So what has British Eventing done wrong?

[j1ffy]

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!

I was wondering this. I'm not an eventer but I enjoy watching it and wish I was brave enough to do it!

BD, BS and the various showing societies seem to have no issues with venues running unaffiliated alongside affiliated. BD allow use of their tests and I'm pretty sure BD judges can judge unaffiliated. Presumably BS-trained course builders can build for unaffiliated too. Racing seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[RachelFerd]

I was wondering this. I'm not an eventer but I enjoy watching it and wish I was brave enough to do it!

BD, BS and the various showing societies seem to have no issues with venues running unaffiliated alongside affiliated. BD allow use of their tests and I'm pretty sure BD judges can judge unaffiliated. Presumably BS-trained course builders can build for unaffiliated too. Racing seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think there have been some concerns in both BD and BS. Not least when the Dressage Circle thing popped up (and that does seem to have been broadly killed off - in part by it's own crazy idea about the handicap rule).

BD charges a fee for the use of tests, and as we all know, those tests aren't free to view for competitors either. BD does hold some control over multi-venue unaffiliated leagues and can decline approval of those events using their tests if they clash with their key BD dates regionally.

They're both broadly happy with unaffiliated so long as it doesn't involve large sums of prize money - there are some active concerns in the BS space with big prize money unaff shows and the large risks that creates around equine welfare.

There are no instances I can think of where unaffiliated competition is used to prop-up high level dressage or showjumping shows. The direct comparison with eventing doesn't generally work, because of eventing often being a greenfield site rather than centre based.

And I'm not even broaching the showing topic - that's a whole other mess.

 

[RachelFerd]

I think there have been some concerns in both BD and BS. Not least when the Dressage Circle thing popped up (and that does seem to have been broadly killed off - in part by it's own crazy idea about the handicap rule).

BD charges a fee for the use of tests, and as we all know, those tests aren't free to view for competitors either. BD does hold some control over multi-venue unaffiliated leagues and can decline approval of those events using their tests if they clash with their key BD dates regionally.

They're both broadly happy with unaffiliated so long as it doesn't involve large sums of prize money - there are some active concerns in the BS space with big prize money unaff shows and the large risks that creates around equine welfare.

There are no instances I can think of where unaffiliated competition is used to prop-up high level dressage or showjumping shows. The direct comparison with eventing doesn't generally work, because of eventing often being a greenfield site rather than centre based.

And I'm not even broaching the showing topic - that's a whole other mess.

And, sorry, an additional point - neither BD nor BS have anywhere close to the amount of safety and welfare considerations that eventing has to think about - so that compounds the situation a bit more.

 

[LEC]

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.

It is elitist and there is no avoiding it. It’s also a ridiculously costly day because of safety and infrastructure costs - do it, don’t do it. We shouldn’t be subsidising the sport. In the uk just not used to paying true costs and now we have to as sponsorship/rich people/people invested in sport prepared not to make a profit have stopped propping up the sport. However much I disagree with Sarah Stoutes (owner of Keysoe) posting style she has made a lot of valid points about equestrianism and making things pay. We want nice things but are not prepared to pay. She is right, most equestrian centres do have husbands and wives doing crappy jobs to keep costs down like times, car parking, arena maintenance, relying on volunteers etc rather than being able to hire people to help. I just don’t get this argument about horse sport being elitist, it’s just more obvious now.
I had a chat with my farrier and he reckoned most of his clients couldn’t really afford to keep their horses and were just one step away from a crisis anyway. The rising costs have had a huge impact but we are used to things being cheap with horses and now they are not.

 

[LEC]

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!

BD has actually become more assessable and has done a good job on it. Unaff is popular but doesn’t really go above Elementary. The majority of unaff is at 60-1m so doesn’t really step on BS toes. They did try a few years ago to ban BS judges from doing unaff but it all fell apart. The federations don’t help themselves with doing singular membership.

 

[LEC]

For me the major issue is BE was shit for several years with what it offered and so the professional unaff organisers stepped into the void. BD has done an amazing job of being inclusive. I have never done BD yet went to two champs last year as they made it easy for me to have lots to aim at and do for a very reasonable price. I now have an ex racer and BD offers loads combined with BD. BE offers nothing for me - a crappy final at Askham Bryan which isn’t a final or the IN stuff which only 12 horses take part in, yet how many ex racers are out there eventing?!? Again CC has seen the opportunity and jumped on it so now my ex racer will probably go to CC. Just simple things like this BE is really really crap at. The Connemara champs horse events offers is another example. It genuinely annoys me how rubbish BE are sometimes. BE are just not very agile. BD seems much better at it. But it’s also organised more regionally which works better. BS is similar.

