Posts Tagged ‘Breeders’ Cup board of directors’

By Ray Paulick
Nominators to the Breeders’ Cup program and the Members and Trustees they elected in June have spoken loudly and clearly, and the 13-person board of Directors has five new members from the six positions that were voted on last week. Only one of six incumbents up for re-election managed to retain his position on the board of Directors. That’s a pretty strong statement from the nominators and the 48 Members and Trustees who select the board of Directors.

There may be distinct differences in the two factions that have sought control of the Breeders’ Cup, in areas like governance, transparency and accountability to the stakeholders. There may even be differences in defining who Breeders’ Cup stakeholders or customers are.

But the election cycle is over until June 2010, and whatever differences existed between the two camps—within both the board of Members and Trustees and the smaller operating board of Directors–should be set aside for now, so that the important work on the long-term strategic plan can be done in a collaborative and cooperative manner.

The plan, presented to the Members and Trustees last Thursday, is in itself an example of what can be accomplished if individuals, who may have differences of opinion in many areas, focus instead on what they have in common: namely, a desire to support breeders by promoting the growth of the Thoroughbred racing industry through the staging of the Breeders’ Cup competition. That, in fact, is the new mission statement of the Breeders’ Cup, and I, for one, am glad to see the organization look beyond its late-season championship event.

It’s not enough for the Breeders’ Cup to have a successful day (or two) of racing. Given the ineffectiveness of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and other organizations like the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Thoroughbred Racing Associations, or the Jockey Club, the Breeders’ Cup may be the only entity that has the critical mass to better organize and promote the sport on a national basis.

Though the 400-page strategic plan has not been released and author William Field of the international consulting firm Value Partners said it is a broad strategy that does not include tactical details, it was revealed that one of the keys to this plan will be to strengthen the road to the championships. This is something that’s been tried before without any measurable success.

Satish Sanan, who deserves a great deal of credit for the cat herding he did as chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee, said racetracks have to be looked upon as partners for a racing series to be effective. “In any business, if you are going to be successful and form long-term relationships, the word partnership means you must be willing to share long-term risks and rewards,” Sanan said in a conference call with Breeders’ Cup nominators and the racing media on Friday. “Your goals really have to be aligned…I think all of the conflicts you hear about really will go away, particularly if it is an all-encompassing partnership. There is a big strategic difference in how we have done it and how we plan to do it in the future.”

That may be easier said than done, which is why it is so important for the Breeders’ Cup board of Directors to support its management team as it attempts to connect the dots the strategic plan has laid out for them. Putting together a financial and implementation plan that includes long-term partnerships with the tracks is on the shoulders of Breeders’ Cup president Greg Avioli and the other Breeders’ Cup executives. Considerations for the plan include what to do with the millions of dollars currently being used to supplement stakes around the country, whether to turn the Breeders’ Cup championships back to a one-day event, to reduce the number of races, or to cut purses. Those are big questions, and they have until December to answer them and finalize a detailed, tactical plan.

There will be time down the road to discuss the issues that divide some of the Members and Trustees and individuals on the board of Directors: election procedures and eligibility, transparency and bylaws. However, the priority between now and the end of the year has to be on turning the strategic plan into something tangible that can help the Breeders’ Cup, racetracks and the sport as a whole.

It’s crunch time.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

By Ray Paulick
Some people have asked me why I think it is so important for there to be a change in leadership, starting with the 13-member board of Directors, at the Breeders’ Cup. There currently are six board seats up for election, with electronic voting currently taking place from July 1-8 among the 48-person board of Members and Trustees (along with two ex-presidents and two current officers of the organization). The Members and Trustees hold their annual meeting on July 9, where the electronic votes and those cast in person will be tabulated. Ten individuals are running for the six seats, and there is marked difference in their philosophies.There are numerous reasons for there to be a change, not the least of which is that it is simply time for someone else to run the organization. The Breeders’ Cup for too long has been in the clutches of a handful of people who have run it, for better or worse, as a private club.

