Home » Racing & Sport » RA AGM – What Happened

RA AGM – What Happened

Read the minutes and a presentation on the stakes pot

RA LogoThe Racing Association held their 21st Annual General Meeting on Monday 10 February 2020 at Kenilworth Racecourse with a link to Turffontein Racecourse.

The minutes, as well as a presentation by Charles Savage on the R53 million stakes pot shortfall, are contained in the document,

Interesting observations include Mike de Kock’s statement that he had been surprised upon being elected to the RA Board that sponsors’ money does not go to the stakes but rather to PGL’s bottom line. He said that the race operators were generating income from the racing product and he had suggested that the RA should be asking for a 50-50 split whereas at present, the scenario is 30-70 to Phumelela’s benefit.

Please click here to read more

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages everyone to feel free to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that The Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their real and verified names, you can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the Editor. The Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

The views of any individuals that are published are NOT necessarily the views of The Sporting Post.

37 comments on “RA AGM – What Happened

  1. Y T says:

    I nominate Mister Roderick Matheyse to sit on the next Racing Association board.
    Anyone who is able to outplay me, deserves to represent owners and do good for them. This is a serious and no nonsense message. The Racing Association is the same as Phumelela, it is run by folks who are good orators yet they have no clue how to fix the problems.


    Oh my goodness…

  3. Pops says:

    So Ken Truter will accept Hollywoodbets money but does not think they are good enough to sit at the same table as he.
    Remember it was Phumelela that did not want Hollywoodbets to sponsor races in Phumelela country.
    And if Hollywoodbets does decide to sponsor races in Phumelela country ,70% of their money would be going to rival bookmakers bottom line.
    Hollywoodbets, stay away.

  4. George says:

    The only statement worth repeating is deeply buried in the last part of these minutes. Mr Soma remembered for the rest of the RA that the punter was the source of funds. The RA should heed his comment.

  5. jai says:

    pops hollywoods idea is to take over racing but the golden question is can they sustain the game for ever ????????? NO this has become just like politics they are a new party on the scene.

  6. Pops says:

    jai,maybe it is time for a new party to step in.After all the old party promised that they were the only ones who could run South African horse racing successfully.They would take racing to dizzy heights.Promised increase year on year of stake monies. Make South African racing on par with world class racing.(Ngong racing?)
    Seems like the old party wants to take everyone down with them.

  7. Michael Jacobs says:

    Hollywood Bets has got the right idea, and are on the right track to revive racing in SA, and we should give them our full support. They started a punters competition today, and it looks like it could be a winner. Punters can get involved at no cost, so it will keep people interested, and it can grow to the next level.

    One has to ask though what has Phumelela and Kenilworth Racing done for the punters? Gold Circle together with Hollywood have run a few innovations including the Sizzling Summer Challenge, during the KZN off-season, yet Kenilworth Racing couldn’t do anything in their recently concluded PEAK season?! Bar 4 big racedays, Kenilwotth racecourse was a ghost town for most of the sumner season, a soulless dead beat atmosphere on course. Cape Town is flooded with British visitors in Summer, who love their racing, yet nothing was done to attract them to the racecourse! The 7 horse fields also didn’t help. If KZN could innovate during their off-season, why couldn’t Kenilworth Racing do the same in their peak season?

    I think Betting World and Phumelela should be booted out of the Western Cape, and Gold Circle and Hollywood should take over Cape Racing again.

    As a poster stated above, right at the end of the meeting, almost as an afterthought, someone realised that the punters should be acknowledged and considered as a contributor to the sustainability of racing. Wow, the main source of income got a mention in the meeting! Progress!

  8. D. A. Pienaar says:

    When I read the excerpt
    underneath, I felt cold.

    I have never read such an unashamed public intention to get involved in state capture.

    ‘Mr Mahalangu enquired whether the RA had a relationship with government ministers. In response, Mr Smith said we
    were aware of the need to develop such relationship and to this end, we had invited John Lamola and Mapula
    Sambo to participate in the Board structures.’

    Politics and Sport do not mix.

    The RA is a Not for Profit Company.

    There is no need for the RA to get involved in politics and there is no need for politicians to get involved in the RA and its business.

  9. jai says:

    you quite right pops but not a gambling institution its conflict of interest not fear to punters .they cant be sponsoring jockeys trainer ect .
    one must note if theres money on a horse its easy for them to tell the trainer / jockey pull it up .
    trainers and jockeys are currently desperate for cash .and thats the point im trying to get to.

