In the latest program the issue of non-paying owners was discussed once again and the presenters believe that this should be a function of the NHA to correct and take these owners to task.
In my opinion, this is absolutely ridiculous and another attempt to get a third party to force the trainers customers to pay and perform a function that primarily is their responsibility.
This is not "slinging" off, rather constructive feedback of what has already been suggested and presented to trainers, who, by enlarge are not interested.
Non-paying owners affect the whole industry and in particular the paying owners who are even charged premium prices by Vets who have already calculated in the non-paying owners percentage to a degree.
The suggestion to trainers was the following;
1. Every owner must sign a contract with the yard
2. The contract must be balanced in that it must include an SLA for both
3. The option of auctioning horses or shares for accounts over 60-90 days becomes standard
4. Delinquent owners are handed over and on any account over 60 days that no direct payment to owners of stakes are made.
5. Trainers are to give weekly or biweekly verbal feedback as well as a written monthly report on the progress and training of the horse.
6. Trainers are to sign off every Vet bill confirming the work done and be aware of the amount, i.e. that it is reasonable and correct.
Non payment of accounts while not acceptable are not always without extenuating circumstances for some owners. There are numerous which i will not get into but suffice to say you could write a handbook.
The above is simple to achieve if there is any conviction rather than once again looking for someone to do the job.
I read you, Tigershark. I do not disagree with you in principle, however, herewith some points/queries/opinions from my side -
1) Who licenses the Owner ?
2) Under whose rules does the Owner race, when just being granted colours?
3)Who renews the colours of the Owner and under whose rules does the Owner continue to race ?
4)Who rules over change of Ownerships ? Do the NHA Rules allow for the Auction of a horse and the subsequent COO, after the Auction, if the Owner has not signed it ?
In all of the above questions, Trainer is not the correct answer....
Another question -
How do Trainers suddenly put a Contract under the noses of their and Racing's long standing Owners, for them to sign ?
Methinks that this could only happen if it were made a rule/condition by the authorities, who published a general example, with minimum requirements and SLA's and then give notice to all members that a signed contract would be a condition of renewal, at Season's end...
At the very least, NHA could include a default contract in their rules, which would come into play when an Owner does not pay and in the absence of a Contract between Owner and Trainer.
So, the above points require action from NHA, not from Trainers.
So, whilst your points are correct in principle, so too are the points made by Laff and Goodie - action from NHA is essential. Without it, we are in trouble, imho.
And when all of those ducks are in a row, then yes, feel free to blame the Trainers.
Why cant the NHRA make a portal available :
where trainers can flag bad payers for all other trainers to check. Trainer can only flag owners where they have Authority Act.
if Same owner gets flagged three times in a set period NHRA can then blacklist the owner.
something so basic could make the small trainers life easier
There should be a system Sylvester however coupled with this should be a contract & SLA, you take for granted that there are no extenuating circumstances where the trainer has done nothing wrong.
In horse racing there are serial offenders that do not pay and that should be ended immediately however there are also trainers that are serial offenders that keep owners in the dark and string them along without ever having given a written progress report on a horse.
The system cannot have hard rules for owners and no responsibility for trainers.
If a trainer only has one horse and his single owner does not pay and the trainer cannot pay for feed because of this is the owner not guilty of animal abuse? The NHRA condones this by not acting against a non-paying owner who THEY, not the trainer, have deemed a fit a proper person to own a horse and have granted him colors to race -
No problem Hawaii but this is not so simply solved, it will take a shift, contract and rules. The example is one dimensional as the same trainer that keeps a horse in training for months on end that is no good that has never given a written report who is also licensed by the NHRA just carries on to the next owner who is forced to pay without any SLA?
Racing needs to reassess the location of its ears and elbows and although i am no fan of the NHRA it is impossible that one body can solve the dilemma.
Tigershark wrote: No problem Hawaii but this is not so simply solved, it will take a shift, contract and rules. The example is one dimensional as the same trainer that keeps a horse in training for months on end that is no good that has never given a written report who is also licensed by the NHRA just carries on to the next owner who is forced to pay without any SLA?
Racing needs to reassess the location of its ears and elbows and although i am no fan of the NHRA it is impossible that one body can solve the dilemma.
Is there not a contact already between the NHRA and the owner the minute colors are granted? And the owner is in breach of that contract the minute he does not provide for his animal -
You obviously did not read my whole post or you do not want to agree that NHA make the rules, not Trainers.
I think that all Trainers will agree with SLA's, but NHA must set the standard and make it law. And then Trainers must comply. And then Owners must also comply. Problem sorted.
It's actually quite simple, when the basics are right and when these are clearly covered in the rules, imho.
There is already a system in place which could be easily modified to police and solve this problem with minimal effort from the regulator.:
At the end of each racing season owners are sent a colour renewal invoice. If it is not paid by the end of the season no horse racing in that owners' colours may be nominated for a race in the next season.
I would imagine that most trainers run some sort of electronic accounting system to manage their debtors and creditors. The NHRA could mandate an approved accounting system whereby the trainer simply emails a summarised copy of the month end 'book' to the regulator at the end of each month.
As soon as any owner falls more than 30 days in arrear no horse registered in that owners' name may be nominated. So either the trainer fronts the money ( really stupid in my opinion) or the owner conducts the account in an ethical manner.
Once the trainer provides proof that the account has been brought up to date AND the owner has paid a penalty to the NHRA (say 2% of the total overdue amount) the right to nominate is restored.
This system would save the trainer the embarrassment of having to ask to be paid as he could tell the owner that it is a condition of his license that he submit a copy of his accounts to the regulator after the end of each month.
If the trainer chooses to falsify the records to 'protect' the owner then he forfeits the right to whinge about non-paying owners and exposes himself to a potential fine from the regulator for his troubles.
One of the more effective ways in which to enforce laws effortlessly is to make them unpalatably expensive to break. In other words - the owners' cheapest option is simply to pay on time!
Topic Author
