PLEASE READ all point to point enthusiasts,this letter is on the jumping for fun discussions forum please vote & comment. Chairman of the Point-to-Point Board, c/o The Point-to-Point Authority Ltd., 11, Trull Farm Buildings, Trull Farm, Tetbury, Gloucester. GL8 8SQ.18th. June 2013. Dear Chairman, I write in connection with the current way Point-to-Pointing is organised and run on a national level. It is my view, and the view of many others with whom I have spoken, that the current system is badly flawed, in that, the organising body(s) appear to be preoccupied with its (their) own commercial interests, rather than the commercial interests of what it (they) are supposed to be representing, i.e. hunting in general, and more specifically each individual hunt. As a result, it (they) is (are) costing many hunts large sums of money (i.e. reducing much needed revenue from their point-to-point meetings), and, failing to be representative of the views of many of those whom they purport to represent, i.e. individual hunts and their individual members, most of whom give all that they can, both in time and finance, to ensure the continuation of hunting. It would appear that, the current system, headed by the Point-to-Point Board, and including The Point-to-Point Authority (PPA), the Point-to-Point Racing Company (PPRC), The Point-to-Point Secretaries Association (PPSA), The Masters of Foxhounds (etc.) Associations (MFHA), and The Point-to-Point Owners & Riders Association (PPORA), represents a wide spectrum of interested parties. In fact all of these bodies are represented by a tiny number of people, who are unelected (apart from by each other) and answerable to no one other than themselves. When a Board position comes up for ‘re-election’, nominees apply to, and are appointed by The Board. There is no election process amongst the wider participants of hunting. This situation is wholly undemocratic and unacceptable. There are a number of representatives from some of these bodies who are designed to field the views and grievances of people from lower down the food chain. Unfortunately that would appear to be as far as such matters reach, and, are either ignored by the representative, or, are passed on and ignored higher up. The purpose of Point-to-Pointing is to generate revenue for individual hunts, NOT for the Point-to-Point Board or any of its quango off shoots. Many thousands of people go to a great deal of effort putting on point-to-point meetings, at their own time and expense, for the sole purpose of generating revenue for their local hunt, in order that hunting can continue. Many of these people are increasingly disillusioned when the controlling bodies are involved in generating, seemingly, vast sums of money for themselves and others, namely Weatherbys, particularly when several members of said bodies are intrinsically entwined with Weatherbys and or associated companies. The term ‘conflict of interest’ has surely never been more apt. The generation of these funds seems to be achieved in a number of ways. Fees directly charged to the individual point-to-point areas are the most obvious. However, there are others, including, increasingly higher charges for Hunter Certificates (apparently another increase is being considered); the removal of the point-to-point section from the Weekender, forcing interested parties to pay the PPRC (itself half owned by Weatherbys!) for the privilege of viewing the information on their web site (if they both have, and, can work a computer), or, having to look at Racing Plus (useless as it comes out far too late in the week), and which, I understand, is owned, at least in part, by Weatherbys(!); rule changes, such as currently being considered, the requirement to make all entries through Weatherbys, the carrot for which, I understand, may be to remove the per entry charge to the hunts, which, I am quite sure, will be offset by all hunts having to buy back their entries in race card form(!), and no doubt at some later date the per entry charge will be added back in; the supposition that ownership of, and therefore right to sell, data (entries) is solely that of the PPRC and or Weatherbys (I am not sure quite which), rather than that of the individual hunt, or even entries secretary, who have spent their time putting the list together (apparently we (individual hunts) give Weatherbys information and then have to buy it back in a number of different formats!); the sale of various publications, the contents of which, are as a direct result of the tireless, honorary, work of so many people. A well used excuse for the generation of some of this revenue, is the funding of the PPA office, which apparently requires the full time employment of three or four people? What do they do? Mostly paper shuffling, would appear to be the answer, along with dreaming up ways to create more paper shuffling. The processing of the dwindling number of Riders Qualification Certificates is a genuine exercise – someone has to check that the rider is not on the list of Disqualified Persons and ensure that the Senior Medical Officer is happy for them to ride. Retaining an up to date list of qualified horses, to pass on to entry secretaries in the week their entries close, qualifies as useful, along with a list of owners who have failed to pay their entry fees. Sourcing and communicating with sponsors for national championships / race series’ ought to currently fall into their basket, but could be reassigned (see below). Arranging insurance cover for riders and or horses on the day of racing is a must these days (see below). Checking proposed meeting dates and schedules, as supplied by area secretaries, for obvious blunders or clashes is another useful exercise (see below). However, do these perfectly genuine tasks really justify something in the region of £100,000.00 in annual wages, plus, many more thousands in office costs? No, is the answer. Everyone else gives their time for nothing, so why are we paying these people? I am quite sure that there are plenty of people around the country who have enough time, and enough about them, to take on some, or all of these tasks, at no cost to hunting. Has anyone made the effort to look for such people? Granted, there are always going to be a small number