  10. Joe Soma says:

    Michael Jacobs- Once again, you are so off the mark. Throughout my years in the industry, I have always tried to help and guide the punter. It certainly wasn’t, and I have never treated the punter as an AFTER THOUGHT. I merely waited, with baited breath, to see if anyone else would bring up the most obvious and important contributor to the game.

    One thing I can state categorically is that it would be a blessing for Phumelela to get rid of Western Cape Racing who run at great loss each year. This certainly would be welcomed by us “up country” as hopefully it could go back into our stakes pot!

    Happy punting!!

  11. Garrick Bergh says:

    I always get confused when the operator and its stepchildren start quoting figures whilst crying into their pretzels. When first they ‘lost’ the 3% ‘kickback’ they were quoting a figure of R75 million. Now its apparently only R53 million. Quite a large difference.
    Then when they started making equally tear stained claims about industry jobs at risk (as if they cared!) a figure of about 140,000 started doing the rounds. I notice that this has recently been ‘adjusted’ to about 45,000.
    It actually gets quite difficult to trust anything they say. Except when they announce they are about to institute litigation for the umpteenth time.

  12. Gordy says:

    AGM minutes
    Mr Wainstein explained that a date had been set for the RA’s annual general meeting in December 2019.Unfortunately, Phumelela had delayed the announcement of their results and the RA need to hold their annualgeneral meeting after the PGL meeting in order that the RA would be in a position to announce the stakes. The
    Chairman called for a proposer and a seconder.

    AGM diss
    Not one member asked any questions why the RA had to wait for the PGL AGM to place before it held it’s own AGM.
    The RA and PGL are separate unrelated companies with different objectives.
    The AGM’s for the RA and PGL related to the period 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2019.
    There is no legal reason why the RA had to wait for the PGL AGM to take place.
    Whoever was present at the AGM should hang their heads in shame for accepting the rubbish excuse given to them.

  13. Job Zitha says:

    Why did Betting world and Phumelela close down branches in Mpumalanga especially Nelspruit without consulting the main man the punters Who ever made the decision was a poor one. The reason for low turn over is that you appointed learning cashiers who could not operate the machines thus making it difficult to take a bet all of them smokers spending Mos of their time smoking outside than serving the punters

  14. Steve Reid says:

    7.2 Revenue and trade receivables

    The increase reflected in the audited financials relating to the increase in trade receivables in respect of Kenilworth Racing was raised by Mrs Rowett. Mr Savage confirmed that the information was in fact accurate as Kenilworth Racing owed R9,3million to the Racing Association. Mr Wainstein said that two payments had been made and thereafter we had approached Kenilworth Racing seeking a payment plan. He said the Board had been kept informed of this matter including the fact that Kenilworth Racing may not have the funds available to pay. He said that this is a problem which had been raised by the auditors relative to impairment. The matter will be left in abeyance for the time being. Mr Wainstein said that Kenilworth Racing had acknowledged the debt and promised to pay when the funds became available. They had paid R1million after The Queens Plate but no further payments had been made. Ms Rowett concurred that this had contributed to the cash negative situation for the year. Mr Savage said hopefully the Board can provide suitable responses during the presentation later.

    This says it all about the relationship between the RA and Phumelela. The RA is there to protect owners interests not to bail Phumelela out of its self-dug hole. How is it possible that the board of directors approved a loan to KR without a clear repayment plan? In my opinion this is gross negligence by the board and they should be removed for putting these funds into risk. Were no lessons learnt from the Supabets fiasco?

    Kudos to Ms. Kalmanson for asking some very telling questions. I must warn her however that should she look at history, the modus operandi of the Racing Association is to remove members who ask these type of questions. “doffs the cap at Maselle”

  15. Steve Reid says:

    Servitude at Randjesfontein Ms Rowett enquired about the sale of the servitude at Randjesfontein. Mr Wainstein explained that a developer was proceeding with the building of units adjacent to the training centre and had approached Randjesfontein to acquire a small portion of the land.The offer had been presented to the Board and after due consideration this was agreed to.

    Again Ms Kalmanson comes up with a cracker, I like this tannies work. Why was this sale of a very valuable asset not put to the members? What stops this board who clearly believe that they are not answerable to members, from selling off other assets? Who were the parties involved and what commissions were paid in the deal?

    What is really needed desperately is a lifestyle audit into Wainstein and others to prove that this is not another sectional timing enrichment at racings expense.

  16. Steve Reid says:


    The Chairman reported that nominations were held for national Board and regional chapters.