But it’s much more than that. Some of the recent decisions made by management and approved by the 13-member board of Directors have been roundly criticized, and deservedly so. Among them are the decision to hold back-to-back Breeders’ Cups at Santa Anita on a synthetic main track that many horsemen dislike; the ticket-pricing mistake at the 2008 Breeders’ Cup; the short-lived decision to suspend the Breeders’ Cup stakes supplement program; and the oddly configured and regionally uneven structure of the “Win and You’re In” qualifying races.

Let’s look at “Win and You’re In” first. Daily Racing Form publisher Steven Crist, in calling the series “illogical and imbalanced,” pointed out what appears to be a significant anti-New York bias. In an interview with Breeders’ Cup marketing executive Peter Land, Crist gave Land just enough rope to hang himself with his explanation. Land, Crist wrote, said Saratoga was left out of the “Win and You’re In” series because the Breeders’ Cup decided to “invest in the fall rather than the summer.” But that didn’t explain why Del Mar, whose meet overlaps Saratoga’s, had eight stakes labeled “Win and You’re In” while Saratoga had zero.

As Crist wrote, “When the industry’s leaders wonder why racing often is not considered a big-league professional sport, they need look no farther than the patently unfair and incomplete ‘Win and You’re In’ schedule to see why.”

In addition, there is bad blood between executives of the Breeders’ Cup and the New York Racing Association, and because of that some thought has been given to excluding Belmont Park as a future host site of the championships. It last served as host in 2005.There’s no place for this kind of pettiness in a sport that is struggling, and for the Breeders’ Cup board to allow this feud to continue is inexcusable.

By Ray Paulick

(UPDATED JUNE 3 TO REFLECT A CHANGE IN RECOMMENDATION FOR GEORGE ISAACS)

The 25 candidates running for election to the Breeders’ Cup board of Members and Trustees may have different backgrounds, income levels and positions within the Thoroughbred industry, but I think they all share a common thread: a desire to help the Breeders’ Cup grow. All are to be commended for their interest in helping achieve that goal, even if their philosophies do not follow the same path.

There are, however, only 13 positions for these 25 individuals on the board of Members and Trustees, whose principal role within the Breeders’ Cup organization is to elect the 13 members of the board of Directors at an annual meeting, scheduled this year for July 9. The smaller board of Directors makes all major decisions regarding the operations and governance of the Breeders’ Cup and elects a chairman and vice chairman each year. 

So who nominators elect to the board of Members and Trustees is critical in shaping the smaller, operating board of Directors. The six individuals whose two-year terms on the board of Directors expire in July of this year are: Reynolds Bell, Donald Dizney, Tracy Farmer, Don Robinson (who served out the remainder of B. Wayne Hughes’ term after Hughes’ resignation), G. Watts Humphrey Jr., and Robert T. Manfuso. Only elected Members and Trustees may run for the smaller board of Directors.

Fifteen of those running for the board of Members and Trustees submitted answers to questions from the Paulick Report or statements about their candidacy (click here to see their responses in an easy-to-read or print PDF document). Biographies of all the candidates can be viewed here at the Breeders’ Cup election web site.

I have covered the Thoroughbred industry for nearly 30 years and have seen a number of these candidates in board-room settings, talked with others about issues of interest to the Breeders’ Cup and Thoroughbred racing and breeding in general, and consider many of them friends. Some are or have been advertisers of this web site. In making the following comments and voting recommendations to nominators, I have done my best to remain objective in rating the various candidates without regard to friendships or business relationships.

Here is my summary of each candidate, along with a voting recommendation:

JOHN AMERMAN: Skilled businessman who as retired chairman and CEO of Mattel certainly understands consumer products and traditional marketing. I’ve not seen great leadership or fresh ideas spring from Amerman in his various industry roles and cannot recommend a vote for him on the board of Members and Trustees.

NADIA SANAN BRIGGS: Daughter of the outspoken but highly successful businessman Satish Sanan, who has played a major role in the Breeders’ Cup as chairman of the Strategic Planning Committee. Briggs has her own independent streak and would bring a fresh, young perspective to the board. She is bright, totally committed to the industry, and would make an outstanding member of the board of Members and Trustees. Recommend for election.

