Gauteng trainers NOT happy

I remember the days when i applied for colours.. Have to fill in a aplication, submit forms with assets and liabilitys.As well as proof of income,balance sheets,accountant letter.Then once a month they had a meeting to decide if yes or no.And then they would come up with restrictions as to how many horses you are allowed to own based on income.Any judgments and it gets thrown out.
Thats now out the window.Today you pay the fee and chooses your colours straight away and thats it.

The welfare of the horse and the integrity of punting is reliant on financial soundness throughout the industry,so monitoring affordability and credit control should be an integral part of regulation.
As Oscar says ,when I got my colours,I had to prove that I could afford ownership, apart from a blemish free track record!
It should be mandatory for trainers to report to the regulators any o/s over 30 days and owner privileges suspended by the regulators.
A couple of months and the bullshitters should be eliminated ....................and a better cleaner industry!
One of the attractions to ownership in the "good old days" was that colours were,to some degree,a badge of credibility,and thereby a status symbol .........................now they mean zilch!

Yes if an owner puts a horse in a trainers care he then becomes the trainers client and in normal circumstances the buck stops there.

But like in any business cash flow and credit are important, if for some reason JOE BLOGGS can`t pay his stable bill one month JOE BLOGGS horse still needs to be fed and trained and entered.

Any decent trainer can`t and wont not feed a horse because an owner owes him 9k ( ave monthly bill ).

Now if this trainer`s owner finds himself in deeper and can`t settle at the end of the 2nd month ( trainers have 60 days to settle ) and the trainer can`t pay his entire yard will be shut down

Haha........who remembers the " punting stables " and how they survived by lining up horses and then backing them, many times with the " poor " owner totally unaware that his horse was the business on the day. :lol:

Still happens in the UK, Mauritius etc. where the stable punt horses to break level.Come to think of it here in S.A. and big owner like Hassen Adams was the victim of one of his horses getting heavily backed and winning and he was not given the " tip ". :lol:

When one thinks about it you have to wonder why, outside of Graded & Listed races, we even have nomination fees at all.

It seems to me that the ratio between administration and nett gain barely justifies having these fees and they represent yet another irritating 'add on' for owners and, indirectly, trainers.

Sure - this may ultimately impact upon stakes but who cares? The game already is a 'nett loss' for most owners so would anyone really be bothered if the stakes agreement were fractionally reduced to cater for the loss of revenue from noms.

Some might argue that horses would then be 'over nominated' because it is free but there is sure to be a way in which technology could be used to pinpoint abuse and ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to run their horses in an orderly and predictable manner. In any event, and even with the current nomination fee regime, I often hear of connections complaining about being unable to get a run for their horses.

As to Graded & Listed races - it often looks to me as if the system cosily gets owners to fund the lion's share of their own prize money. The most extreme example is the Durban July - Add up ALL of the entry and acceptance fees and I would suggest that it pretty much amounts to most of the prize money on offer.

Alternatively - why not simply adjust the annual 'colours renewal fee' based on how many horses an owner has in training. This aspect appears better controlled as the powers that be are (or used to be) quick to refuse entries if this payment was not made on time.

I honestly believe that the authorities feel that charging 'a little here and a little there' softens the perceived blow. It doesn't. I have received some frankly amazing bills from the industry in the last 40 years; some for services that I doubt were rendered and quite a number for horses I either did not own or which had been formally retired years earlier.

And if someone were to slip in just one extra nomination fee per month who would know? Like the monthly 'shoes' charges ( a guesstimate?) it's all very hit and miss.

The bottom line is and remains the reality that the game simply cannot attract enough revenue from punting to adequately cover rising costs. So most of the expenses eventually finds their way back to the owners who still seem willing to adopt the position year in and year out to indulge their hobby.

Rob Faux and Garrick both make excellent points

Guys, I love reading all these threads, both entertaining and educational and I am like a sponge when it comes to useful information so thanks for all the wisdom.

Just want to touch on something Garrick said which is that racing does not generate enough revenue from punting to cover rising costs.

I agree with the statement but this does not have to be the case and could be addressed by changing focus.

I find it amusing that we take a sport with hardly any neutral spectator value and then take our entire marketing budget to try and convince people to get involved by turning them into occasional spectators during annual big events. This is a marketing waste of time if done on its own as we should be selling our sport as an activity rather than as an attraction.

This would require new products as all our existing products have been purely designed to support and promote churn and increases in per capita spending, racing's sole growth funding mechanism at this time. The situation has turned so bad that racing has to be subsidised by non-racing related income which clearly is not a good long term solution.

Rather than wasting money on wannabe promotions like "Racing, it's a Rush" the same sized budget could fund real capacity building by introducing a new acquisition platform with real growth potential.

We need to not only sell the race day experience as entertainment but similarly the playing experience so that there can be better continuity to marketing efforts and a more effective outreach.

Solve racing's challenge by a proper racing solution with long term benefits for the whole industry, not just a short term company specific solution that will not promote sustainability in years to come.

I have no doubt that racing can have a glorious revival if operators gave the sport the proper consideration and put projects in place with measurable objectives.

Give the job to a team or people that care and see racing prosper without the need for hand outs and a begrudging involvement that borders on apathy.

All costs can be comfortably funded in future by an expansion of the customer base which is why operators cannot continue to ignore this as a strategic priority.

Give racing a proper chance by being part of the solution rather than a constant obstacle standing in the way of change.

A superb post LSU