 

[MagicMelon]

Eventing is very expensive. IMO it comes down to money. Everyones costs have gone up so the ones on the fence who worked extra hard to be able to finance eventing now can't do it. Only the richest can carry on. It is very elitist. Courses have gone across the country, my nearest is 2 hours away. They dont seem to offer any encouragement to land owners to create courses, theyre not being proactive. I do think introducing 80 level has ruined it. People dont have to go in at a certain level anymore. When I was younger, it was assumed you were doing well at open level PC / RC before you considered going BE. I certainly went that route. Now people will go BE without even knowing basic rules! Ive seen some riders utterly confused with what they're meant to jump if they have a stop XC at a combination for example, all these things generally learnt at RC/PC level. I think its a real shame and I really miss the atmosphere of a BE event. I dont know what the answer is but I definately think BE look bad for stopping BE venues from running non-BE events round their courses! Its none of their business!

 

[RachelFerd]

BD has actually become more assessable and has done a good job on it. Unaff is popular but doesn’t really go above Elementary. The majority of unaff is at 60-1m so doesn’t really step on BS toes. They did try a few years ago to ban BS judges from doing unaff but it all fell apart. The federations don’t help themselves with doing singular membership.

I've said it about a million times - but membership that worked as a complete membership of BE, BD and BS plus either RC or PC depending on your age group, that you paid for once a year and covered everything, could resolve so much of the mess out there.

 

[Squeak]

I've said it about a million times - but membership that worked as a complete membership of BE, BD and BS plus either RC or PC depending on your age group, that you paid for once a year and covered everything, could resolve so much of the mess out there.

I love the idea of that but I'd be worried that membership fees would become astronomical. Also for a showjumper or dressage rider it would be a lot less attractive than for an eventer who has to affiliate with BS and BD once they reach a certain level BE. I'm not sure I see that BS or BD members would support it.

 

[shortstuff99]

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.

All the sports used to be under BHS which is why you never really had unaffiliated. Affiliated started at Novice so anything smaller you had to go in with RC or PC.

Much politicking is why BE, BD, BS came about and split away.

 

[RachelFerd]

For me the major issue is BE was shit for several years with what it offered and so the professional unaff organisers stepped into the void. BD has done an amazing job of being inclusive. I have never done BD yet went to two champs last year as they made it easy for me to have lots to aim at and do for a very reasonable price. I now have an ex racer and BD offers loads combined with BD. BE offers nothing for me - a crappy final at Askham Bryan which isn’t a final or the IN stuff which only 12 horses take part in, yet how many ex racers are out there eventing?!? Again CC has seen the opportunity and jumped on it so now my ex racer will probably go to CC. Just simple things like this BE is really really crap at. The Connemara champs horse events offers is another example. It genuinely annoys me how rubbish BE are sometimes. BE are just not very agile. BD seems much better at it. But it’s also organised more regionally which works better. BS is similar.

I'm having literally the opposite experience to you. Cancelled my BD membership early this year because I realised that competing up to elementary and having absolutely no interest in the very boring and bloated area festivals structure, that I was getting no value out of doing BD. I'm doing the odd unaffiliated test under BD judges on my on yard, which I don't have to travel to. I will re-join when youngster is ready for medium. I won't compete the ex racehorse in pure dressage ever again, as he gets absolutely nothing out of it. We'll continue to keep training at home.

I loved the IN class at Gatcombe last year for the ex-racehorse - the prize money was very decent and it was fabulous to compete at a venue that I'd always watched on TV as a kid. It is back on my list of aims again for this year. I'm also really excited about the FEI 1* classes and really hoping that the youngster will be ready for those in the second half of the season. There is nothing that appeals to me about an unaffiliated event - the only reason I might have to take part in one is because Cholmondeley's cancellation has left a big hole in the calendar up here in the summer and youngster might need a prep run for something else.

 

[ihatework]

It's such a difficult topic and my thoughts are all jumbled and probably not going to make any coherant sense.

Eventing is my love, but I'm very worried for it's future. Not only the turbulence BE is going through but also welfare and public perception.

