- This topic has 24 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Some of you may have noticed Paul Struthers (Silvoir), Head of Communications at the BHA, mentioning in one of his posts on TRF earlier in the summer that he and I had been discussing the possibility of TRF and the BHA having a more structured tie-in.
At the moment Paul keeps an eye on TRF (and other forums) as and when time allows and occasionally responds to topics, again as and when time allows. This is because he, and the BHA in general, are interested in
obtaining, and responding to, comments and ideas from as wide a cross-section as possible.Clearly, it’s nigh-on impossible for Paul to monitor everything that is said on forums and time constraints mean he can only respond to a very limited number of points.
What Paul and I had discussed was the possibility of setting up a mechanism on TRF where a two-way dialogue could take place with a bit more structure to it (it’s all a bit random as things stand). The aims of this would be to give TRF members direct access to the BHA in order to present queries, seek clarification and make suggestions in addition to providing a mechanism for the BHA to respond and to present additional information. It might also act as a mechanism for the BHA to canvas opinions on particular topics.
Additionally, Paul is aware that he had agreed with some members of Clerkwatch, one of whom – Zilzal – now posts on here – to facilitate some racecourse visits with the BHA’s inspectorate and clerks of the course. This has slipped through the net and is also something that, through this proposed link-up, Paul would like to kickstart.
The precise mechanics of how it would work haven’t been finalised and before we start to get too heavily involved in that level of detail we (Paul and I) both felt that the obvious next step was to ask TRF members what you thought.
Therefore we’d very much welcome some feedback around the following –
Does it sound like a good idea in principle?
What would be the best method to deliver it – what would work?
What would be the pitfalls?
What would be your expectations from such a dialogue?
Any other suggestions/comments most welcome.
Does it sound like a good idea in principle?
Yes.
What would be the best method to deliver it – what would work?
I imagine an open-access part of the site in which queries are posed for BHA to respond to when possible and for BHA to post notices/clarifications as they see fit.
What would be the pitfalls?
Trolls. Also, it must be clear if, as I imagine, this is an optional sounding board for the BHA, and for those wishing to engage the BHA with their views, and not something that will automatically achieve change. I suspect other boards and platforms will question the validity of this arrangement, possibly with good cause. The BHA may claim to be listening to punters (and other racing enthusiasts), but they should be careful not to try to pass it off as more than that (and more than that is what is required, imo).
What would be your expectations from such a dialogue?
A somewhat punctuated dialogue, due to other calls on BHA’s time and inevitable fluctuations in TRF’s interest, but occasionally meaningful and helpful. There is a danger that the BHA might try to make it something of a PR exercise. Our job would be to ensure that it serves our purposes as well as theirs.
Any other suggestions/comments most welcome.
It would be good to have an assurance that a (probably small) proportion of sensible suggestions would make their way to discussion at a higher level. This should not be allowed to be a fig leaf of respectability for the BHA, with their spokesperson acting as a barrier between us and the BHA rather than as a conduit for intelligent input.
Well done, whatever comes of this.
- Total Posts 17716
Good idea, Corm, but why not go the whole 9 yards, and set up representation for punters generally, via this forum, to the BHA?
God knows, we have little voice elsewhere, and to actually have some formal conduit between us and them (as it were) would at least recognise that we actually exist as a group, (though Silvoir has certainly brought us forward from where we were).
Would be good for punters generally, give the BHA a higher profile with the bettibg public, and would probably do a deal more for TRF (dare I say?) than all the other whistles and bells we’ve seen recently.- Total Posts 102
Prufrock has it pretty well summed up indeed.
This was the preferred option of the BHA when i went up to High Holborn which seems a very long time ago now, whether this is to manage opinion and attempt to be "Seen" to be engaging with racings "Customers" or ideas for change remains to be seen.
We were very disappointed with the BHA’S failure to keep their promise of more dialogue and a meeting with clerks this summer, and even more so with failing to reply to e mails sent, i realise that this has been a summer that has seen quite a lot of activity, but even a reply would have been common courtesy.
Instead, Clerkwatch have been talking to clerks, Turftrax and Groundsman in able to solve the seeming enigma which are going reports,Stick readings and unannounced movement of rails and found them most helpful- we even have a head groundsman and a clerk who will answer questions who are members.