JACK BROTHERS: Has played a major if understated role in the success of Frank Stronach’s Adena Springs breeding and racing operation after virtually growing up in the horse business. Doesn’t claim to have all the answers for resolving the challenges at the Breeders’ Cup, but I doubt there would be a more fair-minded or harder-working individual on the board of Members and Trustees. Recommend for election.

BILL CASNER: Few people in the industry have shown the courage to stand up to the failed, old-guard industry leadership like Bill Casner has. He understands racing from the standpoint of the blue-collar horseman and now plays the game at the highest level while not forgetting his humble beginnings. Recommend for election.

CASE CLAY: One of the up-and-coming “next generation” industry leaders, Clay is the son of Three Chimneys Farm owner Robert Clay but was not heavily involved in the farm’s operation or the industry until the last five to seven years. I do have concerns that as one of three candidates with close ties to Three Chimneys (see below), there may be an effort to “stack the deck” for a future agenda, and for that reason cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees at this time.

LINCOLN COLLINS: One of three individuals (along with Case Clay and Tracy Farmer) closely allied with Three Chimneys Farm. Collins has a good reputation for honesty and integrity in his Kern Thoroughbreds bloodstock agency, though seems light on service and industry experience. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

DONALD R. DIZNEY: A member of both the board of Members and Trustees and the smaller Breeders’ Cup board of Directors, Dizney has done little to distinguish himself as more than a rubber-stamp voter for the status quo. There have been suggestions among some at the Breeders’ Cup that Dizney has not been as engaged through his board or committee attendance as others, but a request for attendance records of board meetings from Breeders’ Cup secretary Jim Philpott was ignored. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

TRACY FARMER: Politically powerful in Kentucky through his work and fund-raising with the Democratic Party, Farmer has been a close ally of Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear and was appointed to the Kentucky Racing Commission, on which he serves as vice chairman. Farmer serves on both the board of Members and Trustees and Breeders’ Cup board of Directors, where sources say he has not distinguished himself as an independent voice. The Paulick Report requested minutes of Breeders’ Cup board meetings to analyze the involvement of each board member, but secretary Jim Philpott denied the request. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

H. GREG GOODMAN: Houston native has been a partner with Lane’s End Farm’s Will Farish, which doesn’t necessarily suggest he will be a “yes” vote for a potential Farish-orchestrated board of Directors slate. However, his non-response to the Paulick Report questionnaire and his vague personal statement on the Breeders’ Cup voting web site does not build confidence in his independence. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

GEORGE ISAACS:(UPDATED JUNE 3, FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF RESPONSE TO PAULICK REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE) Veteran horseman is well respected throughout the industry for his work as general manager at Bridlewood Farm in Florida. Relatively new to national industry organizations, but in his responses to the Paulick Report questionnaire demonstrated a commitment to adding value to Breeders’ Cup nominations and increasing accountability and transparency within the organization. i believe it is also important to have representation among Florida breeders. Recommend for election.

TOM LUDT: One of the most independent-minded, cut-to-the-chase people I’ve seen in this industry in recent years. Has distinguished himself on the Kentucky Racing Commission, having been appointed by both a Republican and Democratic governor (and without being a major financial contributor to either of their campaigns), on committees at the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and Breeders’ Cup board of Directors. Recommend for election.

REILEY McDONALD: Has many years of experience in the auction arena, most prominently as co-owner of Eaton Sales. Has not been as involved in industry leadership positions as I would like to see for someone with his knowledge and insight, though it is encouraging to see him step up at this critical time. However, I cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

MICHAEL McMAHON: One of the individuals running who is completely invested in the Thoroughbred industry and its future, McMahon may lack in national industry organizational experience but more than makes up for it in passion. My instinct is he will add a truly independent voice who takes his responsibilities seriously. In his reply to the Paulick Report questionnaire, McMahon repeatedly spoke of the importance of increasing participation at the grass-roots level among breeders, by adding value to the program for nominators. Recommend for election.

CLEM MURPHY: Coolmore principals and associates are often guarded in what they say to the media, but I’ve found Murphy to be accessible and a source of innovative thinking when it comes to both the Breeders’ Cup and the racing industry. Recommend for election.

