So what has British Eventing done wrong?

[RachelFerd]

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

I think we might disagree more than you seem to think. The one thing I agree on is that the website is bad - although I am reassured by the various updates that I have read that it is being resolved in time.

On the rest - no. The ship has not sailed, the ship has to be slowly turned around, taken back into dock and repaired. A government/tax anology is this (a vaguely shortened version of what I have already posted on FB) -----


If you consider eventing as a sport in GB like being an ecosystem and world in its own right, the British Equestrian Federation is essentially the government of it. And other members of the BEF are constituent parts of the UK. Let's say that BE, Riding Club and Pony Club are their own devolved governments working within the larger ecosystem. Ultimately BE, RC and PC are all able to work together, do share the majority of legislation, but have some variance in specific areas like taxes. They do all however believe in the principle of taxes - everyone who can pays into the tax system in order to fund services. We may not always agree with the way that taxes are spent, but we can agree that they are needed to pay for things like healthcare, infrastructure and education. BE have therefore not applied any restrictions to events being run under RC or PC rules - these events are still paying ‘tax’ even if it is to a different devolved administration, at different rates. They have enough shared objectives in supporting equestrian sport, and are under the same UK (BEF) umbrella, that it makes sense to work in partnership.

Members of British Eventing essentially pay a tax to BE through membership and horse registration. Event organisers essentially pay a tax to BE through affiliation costs and through elements of entry fees. I’m not sure on the exact %. This is currently operating on a sliding scale, kind of like the real UK tax system, whereby those who take the most from the sport pay the most, and those who are under a threshold pay very little at all (and in fact, the new GoBE option has no element of the rider paying, and only a small element of the organiser paying in). All those ‘taxes’ end up with BE in order to do all of the essential but boring stuff that i've set out many times before. The stuff without which there would be no sport.

However, when an event wants to run a completely unaffiliated competition following on from an affiliated event, in order to make the event “economically viable”, we hit a problem. This is, to me, like a business saying that it will operate for 3 days under English tax regulation, paying corporation tax and charging VAT to customers, and then on the 2 subsequent days, it will stop paying corporation tax and won’t charge VAT to customers, despite selling a very similar product. A government can’t allow businesses to behave like that, because in the end, people will stop buying the product when it is taxed, and will switch to buying the product when it is untaxed - even if the product range isn’t quite as wide or quite as good as before (eg. no availability of novice+ events - because these weren't popular products anyway).

Of course, the event organisers say that the untaxed days are subsidising the taxed days - and perhaps they are in the short term - but it isn’t a *sustainable* solution to the economic viability problem, because it changes the customer behaviour into more and more only shopping on the untaxed days. And all of a sudden, people stop paying that tax, and over time, infrastructure crumbles and there's no ability re-invest.

A government doesn't let this happen, because you need to create a level playing field for the businesses operating in your country. A government could and should change the tax laws in order to help businesses in order to help sustain economic viability. But that doesn't mean that businesses can pick and choose when they follow those rules - because it changes customer behaviour in a way that is unsustainable for the government.

Now a bit of small scale tax evasion is probably unavoidable - and the argument has always been that by getting people hooked on the product you bring them into the wider compliant ecosystem. But when the availability of untaxed sport is at a scale where there's no longer any reason to pay tax at all - that's a problem.

When multi-event series were created in regional areas, these have essentially become self-governing tax havens. Now, there’s an entire tax-free haven of eventing in the Cotswolds - it’s a little bit cheaper to participate, and all of the money goes directly back into the local area only, the Cotswolds tax haven has better and better prize money, but as more people move to the Cotswolds and leave the rest of the country, the tax received by the wider government dwindles. The ability to invest in training, education, safety, safeguarding etc. etc. drops off - and the eventing ecosystem gets weaker and weaker. And then there’s an extra level to the chaos, because the tax haven isn’t actually democratic at all. They may bend to commercial pressures, they may not. They may choose what rules they do or do not follow - maybe they’ll set their own rules. How will those rules get shaped when there isn’t a democratic process for choosing who sets them? THe events may be 'well run', but there is no mechanism to shape them for the future, other than the organisers choosing to take whichever routes appeal to them - whether that's based on making £££ or just popularity.