The comparison to BD/BS/Showing. I'll stick with BD/BS because showing isn't an FEI discipline.
To be blunt - BD/BS and the unaff equivalent is an all year sport. Relative to eventing you have little planning, in that it's run at established centres who have all the faciilities to hand and the staffing is significantly less. You have less impact on viability due to weather. You can frequently run on very few entries. Furthermore, your competitors can be a little bit crap and still have a relatively nice day. They aren't going to dramatically increase the chances of killing themselves, and they aren't going to suffer the humiliation of a TD telling them they are too crap to continue, or can't enter any more comps at the level until they requalify at the level below.

Whereas for eventing it's seasonal. Heavily reliant on weather conditions. Each event takes months of planning and masses of man hours. The cost to put on an event is humungous. To justify doing it you have to make it pay. This means you have to fill a full day with competitors who will pay sufficient money to make it viable.

Eventing is an international sport. An olympic sport. FEI/BEF/BE we have a pathway to produce Olympic athletes.
Olympic athletes need top quality competition to be successful.
They need a pathway to develop their horses.
They need BE from small stuff up to do that.

The truth of the matter is the bottom rung of the BE membership supports the whole infrastructure of producing top level sport.

Loose the bottom rungs and the structure collapses. This is why BE don't want all the unaff competition! The sport is expensive and elitist (however you would like to try and wrap it up otherwise) and 'we' need that money filtered into pyramid if we want to keep the sport in the future.

I get that the bottom tiers are paying customers and have every right to expect something from BE for their money. I get the attraction of the Cotswold Cup/Bridgante unaffiliated series. But quite honestly I don't BE are completely ignoring that sector, they are trying to introduce lots of things for the grassroots competitior. But if those competitors want the higher level sport to be successful (maybe they don't care?) they need to see where they fit into the equation.

Is BE perfect, god no, far from it. Are they trying - yes i think so.

To loose an event like Barbury is a travesty. And I'm not sure why it had to get to that point. Does anyone know why they weren't willing/couldn't adopt GoBE rather than run unaff? Purely political backs up or is this financial?

There are no magic wands unfortunately.

 

[sakura]

It is elitist and there is no avoiding it. It’s also a ridiculously costly day because of safety and infrastructure costs - do it, don’t do it. We shouldn’t be subsidising the sport. In the uk just not used to paying true costs and now we have to as sponsorship/rich people/people invested in sport prepared not to make a profit have stopped propping up the sport. However much I disagree with Sarah Stoutes (owner of Keysoe) posting style she has made a lot of valid points about equestrianism and making things pay. We want nice things but are not prepared to pay. She is right, most equestrian centres do have husbands and wives doing crappy jobs to keep costs down like times, car parking, arena maintenance, relying on volunteers etc rather than being able to hire people to help. I just don’t get this argument about horse sport being elitist, it’s just more obvious now.
I had a chat with my farrier and he reckoned most of his clients couldn’t really afford to keep their horses and were just one step away from a crisis anyway. The rising costs have had a huge impact but we are used to things being cheap with horses and now they are not.

That's all well and fine, but it will alienate more and more people and I'm not sure how good that is for the sports survival.

 

[ihatework]

That's all well and fine, but it will alienate more and more people and I'm not sure how good that is for the sports survival.

Could you give some suggestions about how to make Eventing non elitist?

 

[Squeak]

It's such a difficult topic and my thoughts are all jumbled and probably not going to make any coherant sense.

Eventing is my love, but I'm very worried for it's future. Not only the turbulence BE is going through but also welfare and public perception.

The comparison to BD/BS/Showing. I'll stick with BD/BS because showing isn't an FEI discipline.
To be blunt - BD/BS and the unaff equivalent is an all year sport. Relative to eventing you have little planning, in that it's run at established centres who have all the faciilities to hand and the staffing is significantly less. You have less impact on viability due to weather. You can frequently run on very few entries. Furthermore, your competitors can be a little bit crap and still have a relatively nice day. They aren't going to dramatically increase the chances of killing themselves, and they aren't going to suffer the humiliation of a TD telling them they are too crap to continue, or can't enter any more comps at the level until they requalify at the level below.

Whereas for eventing it's seasonal. Heavily reliant on weather conditions. Each event takes months of planning and masses of man hours. The cost to put on an event is humungous. To justify doing it you have to make it pay. This means you have to fill a full day with competitors who will pay sufficient money to make it viable.