    10.1 National In terms of Clause 21.2 of the Memorandum of Incorporation of the Racing Association,

    Laurence Wernars and Michael Leaf resigned as national directors. In terms of the Memorandum of Incorporation,both Mr Leaf and Mr Wernars were eligible and agreed to stand for re-election. A further nomination was received on behalf of Mr Brian Riley.In terms of Clause21.1 ,the Directors,in their discretion,took a decision not to proceed with a voting procedure but to accept all three nominees onto the RA Board. No additional nominations were forthcoming

    Taken from the RA MOI:

    21.6.1.no person shall be entitled to serve as a Director for a consecutive period of more than 6 (six) years or for a period in excess of 12 (twelve) years in total.

    Here’s one Ms Kalmanson missed. Michael Leaf is in contravention of both the 6 year consecutive period, as well as the 12 years in total clause contained in 21.6.1. How can it be that a Chairman is sitting in contravention of the MOI and the board condones this? What other transgressions are taking place that members, and apparently this board, are unaware of? With the new kids on the block on the RA board, you would have thought that the MOI would be studied carefully for loopholes. It’s clearly not that easy. Perhaps there has been a convenient amendment to the RA MOI, again without members knowledge? Perhaps they have taken a leaf out of the regulators book ( excuse the pun ) and these rules are now merely guidelines?

    Owners your interests appear to be in good hands…

  17. George says:

    Well said Mr Soma. Cape racing is the problem in SA racing. Being elitist has a price and the rest of the country has to bear the burden. Yet they have the most to say about how SA racing should be run.

  18. Brett Maselle says:

    I sent the following email to the RA auditors. I sent it because I thought the auditors would do something because certain RA directors knew about the RA having failed to comply with its MOI.

    I see from the minutes that the RA is owed R9.3 million by Kenilworth Racing and this may relate to a loan but it has been presented as trade receivables in the RA financials. If it is loan or a payment made by the RA for Kenilworth racing, it is also transaction undertaken contrary to the RA MOI.

    From: Adv B. Maselle
    Sent: Thursday, 06 February 2020 14:03
    To: ‘[email protected]
    Importance: High

    Dear Mr Kaye,

    By way of introduction, my name is Brett Maselle. I am involved in horse racing.
    The Racing Association (RA) is your client and is holding its late AGM on 10 February 2020.
    I address this email to you, to place material facts before you which it appears have not been disclosed in your independent auditors report of 24 November 2019.
    Clause 3.4. of the RA MOI states: “The Company may not provide any loan to secure any debt or obligation of any nature whatsoever; or otherwise provide any direct or indirect financial assistance to a Member or Director of the Company or of a related or inter-related Company or to a person related to any such Member or Director.” (the bold is my emphasis)
    A perusal of the RA 2019 AFS discloses that the RA has made two loans. They are reflected as follows:-
    (a) Subsidiary – Randjesfontein Training Centre Proprietary Limited (Randjesfontein) – R77, 332, 725. 00 and
    (b) Associated company – The Thoroughbred Horseracing Trust (The Trust) – R61,918. 00.
    There appears to be no mention by you (as auditor) that the two loans are made contrary to the MOI.
    I hope that the above may assist you.
    There is no need for you to respond to this email.
    Brett Maselle

    Out of interest to readers

    Directors are required by the Companies Act, 2008 to maintain adequate accounting records and are responsible for the content and integrity of the annual financial statements and related financial information included in the report. It is the responsibility of Directors to ensure that the annual financial statements fairly present the state of affairs of the company and the Group as at the end of the financial year and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards.
    Section 77(3) of the Companies Act , 2008 states the following:
    “(3) A director of a company is liable for any loss, damages or costs sustained by the company as a direct or indirect consequence of the director having
    (d) signed, consented to, or authorised, the publication of-
    (i) any financial statements that were false or misleading in a material respect;”

    External auditors are engaged to express an independent opinion on the annual financial statements
    Section 30 of the Companies Act requires
    “3) The annual financial statements of a company must-
    (a) include an auditor’s report, if the statements are audited;
    (b) include a report by the directors with respect to the state of affairs, the business and profit or loss of the company, or of the group of companies, if the company is part of a group, including-
    (i) any matter material for the shareholders to appreciate the company’s state of affairs;…”

    Have and others have already taken the RA to court and resoundingly beaten it. You may now appreciate why Grant Knowles worked so hard for Jooste, Van Niekerk , Wainstein and other RA board of directors to remove me as a member of the RA.