-----

You've previously criticised me for placing the onus on competitors to do the right thing. And I totally get why that argument doesn't work. But where does that leave BE other than having to negotiate painfully with event organisers to shore up the structure.


Barbury could have run any number of eventing adjacent competitions to help subsidise the horse trials - arena eventing, PC or RC eventing, 2-phase eventing, hunter trials, 3-phase training days, schooling days - or indeed, running a GoBE class, but they have most actively chosen to be part of the tax haven infrastructure instead here.

 

[RachelFerd]

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.



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...

It is discounted membership for PC and RC members - there's no age restriction whatsoever - I think you missed that in my post.

If BE was running events themselves they probably would fall foul of monopoly rules - but they aren't. But as they are the NGB they do hold the power to decide who can and can't run FEI events, and they absolutely have the right to terminate the affiliation agreements of events who do not abide by the terms of the contracts they have signed up to. No-one has ever said that BE can control what private land owners do with their land - but they can control who is able to offer affiliated sport. In the same way that the BHS can dictate who does and doesn't meet the standards required to be an approved riding school. Riding schools can still exist without that - but they aren't BHS approved, and therefore can't claim that they are!

 

[Roasted Chestnuts]

Maybe BE has to die off to start again

It’s certainly very broken right now and losing venues right and left. Perhaps a new body is needing to rise from this mess of its own creation just my thoughts as an outsider looking in.

Id rather compete UA for a lesser price and a good day with no pressure to ‘make’ the money spent on affiliates worth it if that make sense. Pressuring yourself to make sure you haven’t wasted your money.

 

[teapot]

It is discounted membership for PC and RC members - there's no age restriction whatsoever - I think you missed that in my post.

You can only be a PC member if you're under the age of 25 though! So it's a membership discount only available to quite a small proportion of the entire BE membership age range. Really accessible that.

If BE was running events themselves they probably would fall foul of monopoly rules - but they aren't. But as they are the NGB they do hold the power to decide who can and can't run FEI events, and they absolutely have the right to terminate the affiliation agreements of events who do not abide by the terms of the contracts they have signed up to. No-one has ever said that BE can control what private land owners do with their land - but they can control who is able to offer affiliated sport. In the same way that the BHS can dictate who does and doesn't meet the standards required to be an approved riding school. Riding schools can still exist without that - but they aren't BHS approved, and therefore can't claim that they are!

Ah, well if you want to use the BHS an example - can you imagine if the BHS banned their approved centres from offering non-BHS exam based stable management training/courses so those that couldn't afford or wanted to take the full BHS exam system had nothing structured in place to learn from, and/or were unable to use BHS approved facilities? That's EXACTLY what BE are doing when it comes to preventing venues from running unaffiliated events.


I admire your support of BE but try and understand what they're doing is going to have damaging consequences for the sport at all levels. If I can see that as a spectator and very very occasional horse holder, god knows what members are thinking.

 

[RachelFerd]

You can only be a PC member if you're under the age of 25 though! So it's a membership discount only available to quite a small proportion of the entire BE membership age range. Really accessible that.



Ah, well if you want to use the BHS an example - can you imagine if the BHS banned their approved centres from offering non-BHS exam based stable management training/courses so those that couldn't afford or wanted to take the full BHS exam system had nothing structured in place to learn from, and/or were unable to use BHS approved facilities? That's EXACTLY what BE are doing when it comes to preventing venues from running unaffiliated events.


I admire your support of BE but try and understand what they're doing is going to have damaging consequences for the sport at all levels. If I can see that as a spectator and very very occasional horse holder, god knows what members are thinking.

RC does not have an age limit - the discount is for PC and RC.

 

[DabDab]

Ref the national governing body argument I can't think of a single other example of a sport where the governing body tries to restrict the use of physical venues for a similar ungoverned version of the sport. For most sports the attraction and prestige of participating in the nationally governed competitions and leagues stands on its own merits.

Sorry to use motor racing as an example again, but it's a sport I both know well and is relatively comparable to eventing in terms of being individual, inescapably slightly elitist and having a very enthusiastic amateur scene. I do not know of a single racetrack, from hillclimbs to full racing circuits that doesn't run a mish mash of broadly 'unaffiliated' events alongside a nationally governed annual programme for which competitors need a race license.

