So what has British Eventing done wrong?

[quizzie]

Unfortunately BE still seem to have the same mindset as in the days when eventing started at Novice.....all your preparation was done at unaffiliated competitions, and yes...it was aspirational to get good enough to affiliate, and was inevitably elitist .
Only those who seriously wanted to compete were involved.

BE still seems to expect everyone to have this mindset of wanting to compete seriously, and move up the levels...It doesn't seem to "compute" the "fun for the sake of fun" mentality. Or that it is perfectly possible to be entirely competent, but still not wish to compete above your comfort zone.

Some years ago, I went to a members meeting where one of the senior executives, asked the meeting what level we thought the average grassroots rider aspired to, suggesting what is now Novice/2* as what he would expect.....the meeting collapsed in laughter and retorted that the 90/100 championship was more like it.....not to denigrate the grassroots competitors , but simply that most were indeed doing it for fun, and often fitting it in around the rest of life....

 

[Tiddlypom]

The BE pre event FJ briefing is a rushed gallop through with much the most emphasis on how to operate the radio and the stopwatches.

You get bunged a book of the rules but no time to read it, then off we all dash to find our fences and before you know the first competitor is on course.

 

[Roasted Chestnuts]

I honestly think that BE are self immolating

They are being ridiculous just now, the last two years all I’ve seen is incompetence and people constantly moaning about fees, websites, balloting, events being lost, venues being lost etc. I’m not affiliated and likely never will, it’s a shame but they are killing their base with the cost and silly decisions now.

Just my personal view so not expected to be taken as gospel

 

[lannerch]

I've been given 20 penalties at an affiliated event for circling between two separately numbered fences, so I'm not convinced the training is necessarily that brilliant.

Me too!

 

[Squeak]

Which is why it is obviously an excuse. They don't truly believe that events like Barbury are going to run their Cotswold Cup qualifier in an unsafe way. Nor that this will have any impact on 'social licence'. And they know they can't ban all venues from running UA alongside BE, or they will kill BE stone-dead overnight. So they are using their muscle to push venues around, by withholding prestigious events, while pretending it is about 'social licence' and 'horse/rider welfare'. Their true motivation is so blindingly obvious that I am almost more annoyed by their cynical posturing than by the decisiosn themselves! I cannot stand people who defend decisions by spouting BS. If they feel UA is a threat to them, so they will remove some BE events from UA venues, say so. And maybe even explain why BE is undermined by UA, and that - in the long run - this will ubndermine all eventing.

Persuade, compete, collaborate. Don't just push people around, while pretending it is about safety and social licence. People get anoyed and tell them to get stuffed. As they are discovering.

I completely agree with this AE. It’s enough to make you seriously consider whether to support BE or not.

I’d have had far more respect for them if they’d come clean and said their real reasons.

 

[LEC]

I actually agree about the unaff/International rule especially as a differentiation made for PC/RC. Nunney has a charity ODE running so has been given dispensation as it’s non profit. There are very few internationals and they are tendered for etc. Offchurch had 1* last year and chose that it wanted to keep unaff so the 1* has gone to Wellington. They are still running BE and unaff.
Barbary originally was down to run GO BE but chose CC so it’s the organisers choice. Organisers have a choice in all this!!

 

[shortstuff99]

I would say the choice could be forced if they know the only way to survive as a venue is unaffiliated, which is why I'm guessing so many have cancelled BE in favour of UA.

 

[LEC]

I would say the choice could be forced if they know the only way to survive as a venue is unaffiliated, which is why I'm guessing so many have cancelled BE in favour of UA.

I know why Pontispool did, will get the story on Monmouth this week as seeing organisers.

 

[shortstuff99]

I know why Pontispool did, will get the story on Monmouth this week as seeing organisers.

If it is not money then something is forcing venues away from BE and if venues become less and less I can't see how BE will survive regardless of views either side.

 

[claracanter]

BE are abusing their position by trying to strong arm venues and are losing members as a result. Anecdotally, I know of lots of people including myself who haven’t bothered to join this year and I assume this is the same across the country with people voting with their feet.

There has been enough trumpeting of the new IT system, the new touchy-feely management and yet why are they are still so out of touch.

 

[claracanter]

This seems like total madness. I’m not clued up enough on this but got the impression Helen was super sensible and doing good things for BE. Yet this seems like a total disaster!?

Yes, it’s so frustrating isn’t it as she was hailed as the saviour of BE and yet doesn’t seem any more capable herself

 

[LEC]

BE are abusing their position by trying to strong arm venues and are losing members as a result. Anecdotally, I know of lots of people including myself who haven’t bothered to join this year and I assume this is the same across the country with people voting with their feet.