OGDEN MILLS PHIPPS: The phrase “lead, follow, or get out of the way” comes to mind. The Jockey Club chairman has had his opportunities to lead (New York Racing Association declined during his years of power), has not shown much interest in following, and that leaves one alternative. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

DAN PRIDE: Believes in accountability and transparency, and has brought fresh ideas and enthusiasm to Fasig-Tipton since joining the auction company from Darley. Pride does a good job representing a younger generation of leaders that have real-world experience. Recommend for election.

ANDRE REGARD: For a relatively young man, Regard has a broad base of knowledge, and I think there is little doubt that he will be a growing influence in future years as he gains experience in the industry and its various organizations. One to keep an eye out for in the future, but at this time cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

RICHARD SANTULLI: An enormously successful businessman, Santulli is a no-nonsense kind of guy who brings independence, integrity and a serious commitment to the Breeders’ Cup because of his passion for the Thoroughbred game,first as a fan and horseplayer and later as an owner and breeder. Last year’s effort by the old guard to keep Santulli off the smaller board of Directors represented a low point in the history of the Breeders’ Cup. Recommend for election.

JOSEPH V. SHIELDS JR. Has served on the board of Members and Trustees and board of Directors, but has not publicly articulated a clear vision for how the Breeders’ Cup can grow. Closely associated with old-guard Members and Trustees who have lacked innovation. Cannot recommend a vote for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

JOHN SIKURA: Fiercely independent and driven to build his own business, Sikura has a vision to grow the Breeders’ Cup to become an even more important world championship by incorporating horses from different parts of the globe. He is one of those “all in” horsemen who do not look at the Thoroughbred industry as a part-time hobby but as a full-time commitment of his time and financial resources, and his personal success is tied to the growth of events like the Breeders’ Cup. Recommend for election.

OLIVER TAIT: Represents Darley USA, one of the most important contributors to the Breeders’ Cup in terms of nominations and participation in the world championships. Tait may not be a household name in the U.S. at this stage of his career, but he has accumulated extensive international experience in Europe and Australia. Recommend for election.

DUNCAN TAYLOR: Listening to your customers seems like a logical approach to any business, but I don’t think that has been a strong suit of the Breeders’ Cup board of Directors or management in the past. Taylor Made has developed into the industry’s leading sales agency because of its customer-centric approach, an approach that can only help the Breeders’ Cup. Recommend for election.

ROBERT TRUSSELL JR.: Was a member of the Gainesway Farm team when John Gaines created the Breeders’ Cup in the early 1980s, so he has a great depth of knowledge and history of the organization. However, it is difficult to grasp where he stands on issues of importance given his lack of response to the Paulick Report questionnaire and the absence of a personal statement accompanying his biography on the Breeders’ Cup election web site. (In the original version of this article, I reported the Breeders’ Cup web site did not include a biography of Trussell; that has since been added here.) Cannot recommend a vote at this time for election to the board of Members and Trustees.

ROB WHITELEY: If you are in favor of maintaining the status quo, Whiteley is not your candidate. He was an outspoken critic of the decision last December to suspend the stakes supplement program, and I believe his leadership on that issue led to a quick reversal by the board of Directors. Strongly believes in accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility. Recommend for election.

JACK WOLF: Knowledgeable about the importance of the Breeders’ Cup in the industry and bullish on the role the organization can play to increase the popularity of the sport, something it has not yet been able to do. Refreshingly candid, independent and with outstanding credentials both in racing and in the outside business world. Recommend for election.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

By Ray Paulick
The Breeders’ Cup has begun to let the sun shine on the annual election process that determines who ultimately sits on the organization’s board of directors. For the first time this year, the Breeders’ Cup has decided to publish a roster of eligible voters and their available number of votes; complete results of its elections, with vote counts for winners and losers; it is requiring candidates for the board of directors be declared prior to the annual meeting, with no nominations to be accepted from the floor; has established on-line voting for both the members and trustees election and for the board of directors; and its officers have agreed to abstain from voting in the board of directors election.