However, for the 'unaffiliated' events you do generally have to be a member of an automobile club in order to enter (these clubs vary hugely and annual member ship can be anything from approx £20-£300), mainly I believe because of insurance requirements. I am not sure if the automobile clubs financially contribute to the central governing body, but I also don't know if Riding Clubs or Pony Clubs directly contribute to BE...?

Other than keeping venues going financially most unaffiliated/amateur sport doesn't contribute to the elite sport at all. But keeping venues open is vitally important, particularly for a sport like eventing. Without those venues the sport is dead. BE needs to work out how to make the affiliated version of the sport stand on its own merits so that competitors want to transition from unaffiliated. Anything else is just a bit of a distraction and in some cases is actively harming them.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Yep you’re right,RF. We have no common ground. Your argument lurches further to the ‘venue bashing’ side of the coin:
They are greedy tax avoiders, rather than simply offering the best quality of competition at the best price for the benefit of their customers. As they were doing long before BE came along, wanting their slice of grassroots pie.

They pay BE to be affiliated. If BE negotiated cr@p deals, they are free to re-negotiate each year. But Private venues have every right to run how they see fit.

BE had no problem with the principle of unregulated sport when they wanted to move into lower levels. But now they want to tell venues what they can do on the 50/51 weeks a year they aren’t hosting BE. And venues quite rightly are saying sod off.

The attitude you promote is one of arrogance and entitlement: venues should offer PC/RC/GOBE because that’s better for us. Abandon your own business ideas, your existing sponsors because that suits us. And if you don’t we will jump up and down and scream that you are wrecking sport, or punish you by stripping you of existing fixtures.

As DabDab said, they need to attract customers on their own merits. They should easily be able to with a bit of creativity - they have so many advantages. But if the future of eventing lies with a ‘strategy’ of restricting access, pushing venues around and berating customers for going where suits them, then god help it.

 

[LEC]

I knock about at Badminton on a Tuesday. I don’t play in a league, I don’t play proper matches but I am a member of Badminton UK as it’s a condition of joining. I played Rugby for years - had to be a member of RFU. I think the only sport where there is sometimes no affiliation is Sunday football. Though most of those will be affiliated.

I must annoy Rachel as I essentially agree with her points and yet am still an unaff user! I guess I started in 2005 when intro was about but never saw the point of doing BE to run round 90. I still don’t. The incentives to run round BE90 for me are not strong enough. My horses move up pretty quickly to 100 and I like to have an added incentive.

One of the big issues with BE strong arming is a lot of BE events were unaff before they went to BE so already had a very established income stream though this was primarily organised by RC/PC/Hunts. The professional organisers which came along in around 2019 have changed things. Better marketed and offering series which PC/RC cannot match as tend to be one offs.

The reason Pontispool left BE is they had to move their date as Bicton picked up Houghton. They didn’t want to run in April and it’s ridiculous as no clash as Bicton isn’t running any GR so different end user and wouldn’t impact their entries.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I must annoy Rachel as I essentially agree with her points and yet am still an unaff user! I guess I started in 2005 when intro was about but never saw the point of doing BE to run round 90. I still don’t. The incentives to run round BE90 for me are not strong enough. My horses move up pretty quickly to 100 and I like to have an added incentive.

People do what people want to do. Always have, always will. A strategy of hoping they won’t is naive.

One of the big issues with BE strong arming is a lot of BE events were unaff before they went to BE so already had a very established income stream though this was primarily organised by RC/PC/Hunts. The professional organisers which came along in around 2019 have changed things. Better marketed and offering series which PC/RC cannot match as tend to be one offs.

BE’s argument seems to be you can run UA as long as you do it in a boring way.

The reason Pontispool left BE is they had to move their date as Bicton picked up Houghton. They didn’t want to run in April and it’s ridiculous as no clash as Bicton isn’t running any GR so different end user and wouldn’t impact their entries.

sorry can you say more about this. I can’t quite follow. Who didn’t want April, who is being ridiculous?

 

[LEC]

Pontispool have always had the end of May date. Bicton picked up 2-4* from Houghton which is the same date and PP were told they had to move their date to avoid the clash. The thing is PP runs 80-Int so there is no real clash. They all have their own volunteers as well. PP decided it wasn’t worth it and were fed up with all the restrictions so pulled the plug. PP would normally run their unaff the week after the aff.