Eventing is an international sport. An olympic sport. FEI/BEF/BE we have a pathway to produce Olympic athletes.
Olympic athletes need top quality competition to be successful.
They need a pathway to develop their horses.
They need BE from small stuff up to do that.

The truth of the matter is the bottom rung of the BE membership supports the whole infrastructure of producing top level sport.

Loose the bottom rungs and the structure collapses. This is why BE don't want all the unaff competition! The sport is expensive and elitist (however you would like to try and wrap it up otherwise) and 'we' need that money filtered into pyramid if we want to keep the sport in the future.

I get that the bottom tiers are paying customers and have every right to expect something from BE for their money. I get the attraction of the Cotswold Cup/Bridgante unaffiliated series. But quite honestly I don't BE are completely ignoring that sector, they are trying to introduce lots of things for the grassroots competitior. But if those competitors want the higher level sport to be successful (maybe they don't care?) they need to see where they fit into the equation.

Is BE perfect, god no, far from it. Are they trying - yes i think so.

To loose an event like Barbury is a travesty. And I'm not sure why it had to get to that point. Does anyone know why they weren't willing/couldn't adopt GoBE rather than run unaff? Purely political backs up or is this financial?

There are no magic wands unfortunately.

Completely agree with pretty much everything you've written. To be honest, I hadn't thought of it from the pov that the GR should just suck it up and accept that they do fund the elite competition but maybe for this to happen the elite riders should acknowledge it too and give back to the GR riders - e.g. a top rider could donate a certain amount of lessons per year as prizes. I'd certainly be delighted to win a lesson with some of them. Maybe more could be done for BE members at some of the shows like Blenheim and badminton etc. course walks, members tents etc. Give the GR riders more involvement with the sport at the higher level that they're funding and let the elite level competitors give something back to the GR riders.

 

[ihatework]

Completely agree with pretty much everything you've written. To be honest, I hadn't thought of it from the pov that the GR should just suck it up and accept that they do fund the elite competition but maybe for this to happen the elite riders should acknowledge it too and give back to the GR riders - e.g. a top rider could donate a certain amount of lessons per year as prizes. I'd certainly be delighted to win a lesson with some of them. Maybe more could be done for BE members at some of the shows like Blenheim and badminton etc. course walks, members tents etc. Give the GR riders more involvement with the sport at the higher level that they're funding and let the elite level competitors give something back to the GR riders.

If I’m honest there was/is part of me that thinks just suck it up! I was trying not to make it sound completely that way though. More just think of the bigger picture - take pride in that we can be part of a discipline that continually is high in world ranking, delivers medals and has athletes from all over the world wanting to base here because we have such good sporting infrastructure.

And I agree on the elite athletes. I’m not sure of the best ways to do it. Many give back loads behind the scenes (as do many officials and owners). But there are far too many over entitled too. Even just acknowledgement of what the lower tiers of the membership mean to the sport and their livelihood is a start.

 

[ycbm]

There are no instances I can think of where unaffiliated competition is used to prop-up high level dressage or showjumping shows.

All the venues at which I have competed at unaffiliated dressage use those revenues to maintain the arenas and lorry parking for affiliated competitions up to GP level. I would be surprised if many affiliated dressage events pay their own way if you include the costs of providing arenas and lorry parking. Grass roots activities of all kinds make these venues viable businesses.
.

 

[ycbm]

But if those {grass roots} competitors want the higher level sport to be successful (maybe they don't care?) they need to see where they fit into the equation.

I think there will be many who don't care. And an increasing number who think it's completely unjustifiable to be increasing climate change by flying horses around the world for a few days sport that most countries will never compete in.

I gave up eventing largely because of the cost of the lower levels (which were what I was capable of doing as I got older). It annoyed me that I was expected to fund horses to represent the UK, even more so as I became less sure that we should ever be asking that much of the horses.
.

 

[ester]

GoBE didn’t seem very popular last year so presumably would be a big risk for Barbary to rely on it ?

 

[millitiger]

So I think in terms of comparison, BD would survive if they dropped Intro and Prelim and BS would survive if they dropped 90cm/BN.
BE would not survive without revenue from 80 and 90 riders.
That's what I take from it anyway!

And looking further, BD have introduced Team Quest and BS have Club jumping to try and engage and increase the lower levels anyway.
Whereas BE grassroots is pretty confusing on what and how you qualify and for most people, involves hours and hours of driving too. I know it's work in progress but that is the current state in many people's mind.