The process began on Monday, May 4, when stallion and foal nominators could begin nominating candidates to run for 13 openings on the 48-person Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees. By now, nominators should have received a letter from the Breeders’ Cup with a customer login and passcode to access a secure voting website that will be open for one week until May 11. Individuals must receive a minimum of 50 votes to be nominated (one vote is assigned for each foal nominated to the Breeders’ Cup and one vote for each $500 in stud fees for nominated stallions). There are 39 elected positions on the board of members and trustees, each with three-year terms, and 13 positions are up for election every year. The other individuals on the board of members and trustees are founding members of the Breeders’ Cup, past presidents and corporate officers.

When nominators go to the voting site, they should have access to a complete list of nominators and the total votes each nominator is eligible to cast. The disclosure of the nominators and number of votes is new to this year’s election.

The next step (from May 12-15), following the closing of nominations, is tabulation of the list of nominees. Individuals that received the required 50 votes are sent a consent form and will be requested to provide a short biography and suitable photo.

On May 18, True Ballot, a company that specializes in elections for labor unions, professional organizations, etc., mails nominators a letter with customer login and password information for secure online election voting. Nominators may request a paper ballot if they prefer.

Voting for the members and trustees election is open from June 1-15 among all nominators to the Breeders’ Cup program.

Following are the 13 members and trustees whose terms are expiring this year: John Amerman, Boyd Browning, Alice Chandler, Donald Dizney, Tracy Farmer, Tom Ludt, Clem Murphy, B. Wayne Hughes, Ogden Mills Phipps, Dan Pride, Richard Santulli, John Sikura, and Frank Stronach. These members and trustees whose terms are expiring are automatically re-nominated unless they opt out of the election.

On June 22, True Ballot will report the results of the members and trustees election and Breeders’ Cup will publish the results. Those results won’t be made official, however, until the annual meeting of members and trustees is held on July 9, and the candidates with the most votes are put up for election by the existing members and trustees. Prior to the vote at the annual meeting, according to section 4.2 of the Breeders’ Cup bylaws, nominations from the floor can also be made by members and trustees.

All members and trustees wishing to be candidates for two-year terms on the smaller board of directors have until 5 p.m. on June 30 to submit their names to Jim Philpott, the Breeders’ Cup corporate secretary. While the election for those open board positions (there are six this year) is conducted during the July 9 annual meeting of members and trustees, individuals unable to attend may vote through the election web site or via proxy, provided the member holding the proxy reveal the identity of each proxy he or she has received at the annual meeting. Each member is entitled to vote for up to six candidates.

The six board members whose two-year terms expire in July are: Reynolds Bell, Don Dizney, Tracy Farmer, Don Robinson (who is serving the remainder of the term of B. Wayne Hughes, who resigned from the board in January), G. Watts Humphrey, and Robert Manfuso. There are 13 elected board members, plus Breeders’ Cup president/CEO Greg Avioli.

Breeders’ Cup will publish the results of the board election, including votes, at the conclusion of the July 9 meeting.

Officers are elected at a subsequent meeting of the newly elected board of directors. According to Breeders’ Cup bylaws, no individual may serve more than five consecutive years as chairman or vice chairman of the board. Bill Farish of Lane’s End Farm is in his third year as chairman.

In a memo to the Breeders’ Cup members and trustees, Farish outlined the changes to this year’s election (publication of vote totals by nominator, full election results, on-line voting for both elections, proxy procedures, and officers electing to abstain in board of director election). “These changes to the election procedures are intended to provide full transparency to all nominators and ensure confidence in the election process,” Farish said in the memo.

The changes were requested by members and trustees who felt previous elections lacked sufficient transparency.

Additional changes have been requested, including amendments to the bylaws that would eliminate voting in the election for the board of directors by current officers (they have voluntarily abstained from the upcoming election); voting in the board of election by past presidents (James E. Bassett III and D.G. Van Clief Jr.); and voting in the board of election by founding members of the Breeders’ Cup, some of whom are no longer active in the Thoroughbred industry.

I’ll have my own thoughts on the Breeders’ Cup election process in a follow-up commentary tomorrow.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

 

By Ray Paulick
Satish Sanan has never been afraid to speak his mind, whether he’s at a Thoroughbred auction, the racetrack or a corporate boardroom. Still a relative newcomer to this industry (he and wife Anne bought their first yearlings at Keeneland in 1997 for his family’s Padua Stables), Sanan has been a proponent of greater transparency and disclosure in many facets of racing and breeding.