 

[ihatework]

People do what people want to do. Always have, always will. A strategy of hoping they won’t is naive.



BE’s argument seems to be you can run UA as long as you do it in a boring way.



sorry can you say more about this. I can’t quite follow. Who didn’t want April, who is being ridiculous?

Bicton took Houghton International slot in May

Pontispool (usually May) offered April instead ‘proximity’ clash.

In reality there is only a moderate overlap in the market for those 2 events and theoretically both could have run in May

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Thanks for explaining. So another totally self-inflicted own goal then

 

[RachelFerd]

Yep you’re right,RF. We have no common ground. Your argument lurches further to the ‘venue bashing’ side of the coin:
They are greedy tax avoiders, rather than simply offering the best quality of competition at the best price for the benefit of their customers. As they were doing long before BE came along, wanting their slice of grassroots pie.

They pay BE to be affiliated. If BE negotiated cr@p deals, they are free to re-negotiate each year. But Private venues have every right to run how they see fit.

BE had no problem with the principle of unregulated sport when they wanted to move into lower levels. But now they want to tell venues what they can do on the 50/51 weeks a year they aren’t hosting BE. And venues quite rightly are saying sod off.

The attitude you promote is one of arrogance and entitlement: venues should offer PC/RC/GOBE because that’s better for us. Abandon your own business ideas, your existing sponsors because that suits us. And if you don’t we will jump up and down and scream that you are wrecking sport, or punish you by stripping you of existing fixtures.

As DabDab said, they need to attract customers on their own merits. They should easily be able to with a bit of creativity - they have so many advantages. But if the future of eventing lies with a ‘strategy’ of restricting access, pushing venues around and berating customers for going where suits them, then god help it.

I see this narrative completely differently. Historically the BHS, then the BHTA, then BE did not allow any venues at all to use their courses for unaffiliated competition. There was none of this.

A bunch of changes happened which allowed venues to run unaffiliated competition over their BE tracks. This was capitalised on by a number of event organisers who were directors of BE at the time - to me, that doesn't smell right.

Sponsors have largely had no interest in unaffiliated sport - and they will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the sport if it loses its links through to international competition.

You are talking about Barbury like it has always had an unaffiliated competition that has traditionally support it. It hasn't. I actually competed at the first ever Barbury in 2005. From 2005 until (I think) 2020 the event only ran from Novice upwards. Things started changing after 2017 when the estate was sold. I believe 2020 was when they introduced a BE100 section, as one of the events to run post-lockdown. I think the unaffiliated only started in 2021. We are not talking about a situation in which an event has traditionally run an unaffiliated horse trials and been stopped after many years.

@LEC I get your position of using what's available to you - and I suppose, at least you understand what I'm trying to set out, which means I'm quite a lot less annoyed. And yes - I can't think of much in the way of sport where you can take part competitively without being a member and/or using affiliated events of some kind. Take running for example - when you join a running club you will usually be registered with Athletics England as part of that joining process. If you enter a competitive running event, it is extremely likely that event is licensed by Athletics England - and your times will only be official if it is. No-one gets told to run in an unaffiliated marathon because it is cheaper - if you're going to run marathons, you'll run one that is licensed. And events don't get to keep their licenses if they don't abide by licensing conditions.

Now, there are other member bodies in running - I was a member of the Fell Runners Association for a while. Their events aren't AE licensed per se, but they do have a dotted line to UKA and a calendar of recognised fell runs throughout the year. They are affiliated to the World Mountain Running Association, which then links to the IAAF - so there is still a dotted line through to an overarching international agreement about how running events are conducted - and fell runners are a bunch of mad nutters throwing themselves down mountains - but that doesn't mean that they reject all oversight.

Edited to add: and then of course you have the example of Parkrun - which isn't affiliated to any of the above, but can very happily co-exist within a supportive ecosystem of the other running stuff, because it is a/ non-competitive and b/ not-for-profit - so it is genuinely a great gateway into running which is likely to get people involved in the core affiliated/licensed stuff. It isn't trying to be a competitor to any other part that already exists.

 

[honetpot]

I think we might disagree more than you seem to think. The one thing I agree on is that the website is bad - although I am reassured by the various updates that I have read that it is being resolved in time.