I understand the costs of eventing compared to other disciplines and needing to shore up entry levels.
I actually love the idea of the elite riders giving back to grassroots- even if it was clinics or coursewalks, that you pay for, but only BE members can access. That would definitely sway me more to joining.

 

[sakura]

Could you give some suggestions about how to make Eventing non elitist?

No, I can't. I don't work for BE or claim in anyway, shape or form to have the answers. I'm simply stating, as a fan, that I would like to see it become less elitist, not more.

 

[RachelFerd]

If I’m honest there was/is part of me that thinks just suck it up! I was trying not to make it sound completely that way though. More just think of the bigger picture - take pride in that we can be part of a discipline that continually is high in world ranking, delivers medals and has athletes from all over the world wanting to base here because we have such good sporting infrastructure.

And I agree on the elite athletes. I’m not sure of the best ways to do it. Many give back loads behind the scenes (as do many officials and owners). But there are far too many over entitled too. Even just acknowledgement of what the lower tiers of the membership mean to the sport and their livelihood is a start.

I think there's quite a lot of over entitled at the elite end, who all remember the old days of just Novice+ competition and really don't see why it is important to have a healthy functioning base of grassroots participation. After all, when membership fees for those who compete Intermediate+ were raised by about £150/year, in order to finance a cheaper introductory membership for those at 80/90 level, there was outcry. Despite the fact that most people at int+ being professional or semi professional riders who were often riding in excess of 100 events a year, rather than the 5-10 that your intro members might make it to.

I get that the outcry came from the fact that no-one is doing financially well out of this sport - it is expensive to run, expensive to participate and most people are just attempting to make the sums just about work. But the base of the sport dropping away would result in astronomical costs for participating at the higher levels.

I would also like to see more elite riders giving back, and more elite riders encouraging participation. It could be an expectation shared with anyone who is on the elite pathway aiming at teams. But there are also little things that need to change - for example, people who are accredited BE coaches should be actively encouraging clientele to use options like GoBE instead of unaffiliated. The amount of times I've heard top coaches advise someone to not bother affiliating and just do some unaff runs is unbelievable - but I think it stems from a lack of awareness rather than any deliberate desire to destroy the system.

 

[RachelFerd]

No, I can't. I don't work for BE or claim in anyway, shape or form to have the answers. I'm simply stating, as a fan, that I would like to see it become less elitist, not more.

Well, here's a bunch of things that BE have done in the last couple of years which make it less elitist:

- created a reduced cost membership layer (intro membership) which makes it much cheaper for people who just want to event at 80/90
- provided an additional 40% discount for new members who are PC or RC members
- created the 'PAYG' pay as you go option, which means that you don't have to fork out for membership in one hit - makes good value sense if you're aiming to do more than 5 but less than 10 events (iirc)
- created the 'GoBE' option which means you can run without results being published online and without having to have any kind of membership at all - basically as if it were unaffiliated
- created a BE80 championships at Bramham

And there's probably more that I can't remember straight off the top of my head - all of those actions are intended to remove barriers to participation and make it less elitist.

 

[ycbm]

I don't see how you can make it less elitist to any meaningful level to compete at a sport that costs as much for just one day out (never mind the training required) as a month of grass livery or farm DiY base rent.

The sport will always be for people with access to money and time that most other horse owners haven't got.
.

 

[ihatework]

No, I can't. I don't work for BE or claim in anyway, shape or form to have the answers. I'm simply stating, as a fan, that I would like to see it become less elitist, not more.

Im just trying to get you to think about your expectations.

Eventing will always be an elitist sport - to try and sugar coat it otherwise is an insult to peoples intelligence.

Even at the lower levels of unaffiliated, to state the obvious I appreciate, you need: A horse. Preferably a sound one. To feed and keep said horse. A method to transport said horse. Tack/kit. Ability to ride said horse which involves training. Money to pay for entry fees.
Even unaff on a shoestring requires disposable income that is beyond the means of a huge percentage of the population.

RachelFerd has highlighted ways BE have tried to make it more accessible to the less elite. But we need to accept reality here.

