, etc)
2. I do not at this moment 'own' any horse - but that may change at any time
3. I was a member of the RA (I stopped paying my subs maybe 8 years ago)
4; The reason I stopped paying was that for me I did not see any value in membership.
5. I would consider joining again if I can be persuaded that there is value for me personally (yes it's a selfish attitude, but it's my money - and I certainly do not have enough of it to waste - and if I choose to rather spend the R100 per month punting, that should be my choice)
6. Having a subsidised entry to feature days' racing would be one way of convincing me that the RA is in fact trying to do something meaningful to their members - again the specific issue of the prime RA venue not being available to RA members due to sponsor arrangements is NOT an issue imo - but I think that having to pay R600 per person in a 'secondary' venue is not the way to convince 'ordinary small time owners' to join the RA

frodo just one question - surely you must own the horse to be a member of ra?

Only have to be a up to date registered colour holderTo become a RA member

Frodo Wrote:

---

> As per usual (which is not a bad thing as an issue
> gets disccused from many points of view), this is
> going round and round; I'm just going to try and
> state my opinion clearly on this issue one last
> time and then let's agree to disagree:
>
> 1. I am a registered owner with the NHA (and
> enforced membership of this esteemed body is
> another issue altogether - racing under the lap,
> etc)
> 2. I do not at this moment 'own' any horse - but
> that may change at any time
> 3. I was a member of the RA (I stopped paying my
> subs maybe 8 years ago)
> 4; The reason I stopped paying was that for me I
> did not see any value in membership.
> 5. I would consider joining again if I can be
> persuaded that there is value for me personally
> (yes it's a selfish attitude, but it's my money -
> and I certainly do not have enough of it to waste
> - and if I choose to rather spend the R100 per
> month punting, that should be my choice)
> 6. Having a subsidised entry to feature days'
> racing would be one way of convincing me that the
> RA is in fact trying to do something meaningful to
> their members - again the specific issue of the
> prime RA venue not being available to RA members
> due to sponsor arrangements is NOT an issue imo -
> but I think that having to pay R600 per person in
> a 'secondary' venue is not the way to convince
> 'ordinary small time owners' to join the RA

I have to say this post applies to me in all 5 ways...........
I have an additional question though:
Larry led the concerned owners group against the RA and the complaint was that the RA was siding with the operators against the best interests of owners!
Larry was given the job in return for a retreat and have all those wrongs been righted now that he is now in control?
Fair question I would think.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Frodo Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > As per usual (which is not a bad thing as an
> issue
> > gets disccused from many points of view), this
> is
> > going round and round; I'm just going to try
> and
> > state my opinion clearly on this issue one last
> > time and then let's agree to disagree:
> >
> > 1. I am a registered owner with the NHA (and
> > enforced membership of this esteemed body is
> > another issue altogether - racing under the
> lap,
> > etc)
> > 2. I do not at this moment 'own' any horse -
> but
> > that may change at any time
> > 3. I was a member of the RA (I stopped paying
> my
> > subs maybe 8 years ago)
> > 4; The reason I stopped paying was that for me
> I
> > did not see any value in membership.
> > 5. I would consider joining again if I can be
> > persuaded that there is value for me personally
> > (yes it's a selfish attitude, but it's my money
> -
> > and I certainly do not have enough of it to
> waste
> > - and if I choose to rather spend the R100 per
> > month punting, that should be my choice)
> > 6. Having a subsidised entry to feature days'
> > racing would be one way of convincing me that
> the
> > RA is in fact trying to do something meaningful
> to
> > their members - again the specific issue of the
> > prime RA venue not being available to RA
> members
> > due to sponsor arrangements is NOT an issue imo
> -
> > but I think that having to pay R600 per person
> in
> > a 'secondary' venue is not the way to convince
> > 'ordinary small time owners' to join the RA
>
> I have to say this post applies to me in all 5
> ways...........
> I have an additional question though:
> Larry led the concerned owners group against the
> RA and the complaint was that the RA was siding
> with the operators against the best interests of
> owners!
> Larry was given the job in return for a retreat
> and have all those wrongs have been righted now
> that he is now in control?
> Fair question I would think.


I wasn't going to stir THAT particular pot :

Its like a sheep in wolve skin lol

Frodo,do you not think it a fair question though?

please rob what do it mean to be be give the job as the retreat even google dont help me. all so who give larry the job was he not vote in by member surely?

rob faux Wrote:

---

> Frodo,do you not think it a fair question though?


I agree, and one which I doubt will lead to a clear unambiguous (spelling not all there on a Sunday morning?) answer - after all this is all 'history', 'water under the bridge', etc etc :S

they are telling you that this is a rich man game so if you cannot afford the facilties on the day go find another hobby so if you only have a small percentage in a horse you are nothing in this industry that is life money is king.

Flash Harry Wrote:

---

> please rob what do it mean to be be give the job
> as the retreat even google dont help me. all so
> who give larry the job was he not vote in by
> member surely?

NO! the position was not an elected one!
If it sorted the problems.......fine!...............I have not been a member since that time so hence my question!

so who give hem the job? he take over from clyde who go to phumelela, all so does he no have the maximum time he serve as ceo or what ever he call him self?