On the rest - no. The ship has not sailed, the ship has to be slowly turned around, taken back into dock and repaired. A government/tax anology is this (a vaguely shortened version of what I have already posted on FB) -----


If you consider eventing as a sport in GB like being an ecosystem and world in its own right, the British Equestrian Federation is essentially the government of it. And other members of the BEF are constituent parts of the UK. Let's say that BE, Riding Club and Pony Club are their own devolved governments working within the larger ecosystem. Ultimately BE, RC and PC are all able to work together, do share the majority of legislation, but have some variance in specific areas like taxes. They do all however believe in the principle of taxes - everyone who can pays into the tax system in order to fund services. We may not always agree with the way that taxes are spent, but we can agree that they are needed to pay for things like healthcare, infrastructure and education. BE have therefore not applied any restrictions to events being run under RC or PC rules - these events are still paying ‘tax’ even if it is to a different devolved administration, at different rates. They have enough shared objectives in supporting equestrian sport, and are under the same UK (BEF) umbrella, that it makes sense to work in partnership.

Members of British Eventing essentially pay a tax to BE through membership and horse registration. Event organisers essentially pay a tax to BE through affiliation costs and through elements of entry fees. I’m not sure on the exact %. This is currently operating on a sliding scale, kind of like the real UK tax system, whereby those who take the most from the sport pay the most, and those who are under a threshold pay very little at all (and in fact, the new GoBE option has no element of the rider paying, and only a small element of the organiser paying in). All those ‘taxes’ end up with BE in order to do all of the essential but boring stuff that i've set out many times before. The stuff without which there would be no sport.

However, when an event wants to run a completely unaffiliated competition following on from an affiliated event, in order to make the event “economically viable”, we hit a problem. This is, to me, like a business saying that it will operate for 3 days under English tax regulation, paying corporation tax and charging VAT to customers, and then on the 2 subsequent days, it will stop paying corporation tax and won’t charge VAT to customers, despite selling a very similar product. A government can’t allow businesses to behave like that, because in the end, people will stop buying the product when it is taxed, and will switch to buying the product when it is untaxed - even if the product range isn’t quite as wide or quite as good as before (eg. no availability of novice+ events - because these weren't popular products anyway).

Of course, the event organisers say that the untaxed days are subsidising the taxed days - and perhaps they are in the short term - but it isn’t a *sustainable* solution to the economic viability problem, because it changes the customer behaviour into more and more only shopping on the untaxed days. And all of a sudden, people stop paying that tax, and over time, infrastructure crumbles and there's no ability re-invest.

A government doesn't let this happen, because you need to create a level playing field for the businesses operating in your country. A government could and should change the tax laws in order to help businesses in order to help sustain economic viability. But that doesn't mean that businesses can pick and choose when they follow those rules - because it changes customer behaviour in a way that is unsustainable for the government.

Now a bit of small scale tax evasion is probably unavoidable - and the argument has always been that by getting people hooked on the product you bring them into the wider compliant ecosystem. But when the availability of untaxed sport is at a scale where there's no longer any reason to pay tax at all - that's a problem.

When multi-event series were created in regional areas, these have essentially become self-governing tax havens. Now, there’s an entire tax-free haven of eventing in the Cotswolds - it’s a little bit cheaper to participate, and all of the money goes directly back into the local area only, the Cotswolds tax haven has better and better prize money, but as more people move to the Cotswolds and leave the rest of the country, the tax received by the wider government dwindles. The ability to invest in training, education, safety, safeguarding etc. etc. drops off - and the eventing ecosystem gets weaker and weaker. And then there’s an extra level to the chaos, because the tax haven isn’t actually democratic at all. They may bend to commercial pressures, they may not. They may choose what rules they do or do not follow - maybe they’ll set their own rules. How will those rules get shaped when there isn’t a democratic process for choosing who sets them? THe events may be 'well run', but there is no mechanism to shape them for the future, other than the organisers choosing to take whichever routes appeal to them - whether that's based on making £££ or just popularity.

-----

You've previously criticised me for placing the onus on competitors to do the right thing. And I totally get why that argument doesn't work. But where does that leave BE other than having to negotiate painfully with event organisers to shore up the structure.


Barbury could have run any number of eventing adjacent competitions to help subsidise the horse trials - arena eventing, PC or RC eventing, 2-phase eventing, hunter trials, 3-phase training days, schooling days - or indeed, running a GoBE class, but they have most actively chosen to be part of the tax haven infrastructure instead here.

