NOTHING CHANGES, SADLY.

On Tuesday, May 12th, 1998, The Sporting Life, in its final edition before leaving the field open to Racing Post domination, one of its news headlines was D.DAY AMID DISCONENT, and concerned the contest between Peter Savill and Sir William Purves for the position of chairman of the British Horseracing Board. As now, there was a groundswell of support amongst racing's professionals for Savill as it was believed the sport would benefit from having someone with long experience of the sport as the head of racing's governance body. The B.H.B. board, though, were split, with a general feeling, perhaps fear, that Sir William's expertise in financial matters would get him appointed.

Savill was, at the time, president of the Racehorse Owners Association and a director of the B.H.B. He was an insider within the B.H.B., yet many of his fellow directors, of which there were only nine, one of which other than Savill were not allowed to vote - Lady Burnham, ineligible as she was only elected to the board as an Industry Committee nominee - meaning the vote was between just seven directors.

It is clear from reading David Ashforth's analysis that there were tensions veering towards hostility amongst the members of the board with Jim Furlong, a member of the Racehorse Owners Association, accusing Matthew McCloy, chairman of the Industry Committee of 'passing misinformation to the board'.

Very much like now, Savill was thought by many to be the right man to get racing back on track. In 1998 he was an exponent of the view that racing was seriously under-funded and the Government had a responsibility to rectify the situation by either allowing racing a greater share of betting turnover or extending access to betting on horseracing beyond licenced betting offices.

As now, Savill was seen by his opponents as a loose cannon, someone of strong opinion who shot from the hip and cared nothing for who he hit. His supporters thought strong opinion, a plan for progress and shooting from the hip were his strong points and he was the plain-talking sort of character that was needed to exert change on the way the sport was being led. Savill came with a financial plan, the same plan that had caused Lord Wakeham to resign as chairman of the B.H.B. As now, due to a man with a plan being holed beneath the waterline, the B.H.B. had an acting chairman, Lord Pilkington.

I report the above as it is proof that in 28-years, despite the change of initials, the B replaced by an A that actually stands for little as it is a board without teeth or authority, that nothing has bloody well changed apart from the whole sooting match to be in a far worse state. The Dante Stakes had a prize-fund of £135,000 in 1998. The Famous Grouse Chase at Perth on the same day was worth £6,000 to the winner and minor races had prize-funds close to what they are now and in real terms were worth far more in 1998 than in 2026. A million-pound Coronation Cup is just window dressing and does not reflect the sorry state of prize-money or the dire staffing situation outside the few trainers at the top of the food chain. As owner of Plumpton racecourse and as an owner and breeder, Savill is exactly what this sport needs. The only downside to him is his age. 78 is old and there is no way he can be as energetic as he was back in 1998. If he gets the job, I hope he will appoint an assistant, someone he can prime to take over from him once his second tenure as chairman elapses. As I said before, as Henry Beeby, Goffs chief executive suggests in a letter published in today's Racing Post, I hope the B.H.A. dispense with interviewing all candidates and within the week appoints Savills to the post and then supports his every move and allow racing professionals to pass judgement on his decisions. The situation is that acute. This is no time for procedure to wend its long weary course.