Printed in Our Dogs 20/11/2024.

Exposure, Vulnerability, Strategies. by Peter Clifton.

Risk exposure falls into different categories; operational, financial, market and political risks. Operational risks involve those associated with day-to-day activities. Financial risks relate to debt obligations or currency fluctuations which could affect the company’s financial stability. Market risks are external factors outside of our control like deaths, economic downturns or interest rates changes, which could impact revenue that all take home. Political risks are related to our own and world governmental actions that could harm existing markets.

It is important to understand Risk Exposure as without it business could face huge losses or failure due to adverse effects or uncertainty. Understanding potential risks, and calculating probability of the risk occurring along with potential mitigating factors protect one’s interests and improve ability to anticipate future losses.

The canine world faces vulnerable risk exposure just like any multinational company or private individual, and it is the risk management provided by our governing body’s board and their diligence to stay ahead of these types of situations.

They implemented strategies to mitigate risk exposure to the shortfall of judges bringing in changes to the judges’ education system with a pen to paper method implemented by a Board, with little or no educational knowledge, giving us what we have today. Credit must be given for the foresight in seeing financial shortfalls ahead, leading to the failed, due to public outcry, introduction of a licence fee for all judges. With entries falling, we now have more General Championship Shows (G.C.S) allocated with CCs for all breeds, plus extra C..Cs given to other G.C.S, hopefully bolstering their efforts to steer clear of extinction and to keep afloat.

The Crufts committee mitigated risk exposure by introducing an over 80s ageism policy after one judge had to be replaced while judging due to Alzheimer's. Unfortunately in their panic they removed some of the countries top judges from consideration without understanding that 1 in 13 cases of Alzheimer's effected are under 65.

But what if this has been miscalculated? Was over exposure and the consequences ever considered a possibility? The R.K.C board certainly have among their numbers many with expertise within G.C.S committees who could advise them, but of course Conflict of Interest may have stopped them giving input, a pity for the more people who look under the bonnet, the greater the chance flimsy brands will ultimately survive. The impact of overexposure on trading portfolios is akin to navigating stormy waters without a compass, potentially perilous. Over trading more than not arises from impulses driven by either fear, or greed, prompting excessive market involvement beyond well-defined trading plans, it is a precarious balance between risk, and reward.

Has the R.K.C let out monsters from the closet? As show entries have not increased or held firm, apart from breed club shows. Quality in virtually all breeds is declining at a rate faster than rising inflation, yet all one hears is excuses ‘it’s beyond our control’. Yes, both country and family financial stability can be classified part of the problem. Yes, covid restrictions allowed time for readdressing one’s way in life. Yes, some gave up because of age, some because of R.K.C policy, but what of all the others that have entirely walked away for good or those that are now seen far less often?

Blame is an easy game to play and in most walks of life the buck falls at the top table, yet in the world of dogs - does it? The RKC board hold office at the pleasure of the 1500 membership with the vast majority intent on being able to hold court at a private London Club and walk around with a tin pot badge pinned to their clothing.

The membership needs to ask itself some serious questions, why are we allowing approximately one hundred people from overseas (India, Australia, Kenya, New Zealand, Korea, Brazil, China to name but a few) to have membership, with full voting rights within our Kennel Club. While its understandably acceptable for overseas shareholders to have votes in companies they hold investments with, only British citizens are allowed votes in General Elections and most breed clubs do not allow overseas members voting rights. So, members, the ball in your court, ask yourselves to why they are members? Then you may start to understand part of the problem of the decline in our canine world. It’s not sufficient just for those breeding, showing, judging and administrating to be honest, these like everyone involved must be seen to be above reproach in every aspect with leadership by example, from the very top table. If one agrees with that, then why in the 21^st century do you have a board of 24, comprising of many all-breed judges, GCS secretaries and committee members. Does anyone really consider it correct that any G.C.S some being private companies should have representation on the board or committees. Whilst one does not doubt the honesty or integrity of all, it is a miscalculation if one does not understand that it may be viewed a conflict of interest, by those on the outside. Yes, their knowledge and hands on skills can benefit the paths forward, if done by committee on lines maybe similar to the Liaison Council. There should be no argument that the board should comprise of the best talent available, should this not be readily available within the membership, then the need to look outside, offers opportunities that just requires an open to all membership.

The restricted membership is another major player in the dissatisfaction and leaving of our activity, the days of upstairs downstairs belong to distant history to which one would hope, none wish to return to. While other activities have moved on from the dark ages the RKC by permission of its membership remained an upper-class elite club, frequented by a very small percentage of its membership, bleeding the wider canine world of finance that could be better invested for all.

British Showjumping leave the Kennel Club looking like a poor relation, in tatty clothes and life in disarray clinching on to any branch in a hope for survival. It must be eight years ago that I suggested they looked at among others, Hothorpe Hall Farm which had come on the market priced at 4.5 million with beautiful country house, 120 acres for a canine centre plus offices, situated in the midlands, within easy reach of the M6 and M1. Today it is the proud home of the British showjumping national training centre, providing top class facility for members in training and educational facilities, including a top class residential equestrian centre, conference facility with short term holiday accommodation. A solid commercial investment for the future of showjumping.

British Showjumping have an entirely different outlook on the rights of individuates allowing all to take up membership, yes open to all, with all members having full voting rights and option to attend online, or in person A.G.M.s. This system allows involvement, no age barriers, all a major factor in brand awareness, management and loyally, something sadly missing in brand RKC.

So, what can one learn from British Showjumping who oversees 3000 shows a year with a staff of thirty compared to the RKC’s 224. Show entries start around fifteen pounds with all events required to refund entry fees should entry be cancelled up to 48 hours prior. For a membership fee starting at thirty pounds with full entitlement they have drawn 17,000 into the interest of showjumping. They operate on a turnover of 4.5 million, compared to the RKCs 22.2 and made a gross profit of 1.3 million, compared to the RKCs deficit of 1.5 million. Management responsibility of the RKC rests with twenty-four board members who on the later figures made a loss each of 62,5k, yet their counterpart board of eight made a profit each of 162.5k. In view of the latter details, it could be well worth asking if the boards size is part of the problem, after all the top three PLCs in the country operate with boards around the twelve level.

My personal prospective from a business viewpoint is to open the membership, and while the RKC stands to lose 250k in membership fees in one hand, it provides the largest prospect for advancement with the other hand. The present membership would not be lost, yet by introducing a two-tier membership, level one of Kennel Name holders with full voting entitlement, and level two pet owners. The future financial gain would outstrip the present figures, maybe double, treble or even more, if managed correctly, yet I hear the cries of current members that Clarges Street could not accommodate such numbers. That my friends, is understanding RISK EXPOSURE, remember this, the most welcome lower membership fee comes at a cost and in this case, numbers could be self-regulated by the introduction of a Club booking and entrance fee, estimated revenue let’s say 50k.

So members, ask yourself one question, if one sector of the animal world can achieve so much, what if anything, are you the voting members, doing wrong?

''Change your thoughts and you change your world''

Norman Vincent Peale 1898-1993''.