But if you think of an event centre as a business, you are effectively restricting trade. Even tied pubs that are either owned by the brewery, or independently owned and tied for beer, they are allowed to sell food, and put on events to make the business work. The business pays it rent to the brewery and maintains the pub, as I see it BE, unless they have spent money on the course, wants to control landowners. Or what about a theatre, they put on a production, they either pay for the rights, and use their own company, or they pay for an established production, and they are responsible for the ticket sales, and can make money on the bar, and food.
Each business has its own insurance and H&S, and for larger event centres they probably make as much money on the sale of food and drink,than entry fees, on a good day. I used to sell food at horse events, and the pro market comes does their class and goes, the UA often comes as a 'family' group, stays all day and spends money.
I just do not see how BE can restrict landowners trade, the land its self is expensive enough. There are enough generic rules that eventually event centres will make their own, and run their own system, which may not be FEI, but their aim is to make money, not prop up some else's sport. I see training and education as completely separate, and I do not know for certain, but I would imagine BE gets grants from SE, and other sports pots, which even non riders pay for.

British Equestrian backs Sport England’s ‘Uniting the Movement’ strategy - News - British Equestrian

 

[RachelFerd]

But if you think of an event centre as a business, you are effectively restricting trade. Even tied pubs that are either owned by the brewery, or independently owned and tied for beer, they are allowed to sell food, and put on events to make the business work. The business pays it rent to the brewery and maintains the pub, as I see it BE, unless they have spent money on the course, wants to control landowners. Or what about a theatre, they put on a production, they either pay for the rights, and use their own company, or they pay for an established production, and they are responsible for the ticket sales, and can make money on the bar, and food.
Each business has its own insurance and H&S, and for larger event centres they probably make as much money on the sale of food and drink,than entry fees, on a good day. I used to sell food at horse events, and the pro market comes does their class and goes, the UA often comes as a 'family' group, stays all day and spends money.
I just do not see how BE can restrict landowners trade, the land its self is expensive enough. There are enough generic rules that eventually event centres will make their own, and run their own system, which may not be FEI, but their aim is to make money, not prop up some else's sport. I see training and education as completely separate, and I do not know for certain, but I would imagine BE gets grants from SE, and other sports pots, which even non riders pay for.

British Equestrian backs Sport England’s ‘Uniting the Movement’ strategy - News - British Equestrian

No - all they have done is make an amendment to the terms of the affiliation agreement for international fixtures, which means that events cannot also run a specific type of event and retain the right to run an international event under the terms of their affiliation agreement. The landowner can do whatever they want with their land - but they can't have both an international FEI supported fixture *and* an unaffiliated horse trial. There are lots of work-arounds and different options available to the landowners and organisers that have been outlined, but this is apparently the hill that they wish to die on. It might be worth considering that there is much more to this than has been publicised, by either side.

Also LOL if you think eventing rules are generic - I've been through that rule book cover to cover quite a lot of times, and there is still stuff I keep having to go back on for clarity. As it stands, the Cotswold Cup both claims that it is "running under Cotswold Cup rules" and that it is "mainly running under British Eventing rules". At no point does it specify which rules it is following and which it isn't - and how any kind of disagreement over a ruling gets worked out in that situation - well, good luck to both officials and competitors. And to everyone who says 'unaff competitiors are just there for a nice day out' - yeah, maybe some of them. But there's definitely a contingent of typically bloodthirsty competitors in amongst them, and they will fight it for the advertised £10k prize pot, I am sure. I mean, that's definitely not asking for the rules (or lack thereof) to be abused, is it?!....

 

[ycbm]

I see this narrative completely differently. Historically the BHS, then the BHTA, then BE did not allow any venues at all to use their courses for unaffiliated competition. There was none of this.

And they managed that restriction because BE was prestigious, you had to be able to jump 1.10 to do the lowest entry, and landowners were prepared to build courses just to have the prestige of a BE event and all the big names who came with it.

And the restriction didn't matter because there was UA hunter trials, XC and ODE all over the place and people only affiliated if they wanted to jump higher than 3ft 6.

A bunch of changes happened which allowed venues to run unaffiliated competition over their BE tracks. This was capitalised on by a number of event organisers who were directors of BE at the time - to me, that doesn't smell right.