A native of India who was educated in England and is now a U.S. citizen and successful businessman, Sanan was first asked to join the Breeders’ Cup board in 2003. He was elected to the 13-member board of directors when the organization restructured its governance in January 2006. “I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to the Breeders’ Cup,” Sanan told the Paulick Report, “but I’ve seen a lot of progress lately.”

If there is progress in the future, Sanan might deserve a large share of the credit. He is head of a strategic planning committee that’s hired a world-class consulting firm to examine virtually every aspect of the Breeders’ Cup and present a strategic plan to the board of directors in July. The committee was his idea, after he criticized the organization for not having a five- or 10-year strategic plan, instead operating tactically on a year-to-year basis and making decisions on what Sanan called “knee jerk reactions” to events.

But while Sanan has been critical of some aspects of the Breeders’ Cup, he strenuously objected to the tone and content of an editorial written by owner-breeder Peter Blum that appeared in the Thoroughbred Times of Jan. 10, 2009, and was referenced here in the Paulick Report. Sanan wrote a rebuttal to Blum that was published in the Jan. 24 edition of the Thoroughbred Times, citing a series of changes and improvements to the Breeders’ Cup since the new board was elected three years ago. (Neither Thoroughbred Times commentary is available online.)

“I felt the (Blum) article was all negative and non-factual,” Sanan told the Paulick Report. “He is objecting to a number of things, but doesn’t back it up with anything, and I tried to go through it step by step and back it up with a lot of data.”

Sanan said there are some who will criticize “whatever the Breeders’ Cup board and its management do. The perception is that it’s still the ‘old guard,’” he added, “that (board chairman) Bill Farish runs it and his dad (William S. Farish of Lane’s End) tells him what to do. But the reality is a lot of people on that board are pretty damned vocal and will say what they want to say. From operations to communications to financial management to the whole structure, I tell you it is so much better than it was five years ago.”

The younger Farish and chief executive officer Greg Avioli worked closely with Sanan in the early stages of the strategic planning process, beginning in August and September. “We asked for volunteers (among the 48 individuals on the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees) and got a very positive response, with more than 15 committee members,” Sanan said.

During a personal trip to London, Sanan scheduled an appointment with Spectrum Value Partners, a global consulting firm that was referred to him by Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the National Football League and majority owner of the English Premier League football giant Manchester United. Spectrum Value Partners offers strategic advice to a number of telecom and media clients worldwide, and also has a roster of sports clients, including several teams in the English Premier League. They also have had some horse racing clients, according to Sanan, including At the Races television, the Melbourne Cup and Victoria Cup. Click here to learn more about some of the sports consulting done by Spectrum Value Partners.

“We needed a firm that can take a 500,000-mile view and help us put together a five-year plan,” Sanan said. “The Breeders’ Cup needs to put a plan in place, like NASCAR did 10 years ago, something that says, ‘Here is where we want to be in five years, or 10 years.’

“They did a terrific presentation to the board, and the process has started,” Sanan said.

The first step was development of a lengthy questionnaire distributed to the 48 Breeders’ Cup members and trustees. The nearly 70 questions cover considerable ground, including sections on governance, nominations, perceptions about the Breeders’ Cup, comparisons with other sporting events, international issues, external challenges, and expectations about the future. The consulting team from Spectrum Value Partners, led by partner William Field and assisted by Janice Hughes, Richard Mooney and Sam Evans, will then conduct one-on-one interviews with roughly 50 major industry stakeholders from around the world. It will also gather information from racetracks and horseplayers, Sanan said.

In the midst of this, a two-day retreat for the strategic planning committee will be held in South Florida in February.

“One of the things I’ve been critical of is that we rely on one-day of revenue (now two days) with the championship races and on stallion and foal nominations,” Sanan said. “Breeders’ Cup needs to find alternative forms of revenue and not be dependent on foal nominations from breeders, but to somehow do more for breeders. Should we consider multiple cities for the event, like the World Cup does in soccer? We are in the baking stage, but I believe something good is going to come out of this.

“Whether or not it will be implemented remains to be seen.”

