Who’s attending?

Dave Scott wrote: Suely between the meeting where the "saviours" got together and last nights meeting.
There should be an agenda and set of minutes issued to clarify the situation and reduce the speculation.
It should be published as a press release from RA or Phumelela.

Tony Mincione wrote: There is no credibility here.

You have to wade through gossip and hear-say just to try and figure out who the players are and what their agenda is, and for all that nothing of what they say leads you to really feel who they represent.

There is power at play, but who knows on behalf of whom and to accomplish what.

What we do know for sure is that when money is flowing, then this shit doesn't happen, so somehow this is about the money, and who gets to allocate it, and to whom. Someone please say "It ain't so"?

If Mike de Kock says it's a failure of leadership, I think he's partly right. The other part is that leadership cannot succeed if it has no plan, or direction, or whatever the latest flavour of motivation is called.

I like metaphors, so the big flock of sheep (just play along) has no idea which big sheep (leader) to follow because we can smell carnivore (wolf in sheep's clothing) all over these mothers (?).

Most of the time we stare at these mothers (?) wondering, what fucking piece of racing are YOU trying to get signed over into your name?

We used to have "stewardship" rather than "leadership" in racing, or directorship for that matter. And to think I thought THAT was a bad idea. We also thought running some like a "business" made it a business. Most parts of racing is NOT a business. And you don't want it to be a business because then you will get to having to deliver dividends.

"Stewardship means to hold something in trust for another. ... Stewardship is described by Peter Block as the willingness to be accountable for the well being of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us.

Frodo wrote:

Tony Mincione wrote: There is no credibility here.

You have to wade through gossip and hear-say just to try and figure out who the players are and what their agenda is, and for all that nothing of what they say leads you to really feel who they represent.

There is power at play, but who knows on behalf of whom and to accomplish what.

What we do know for sure is that when money is flowing, then this shit doesn't happen, so somehow this is about the money, and who gets to allocate it, and to whom. Someone please say "It ain't so"?

If Mike de Kock says it's a failure of leadership, I think he's partly right. The other part is that leadership cannot succeed if it has no plan, or direction, or whatever the latest flavour of motivation is called.

I like metaphors, so the big flock of sheep (just play along) has no idea which big sheep (leader) to follow because we can smell carnivore (wolf in sheep's clothing) all over these mothers (?).

Most of the time we stare at these mothers (?) wondering, what fucking piece of racing are YOU trying to get signed over into your name?

We used to have "stewardship" rather than "leadership" in racing, or directorship for that matter. And to think I thought THAT was a bad idea. We also thought running some like a "business" made it a business. Most parts of racing is NOT a business. And you don't want it to be a business because then you will get to having to deliver dividends.

"Stewardship means to hold something in trust for another. ... Stewardship is described by Peter Block as the willingness to be accountable for the well being of the larger organization by operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us.

So what chance does an 'outsider' (any small owner) have of making sense of this soap opera; seems there is more in-fighting in SA racing than in the ANC .... :dry:

ICE MACHINE wrote: Lol ok - so because Jono Snaith wasn't there in official capacity, nobody from KR is attributed with speaking ?
You are too much.

We'll take your ignorance on the extensive stakes discussion as confirmation that you're grasping at straws. It was so detailed that you didn't need to take minutes - you just had to be there to hear it.

Amazing how you continually attack the credibility of fellow posters and other stakeholders in this industry on an almost continuous basis .... yet here you are telling little porkies to advance whatever cause you are driving.

Sad

oscar wrote: 1. Overview of the RA's involvement in the WC
2. Structure
3. Demerger Agreement
4. RA role in demerger agreement
5. RA final contribution to the WC
6. Stakes
7. RA current state of affairs in the WC
8. RA members and patrons raceday experience in the WC
9. General

Ok so if that was a handed out agenda please could anyone who was there answer the following without getting emotional or picking sides or becoming personal:

1.What is the involvement in WC racing by the RA?
2. What is the Structure to whatever they were referring ?
3. What does the "de-merger" agreement mean, is there an agreement or is an agreement being drawn up to clarify what"de-merger" as related to horse racing is?
4. Once point 3 is answered, what is the role of the RA (and which RA ) in the de-merger agreement?
5. What is the contribution of the RA to WC horse racing?
6. Stakes, I see from above stakes are being reduced, so that section of the agenda should have taken two seconds, literally.
7. RA current state of affairs in WC, what is the current state of affairs in the WC RA?
8. RA members and patrons raceday experience in WC, what does "experience" relate to and what is the "experience" referred to outcomes ?
9. What was discussed under "General"?

oscar wrote: Thank you Ice Machine much appreciated. So like any normal business all the RA want is that the correct proportion of stakes is allocated to the areas as per their contribution to the stakes pot.

With that I have NO problem whatsoever. All industries should run on that kind of allocation of resources. Very good, no loans should be made and no areas should be financed over and above their contribution unless there is a possibility or trend showing that a skewed resource allocation will contribute towards a growth in that area.