The places running BE and UA now, we're largely running UA before BE begged then to give them venues to run 80/90/100 that the old style landowners weren't so interested in.

And yes - I can't think of much in the way of sport where you can take part competitively without being a member and/or using affiliated events of some kind.

I think there is a lot more being done by private sports clubs and than you realise. Many of the examples you give in your full text are either to do with insurance being cheaper by affiliating or organisation being easier with templates and advisors.

And there's the crucial point. BE took on the lower heights primarily to raise money, not for any of the reasons you are now giving as to why it should continue.

If BE wants to be successful, then they have to offer venues something they can't do just fine for themselves, and competitors something worth paying the extra money for.
.

 

[ycbm]

You are talking about Barbury like it has always had an unaffiliated competition that has traditionally support it. It hasn't. I actually competed at the first ever Barbury in 2005. From 2005 until (I think) 2020 the event only ran from Novice upwards. Things started changing after 2017 when the estate was sold. I believe 2020 was when they introduced a BE100 section, as one of the events to run post-lockdown. I think the unaffiliated only started in 2021. We are not talking about a situation in which an event has traditionally run an unaffiliated horse trials and been stopped after many years.

Who paid for the construction of the course? You keep writing as if BE in some way owns the courses but they didn't pay to build them, or did they? The ones I know which were never UA courses were built by landowners who loved the sport and the ability to wine and dine with the world's top riders.
.

 

[sakura]

If anything, this entire topic just shows me how far removed I am from eventing these days.

 

[ester]

And if there’s lots of workarounds doesn’t that then make the ‘ban’ defunct anyway?

 

[honetpot]

of their affiliation agreement. The landowner can do whatever they want with their land - but they can't have both an international FEI supported fixture *and* an unaffiliated horse trial

Do not think that is wrong in any way? Most large events are held as a mixed business model for landowners, mainly some sort of farming enterprise. Changes to farming subsidies mean it is going to be even harder to allocate land for something that is only used for a week a year, and make a profit from it. Might as well have a twenty acre field and have touring caravans all year round.
The BE events that are held on large estates, the land owners are often thinking about their rents from associated businesses, so they have other income streams, as well if there is wiggle room, charitable exclusions for tax, with country houses.
I will be honest I have no interest in elite riders, they get a lot of support from through the Lottery https://www.statista.com/statistics/518613/public-funding-for-olympic-equestrian/

 

[Dexter]

There are lots of work-arounds and different options available to the landowners and organisers that have been outlined, but this is apparently the hill that they wish to die on.

Surely you mean the hill BE wish to die on? Unaffiliated will be fine, its not looking like BE will be if it continues in its current direction.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I see this narrative completely differently.

Of course BE feel justified in taking the stance they are taking and are seeking to defend it. But, to be honest, it does not matter what your/BE's narrative is, because they to take need organisers, venues and competitors with them for their own survival. And I see no evidence of that. I don't think they are even making the argument effectively, let alone winning it. I would not have a clue what their position was, if you had not taken the time to express it. Their own statements are not remotely persuasive imo. And their position is riddled with inconsistencies. But time will tell....

 

[Squeak]

I think there is a lot more being done by private sports clubs and than you realise. Many of the examples you give in your full text are either to do with insurance being cheaper by affiliating or organisation being easier with templates and advisors.

And there's the crucial point. BE took on the lower heights primarily to raise money, not for any of the reasons you are now giving as to why it should continue.

If BE wants to be successful, then they have to offer venues something they can't do just fine for themselves, and competitors something worth paying the extra money for.
.

Also IME the affiliation fee for other organisations is £20 - £50 not hundreds!

 

[sakura]

Also IME the affiliation fee for other organisations is £20 - £50 not hundreds!

Yep! Affiliation with British Ice Skating is £63 per year.

 

[RachelFerd]

Of course BE feel justified in taking the stance they are taking and are seeking to defend it. But, to be honest, it does not matter what your/BE's narrative is, because they to take need organisers, venues and competitors with them for their own survival. And I see no evidence of that. I don't think they are even making the argument effectively, let alone winning it. I would not have a clue what their position was, if you had not taken the time to express it. Their own statements are not remotely persuasive imo. And their position is riddled with inconsistencies. But time will tell....

