Op-Ed: Beleaguered PRA Laudable but Misunderstood

[Wandering Eyes]

It can come as quite a shock when we stumble across damaging untruths about ourselves. This is what happened to myself and numerous other trainers at the end of last week when an article appeared on the Racing Post website, based on comments from “Nigel Payne, who is acting for the Professional Racing Association”, the gist of which was that trainers believe that they should receive payment for live interviews on the television and that consequently trainers are taking action to try to obtain the payment to which they feel entitled, neither part of which is true. Payne's words, of course, have prompted widespread derision towards trainers, on social media and elsewhere, so it makes sense to set the record straight. To do this, one should explain the background.

A year ago Peter Savill, formerly chairman of the BHB and a longstanding supporter of the game as racehorse owner, breeder, administrator and owner of Plumpton racecourse, set up the Professional Racing Association. Frustrated by the fact that any progress being made towards increasing prize-money achieved by The Thoroughbred Group could be better described as stately rather than dramatic, he felt he could do better. Many trainers share that view so, when invited, many of them (including myself) joined the group, for which no joining fee or subscription is charged.

As a racecourse owner, he understands the business and has calculated that it is not unreasonable to expect each racecourse to put at least a third of its race-day income (from entrance fees, entry fees, sponsorship, Levy grant, picture-rights payments etc.) towards prize-money. His approach was and is simple: to identify which racecourses contribute what he sees as a fair share and to encourage owners and trainers to run their horses there; and to try to encourage the less generous tracks to raise their game. If successful in the latter objective, the PRA could trigger an eight-figure annual increase in British prize-money. This is a laudable aim and it is hard to see that anyone with the long-term interests of the sport at heart could object to this.

The one problem is that the PRA obviously requires money to function, most notably to pay its staff and the rent for its office, and it has no income. Hitherto Savill has footed the bill himself in its entirety but from the outset he made it clear that, understandably, he did not intend to do so indefinitely. Happily (or so it seemed at the time) a solution appeared to have presented itself. Savill had been made aware that the two satellite television companies pay a six-figure sum each year to the Professional Jockeys' Association in recognition of the co-operation which the jockeys collectively give, via interviews, to the coverage of racing. The idea formed that they might be persuaded to give a similar sum in recognition of the co-operation of trainers, and the PRA would ask for this to enable it to continue to exist. Most of the leading National Hunt trainers agreed, when asked, to endorse the PRA's request; and, to show their support for it, agreed to say that they would decline interview requests if it were not granted.

The crucial factors to bear in mind are that, while the PJA's money goes into an insurance scheme of which jockeys are the only beneficiaries, none of the money given in recognition of trainers' collective co-operation would be given to any trainers but instead would pay for the running costs of an enterprise which was aiming to raise significant sums to benefit primarily owners but everyone else who gets a cut of prize-money (ie jockeys, trainers, stable staff, racing charities etc.). Furthermore, in the wider sense, this money, if encouraging racehorse ownership, might benefit not only jockeys, trainers and stable staff but also everyone who would welcome racing becoming more competitive, such as bookmakers, punters, and racegoers.

It's easy to be wise in hindsight. And perhaps this request was doomed to failure from the outset. That is unknowable. But what does appear certain is that a consequence of the original article which, prompted seemingly by the words of Nigel Payne, falsely portrayed this request as a request by trainers (which it wasn't) for trainers to be paid for giving interviews (which it wasn't) has meant that it now seems certain not to succeed. Further consequences are the opprobrium which has been undeservedly heaped on trainers in general for their supposed greed; and a hammer-blow to the credibility of the PRA (which now has no source of funds and, unless this situation can be remedied by some other means, will have to close anyway).

All of which is rather sad. An effort by a great supporter of British racing aimed at trying to boost prize-money deserved better than this and certainly didn't deserve the ridicule to which it has now been exposed. And trainers certainly didn't deserve to have their support for it so badly misrepresented.

As a post-script to this sorry tale, it is probably worth mentioning that the tracks which, according to the PRA's research, already direct a healthy percentage of their race-day income towards prize-money include the 17 listed (alphabetically) below. PRA policy revolves around encouraging people to support such racecourses and we would like to do our bit by giving credit where it is due.

Bangor-on-Dee
Chelmsford City
Fakenham
Goodwood
Hamilton Park
Hexham
Kelso
Ludlow
Musselburgh
Newbury
Newton Abbot
Plumpton
Pontefract
Ripon
Salisbury
Taunton
York.

 

The post Op-Ed: Beleaguered PRA Laudable but Misunderstood appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article