There has been enough trumpeting of the new IT system, the new touchy-feely management and yet why are they are still so out of touch.

Membership is up

 

[millitiger]

Do Barbury really make more money from unaffiliated, than their BE/FEI fixture?
I find that really hard to believe.

Or was the decision not financially driven?

I do unaffiliated eventing but I do find the current situation really sad, particularly as BE seemed to be listening and bringing in the Go BE options etc.

 

[ycbm]

Membership is up

Membership numbers were down 15% in 2021 compared with 2019, so that shortfall needs to be recovered first before you can start counting membership as going up in a meaningful way. The 33% reduction in fees for new members will undoubtedly have an impact.

 

[teapot]

Out of interest, what's the difference between an unaffiliated ODE using some BE fences and unaffiliated SJ running over the identical course that BS used a few days earlier? If the affiliated sports are going to go down that route, surely BD will start banning the use of their tests at unaffiliated comps?

 

[Ambers Echo]

I love eventing, and I want BE to thrive. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, and for BE to go from strength to strength. But I think they are making some huge errors. And that their general attitude of blaming other people (venues, organisers, riders) for hosting and riding UA events, instead of trying to work contructively with all stakeholders, is never, ever the right way forward. In any area of life.

A compelleing argument for supporting BE was well articulated by Rachel Ferd when she talked about the hidden costs of eventing, like fence design, that we all benefit from, but which are carried entirely by BE, and enjoyed for free by UA. I totally get that, and would pay more to support the governing body, all other things being equal. But all other thing are not equal. The Brigante Cup is a more interesting series, the entry process is far easier. No hassle with membership - which is more important than it should be because BE's website is so utterly dire. Which a) means joining is a total ballache. And b) means BE don't sell the benefits of membership in any kind of compelling way. And BE are squandering goodwill by failing to make that argument persuasively, but instead being punitive. They seem to think that they can reduce the threat posed by UA by restricting access, but I think they will actually achieve the precise opposite, as people get angry and upset and tell them to sod off.

The current narrative may be unfair, but is it of Cotswold Cup and Burbury being the David to BE's Goliath. It look like they were being pushed around by the big boys, and stood up to them. It's a marketing gift to them and a PR disaster for BE.

You have to make people want to actively choose BE over UA, not just make it harder to access UA. BE's new leadership may have good ideas about where they want to see eventing. But vision is useless, without a realistic strategy to achieve it. And I can;t see any evidence of competent strategic thinking at all.

 

[LEC]

Actually the question should be - why would the organiser of a 4* international choose unaff and choose that as their mountain to stand on.

 

[Ambers Echo]

They answered that in their statement! UA provided them the financial stability they needed to run the international. 1 day of GOBE was not enough to compensate for the loss of all UA competition. This is where UA and BE could enjoy a symbiotic relationship: UA enables venues to keep going with these prestigious events, that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive.

Prestige doesn’t pay bills.

 

[teapot]

The obvious answer is perhaps they don't want to be dictated to by a governing body that appears hellbent on trying to create a monopoly on events, with finances being directly hit as a result.

As AE says, prestige alone (and the hassle/time/effort of putting on an international) doesn't pay bills, something that is an issue in many aspects of the equestrian industry. Don't you know how good we are isn't enough on its own any more.

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

Membership numbers were down 15% in 2021 compared with 2019, so that shortfall needs to be recovered first before you can start counting membership as going up in a meaningful way. The 33% reduction in fees for new members will undoubtedly have an impact.

I'd say thay 15% drop was still a lot to do with Covid more than anything.

 

[ycbm]

I'd say thay 15% drop was still a lot to do with Covid more than anything.

Of course it was, but until that Covid drop is made back up, it's to soon to be talking about rising Membership numbers.
.

 

[TPO]

I thought monopolies were illegal

 

[teapot]

I thought monopolies were illegal

They are! I couldn't think of a better word.

 

[ester]

Barbury used to run quite a lot alongside the international every day too which presumably also wasn't enough that the finances were then solid?

 

[Ambers Echo]

Barbury used to run quite a lot alongside the international every day too which presumably also wasn't enough that the finances were then solid?

Yep that's what they say. Also they can easily replace the 4* with something else. They can't replace the UA events with anything except 1 day of GOBE, which has not been a popular class anyway, so would come nowhere near equalling the revenue lost.

 

[RachelFerd]

I love eventing, and I want BE to thrive. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, and for BE to go from strength to strength. But I think they are making some huge errors. And that their general attitude of blaming other people (venues, organisers, riders) for hosting and riding UA events, instead of trying to work contructively with all stakeholders, is never, ever the right way forward. In any area of life.

