Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Finally, I’ve said this elsewhere and will continue to do so; successful change requires the leadership of a dynamic, charismatic individual and I just don’t see where this is coming from
The last ‘dynamic, charismatic leader’ was one Peter Savill, and he’s greatly responsible for the mess racing finds itself in at the moment.
Screw the bean counters, let’s have someone to give us our sport back.I don’t know enough to say whether Savill is responsible for where we find ourselves today, but does that mean we don’t need strong individual leadership? It still needs to be doing the right things.
Your final sentence seems to sum up the dilemma though; is the way forward a sport with the horses or a business with the bean counters?
Picking up on Pinzas point regarding the conservatism exhibited.
A radical approach would be to ignore the as-is situation, target the 90% of the population for whom racing means nothing and create a raceday experience for them. If that alienates or loses any of the current audience then too bad.
I’m unclear on the objective of this working group. Is it to improve the raceday experience for existing racegoers, or to create a raceday experience for a whole new audience??? They are different questions demanding different approaches. Perhaps our BHA friend could tell us what terms of reference exist for his working group, and what he would see as a successful outcome of their deliberations?
Finally, I’ve said this elsewhere and will continue to do so; successful change requires the leadership of a dynamic, charismatic individual and I just don’t see where this is coming from
Sums it up nicely.
My reading of the next steps sees these commitees as coming up with ideas, not actual implementation; that is still some way off.
Whilst we all know the issues, and the consequences of not addressing them, a successful change programme demands a number of things one of which is a charismatic, dynamic leader, almost a benevolent despot. And if we don’t have our own Bernie Ecclestone then we should have spent £250k on finding him or her. IMO
To revisit my earlier post, it would seem that we need to decide what horse racing is before we can attract others to it – sport, social event or gambling medium?
It may be impossible for it to be all three and the implications of that pose a problem. Plenty of posters are disparaging about ladies days, stag/hen parties, after race concerts etc yet they all pull in racing virgins, and generate revenue. So if the future is dependent on increased attendances, as HarrisonFraser imply, then racing should focus on the 90% of the UK for whom it is off the radar. Just a 2% hit rate would generate a new audience of over 1million, but that might mean many of us would never set foot on a racecourse again.
In my youth racing was an infrequent and inaccessible treat. I dreamt of it being available every day, round the clock. I never thought I would say this but….too much! Be careful what you wish for.
So, what sacred cows need to be slaughtered for racing to survive?
I read the details of the Harrison fraser presentation with a huge sense of deja vu.
Not so long ago I was a consultant involved in such change programmes. Up to this point the research tells us nothing we don’t already know and why should it? All they’ve done is interview all the stakeholders involved, structure the info and repeat it back – no suprises, and everyone will support some of it, the bits they recognise.
The sad thing is that the conclusions and the next steps can be applied to any business/enterprise that is sufficiently self aware to recognise that it needs to change to survive. ‘Define your product, understand your customer, communicate better, maximise strengths, etc’ and here are some working parties to take them forward. We used to have ready made presentations of research results and recommendations, many of which needed little tweaking other than entering the Company name.
At this point in time there is no suggestion of who/what will have to change, how, when and at what cost, so it’s completely non threatening. Only when those issues are addressed will the vested interest defence mechanisms start to surface, and can be challenged.All succesful change programmes need a clearly defined end point, a detailed route map of how to get there, and a driven, charismatic leader to make it happen. I don’t see how the suggested next steps are going to produce this.
Anyway, that’s off my chest, but I’ve got a question – what is the product that needs rebranding? Is it Horse Racing the sport, Horse Racing the social occasion, or Horse Racing the betting medium?
This is an open ended thread. Everything and Anything, should, in theory, be considered.
Couldn’t agree more, but the critical words are ‘in theory’.
What I’m interested in are the rules that people apply to reduce the anything and everything, or to cut through the paralysis by analysis situation where everything (or nothing) can win.
Interesting that you feel that you’ve had success with gut feeling. I suspect it may cause some to throw their hands up in horror, but I must admit to having had moments when you look at a field and you just know……
Have you backed Comply or Die for the National?
A fair point which exposes the flaw in my ‘go to’ approach!
In its defence I’d have to say that it suggests a horse that has demonstrated an ability to jump and travel well, in big fields, over a distance, on the prevailing going, at or near its current handicap rating and in this class of field. So, Character Building anyone?
Having said that I’ve backed Snowy Morning and Can’t Buy Time but not Comply Or Die, so what do I know?As a fellow newbie, I’ve tried to read all of the thread and may be able to offer a new one – apologies if it’s already there and I’ve missed it. El Comandante in Puerto Rico – I’ve even got the photo of me with horse and connections in the winners enclosure. Nearest I’ve ever been or likely to be!
Paul
Scudamore seems to point out two different issues. One of inadequate horsemanship at Ludlow, the other of incompetence in race riding at Catterick.
Clearly there is some crossover, but insofar as the former impacts on the safety of all and sundry, some application of minimum standards would seem in order. In the latter case though isn’t this something most jockeys – even the best – are capable of at some time or another? It’s just that some do it more often and to a greater degree than others, both pro and amateur.
As punters we look to use this information to get an edge. I don’t get to see as much racing as I would like and when an ex-pro offers some little nuggets like this I’d like to be able to investigate further and take a view. Without him naming names I’m guessing, maybe wrongly, and hence this post.Perfectly fair point, but over 250 views suggest that there are plenty of ‘mail-curious’ out there……
Meanwhile, does anyone know the answer? I’m beginning to suspect a cover up!Not sure whether to agree or not – I don’t know who or what he’s talking about specifically. Nor, it would seem does anyone else.
