GOLD CIRCLE VS PHUMELELA - INSIDE RACING

I don't know how many of you saw Inside Racing last night and specifically the Marcus Jooste interview. I found it interesting to get some insight into Mr Jooste and his views on racing and racing operations in SA. There is no doubt that he is a business man worth his salt as his accomplishments are there for all to see, but my question to those that did see the interview is, whether or not you agree with his commments on the merger of the two operators. Mr Jooste clearly felt that racing cannot continue to run with two racing operators and a merger would need to be put on the table. He also felt that racing should follow a sound business model and that the days of racing being run by "clubs" are over. He did also mention that big plans are soon to emerge from the boardroom of P.

Obviously this is a simple extraction of some of the issues discussed. I am not sure what view to take on this potential merger. Is it a good or bad thing? The way that I am currently weighing things up is Corporate Profits / Shareholder interests vs stakeholder interests. We have already seen the effects of corporate decision making and the sale of Newmarket to keep the profit machine well oiled. This is probably a one sided view but this is how it appears on the surface. I find that good business practice does not always equate to doing the right thing. Playing a numbers game which involves no emotion or consideration for the role players without vested financial interest in the tools of the trade, does little to keep interest alive. I am all for world domination of the gaming industry but not at the expense of the local industry. The selling off of racing assets in order to pursue global goals is like SA breweries closing its production plants in SA to pursue global aspirations. SAB has successful done this without disposing of chief local assets, that being its breweries. You may ask why I have raised this. Well, I believe a merger will see the loss of Clairwood in pursuit of a sound business model and profit taking, without a doubt.

Mr Jooste admitted that things are not well within the marketing of racing and believes that a lot more can be done as far as the promotion of racing is concerned but added that he is not saying that people within these structures are doing a bad job but did add that things could be a lot better. On this we can all agree 100%.

Now to the points of this long winded post.

1. Is P sabotaging GC country through teletrack even though the operators are partners in the venture? Watch GC country coverage during a busy schedule - often cut into with "virtual racing" (UK etc). I have no examples but be conscious of what happens during a GC meeting. Sorry I do have an example. Pay attention to how pools are pushed for a UK jackpot rather than a PA or P6 pool of a Greyville night meeting or a UK pick 3 as opposed to a Greyville quartet. Friday last week case in point.This weekend should be interesting with Queens Plate,Turfies and mud racing from the UK all running on the same day. Just be aware of these little details that are probably hurting the profitability of GC.
2. Durban is Africas racing capital and GC owns the 2 largest racing events in Africa even though they cant put up the same prize money as P land does. Will it remain that way if P get there hands on it?
3. Will a merger be a springboard for P into global gaming domination at the expense of SA racing?
4. Your views on a potential merger
5. For those that watched Mr Jooste made special mention of those who tried to assisinate the charcters of people like himself and Chris van Niekerk without knowing them personally. I wonder if they read our site?

To be fair it was great to get a different perspective. Welldone to Inside Racing - you lived up to your name on this and your report on the efforts of Jonathan Snaith.

Cat I reckon that it would be good for you to watch the program as you would probably be able to give us a totally different perspective on it. My summary above is really a watered down version of the show and my knowledge of the inner workings of the game is limited.

Alcaponee, I unfortunately did NOT see the interview. It is my opinion that it is not in the best interests of South African racing, and definitely not in the interests of owners, for racing to fall under one umbrella. Especially not a listed company, as the executives only responsibility is to the shareholders, and that translates to the 'bottom line'... which then as you say, becomes a numbers game. With 'cheap' products being aired from all over the world, the argument to 'rationalise' our local racing by cutting down on race tracks, race meetings etcetera seems a likely step forward (it costs money to run a racetrack and to hold race meetings) ....
As regards the marketing... what marketing?

All I know about M.Jooste is what is posted here and what I've seen on TT-tv and gossip.

Obviously the man is no fool, and being wealthy will annex the usual hangers-on-ers which is fine. Trouble says "Simply,he has all his fingers in the pie." So what, and who of them (the v rich) don't? The racing queue to the rich for hand-outs is unashamedly long.

As an advocate, I would at least expect your take on the man to be objective. Amongst what you say is "owners will again be left "sucking the hind tit". All of YOUR approach is from an owners perspective, as if they have a god given right to be first in any queue, instead of the "part" that they play with everything else.