of costs involved (stationary, printing, and postage etc.), but there is no justification for the completely unchecked and unchallenged outlay which we find ourselves blindly funding. Indeed, it has come to my attention that we are all paying into an ‘emergency fund’, via fees paid to the PPA. The fees, from the individual areas, paid direct to the PPA amount to some £90,000.00 per annum, which is going towards the ‘emergency fund’, and the working capital, but no one seems willing to disclose what percentage is going to which account, or, what the target is for the ‘emergency fund’, or, defining precisely, under what circumstances the ‘emergency fund’ will be drawn on. One can only speculate that it may be for the next round of maternity leave to sweep through the office. The largest of the remaining costs which need funding are charges made by the Regulator (i.e. the Jockey Club / BHA) for overseeing the sport, including sanctioning rule changes, conducting course inspections, and ensuring medical and veterinary arrangements are up to date. I recognise that there is little that can be done to reduce these costs, apart from pleading to their better nature – point-to-pointing is, after all, the kindergarten for National Hunt Racing, for riders, trainers, owners, stewards, and officials alike. Then there is the matter of Weatherbys. They hold, and own, the General Stud book, and it is they who process the Hunter Certificates to ensure that the animals we race are genuine and who we say they are. They are paid handsomely for this task by each owner who registers his certificate, and it would seem pretty small fry to me to ask them to produce, for the controlling point-to-point body, a weekly list of qualified horses at no charge. Unlikely. So that is another expense which we can do nothing about. The way forward : The way forward would seem to me to be perfectly and painfully simple. Answerability. Everyone should be answerable to someone else, and those at the top answerable to everyone The Board, along with at least the PPA and the PPRC should be dissolved immediately. A new National Committee should be formed, consisting of fourteen members – one from each area. Each area should elect a Member, not just from within existing point-to-point committees, but inviting nominees from within the relevant hunts as a whole, with each hunt taking a pole of its members and farmers, on the entire list of nominees from that area. Anyone (including existing Board, PPA, PPRC & PPSA members) could nominate themselves, except someone with personal, financial, or business connections with Weatherbys or any of its subsidiaries or partners. The existing point-to-point area secretaries could liaise with the individual point-to-point / hunt secretaries to establish and then distribute a full list of nominees. The results of the individual hunts votes to be recorded by the hunt secretary, sealed and only revealed at an area point-to-point secretaries meeting for each area. Once fourteen properly elected National Committee members had been achieved they would continue thus : They would nominate one of their number to be Chairman, one to be minutes / correspondence Secretary, and one to be Treasurer. Jobs to be divided between the others, either individually or in groups would be, someone to deal with national sponsors, someone to communicate with Weatherbys, someone (probably the Chairman) to communicate with the Jockey Club / BHA, someone to keep abreast of insurance matters (it is worth noting that currently the insurance contract is given each year to the same company, without anyone bothering to get quotes from elsewhere?!), someone to deal with / negotiate over communications issues (Weekender or equivalent), someone to deal with race planning etc., and someone to source and oversee voluntary (hopefully) help to deal with matters such as Riders Certificates etc., only resorting to paid assistance if all avenues had drawn a blank, and never employing anybody on a permanent basis. Committee Members would have to accept their roles as a matter of privilege and honour, having been elected by their peers, and accept that no costs or expenses would be paid, save for genuine office sundries such as printing, stationary, postage etc., and such costs would be individually itemised, and accounts published and presented for general inspection, by any interested party, by the Treasurer. Monthly meetings (committee members to decide frequency) could be held in rotation round the areas to keep travelling costs as fair as possible. Any interested party wishing to make suggestions, air grievances, etc. would have a direct line to the National Committee via their local member. Equally, any future changes on the table, can be filtered back to the individual areas and voted on, possibly once a year, thus giving everyone an equal say in the future of point-to-pointing. Existing bodies, such as the PPORA, could continue as now, but their line of sight to the National Committee would be the same as every other individual. All committee members should be only be allowed to serve for a maximum of three years, and only allowed to stand for re-election once. A new Chairman would be selected by the committee each time the existing Chairman came to the end of his term – i.e. there would be no automatic chain of command. In order to keep maximum answerability, an individual area should be allowed to pass a vote of no confidence in their National Committee member, at any time, call for fresh nominees and vote in a replacement. Change needs to happen and happen fast. Point-to-Pointing is dying and dying fast, and hunting will suffer greatly if this continues. I have been involved in the sport for some thirty years and never have I seen such a lack of enthusiasm and such utter despondency from those who are most important to the sport – the people on the tractors, the people painting the guard rails, and the people with the post rammers. As one was heard to say just recently ‘we might as well have a blind auction and save ourselves all the aggravation’. Act now before it is too late. Yours truly, Geoff Barfoot-Saunt.
Posted on: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:42:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015