I just hope that TRF members will not expect to much of this exercise and will follow closely
- Total Posts 17716
I cannot see what could be gained by a more "structured" approach. What is this supposed to mean in any case?
What’s in it for BHA?
Given the calls on the time of BHA team members such as Paul Struthers, monitoring a designated "comments" section of TRF would be a bind rather than an advantage, especially when most of any such comments would be from trolls, disgruntled punters, or well-meaning fans repeating points that had already been made and/or dealt with.
If BHA see the idea as a sop to Public Opinion – a PR exercise allowing them to pose as a "listening" organisation – then, once again, there seems little point in playing along with any such game.
What’s in it for TRF?
When a Forum is as open as TRF, it would be repugnant – if not downright impossible – to devise a "two-tier" membership where some were given access to a BHA Corner, whilst others were not. Yet without policing, the idea would swiftly descend into chaos.
Status Quo
I find the current "system", where Mr Struthers can comment when and where he sees fit – and, crucially, as a private individual as much as a BHA mouthpiece – to be much more flexible, valuable and worthwhile.
I enjoy his posts, which are almost always informative, polite and positive. I doubt that relegating him to some sort of BHA Ghetto within TRF would serve any progressive purpose whatsoever: instead his postings would come across as quasi-official epistles from the Powers that Be.
Status Quo for me.
Vague notions have a habit of being ill-starred, Corm. Look no further than the Racing For Change programme, which has achieved precisely bugger-all, because no-one really knew what they wanted from it in the first place.
You might want to think about what it is you want to achieve by this proposed link-up, before you take the idea any further. You might also want to clarify to what extent the BHA will participate (daily/weekly/monthly interaction) in order that you can set some expectations.
I expect this is one of those ideas intended to elevate TRF beyond being a ‘mere’ message board? If so, it needs a lot more development, imo, if it is not to be a) a hopeless failure and/or b) detrimental to the ‘health’ of the forum.
Thanks for the feedback so far, some food for thought there –
Answering some specific points –
I cannot see what could be gained by a more "structured" approach. What is this supposed to mean in any case?
it needs a lot more development
The ‘structure’ hasn’t been developed yet Pinza/Grass, and you are right, the devil might be in the detail of the mechanism – that’s what we’re looking for some feedback on – what people think would/wouldn’t work.
There is no real ‘grand idea’ – it was a TRF suggestion initially rather than BHA/Silvoir so it’s certainly NOT a BHA inspired PR exercise.
Our suggestion came from an idea that a more ‘organised’ interface might be beneficial for both parties and offer members an opportunity that they might otherwise not get (i.e. to have the ear of the sport’s ruling body, even if only in a very small way – got to be better than no ear at all IMO).
A few people have mentioned, one way or another, managing expectations. That is key IMO and is something we’d need to be very clear about.
From a TRF perspective it would obviously add another dimension to the forum and give another point of interest for forum members and those who visit to view only.
Grass – You keep alluding to the phrase ‘mere message board’ – I could be wrong but I don’t think I’ve ever posted that phrase and nothing could be further from my own view (see below). When I speak about a ‘basic message board’ I think it’s clear in the quote that I am referring to those on offer elsewhere and not TRF’s version. I also make it clear that I see the message board as being at the very heart of TRF. It’s worrying to me that there is a sense that the forum is not at the top of our priorities. I love this forum!
build the site up and offer something more than just the basic ‘message board’ platform available elsewhere
Not all of those things are everyone’s cup of tea but we don’t expect everyone to like/use everything on the site, hence our desire to provide a variety of ways (traditional and more novel) for people interested in racing to interact beyond the ‘message board’. In so doing we do try to remember that it is the ‘message board’ part of the forum that is at its core.
Anyway – keep the feedback coming everyone.
What is the point of anyone getting access to the BHA for queries etc etc when they are not interested anyway despite what Paul Struthers may say on here?