 

[mini_b]

I was laid in bed the other night thinking about this.
I entered a BS show on a ticket, that cost me over £20.
entries for BD I don’t know the cost of but unaff costs me £12-17 depending on venue. A hunter trial over courses locally, not just a few hunt jumps £45-60

eventing is 3 disciplines in one day. Let’s say that’s £90 for arguments sake.
it’s just cost me just over £100 to enter first event of the season.

eventing isn’t just “one thing”
You need 3x the amount of man power and then some.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

RF, I dont think we disagree nearly as much as you think we do! I accepted your very well articulated argument last year about the threat UA poses to BE. I had never really considered it from that angle before, and it made me resolve to enter BE events alongside the BC ones. Which I did though all 3 were cancelled. I'm still a member of BE. We only disagree on what to do about that threat. Maybe UA events should never have been allowed to run over BE courses. But that ship has sailed, and we can't turn back time. We have to move forward from where we are. And that place is one where venues have realised the value of UA, competitors have come to expect BE standards at UA prices, and UA organisers have actually overtaken BE in the quality and scope of what they offer, and the ease with which you can enter those events.

Meantime, BE has just complacently let all that happen, while blaming venues, competitors and organisers for not supporting them. That always seems to be your take on it too. Support BE because otherwise BE is at risk. But I personally believe that is entirely unrealistic thinking. I have bored myself (and no doubt everyone else) with a page by page dissection of the website. But it is TERRIBLE. Nowhere is that very compelling argument set out. Let alone prominently on page 1. It is a confusing mess of nonsense. It is hard to join and hard to enter (but your counter to that was 'I found it easy, It took 2 minutes'.) It is impossible to enter at short notice if you aren;t already a member, making those 'decision to run' posts pleading for entries largely pointless. (Your response, people should get it all sorted before the season). In other words, expecting people to tolerate a shite website, shite entry system and high fees for non-obvious gain (because BE does not make it obvious - not because there aren;t good reasons for those higher fees). I'm a pragmatist and recognsie that people do what people want to do. I am therefore always in favour of making them want what I want them to want! Not just telling them off for their muddle-headedness and poor choices.

So in my view, BE needs to:

* Sell itself much, MUCH better
* Make the argument for why one should choose BE over UA. Or at least, to support both.
* Make it much, much, much easier to join and enter
* Offer more to the grassroots. Howden way is a very good start. A points series would be good too, to compete directly with CC and BC.

But most of all to:

* Work collaboratively with UA venues and organisers, instead of just trying to punish them. Find a way forward where both groups can survive/thrive. If sites were allowed to offer UA comps, you can hardly blame them for doing so, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Any attempt to try, is misguided and generates anger and resentment on all sides.

I admire your passion and your support for BE. And I hope you have a great season. x

 

[ycbm]

Are there any "BE" course which are used to run UA?

All the venues I know which are running/have run BE and UA were running UA before BE came along seeking new venues over which to run 100 then 90 then 80.

I've mentioned this before but the rule back in the 80s was that venues could not run UA, the course was for BE and affiliated PC/RC regionals/nationals only. BE had to drop that rule to get PN (now 100) going because they needed to use courses which were already in existence to get enough dates.
.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

That's interesting ycbm. Makes it even more ridculous to then start trying to force venues to choose one or the other. And makes a complete mockery of their attempts to claim a 'social licence' and 'horse/rider welfare' rationale for stripping the international from Burbury. They can't be fine with unregulated sport when it suits them, but not when it doesn't.

 

[teapot]

If anyone thinks running dressage is cheap, have a read of this https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/plu...ing-international-shows-is-eye-opening-792698 (and that venue charges c. £100 for a private lesson in their riding school too)

You could argue greenfield sites are cheaper to maintain throughout the year if you start to break down the costs of actually running a competition venue, especially now given utilities costs.

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.

What you're not considering though is BE is simply a governing body affiliated to the BEF, nothing more than that (in the same way the BHS is) and cannot dictate, nor have any right to dictate to private land owners what they do with their own land in order to make money. If BE owned each and every venue, absolutely, but they don't, nor do they most likely own the fences used on said land. I'd be very interested to know where BE stand legally on this, ie whether their 'power' is as strong as they seem to think it is.

As for thinking offering discounted membership for PC members is a massive plus of going affiliated. That's only useful for those under the age of 25. What's the average age of BE membership? I bet it isn't 17-23. As always with a lot of equestrian businesses, it's not about getting new members/clients, it's about keeping your existing ones. The existing ones will tend to have the money to support, but if they get pissed or don't see value for money they'll go elsewhere...