Trainers beware!

Forgive me if I don't agree with any of you on this subject. Where in my business am I protected from bad debts ? Its part and parcel of owning your own business. You can put mechanisms in place to aid/protect you but there are no guarantees. The NHA are struggling to open their front door and now you want them to police bad debts as well ?? Name and shame, if its legal to do.

neigh wrote: Forgive me if I don't agree with any of you on this subject. Where in my business am I protected from bad debts ? Its part and parcel of owning your own business. You can put mechanisms in place to aid/protect you but there are no guarantees. The NHA are struggling to open their front door and now you want them to police bad debts as well ?? Name and shame, if its legal to do.

Point taken!

IMO we need an answer why the rule was changed. To be fair, I had always found it odd that a convicted criminal could be a member of the NHRA and a person who was a bad payer and placed on the decaulters list could not be. If the rule was brought in to treat criminals equally to bad payers, I feel :sick:

rob faux wrote:

neigh wrote: Forgive me if I don't agree with any of you on this subject. Where in my business am I protected from bad debts ? Its part and parcel of owning your own business. You can put mechanisms in place to aid/protect you but there are no guarantees. The NHA are struggling to open their front door and now you want them to police bad debts as well ?? Name and shame, if its legal to do.

Point taken!

Great Point in the real world its each one for there own , I give up trying to solve this problem as there is no real or other answer.

Warren Laird wrote:

rob faux wrote:

neigh wrote: Forgive me if I don't agree with any of you on this subject. Where in my business am I protected from bad debts ? Its part and parcel of owning your own business. You can put mechanisms in place to aid/protect you but there are no guarantees. The NHA are struggling to open their front door and now you want them to police bad debts as well ?? Name and shame, if its legal to do.

Point taken!

Great Point in the real world its each one for there own , I give up trying to solve this problem as there is no real or other answer.

Neigh let's use a Golf club as an analogy to this problem. The obvious problem using a Golf club is the fact that golfers have choices where they can become members but in racing owners have no choice. So our new golfer decides he wants to join abc club. He fills in an entry form and gets invited to an interview with the club committee. After interviewing the member and walking through the rules and regulations, the member is invited to join the club. Normally an entrance fee and full year membership is requested upfront. All good, this is very similar to what I believe happens in racing with the exception of the interview and explanation of the rules and regulations - the fees upfront are asked for though As part of the perks of being a member of the club, the committee explain that the pro shop allows their members to buy equipment and clothing on account.

So lets highlight the differences, the new member pays his fees and everything seems fine. However after a few months, the Golf pro puts in a complaint to the committee that the member has not been settling green fees and has not honoured his account in the pro shop where the new member has been buying his equipment on credit. This debt has been allowed on a "gentleman's" agreement and the pro shop owner has in essence given the new member the means to play the game without being repaid for his kindness. The pro shop owner then informs the committee that he desperately needs resolution here as he has to pay his staff, and has a cash flow problem due to this defaulting new member.

The committee have a word with the new member who tells them that they have misunderstood what the real problem is, it is him who has been ripped off. The new member says that the pro shop owner told him that if he bought the equipment that he did, his game should improve. It had not and the new member has decided on principal that he will not pay. How do you think this will play out in real life? I know there's a huge stretch to compare this with the racing model, but the basics are similar aren't they?

So lets debate the situation. The NHRA licence all owners. They compel them to become members or they are unable to race their horses. They compel the owners to obey their rules or there will be consequences. Owners are the golf playing members of the golf club. In the same vein the NHRA licence trainers. Trainers may not train legally without accreditation from the NHRA and are also forced to accept the rules of the NHRA along with sanctions for breaking these. Trainers are the pro shop owners in my little analogy. They have suppliers and staff to pay should their customers not settle.

Let's get back to the golf club committee quandary. Do you think that they would wash their hands of this problem by changing the rules and saying we will offer this perk but we are not responsible for the delinquent actions of OUR members? I think not. In reality the new member would be instructed to settle up his account or be terminated as a member. In racing that member can not join another club if he wants to continue owning.

The NHRA do not have the will to enforce their own rules. Instead of finding solutions to weakness in THEIR rules, rules are changed rather than solutions found. There is no other explanation. There are many examples of rules that have been changed to suit the regulator. This is an incapable and ineffective organisation that has an immoral exclusivity that is forced upon its members.

Welcome back Rob, glad to have you back.

This part of the NHRA was maybe retrenched

Bob Brogan wrote: This part of the NHRA was maybe retrenched

Most of the NHA has been retrenched for years ........just kept getting paid :kiss:

My take on this is if their is no signed contract ... Very difficult to enforce as everyone has different financial training structures. Not often horses with ability have owners who don't pay

Taken from WC Industry liason minutes

7.2 Debtors and defaulters
Mr Hyde said this is difficult to control and acknowledged that the situation is untenable. He said this is like a full time position and suggested that maybe we should revert to the default rule as opposed to the blocking rule. The Chairman suggested that a possible solution to this problem was to establish a department in an attempt to alleviate the issue of bad debts throughout the industry.

It is alleged that there has been too much demand on NHRA to collect bad debts. Coupled with this, Trainers from a certain province have become rude to NHRA staff, expecting them to be their debt collectors. ...
That Province is not Gauteng or WC. ...
Anyway, we are back to square 1 - Trainer must obtain judgement, then only will NHRA "post" the Owner.

Summary? Times are tough, many Trainers obviousky not being paid. Too much work for NHRA, so throw Trainers to the dogs....and prosecute THEM if they don't pay their way ? Is this what is happening?
Not sure of it all, but one thing is for sure - a mass exodus is happening and will escalate. Racing 3 times a week for half stakes?

My problem with leaving the trainer to his own devices is that someone must feed and take care of the horse even if the owner is a delinquent.
would it not make sense that a pre contract (how legal) gets signed by the owner/owners that if they are in arrears and the trainer can show attempts to collect the monies and then gets a signature of the Chairman of NHRA they can sell the horse. Much like storage of vehicles to cover expenses.
No expensive Lawyers needed just a basic process to assist the trainers.