Nobody wants this bloody ridiculous Racing For Change group but does the BHA listen? No they are so far up their own arses and blinkered that they totally ignore what the majority want (i.e. the Champion Stakes switch to Ascot issue). The poll on the Racing Post site sometime ago was clear proof that the majority hated this idea but RFC went ahead regardless.
They are like any politicians – arrogant and obsessed with their own self importance. T****ers!
- Total Posts 17716
It sounds promising, but then again so did Roy Hodgson’s move to Liverpool.
The main concern I have is how much time the BHA will be able to dedicate to a newly established line of communication. A lot of time could be spent fine-tuning a system that falls on its backside because the BHA don’t see fit to respond; I’ve sent numerous e-mails to them in the last 7 or 8 weeks and received one reply (and that was only a ‘we’ve passed your query on to the relevant department’ confirmation).
If they don’t wish to communicate through official channels, I see no reason why they’re more likely to via informal ones.
Corm, I realise you love this forum. But love can also be blind, can it not?
A "more structured tie-in" with the BHA goes hand-in-hand with a dilution of independence, as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps not immediately, but I can definitely see it go that way over time.
Why try and build TRF into something greater, when the way to do this appears to be aligning the forum with elements of the racing industry that many view as the core of the problem?
I have a very black-and-white view on this. TRF can either continue to be an independent voice, or it can be part of the racing ‘club’. It can’t be both, imo.
Largely with Grasshopper
An attempt to put communications between TRF and the BHA on a more formal footing would mean ‘we’ – the membership and Cormack – inevitably feeling in some way indebted to the BHA for bothering to answer our enquiries; and in order to maintain and preserve the dialogue it would seem incumbent on ‘us’ not to give ‘them’ too hard a time: gratuitous thanks rule in what should be a realm of tough terse uncompromising dialogue
Silvoir’s missives from BHA towers and his fearless, willing responses to some correspondents’ posts are welcome, appreciated, entertaining and valuable. Good enough in my opinion
As for Silvoir finding it "nigh-on impossible to monitor everything", well he hardly has to – in his professional capacity – does he? A brief perusal of the thread headers will draw attention to a subject he should/could respond to
Anyway, it would be nice to think he does already report TRF contrariness to the status quo back to his colleagues beneath the parapets of HQ
In a claustrophobically clubby little village maintaining an independent distance is both invaluable and necessary.
Keep TRF on the outside looking in, Cormack
It’s an interesting idea and pleasing that the BHA wish to get involved in something. Difficult to efficiently separate the trolls out. Internet forums are very unstructured – one of their strengths – so can be less than constructive at times.
How about the simple approach? Invite some run-of-the-mill racegoers to meet with the BHA regularly? Run-of-the-mill means they pay to go racing regularly and have a bet while they are there, you know, the sort of people the BHA want to attract in their thousands. Hey, you could probably get their advice and help for free, sack Racing For Change and save lots of money!
I sense a power shift amongst The Rabble.
Mr Potter is now looking increasingly isolated and who could argue that Paul Struthers is now the
de facto
leader of racing in this country?
What’s more Struthers is now singing from a different hymsheet to previous Rabble bunglers. He was tweeting Nick Mordin’s article today, holding it up as the blueprint for British racing.
The future’s bright with the Struthers/Mordin dream team taking over and punters welcomed back into the fold.
I think this calls for a celebratory drink. Paul can put the BHA credit card behind the bar and we can all toast the change with ice cold Asahi.
What do you say Paul? Never mind all this formal line of communication nonsense, how about meeting your public?
- Total Posts 17716
Speaks volumes for those concerned that an idea like this is being put forward in the first place
Most critsism of the BHA comes from people who simply don’t or don’t want to understand the politics and/or the legal implications involved incases they have to handle.
The BHA have nothing to lose really and at worst the punter/s who who follows anything that comes from it will at least have a better idea why the BHA can’t always make decisions that Joe Punter thinks they should.
Its a good idea, Pru has summed it up well, imo.
I wouldn’t see dilution becoming a problem. TRF has too many members who know racing and how it functions backwards. Somehow I don’t see this place getting too starry eyed with a more formal process for dialogue with the BHA.
It would be hoped that a more structured agreement with the BHA, would be just that, and not just with Silvoir, as welcome as his input is on the forum.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.