If he is the biggest owner, and the biggest single breeder, and on the boards..what of it? Attack the policies and the opinions if you want. I can't imagine that after stating that the engine of racing should be the profit motive, that he wouldn't have the same view of ownership and his other racing interests and maneuver to positions which favor that view.

Almost everyone who gets political marries self interest with greater interests, so why act shocked and surprised?

I have never been in favour of a merger, but it's increasingly apparent that it is inevitable, that the fact is racing in the north and south is so intertwined, that the seperation is in reality, artificial and expensive.

Possibly now is the time to take what we have learnt form the 'corporitisation' of racing in P, and build the safe-guards and get it better this time around.

In closing, I would say that the man has a point: while racing has 3 days per year where getting into a racecourse is difficult, that our local casino down here can't get all the cars into the parking lot...daily...24 hrs a day!...so don't tell me in harder times people don't want to gamble, it's just 'our' competition has won them over to an inferior product (or that's what I think about casino gambling anyway).

Many have tried in the past to dominate the horseracing industry both worldwide and locally..there are many wonderful books written on the subject of the mission to buy all the best bred babies in the USA and Ireland..the outrageous monies spent..the stories behind the stories.

None have achieved it..those that own the oil in my book have done the best so far..I cannot see anyone in this country in the medium to long term doing it.

Those that buy big and well initially always seem to end up integrating backwards into breeding and racing there own stock which never works out!

Merger? What merger,we are talking about a takeover not a merger.
These are two totally different things.
The major negative is that a monopoly is created and this is never a good thing for any type of business for the consumer in this case the punters and the owners.
What do you think the price of an airticket would be without Comair etc.SAA would kill us all.Iscor already killed many steel users in the past by selective selling practices.
Then the matter of dividends? How much has been distributed since incorporation to date.Money that should have been available for stakes,capex and maintenance.
Dont tell me the shareholders paid for their shares.The BEE shares not longer are in Bee hands to my knowledge,there were huge numbers allocated to staff and I suspect loans were granted at low rates to pay for these shares.
Why do "THEY" want this marriage? CONTROL of the industry.
The international betting is the PLUM!
Why does the proceeds of this betting not flow straight back to Tabgold but via a third scource?How much gets lost on the way?i

T.S. It goes without saying that you're entitled to your views and opinions, I hope you don't think I think any different.

You said "Owners have a right to be in the "queue"." in response to my "as if they have a god given right to be first in any queue, instead of the "part" that they play with everything else"

My first horse a long time ago, I got a share pretty much for nothing, and it won about 5 from 15 starts. I was amazed that I could buy a horse, and come and race for huge money on fantastic racecourses and it cost me nothing more than the cost of my horse.

I never contributed in any way for those stakes or facilities. I just came and "took" as an owner. Bugger me, now you giving me "rights" too. You're a generous man...with other peoples money!

The above is an inflammatory take on ownership, but the point I am trying to make is owners are already taken care of, because everything is there for them to take. They just have to pitch with their ride so to speak, me included. Yes, owners can lose, because it's a gamble more than an investment. The investment part for most people is in the entertainment part of the thing. If it isn't, I hope they very, very good at choosing and very lucky indeed.

Recently, I have brought "new" owners into the game by syndicating shares of a few horses to family and friends. One horse I leased to them, so their only payment was to have the horse trained for which a professional fee is paid. Then the horse went to the races to try win the money on offer. You got to say it's a fantastic deal, I have no idea why these people would join anybody in "crying about their lot" as you put it.

Just where does this 'entitlement' come from?

Trouble - Thanks for posting the Ian Jayes article. I was not sure that I would have a chance to read it. Perhaps Joey Ramsden has bough a boat load of shares and know that a merger will better his share price (lol)

I have to disagree with one point in your posts above and that is "There is nothing wrong with talking about your achievements and successes but doing so in an arrogant (some will say confident, but, I disagree) and braggard way...". You have to consider that the interview was an interview about the man, a prominent racing figure, and therefore questions were asked by the interviewer and he answered them. You must consider that many people dont know the man or his background and therefore it was fair for him to give a full background. I certainly know a lot more as to how he made his fortunes and dont feel that there was anything wrong with the way he answered. The show was produced for the masses and not a select few. As far as the rest of your posts go you make interesting and valid points and that is why I asked the question.