    Lucky for the RA and its directors that I am not a member of the RA as I resigned. I certainly would have pursued them and the auditors regarding their conduct.

    Horse racing has no chance of survival when such blatant wrongs are left unchallenged by RA members. As far as I am concerned, not doing anything makes a RA member complicit.

  19. Rian says:

    How much monies was made from Hong Kong when they bet into the Cape Town’s Met and where did that money go
    Maybe somebody knows the answer ????


    George you spot on, Cape Racing with the biggest ego’s but with no strategic game plan.

    Kenilworth Racing and previous Cape racing administrators have consistently, over the past 15 to 20 years or more, failed to identify and recognize the Coloured culture and it’s involvement in racing.

    They are to Cape racing as the Indian community and culture is to Natal racing.

    Without the Indian loyalty and support Natal racing is a misnomer.

    And not to forget to Transvaal/Gauteng racing, the Lebanese, Greek and Portuguese communities kept Joburg racing alive…. not to mention the Black “fenced off” support.

    Our racing administrators have killed the game with motives beyond the National Interest and the Punter.

  21. George says:

    It will be most interesting to see who next gets anointed as the RA CEO. My money is on someone who has been around the game for many years, having moved from one job in racing to another, never having solved any of racing’s problems, but all the while ingratiating himself with the right people. Musical chairs on the Titanic is racing’s most cherished game.


    Brett Maselle’s observation is similar to that of what I saw in the previous years signed-off accounts of the RA

    2.Short -term loans (Repayable on demand) Loans that are expected to be repaid in the near future should be recorded at the loan amount by both parties. The loan carrying amount is likely to be a close approximation to fair value due to its short term nature. These are inter-company or related party current accounts or balances arising from cash management arrangements.

    Isn’t this scenario a Cash Flow agreement between the one brother (RA) & the poor brother entity called Kenilworth Racing ?

    Nominations fees paid into the Kenilworth Racing account, or something like that ?

    Robert Bloomberg, kindly confirm


    As at 31st July 2018, Kenilworth Racing (Pty) Ltd owed The Racing Association

    Kenilworth Racing Proprietary Limited – 3 876 776 (2018) 2 177 215 (2017)

    and now R 9.3m.

    By the way, I did highlight this situation on this Sporting Post website, last year.

  24. Michael Jacobs says:

    Kenilworth Racing has always been elitist and exclusionary for as long as I can remember, and I have been around the game for the past 35 years.

    I “moonlighted” at the Cape racecourses for over 10 years in the 80s and early 90s as a barman and waiter. Those were the heydays of Cape racing, but it was clearly a “whites-only” sport. Non-whites were cordoned off in the B and C sections of the racecourses, 300 meters from the winning post and parade ring! There was a “cowboy bar”and no other facilities for these punters. I think Hassen Adams was the only non-white owner at the time, and Faried Anthony the only jockey.

    Not much has changed in Cape Racing since those days, there are a few more owners ( no trainers) and a few jockeys of colour, but that’s it. However walk into any tote in Cape Town and you will see throngs of coloured and black punters. So our money is good enough to keep the sport going, but our presence or involvement at other levels of the game is definitely not desired or wanted!

    The exclusionary and elitist environment is vividly apparent in Cape Town, more so than in other parts of the country, based on what I see on tellytrack.

    The powers-that-be have to create an environment of inclusion and participation of all in the sport. A few small things can be done to encourage participatoon. Change the exotics rules and re-introduce couplings. Also, make the exotics a 50c unit instead of R1. This is a big one! Punters cannot afford the huge perms required to win a pick 6, jackpot or even bipot and PA, particularly since MR racing has turned the “brain game” into a lottery. This small action will reignite the exotics in one simple step!

    Get the punters to the course from the Cape Flats areas- there used to be buses from Mitchell’s Plain to Milnerton racecourse. Allow food options from informal traders, curry and rice, burgets, boerewors rolls, create a food court on the ground level. Picnic areas for families to spend the day at the course. Loyalty and reward programs for loyal regular punters.

    There is a lot that can be done to reinvigorate racing in the Western Cape, big it starts with changing the elitist and arrogant mentality of the Kenilworth Racing hierarchy and stakeholders.

  25. Rian says:

    Most coloured folk are a lot whiter than l am and yes not much has changed and it’s still a whites only affair but I ask the glaring question why??
    The bookmakers silver ring stood about 50m from the winning post
    Abe Adams had colours long before Hassen
    Agree with rest of your post


    Faried Anthony won on his very first ride.

