Gauteng trainers NOT happy

Not sure the ins and outs but had a few messages about this attached letter, seemingly putting them under a bit pressure etc etc

Also not sure of the ins and outs but does put pressure on trainers should it not fall on the owner with pressure from RA?
Maybe some clarification what has changed and why?

We had a trainer bitching in the rooms today about this. He says its tough enough with owners struggling and many behind on fees. This new ruling means he must pay the outstanding himself should there be defaulters in his yard. Very unfair imvho. He was also questioning why the RA are the messangers here and why are Phumelela not driving this.

Over the Air wrote: We had a trainer bitching in the rooms today about this. He says its tough enough with owners struggling and many behind on fees. This new ruling means he must pay the outstanding himself should there be defaulters in his yard. Very unfair imvho. He was also questioning why the RA are the messangers here and why are Phumelela not driving this.

I am not been a dick but surely if an owner as you post is struggling and is behind on fees, he should not be owning a race horse.

A few Trainers have called me about this letter and there are quite a few mixed opinions, all very anti the fact that we are being forced to collect the fees for RA. The opinions vary as follows -
1) Very few, if any, Trainers managed to collect and pay over the fees to RA on time, to qualify for the discount of 10% which we were getting.
2)No only are we forced to collect the fees for RA, but we are also liable for Owners bad debts.
3) Should an Owner not pay, the whole yard may not nominate unless the Trainer has paid that Owner's debt.
4) The arrogance of RA is once again displayed with the high handed letter received today but which back dates to first of August.

The above are what Trainers are saying. I am just the messenger here. We will have a meeting to discuss the issue, where everyone is represented.

From my side, it is a bit of a worry, the liability issue, especially if Trainers have been nominating for and running in features.
However, we do have to get the fees in, so we just have to get the job done. Maybe a compromise of sorts, where we could show the non payers to RA and then get RA to collect those ?

:blink: fark...pass the buck RA... :whistle:

Correct me if i am wrong but training is a business. Fees need to be paid for nominations so that horses can run.Surely the trainer must have adequate cash flow.Its not the ra problem.Trainers must have legal contract with their clients and as in other businesses who offer account would do credit checks.At the end of the day in my business if i gave credit to customers who dont pay,how can i cry to my supplier.

Technically correct Batman. But we are collecting from RA members for RA and paying RA members money over to RA .....And are held liable by RA if RA ' s members don't pay.....
Look, I have been and am and will still do the job. It's just that the issue of liability for bad payers lies with the Trainer alone. Maybe RA could also assume some liability for their members defaulting ?

I think the solution is not to suspend noms for the whole yard but only the horse concerned just like we do when colours are not renewed. The trainer should instruct ra that horse a has stabling arrears and ra should instruct nhra not to accept the horse to be nominated by ANY trainer until all fees are settled with trainer. Nhra should make a ruling that any trainer nominating a horse where the fees are behind by 60 days is liable for a fine. Paying owners should not be punished and non- payers need to be corrected before things get out of hand.

Imo....RA members, RA fees, RA problem {shrug}

I feel for both trainers and the RA on this one. To me this is an NHA problem. In the past ownership was strictly controlled, interviews were done and financials were handed in. Then they would decide on how many horses you could own. Today you fill in a form and you an owner. There are 2 types of owners I have been made aware of recently, paying owners and non-paying owners. Personally the NHA needs to put better structures in to Administer Horse Racing properly which is what the people working there are paid to do.
Maybe better to go the Singapore route, where the owner pays the Jockey Club for all training and nom fees and if they don't pay on time that horse is not allowed to race and further action is taken. However, in saying that, in racing would our Jockey Club agree to take that role??

Something that is being overlooked is that not all owners are RA members I think a large portion are not but I stand to be corrected on this