I believe that if anyone one of us had the resources to greatly influence the game in a way we percieve to be the betterment of racing we would have a go at it. How many time have any of us walked into a restaurant or another business and said or thought if only this place did this or that it could make so much more money it has great potential. Perhaps M Jooste sees racing operations in the same way and he has the recources to try and change what he sees.

Its interesting what the Americans are doing. Are the tracks privately owned in the states, or is it an operator / trackowner situation as it is here? It seems clear to me that a dominant unchallengable corporate force is what P strives for. Owning everything so no small force or group can challenge their decisions.

I have to agree that a monopoly is not ideal. There needs to be checks and balances in place to stop any single entity from completely doing their own thing. One could say, whats next? P owns all horses in SA and P becomes a psudo Magabe style racing regime which controls all aspects of the sport occassionally throwing its old pals (SA racing the war veterans) a bone while it aspires to conquer the gambling world, and blames everyone else for its failures on its door step...

T.S. It's clear I wasn't able to make my point, or perhaps it doesn't matter but anyway, my answers are in CAPS below. (I hope we are still addressing the question of what I am entitled to from the minute I pin on an owner's badge, and perhaps the merger later)

[1] Owners are entitled to a say because they are an important cog in the wheel. Like many other aspects of the industry (i.e jockeys and trainers etc) without owners there would be no horseracing.
ANY GROUP TRAINERS, JOCKS, GROOMS, HANDLERS, TRANSPORTERS CAN SAY THE SAME, IT DOES NOT MAKE OWNERS UNIQUE AND IS A NONSENSE ARGUMENT. AT THE MOMENT RACING IS RUN BY JOOSTE AND NAIRAC, SO I GUESS OWNERS HAVE ALL THE SAY.

[2] It was owners that created the various racing clubs. The racing clubs were not profit based but acted in the sports best interests. NO, CREATED FOR THE OWNERS BEST INTEREST BUT USING ZERO OF THEIR OWN MONEY (WHICH THEY ONLY SPENT BUYING AND TRAINING THE HORSES THEY WANTED) THEY USED THE MONEY LOST BY PUNTERS, AGAIN OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, IT NEVER 'BELONGED' TO OWNERS.

[3] To be the owner of a racehorse (or a part thereof) you need to make application to the National Horseracing Authority to obtain colours to race a horse. This is an aannual payment. You also need to pay fees for a trainers authority to act.
IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED FOR THIS ORGANISATION, IT'S JUST A BUREACRATIC CHARGE FOR SERVICES, AGAIN DOESN'T MAKE AN OWNER ENTITLED TO A PAY-BACK

[4] When you buy a horse and get involved in a horse it always costs you money. I am not sure of the statistics but very few horses that are bought win a maiden and a substantial amount do not see the race track.
AGAIN, HORSES ARE NOT PRODUCED FOR FREE. THEY MUST BE BOUGHT TO BE OWNED LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. IT'S A REAL RISK THAT NOT EVERY HORSE WILL START, JUST AS NOT EVERY PET SURVIVES OR EVERY MOTORIST. REALITY. ALL THE MONEY SPENT PROVIDING EVERYTHING IN HORSERACING IS MONEY LOST BY PUNTERS. IF THEY COMPLAINED HOW MUCH IT COST TO GAMBLE, WHERE WOULD HORSERACING BE?

[5] Trainers charge between R4000 to R7000 a month to feed and train a horse. No-one but the owner is responsible for this payment.
aGAIN, IT'S REASONABLE FOR A TRAINER TO CHARGE. WHO ELSE OTHER THAN THE OWNER SHOULD PAY. IF YOU KEPT A DOG AT A KENNEL AN OWNER WOULD PAY. YOU MAKE IT SOUND AS IF IT'S UNREASONABLE THAT OWNERS SHOULD HAVE TO PAY A TRAINER, LIKE HE WOULD A PAINTER OR A LAWYER. ENTITLEMENT CAN'T COME BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY SOMEONE TO TRAIN YOUR HORSE FOR YOU, SURELY?