    It was on a Saturday, Milnerton 1500m near bend on a horse called Irina. Trained by Mr. Ralph Rixon and owned and bred by Mr. Gerd van Heesch.

    I think the green & blue striped colours. I never forget the scenes in the parade king and the drinking places afterwards.

    Inadvertently, in the depths of apartheid, horse-racing brought everybody together that afternoon …everybody.

    So emotional was it that some people who weren’t avid racegoers, had a tear in their eye.

    That type of jubilation reminds me of the high celebrations around the winners enclosure @ Turffontein and Germiston with the Lebanese punters in the mid 1980’s

  27. Pieta says:

    William, yes I remember that day, I was there…..just fantastic for the young man then.
    What a down to earth individual.
    Sadly I have lost contact with him some years ago……….any idea what he is doing now?


    Good afternoon Pieta

    No I don’t but I’ll ask around, I sure somebody will know.

    Difficult to put into words that afternoon hey.

  29. Brett Maselle says:

    I pity owners and members of the RA.

    Michael Leaf, who I understand is the current chairman of the RA, should not be serving as chairman or as a director of the RA.

    Steve Reid has already pointed out this fact and nothing has been done.

    Last year certain directors of the RA were alerted to the fact that Larry Wainstein had overstayed his welcome as a director of the RA and that Michael Leaf had also done so.

    Although Steve Reid has already mentioned a clear contravention of clause 21.6 of the RA’s Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI), I repeat the subsection 21.6.1 which states “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained no person shall be entitled to serve as a Director for a consecutive period of more than 6 (six) years or for a period in excess of 12 (twelve) years in total.” The Articles of Association of the RA had similar provisions.

    You do not have to be a rocket scientist or a captain of industry to understand that no person can serve as a RA director for a period in excess of 12 years. Michael Leaf is currently serving his 13th (thirteenth) year as a director. It seems that the members of the board of directors of the RA are unable to understand and implement the provisions of the RA’s MOI.

    I have sent to the editor of the Sporting Post, incontrovertible documentary evidence which emanates from the RA which proves that Michael Leaf served as a RA director for at least the following years:-

    2005 – year 1
    2006 – year 2
    2007 – year 3
    2008 -year 4
    2009 -year 5
    2010 – year 6

    2014 – year 7
    2015- year 8
    2016 – year 9
    2017 – year 10
    2018 -year 11
    2019 -year 12

    Any now it is 2020 and YEAR 13 that Michael Leaf serves as a director.

    It is an utter shame and indictment on the directors and the RA.

    The members of the RA have a right of recourse against the RA directors. I suggest they use it.

    I then have to read the comments of Michael Leaf in minutes of the AGM regarding Larry Wainstein that “The Chairman said that it was with some sadness that the Board bids farewell to its CEO, Larry Wainstein, who leaves at the end of February 2020. For the record, his departure had been of his own accord. The Chairman further stated that the very nature of our industry can test the resolve of all those in leadership and it was inevitable that our CEO has had to face such challenges in his 12 years with the RA, both as Chairman and CEO, so the polarisation of views during his tenure was not surprising. Larry’s significant contribution and efforts during his time with the RA were greatly appreciated and recognised.”

    Larry Wainstein served as a continuous director of the RA since 2008. He served unlawfully as a board director. To make it simple: In 2014, he should have stepped down as a director. Because he stayed on and did not take a break for at least a year, each year commencing from 2014 he served unlawfully. Thumbs down to the RA and its board members. I wonder if the RA or any members will be taking steps against the RA directors to recover the whopping salary that Larry Wainstein earned which he should not have earned?

    The horse racing joke continues unabated. As they say the more things change, the more they stay the same.


    Brett, is the word consecutive years used in the RA’s constitution ?

  31. MGram says:

    William does it make a difference? This Leaf guy has served two six year spells from what the Advocates shows. My question is Leaf also served on the Trust for Nine years so how did he do both without being conflicted? This RA looks like it was a rogues gallery who remembers Tyson Naidoo and the pamphlets spread about him not paying?

  32. Brett Maselle says:

    Hi William,
    As I set out above the relevant clause of the MOI reads as follows:-

    “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained no person shall be entitled to serve as a Director for a consecutive period of more than 6 (six) years or for a period in excess of 12 (twelve) years in total.”


    Thanks for the re-confirmation Brett.


    MGram, I was merely double checking.

