Letter in H & H re Rob Hoekstra yesterday.

B

BBH

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 April 2007
Messages
9,357
Visit site
When he was announced as the new BS Performance Manager I had no strong feelings either way tbh but I now feel its a shame about the situation re the letter from William Van Heyningen ( sp ) saying that £400,000 is still owed to his family and RH went bankrupt
( presumably to avoid paying )

If true, thats not the level of integrity I would expect from someone putting themselves forward and being selected to lead a national team.

I know his financial situation doesn't determine his ability to deliver results but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth, especially as he has had years to put this right and is presumably choosing not to.

Maybe I am being a bit judgmental but in a national position I personally wouldn't have chosen someone with a cloud like this hanging over them, because at the end of the day he has put two fingers up to a decision made in a court of law.

Anyone else any views.
 
I had the same feeling too LHS when I read the letter and was somewhat surprised at the decision to take him on. I also felt that in a way it was a shame that this had been brought up although I can understand why it was done. I have no issue with a 'foreigner' heading up a GB team but I wouldnt be surprised if some of the 'old guard' are not inclined towards him.
 
No Harvey Smith clearly doesn't, but then what does he like, he just comes across as a really negative old man who can't change with the times.


The other thing i'd consider re RH is how he's going to attract new owners to the sport when he has clearly shafted one himself ??
 
with the h&h, often their take on all things bsja is very skewed, they love to highlight the negative. very few positive letters / letters of 'defence' allowed in !
which is what sells i suppose, controversey makes for more interesting reading.
im not saying the bsja and their decisions are great but it can make things very hard to make an informed decision when thats the situation.

i have no idea about the guy but i'd like to see how he does THE JOB rather than his history.
 
Last edited:
In H & H defense they also printed a letter from someone who was pleased with his appointment, and I agree about the issue that lots of people don't have squeeky clean reputations but they don't become National Team players.

Maybe horse stuff is different but in my game we appoint people who are not only good at what they do but can also be considered role models and something to aspire to. I do think this issue should have been considered because it does reflect on the mans character.
 
there are a couple of board members who are renowned are much worse 'examples' and a much bigger mistake than him though if we're going for the good reputation thing!
 
i reckon most people in the horse world that have a involvement with horses as big as him have had a deal go wrong. tbh who cares if he gets results? not me
 
Hmmm a deal go wrong ?? Fraudulent misrepresentation I think is the description ??

Maybe that cavalier attitude needs to change if you want to court outside investment. Knowingly cheating someone is not an occupational hazard in my book and until the horse world shows a bit more transparency and cleans up its act no-one outside it will want to do business.

PS you might care if it was you who were shafted.
 
I'm with you LHS. How is somebody with a history like RH likely to attract or even keep owners. He'll already be on the back foot in terms of getting any respect from the riders because of this to.

I think the whole appointment is a total farce anyway, instigated by people who have vested interests and who were felt they should have been selected for more teams. This kind of skulduggery doesn't belong in any sport.

Derek should have remaind in the job as he's one of the only blokes who doesn't have a dodgy history, any vested interests and still knows what it takes for a horse/rider to make it to top level team competitions.

I might be being negative but I don't think by changing the team manager they will achieve much anyway. SJ isn't like football - we don't have that many players!!
 
Personally I feel that unless you know the full facts of the court case - whatever the outcome from the judge - you are not in a position to comment. Rob is a first class trainer and producer of top level horses. Derek (nothing against him) had his day and clearly was not in a position to continue. He had no respect from our riders, they ran rings around him. One thing they will not be doing anymore. Rob is approachable, has an excellent eye for a horse and knows he had a long road ahead of him. One he will struggle to conquer unless he has our support. There are many, many people in our sport who have pulled a stroke on another. There are also many who even after a court case have still been 'shafted' as was so politely put! I know, I am one who is still owed money after winning a case four years ago. The person also made themselves bankrupt to avoid payment but still continues to compete on the circuit, owns a yard, horses, transport for himself and his horses etc., etc., - so don't try and make out that Rob is the only bad guy out there!!! Why can you all not at least give him chance to see whether or not he can turn our sport around? As a country we are no longer in a position to be jumping 'super league' something that may just give others a chance to prove their worth and their horse power by jumping the 'second rated' shows. If you are good enough you cannot be ignored by the selectors - if you and your horse are good enough there are a number of incentives i.e. Equine Pathway etc., to show exactly what you are made of. If everyone takes the negative view on Rob as our team manager we will fail - if we pull together and work as a team with our new manager and give him the support and chance he deserves we may just be able to hold our heads high again! Regarding the letter in the H and H - WVH obviously felt it was necessary to air his views - but was it? Maybe all of you who are so anti RH should go and speak to him directly, but I doubt very much that will happen because you prefer to bitch about it on here!
 
onceuponatime said:
Personally I feel that unless you know the full facts of the court case - whatever the outcome from the judge - you are not in a position to comment.

I think it has to be accepted though that as in any court case the judge is an impartial observer of the facts and the facts in this case demonstrated dishonesty. It would be ridiculous to diss the findings of the courts imo and not a very strong defense.

There are many, many people in our sport who have pulled a stroke on another. - so don't try and make out that Rob is the only bad guy out there!!!

I don't think anyone has said he's the only one who's done this but as he's put himself forwards for a high profile position he has to expect comment on his affairs be they favourable or otherwise. And the issue of ' our sport' is very relevant in that you are either happy to keep it as your sport and carry on shafting each other as an acceptable norm, or you want to expand the sport attracting new sponsors, investment and the wider public and if thats the case I suggest its cleaned up act. Lets face it large businesses are acountable to their shareholders and have to be totally transparent in how they spend money, they can't afford to be embroiled in a sport with a less than savory reputation.

Regarding the letter in the H and H - WVH obviously felt it was necessary to air his views - but was it? Maybe all of you who are so anti RH should go and speak to him directly, but I doubt very much that will happen because you prefer to bitch about it on here!
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone here has ' bitched' I think its just reference to the wider implications of appointing someone with a checkered history. I am sure that if Team GB start winning all this will be forgotten and if they don't we'll be on the same old merry go round of wondering where the owners, sponsors etc are.

I am surprised at some of the complacency shown about some of these dealings and you have to wonder how many potential owners have been lost because they've dabbled at the smaller end, had a few ' problems' and left deciding to observe because they love the horses rather than invest further.

Just food for thought.
 
LHS said:
I don't think anyone here has ' bitched' I think its just reference to the wider implications of appointing someone with a checkered history. I am sure that if Team GB start winning all this will be forgotten and if they don't we'll be on the same old merry go round of wondering where the owners, sponsors etc are.

I am surprised at some of the complacency shown about some of these dealings and you have to wonder how many potential owners have been lost because they've dabbled at the smaller end, had a few ' problems' and left deciding to observe because they love the horses rather than invest further.

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
I agree that this could not be considered an ideal appointment hardly one that would inspire great confidence.

It is not just potential owners who "dabble" at the smaller end who could be put off there are breeders and producers who are concerned about the "checkered" history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top