We need a Nicholas in racing.

We'd also like Henny to have a win.

A chum dropped me a note this week, enclosing a copy of the departing MCC President’s (or incoming MCC Chairman’s) sound words on taking up or departing his old-new position. Mark Nicholas used to play for and then captain Hampshire, never played for England “A”, but was always considered locally and nationally as an all-around good egg with a head full of common sense, a manner that suggested careful consideration of everyone’s point of view, and a steel backbone should it be required.

His letter to the MCC Members was full of positivity and encouragement, demonstrating his keenness to take up the challenges; it was leadership in action. I was motivated by his enthusiasm and, for five nano-seconds, keen to take my seat beside my old chum Brig. Tufty Scatter-Cushion on the second balcony at Lords. I would happily put up with the Long Room’s dreadful catering and, as my mind wandered ever further, perhaps even put myself forward for the wine committee. The nano-seconds flew by, and I sadly remembered, too, that I must live another 530 years before my name reaches the head of the waiting list, so I shall remain yearning from the bleachers.

Inevitably, my mind also wandered over to the leadership and management qualities so carefully hidden in racing. It drifted off further as the strident bell-ringing of the four Tory hopefuls started up on the Conference stage. 20 minutes apiece for them to tell us how they were part of a political elite that failed to be either elite, honest, or capable of running the country. Unbelievably, three used the magical “tough decisions” and “difficult decisions” phrases, the increasingly sure sign of someone for whom the fudge is no stranger. Sadly, I couldn’t tell you which ones were guilty - because they all sounded alike. Like so many in racing, these greasy-pole climbers will not accept that they are part of the problem, not the solution.

The Racing Post recently published a series of articles in which it asked whether Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges, the Hong Kong Jockey Club CEO, had it right when he said that the BHA would find it difficult to make the sport healthier and wealthier due to the limitations of its governance structure. I won’t curdle the cream in your coffee, but the general content was essentially:

• Everyone in or formally with power in racing’s corridors generally agrees the current structure doesn’t work because there are too many voices and self-interested parties.

• To their credit, some people have had the nouse to suggest that racing should fear the Government becoming involved by setting up an independent regulatory body because someone would have to pay for that—and the obvious candidate would be the Levy Board.

• Many protagonists agreed that too many members of the advisory committees and the main BHA Board were only representing their organisations’ short-term interests and, as someone put it, “…their own interest in their corporate bonuses.”

• Some are bewildered by what appears to be a lack of strategic thinking after two years of the restructured BHA Board, although the soon-to-be gone CEO Julie Harrington disagrees. "It's wrong to say we have an industry strategy. What we've got at the moment is an agreement that there are a number of areas where we need a strategy and that work is in progress."

To say that I thought that Sir Humphrey Appleby had written that from beyond the grave would be an understatement. Former BHA chair Atholl Duncan, who works with large corporate entities on strategies, was bewildered, too. "I know none of our clients has ever taken a year to come up with a strategy,"

To be fair to La Harrington, the BHA produced Premier Racing, which has had a genuinely unobservable impact on racing and created a false market where the Jockey Club has sold a Premier Day to York!

I keep coming back to the thoughts I expressed many years ago in the days when the BHB held an AGM meeting every November and where McCririck, myself and