A compelleing argument for supporting BE was well articulated by Rachel Ferd when she talked about the hidden costs of eventing, like fence design, that we all benefit from, but which are carried entirely by BE, and enjoyed for free by UA. I totally get that, and would pay more to support the governing body, all other things being equal. But all other thing are not equal. The Brigante Cup is a more interesting series, the entry process is far easier. No hassle with membership - which is more important than it should be because BE's website is so utterly dire. Which a) means joining is a total ballache. And b) means BE don't sell the benefits of membership in any kind of compelling way. And BE are squandering goodwill by failing to make that argument persuasively, but instead being punitive. They seem to think that they can reduce the threat posed by UA by restricting access, but I think they will actually achieve the precise opposite, as people get angry and upset and tell them to sod off.

The current narrative may be unfair, but is it of Cotswold Cup and Burbury being the David to BE's Goliath. It look like they were being pushed around by the big boys, and stood up to them. It's a marketing gift to them and a PR disaster for BE.

You have to make people want to actively choose BE over UA, not just make it harder to access UA. BE's new leadership may have good ideas about where they want to see eventing. But vision is useless, without a realistic strategy to achieve it. And I can;t see any evidence of competent strategic thinking at all.

Trying to stay off here as I disagree so strongly with about 90% of you. But I'm always drawn back in. It isn't healthy! I've written a really long blog on my FB page about why unaffiliated eventing is a really big problem. If you're genuinely interested, please do seek it out. But I just want to post a few notes here and ask you to think about motivations;

1. Commercial unaffiliated eventing is not something that has existed for a long time - the eventing 'scene' in the early 2000s in Gloucestershire when i started eventing was only PC, RC and BE. Unaffiliated eventing was not allowed to run over any BE tracks - I believe that was a blanket ban. If you wanted to take part in anything resembling a full season of eventing, you had to affiliate. Day tickets also weren't a thing. I was living in the capital of eventing in the UK, but there wasn't any significant unaffiliated offering, and you couldn't have the 'BE experience' without joining.

2. The changes that allowed events to start to run unaffiliated events came in around the time of the introduction of BE90 and then BE80 events. These levels running at BE undoubtedly had a negative impact on PC and RC eventing. This created a space that was capitalised on by existing organisers of BE events - Aston Le Walls is one of the first examples I can think of that started doing this, and NT was an elected director at BE during the time of these changes.

3. If you are interested, reading the history of directors of BE on the Companies House website is an interesting thing. All of the key players in the current unaff/aff argument are former directors, or close relatives of former directors, from a similar time period, in which rule changes allowed event organisers to develop commercial unaffiliated competition alongside affiliated. Do ask yourself some questions about what the motivations of people may have been at the time, and what those motivations might look like now.

 

[RachelFerd]

mistake double post.

 

[sakura]

So lower-income riders will have even fewer opportunities to rise up the levels? I won't pretend to know the ins and outs, because I don't, but as a former supporter and serious fan of the sport, I don't like how it's becoming even more elitist.

 

[RachelFerd]

They are! I couldn't think of a better word.

It has always been the case that there is only ever one accepted national governing body of a sport - that's the case across all organised sport. You may have different governing bodies for different regional elements of a sport, or different style of a sport, sitting under one umbrella governing body. Or you can split the sport up into different variances, as happened in the 1890s when rugby league and rugby union split from each other. But ultimately, an NGB's role is to govern the sport over which they sit - and expect people who want to run that sport under their governance to abide by that governance. That isn't a monopoly - it's setting a code of conduct, or a set of standards, and expecting people to abide by them if they want to participate.

Consider horseracing. The British Horseracing Authority governs and regulates horseracing in the UK. They set the calendar and define what racecourse can and can't do. They allow racecourses to work with the Point to Point authority and with the Pony Club to offer amateur jump racing and pony racing. They allow participants operating under the P2P authority to participate in some elements of national horseracing - e.g. amateur jockeys being licensed to take part in P2P and amateur races. However, they absolutely *do not* allow racecourses to have 'unaffiliated racing'. Unaffiliated racing, aka Flapping, does exist in the Scottish borders. Anyone that participates in it is completely disqualified from taking part in normal horseracing. Any horse that runs in a flapping race can never run in a normal race again. It is a hard ban, but it isn't a monopoly.

Of course, a separate wing of eventing can choose to start up entirely free of the NGB's oversight - but if they want to do this, they need to develop their own rulebook, their own officials training, their own structure - and they also are making an active choice not to feed up into the international structures of the FEI and IOC.

 

[millitiger]

How is BE having such an issue with unaffiliated events taking their revenue, when BD doesn't seem to be concerned about unaffiliated dressage?

Just a musing I had while entering some BD this morning!