I'm not party to what any of the internal positions are here - I've no idea what is going on behind closed doors. I suspect it is quite a lot more than either of us imagine. But here are a couple of questions I'd like to know your answers to:

1. Do you think that the decisions which have led to a rise in commercial unaffiliated sport, taken by directors of BE who then started running unaffiliated competitions themselves, are totally sound?

2. What role do you think unaffiliated sport should be playing? If it is meant to be a pathway into affiliated participation, how would you ensure that it does that?

3.Does the SEEL (South East Eventing League) appeal to you as a means of giving structure and recognition to a local area eventing series? And if not, why does an unaffiliated series appeal more?

4. Under what rules should unaffiliated sport run?

5. If British Eventing was to fold, and a new national governing body had to form, in what way would you see them working differently?

6. Why would the original force behind the Cotswold Cup have stopped running their events as part of the series and moved them back under the affiliated banner?

7. Should a governing body have the right to try to shape the regional distribution and availability of events?

8. In an unregulated unaffiliated structure, does it concern you that unpopular rules that have been introduced for safety and welfare reasons could be removed or ignored in order to increase the number of entries?

9. Do you think an NGB has a duty of care just for sport taking place under affiliated agreements, or do they have a duty of care for the whole population of people training and participating in that sport?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Just another reminder that BE depends hugely on volunteers, many of whom have had very little training and may only be there under sufferance to enable a friend or family member to compete.

The 'no prior FJ experience needed as full training will be given at the pre event briefing' is just laughable. The training is at best very cursory, there just isn't the time. For the money, FJ's should be required to do one of the full training days first, not just rock up and learn on the day.

I once asked BE directly if I could be sent or find an on line link to the FJ rule book simply so that I could familiarise myself with it beforehand. You'd gave thought that I was asking for the moon, rather than trying to get back up to speed before FJing at up to Intermediate level . 'You'll get one on the day', they said.

 

[RachelFerd]

Just another reminder that BE depends hugely on volunteers, many of whom have had very little training and may only be there under sufferance to enable a friend or family member to compete.

The 'no prior FJ experience needed as full training will be given at the pre event briefing' is just laughable. The training is at best very cursory, there just isn't the time. For the money, FJ's should be required to do one of the full training days first, not just rock up and learn on the day.

I once asked BE directly if I could be sent or find an on line link to the FJ rule book simply so that I could familiarise myself with it beforehand. You'd gave thought that I was asking for the moon, rather than trying to get back up to speed before FJing at up to Intermediate level . 'You'll get one on the day', they said.

Yeah, that's a really poor response to a very valid question. I totally agree full training days would be good as a requirement, but the volume of volunteers required all the time makes that tricky in the short term. I'm surprised no-one has created an online resource for FJ training - it would be so easy to share a webinar recording and bit of an online self-test quiz with would-be volunteers who couldn't attend something in person, or who volunteered at last minute.

ETA: a quick youtube search shows that there is a 37 minute webinar for the FJ Briefing 2022 - so that exists. Even better if repeated regularly live with the opportunity to ask questions though. And in-person (saw Kelsall had a BE volunteers training day recently, so I guess those are happening, if people have the free time, energy and inclination to get to them)

 

[Squeak]

Having just received an email from Horse Events with their events on it's very interesting to see Burghley on there with a PC ODE. I'm not in that area - have they always done this? Just interesting to see such a high profile venue running an UA but also an example of where they've got around the BE legislation by doing it as a PC event.

 

[shortstuff99]

Having just received an email from Horse Events with their events on it's very interesting to see Burghley on there with a PC ODE. I'm not in that area - have they always done this? Just interesting to see such a high profile venue running an UA but also an example of where they've got around the BE legislation by doing it as a PC event.

Yes that event has run for years, they also do a hunter trial.

 

[RachelFerd]

Having just received an email from Horse Events with their events on it's very interesting to see Burghley on there with a PC ODE. I'm not in that area - have they always done this? Just interesting to see such a high profile venue running an UA but also an example of where they've got around the BE legislation by doing it as a PC event.

It has been a PC event for many years. It doesn't run around the same ground within the park either, bar the leaf pit area where they would come close to the same ground. They haven't had to get around any legislation, because it has always been run by the Pony Club (and is therefore not truly unaffiliated).