Peter Evans Racing

We are going National! Our cause is being raised with Minister Kamper at Budget Estimates today. It's great to know we have people on our side exposing our situation 👏

How many people and businesses are affected when there are 100 less horses? Lets see - produce merchants, farriers, hay suppliers, equine Vets, equine dentists, horse equipment stores, track riders, strappers, stable staff, bedding suppliers....

We could have potentially sold our stable building twice over the past few years, and now it is EMPTY. Just wondering who actually benefits from changing the previous arrangements 🤔 Want to a buy a dud investment anyone?

We have been told that our situation at Coffs Harbour is 'UNIQUE'. I don't think it's working in our favour. At least others that have dodged that label can sleep at night. Chipping away 🤞🤞

Guess how many empty stables there are in Coffs Harbour🤔

A promise of no changes, and IDENTICAL TO THE LAST COUPLE OF DECADES. Please let me know if I am missing something here? This letter sent to stable owners 28 Feb 2025, prior to the 12 months of silence.

The situation in Queanbeyan is in no way related to ours. We have not disputed the fact of RNSW taking over the Head Lease. However some prior communication and consultation would have been appreciated, and some would say the courteous thing to do, considering the dire consequences it has had on the people invested in Coffs.
We have been treated with total disregard. None of our communication has had a response for the past 12 months, is that called gaslighting? Is that a form of bullying? Those in authority who misled us and allowed this situation to develop have claimed no responsibility and no remorse, just generic heartless offers of sympathy.
We all had firm assurances that nothing would change, and we could pass the buildings on. The Club always had first option to purchase them, and the Club always had to approve who they passed on to, and put their signature on all documents relating to the change of ownership. The Club even recommended prospective buyers to approach prospective sellers. The Club advertised the fact that the buildings could be bought and sold. In the end, who is responsible for even allowing this to happen? Where in any of this are the purchasers at fault?
No sane person would ever put money into something that they thought they would lose it on. Some of the buildings had loans taken out for them, just so tragic.
RSNW have taken over head leases with the intention of securing the future of racing, and the intention of supporting regional tracks to become vibrant training centres with full stables (so we were assured at the last effort at communication in April last year). Interesting that it is having the polar opposite effect here at Coffs Harbour. When you are stripped of an asset with no compensation it definitely doesn’t seem to add vibrancy.

blob:https://www.facebook.com/26943128-eca3-4f14-890d-a02ea22b07cd

Send a message to learn more

We have been accused of being 'naive' for thinking we owned our building, by the same person who made an offer to purchase a block of stables 🤔

What’s going on at Coffs Harbour Racecourse? A Facebook post announcing the closure of Peter Evans Racing has drawn fresh attention to a long-running dispute over the stable buildings at Coffs Harbour Racecourse. Trainers say they paid substantial sums for buildings they believed they could occupy and later transfer, while the current Crown la...

Does this shiny advertising brochure say 'Stables Available'. Oh yes! Yes it does. Only available to suckers who wanted to lose all their money 🤷‍♀️

Our reply to The NSW Trainers association letter

Thank you for your reply to my statement about the situation at Coffs Harbour. You have presented some interesting content, however I would like to correct you on some key points.

Why did we ‘genuinely believe’ we had ‘acquired an asset that could be bought and sold’?

This one is simple. Because a higher authority signed off on all the purchases and assured owners the same would occur at lease renewal time. They did this because CHRC, as head lease owner, always valued trainers and stable owners and seemed to be indifferent to that clause in their most recent lease, thus allowing it to continue as it had always been. Stable owners were encouraged to invest in the stables, which was advertised in a brochure. Without this arrangement there would be no stables at Coffs Harbour Racecourse.The problem only arose after RNSW became head lease holder and decided they would enforce that clause, claim the stables, and offer to rent them back. Also making it clear that ‘renters’ would also be liable for all maintenance and improvements.

Just as an interesting aside, stable owners were also promised that nothing would change at the end of each lease period (10 years) and they would in all probability be extended beyond that to 15 or 20 years, making it appear even more desirable. Had the previous understanding continued, no one would be at all concerned and this would not be the tragic circumstance that it has become.

‘NSWTA never dismissed those feelings”

Trainers have been seeking support for the last 18 months and have had none. People fraught with anxiety and anguish do feel they have been dismissed.

‘It is important to clarify that this is not a situation where RNSW/the Club has changed position’

Clearly the Club did change position. There had never been any problems with this prior arrangement and it led to a thriving training community at Coffs Harbour. You can contact the Club for figures regarding historical numbers of horses in training in comparison to now.

‘It is misleading to suggest that trainers have lost their stables and that RNSW required them to enter into new arrangements involving substantial rent’

The contract offered was - stables to be rented @ $25/ week per box for the entire building, regardless of how many boxes in use, and no assurance that this cost would not increase at any time in the future. Also making it clear that ‘renters’ would be liable for all maintenance, electricity and improvements, among other things. The statement ‘that the objective is not to increase costs for genuine trainers’ is entirely false, as it would massively increase costs for stable owners and renters alike. As you can appreciate, many renters favour renting from a private stable owner who is open to fair negotiation, easily contacted, and covers the expense of maintenance themselves.

‘No trainer has been evicted’

At no time has this ever been stated, however it has been very successful at getting rid of trainers from Coffs Harbour so far, and you are only just seeing the start.

One concern RNSW held was that sub lessees were further sub-letting stables for profit which was contrary to the spirit and intent of enabling local trainers to occupy stables.

I am sure the Club also intends to make a profit from buildings they have essentially taken from people? Then charge those same people $25/box, regardless of how many are occupied, and relieve themselves of all responsibility to maintain those stables and fittings, including walkers.

Stable owners that are ‘not trainers’ are certainly not charging at ‘considerable extra cost to trainers’? You have expressed that they are beyond your area of interest because they are ‘not trainers’, some of them were trainers, held licenses for 30/40 years, and have retired. And they were never in it for the investment, and would have allowed their stable blocks to pass on to the next generation of trainers, except recent events have put a roadblock to that, so it can no longer happen. Others have contributed massively as horse owners, supporting local trainers with large numbers of horses, sad for them to be dismissed as profit makers. Most of these stable blocks would not exist without these valuable investors. I am sure they would be only too willing to present a summary of how much they have contributed to the racing industry. Their costs for these buildings include insurance, maintenance, electricity, annual lease of the land. Not to mention that they PAID FOR THE BUILDING. I can assure you all of them are easily contactable for negotiation and very fair, and none are making much of a profit.

So the NSWTA is going to ‘Work with RNSW to ensure future subleasing arrangements are transparent’

Just to clarify that no sub lease agreement has been signed for the past 18 months, and all stable owners have been paying the quarterly sub-lease fee charged by the Club. Unfortunately the trust has been completely broken in this instance, and it is doubtful that it can ever be repaired here.

Every action causes a reaction, as leading bodies have learned all too well from the past 18 months. There has been a smear cast on Coffs Harbour Racecourse from this, a great repellent for anyone who may have considered setting up their training operations here.

This is a very brief response to the issues you addressed.

We are now receiving great advice and support, which is at least a glimmer of hope in this despairing limbo position we have been left in for so long. I would be happy if you would like to talk to me and add any response,