Racecourses must work with the Horsemen's Group or there will be a pointless civil war And that is where the Horsemen's Group are heading with the racecourses. They have finally grown out of being "Kevin the angry teenager" into a grown up, who can surf the Internet without parental guidance and negotiate prize money with the course owners. The big issue is whether the racecourses can be convinced that there should be a contractual commitment from them to the owners, trainers and jockeys, to pledge a percentage of their racing related income to prize money. And the initial sums agreed will not be the end game. The principal will be. The racecourses have a choice. They can break new ground and, as a result, the less confrontational style of the current Horsemen's leadership will have been shown to be the right way forward. Or they can rebuff them and effectively launch themselves into a civil war that will have no winner. What has changed in the last few years is the way money from betting gets channelled back into the sport. In the past it was exclusively through the Levy Board, who could dictate to the racecourses that the funds went towards prize money. Now the money comes in, from the same source, through media rights. And the racecourses can spend that money as they see fit. If they want to syphon it off to pay down debt else where that is their prerogative. Where the Horsemen will need to show judgment, however, particularly with the array of independent racecourses, big and small, will be how to determine which of them can't pay and which won't. There are reasons why some courses have bigger overheads than others, such as borrowings on facilities that were created to attract more racegoers. So there is no point trying to punish courses who have genuinely not been salting away the media rights money, but at the same time can't pour it into prize money. The negotiation won't be easy. All the Horsemen can really do is name and shame courses that won't play ball. But is that enough to pressurise the courses that are not in the business of putting on race meetings for the benefit of the horsemen? They're doing it for their shareholders. But all courses need runners, and there is a shortage of them at the moment. Paul Bittar, the CEO of the British Horseracing Authority, observed the other day that if trainers ran their horses more often, there would be less small fields. And of course he is right, assuming that it won't increase injury levels and result in even more small fields. But it does sound a bit like telling farmers to milk their cows more often to avoid a milk shortage. Declaration of War's success, however, in the Juddmonte International at York last week was a triumph for a partnership who are not frightened to run their stallion prospects more than used to be considered wise in the past. It's almost as if John Magnier, the owner of Coolmore Stud, has decided that the business of making stallions is more about the races you win as opposed to how often you get beaten. And he can take that view because Coolmore are strong enough to stand stallions who they believe in, rather than being totally beholden to a fickle market. Victory at York came in Declaration of War's seventh run of the season and was his fourth run since winning the Queen Anne stakes at Royal Ascot in June. Which means he is a very sound horse, mentally and physically. He is by the influential American stallion War Front and Magnier, who bought into him after he'd won two low-key races for backward two year olds in France, may be taking the view that he can turn the colt into a stallion if enough battles are won on the track.