    So Steve Reid and Brett Maselle, just to illuminate your observation, I highlight from the July 2019 Annual Report that Mr Naidoo recognizes the 12 year rule…

    Mr Naidoo addressed the meeting. He said he has served on the RA Board for a total of 12 years. He thanked the ladies and all his colleagues at the RA for their support during his term of office. Mr Naidoo said he will be assisting with the National Grooms’ Association, along with the NHA in the future.

    But Michael Leaf and Larry Wainstein are/were immune to that rule !

    Registered Auditors BRF & Company, what’s going on, did you not have an audit programme ?


    And furthermore…

    These members got granted life membership in 2017

    Mr FM Mindszenty Mr B Kantor Mr M J Bywater Mr MS Cruickshank Mr MF de Kock Mr EJ Guillarmod Mr MS Peixoto Mr M J Plagis Mr GI Stephen Dr IA Katz Mr J Shill Mrs SEM Louw Mr M Destombes Mr ALA Crabbia Mr WH Brown Mr BR Linington Mr KE Michael Mr RA Mallac Mrs DA Sham Mr SD Gray Mr AM Maroun Mr KG Hunter Dr AH Parker Mr E C Smith Mr GW Funnell Mr HJ Wolfaardt Mr DWH Lowry Mr R C King Mr DF Drummond-Hay Mr RT Binnie Mr JG Ferreira Mrs IM Ferreira Mr SW Robinson Mr RD Dukoff-Gordon Mr CJ van der Vyver Mr RE Hearle Mr BA Lane Mr RD Forsyth-Thompson Mr RJ Mayhew Mr DH Fourie Mr P J Botes Mr PA Anderson Mr AJ Crichton Ms W Sears Mr SJ Myburgh Mr G Talbot Mr SA Leoni Mr KE Michael

    Are any of you life members perhaps aware of your constitution?

    Dear Members, please help the racing public understand what went on/goes on there.

    Please members help I understand your Mission Statement

    Mission Statement

    To protect and support the interests of the sport of horseracing in general and, in
    particular, the interests of the owners by working through the Racing Association
    board of directors and management to ensure that every aspect of the racing
    industry realizes its greatest potential.

  36. Brett Maselle says:

    Another aspect that is so glaringly ridiculous and RA members say nothing about.

    The RA directorate has told all owners that: “An amount of R53m has been taken out of the stakes pot in the last year for the following reasons:
    ● No dividend paid by PGL (R18 million in the previous year)
    ● R35 million which is the 3% rebate from government.”

    The first bullet point —————————

    The RA was incorporated in December 1997 following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the horse racing industry in Gauteng and the Gauteng Provincial Government. In terms of the MOU a “racing association comprising owners and members of the previous turf clubs would make available the image of racing to the new company (Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd) in exchange for a laid down stakes policy which would be incorporated into the Phumelela/Racing Association agreement.”

    The assets of the Totalisator Agency Board the Highveld Racing Authority and the previous turf clubs, including certain race tracks, were transferred to Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd (“Phumelela”) as part of the corporatisation process.

    The stakes payable to owners does not depend on dividends being paid by Phumelela. The Racing Trust, which receives the dividend mentioned, is not a party to the stakes agreement. Stakes are required to be paid by Phumelela to owners and not the Racing Trust. Simply, the failure to declare dividends should be completely irrelevant to stakes.

    The second bullet point ————————

    Charl Pretorius reported that: ” Phumelela told Turf Talk that the amendment to the regulations represented a loss to the company amounting to approximately R75-million per year.”

    Taking into account the fact that 30% of the of the bookmakers levies of R75 million that is supposed to go into stakes amounts to R22.5 million (and not R35 million) you have to ask why the RA agreed to stakes being reduced by the amount involved.

    Of crucial importance is the fact that the RA has not disclosed to owners how and when (if ever) the R53 million deduction will be returned to owners by way of stakes.

    All RA members deserve what they get because they have chosen their leaders.
    Other owners and interested persons are shut out by Phumelela and the RA, and these non Ra members have every right to voice their opinions in public. .

  37. Sandy says:

    The RA directors where and are conflicted when negotiating stakes with PGL.

    Of course the RA board would vote to reduce stakes even if it means owners get the wrong end of the stick.

    The directors that own shares in PGL either directly or indirectly are Mnr. Leaf, L. Wainstein, L. Wernars, W. Smith, M. de Kock. Mnr Savage was representing a consortium at the time to help finance PGL and should not have voted on stakes.

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Gates Open For Jason

Next ›

Inglis logo

Inglis Premier Day 1

Popular Posts