Putting together strategic plans is something Sanan has done in all of his businesses. “If you can put together a five-year plan and execute it, it’s very helpful,” he said. “You may have to adapt the plan each year, tweak it a little because of external events, but we’ve always executed these plans in my businesses. For some reason, a lot of people don’t do it in this (the Thoroughbred) industry.

“There is a big difference between running a business and building a business,” he added. “It’s in building and growing and transforming that you learn a great deal. The Breeders’ Cup is a great entity with a good brand name. We should be able to generate a couple hundred million dollars worth of revenue. This can be transformed into a huge, international, highly successful organization. Whether we can get there or not, I don’t know. But as part of the process, I’m going to give it a go.”

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

By Ray Paulick
If the Breeders’ Cup board of directors and management thought the decision last month to reinstate the stakes supplement program in 2009 (less than a week after voting to suspend it) was going to quiet any dissenting voices, they were wrong. A scathing commentary on the Breeders’ Cup, written by longtime owner and breeder Peter Blum and appearing in the Jan. 10, 2009, edition of the Thoroughbred Times, states publicly what a number of nominators to the program have been saying privately for some time: the Breeders’ Cup has lost its way.

Blum’s commentary is a must read. If you’re not a subscriber to the Thoroughbred Times (the article, unfortunately, is not available online), do yourself a favor and beg, borrow or steal a copy of the Jan. 10 issue.

Blum insists the Breeders’ Cup will not be living up to its mission if the board eliminates the stakes supplements after 2009, as many fear will happen. Board chairman Bill Farish said the reinstatement applied only to 2009. Blum suggests some of the Breeders’ Cup leaders “mirror the problems that characterize virtually all of our industry’s leadership; they are uncreative, self-serving, arrogant, out of touch, and not mindful of their constituents.”

He also questions the investment strategy for the organization’s cash reserves, saying the “mismanagement of our money amounts to a serious breach of trust and a failure of fiduciary responsibility.” Blum said he is appalled by compensation packages for and lack of accountability by top management, and believes voting for board of director seats is “skewed.”

His conclusion is a call to action by others who have similar feelings: “We have lost the Breeders’ Cup as it was defined in its original mission statement,” Blum wrote. “It is time for breeders to take it back.”

Blum’s plea should serve as a reminder for breeders throughout the country not to give up on the program and continue to nominate their stallions and foals. The financial backbone of the nominations remains in Kentucky, but every single stallion or foal nominator is a stakeholder in the program who has the opportunity to vote in the annual election of members and trustees. Those members and trustees decide who sits on the Breeders’ Cup board, so the elections are critically important. As citizens of Florida in 2000 and Minnesota in 2008 learned, every vote matters.

It will be interesting to see how the Breeders’ Cup reacts to Blum’s commentary. Will board chairman Farish and CEO Greg Avioli chant a “this too shall pass” mantra and instead focus on a behind-the-scenes strategy to ensure the balance of power on the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees remains in their favor when 13 of them are elected later this year? Will they use a vehicle like Bloodhorse magazine, on whose board Farish sits, to respond to Blum’s criticism?

The Breeders’ Cup is not just feeling heat from breeders. There is more than a little sentiment throughout the industry that the expansion of the former one-day, eight-race program to a two-day, 14-race event has diluted the championships among American fans (while, admittedly, increasing interest for European horsemen). Additionally, many racing fans were vocal in their disapproval of the Breeders’ Cup moving all of the filly and mare races to the Friday program in 2008.

The Oak Tree Racing Association, which opted to guarantee $5 million in revenue to the Breeders’ Cup for hosting the 2008 championships at Santa Anita Park, reportedly fell more than $2 million short because of weak ticket sales and lower than anticipated on-track handle. I imagine Oak Tree officials aren’t thrilled with that deal right now. The two sides have been busy working on a settlement that will not jeopardize the Cup’s scheduled return to Santa Anita in 2009.

The growing criticism of the Breeders’ Cup is no small matter. By many accounts, its creation more than 25 years ago was one of the most positive developments the sport has ever seen. No one – including breeders, owners, jockeys, trainers, racetrack companies and racing fans – wants this enormous industry asset to be lost in a maze created through poor leadership.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.