[6] Trainers throw in charges for alumites,nominations and vitamins for the owner must pay.
YOU SAY THIS AS IF IT'S THEFT AND UNREASONABLE. SHOULD THEY NOT DO THESE THINGS, OR DO YOU OBJECT TO PAYING FOR THEM?

[7] When horse are taken out of their region to race, the owners must pay the transport costs.
WHEN I FLY TO DURBAN I HAVE TO PAY SAA. AGAIN YOU SAY IT LIKE POOR OWNERS HAVE TO PAY FOR TRAVELLING ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

[8] Vets see horses regularly and they must be paid by the owners for their professional services.
YOU ARE LISTING ALL THE THINGS ONE HAS TO PAY FOR IF YOU WANTED TO RACE A HORSE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE LIST OF THINGS YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY IF YOU PERHAPS WANTED TO GO ON AN OCEAN CRUISE?
ETC ETC

Your argument that owners are entitled to something seems to be because they have to pay for the expenses of owning a racehorse. When you buy a movie ticket, you are entitled to see the movie, and when you buy a racehorse you are entitled to race it with the consequent costs and rewards.

It's obvious when the day comes that one decides to own a thoroughbred racehorse, that there are significant risks which include high expenditure. And the risk is balanced against possible success. At the top end one could own a Pocket Power and have won R5.5 millions, or his sire worth R50 million.

With respect I have 3 questions for you:

Horse racing is a sport, for which there is a reward if you are successful, and for which there is no reward if unsuccessful. My kids ride horses for sport, and for my sins I pay travelling, training, entry and nom fees, tack, feed, vets, vaccinations, endless etc's ...ALL FOR ZERO MONETARY return.
So question 1 is: Using your rationale of costs, I am entitled to something. What?

Question 2: Perhaps you can explain WHY these poor people put themSELVES through your list above?

Question 3: All the money spent on stakes and every other cost of racing other than the horse is payed by the losses of punters. IF THE COSTS OF PUNTER'S GAMBLING ON HORSES ENTITLES THEM TO NOTHING MORE THAN THE REWARDS FOR BEING RIGHT, THEN WHY SHOULD THE POEPLE WHO GAMBLE ON OWNING HORSES BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN THE REWARDS FOR BEING RIGHT?

Nice response Jack. One correction - Racing is run by Michel Nirac (GC) and Riaan Du Plessis (P). M Jooste is a director not sure in what capacity exec or non exec.

Great debate and good to have different views.

Or a breeder, as your point of view is one that I often hear from breeders that think that they are the glue that holds racing together.

Jack you say that owners take the money that punters provide to fund their horses. At the 2008 Emperors Palace Sale owners paid R 140.63 million for horses that they purchased. Exactly how did this amount of money flow from the pockets of the punters to the owners bank accounts to pay for these horses.

Let me give you a fact, and that is that the OWNERS may be the ONLY roleplayer in racing that have REAL MONEY and their OWN MONEY on the table. Let's start comparing what the other roleplayers have on the table. How much of their own money do trainers, jockeys, vets etc have on the table. Please do not tell me that a vet for example must have an X-ray machine, which cost a lot of money. Even a builder neeeds tools to get a job.

TS was there trouble in in this period? - Historically challenged in this regard.

Jack on giving your posts a couple of reads I find a bit of contardiction in them . Talking on onwnership - On one hand you say that it is fine for M Jooste to have his fingers in all pies which allows him to influence what happens within the industry and on the other you say an owners only right is to race horses and pay fees etc. So if you own a single horse or part of it your rights as an owner are less than that of a larger owner. That makes me excited about owning a horse one day! Doomed before you've started.

It is my understanding that owners with lesser degrees of ownership join organisations such as the RA to be able to influence decision making and protect their interests within racing and racing operations. If there only right is to race horses, then why have the RA etc. There is an obvious need for owners to be heard and rights to be upheld and therefore these associations are formed to protect these interests. RA etc- A watch dog so to speak. From what I can gather from what has been stated on this site, more like a lap dog or fetch dog.

A large part of my original post has been left unanswered though. Does anybody agree or disagree that P has the power through Teletrack or other means to undermine Gold Circle in hostile bid to take the company over? And do you think that they would do this?