RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.

legs&lashes

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

legs&lashes last won the day on April 12 2016

legs&lashes had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

3,231 profile views

legs&lashes's Achievements

Maiden - R50

Maiden - R50 (1/4)

188

Reputation

  1. Could someone with some expertise explain to me how Mentalist was late scratched at Geraldine on Saturday? Leo was hit and tipped out about 2 or 3 minutes before start time and banged his head so was unfit to drive in that race. There were drivers right there ready and willing to go straight out there and drive the horse. The race may have run a minute late but I would have much rather had a new driver than have the horse scratched! I own the horse so it may sound biased but I am a punter too and I would have still wanted to see him race as I had backed him. If there is a rule covering this sort of situation it needs to be looked at in my opinion.
  2. I don't bet in the CD anymore either. There is an easy fix to the situation. A GRNZ rule that allows for a maximum of 100 pups bred per facility per year.
  3. Dyna Elliot Class 2 $500 ph or txt 0274800433
  4. Yes seems a ridiculous situation! I am still trying to understand how I can go to where my horses are stabled and be there to feed them and tend to them ,but can't put them on the jogger??? There are 2 other trainers at the property which we don't have to have any contact with and we have all our own gear. From what I understand it was a decision made by MPI??? Why would they be making those sorts of decisions for OUR code??? The industry needs to have horses ready to race as soon as we get the "all clear",because the longer this fiasco goes on the more damage is being done to an industry already tethering on the brink of destruction!
  5. lol it's a tuff game mate but good on ya for supplying the info
  6. As a punter that would be the first dog I would be anchoring in my exotic bets.Great to be able to have dogs like that to throw in your quins,tris,first fours. There is no way that dog should get called in.
  7. Would like to know peoples thoughts on the hospitality prices for Jewels day. I was told last week that Spectators is $125 pp which only includes entry and some food! Last year I was in the Clubhouse Bar at Cambridge and the package was $100 including beer and wine and food. I have come to think Addington Raceway is very greedy and it is a rip off so I wont be going at this stage. As a side note the beer prices at Addington in spectators are a disgrace too. $16 for a jug!!! that is one place I wont be having a beer in! Regards AC (first time poster on this forum)
  8. Dyna Martha (David Bale Prue Bale) Very quick bitch.Has trialed sub 17.20 twice at Addinton. However chasing commitment is not there. First litter out of Prue Bale was super. Chance to tap into the Bale bloodlines. Give away to the right home. Contact Craig Roberts ph 0274800433 jewelkennels@outlook.com
  9. Mike its quite simple really.Its a choice what people want to do.Breed, rear, break in, train, own, punt and the list goes on.You or me or anyone else does not have the right to tell anyone where they can get a greyhound from.Greyhound racing has been around for many years and had ample opportunity to grow long before imports came in.Matt and I are in no way the reason for the lack(which I don't think there is a lack of) of breeding.Ask Dave Fahey how hard it is to buy a good dog here in NZ. I don't have to because I already knew 25 years ago and that was the main reason I started purchasing dogs from Ozzie. There is no argument against a person wanting to race a greyhound in NZ that just happens to be born in Ozzie. And if you are worried about GAP and other re homing facilities being over run with dogs,tell me how come you are not asking why one breeder in the CD is allowed to breed more dogs than the quota for all of NZ for Ozzie imports. If the sport fails it will most likely be because of the clubs giving away all the power they had to people that come and go in our sport and don.t really give a damn about you, me or anyone else in this industry.To them its just a job,to us its life!
  10. Well said 1234 and Freightman. The issue of imports has been an ongoing farce for many years.We have all had the opportunity to buy nice big properties and spend the money to breed and rear pups.Why have'nt people done it??? I haven't cos I chose to be a trainer and rear the odd litter as a hobby.People rave on about all the sprinters that have come to NZ and been bred out of,but no one has forced anyone to breed out of anything.People do it by choice. Also Mike I don't see how it is any of your business what happens to the stakemoney that my owners win. I don't have any input into what you do with yours. Racing is an international game and that is the way of the future,and anyone should be allowed to race a dog or horse wherever they choose to. AC
  11. Yes I agree Mike and I have put it up twice and its either not getting put up or is getting removed and put on our page! Strange ??? AC
  12. The Letter the Informant will not publish. Long time greyhound breeder owner who runs a successful accounting practice , Tom Rodewald , has sent me thru a letter he has tried to get the Informant to publish. They I gather are showing no interest and this is not surprising in view of the facts contained within the letter. It seems the horse codes are not providing a subsidy to the greyhound codes rather it is the other way round. ! Tom letter reads Over recent months there have been a number of articles and letters to the editor dealing with racing industry distributions in The Informant. One claim made by your columnist Brian de Lore was that greyhound racing, he understood, was being subsidized by the thoroughbred code to the tune of $5m per annum. It has been a common thread in letters to the editor that thoroughbred racing does not receive the full benefit of earnings from the export of its product. Further it is being stated that Section 16 of the Racing Act is unfair on the thoroughbred code as it focuses industry distributions on domestic turnover share. Fact or Fallacy? Over the past few weeks I have trawled through publicly available information and also made the odd enquiry to try and ascertain the true position. From the publicly available information we can establish in the 2017 season that: 1. Section 16(3) of the Racing Act that requires racing industry funds to be distributed based on NZ domestic code turnover has not applied since 2011 and did not apply in 2017. 2. it appears that betting on greyhound racing via the NZ TAB was 20% of total racing turnover. 3. it appears the gross betting margin the NZ Racing Board earned on greyhound turnover exceeded that of harness racing. 4. the export turnover commission received by the NZ Racing Board on greyhound racing was approximately 31% of its total export income. 5. the greyhound code received only 16.1% of the distribution made under Section 16. 6. a quick calculation indicates if the racing industry distributed its turnover based on each code receiving its share of gross betting revenue and its actual export commission earnt the greyhound racing share of the pie would have grown by approximately $8.8m. It seems to me on figures published the thoroughbred export turnover percentage was well under 50% of the total racing turnover in the 2017 year. Allocating export turnover by each code on an actual basis would have disadvantaged the thoroughbred code. Anybody interested can download my full analysis and some pertinent comments via my website http://rodewaldconsulting.co.nz/blog/racingindustrydistribution/ T L Rodewald Chartered Accountant Accredited Insolvency Practitioner It makes me wonder why our GRNZ have not been more forthcoming in highlighting just how successful the greyhound code has been in recent years turnover and income wise. AC
  13. The Letter the Informant will not publish. Long time greyhound breeder owner who runs a successful accounting practice , Tom Rodewald , has sent me thru a letter he has tried to get the Informant to publish. They I gather are showing no interest and this is not surprising in view of the facts contained within the letter. It seems the horse codes are not providing a subsidy to the greyhound codes rather it is the other way round. ! Tom letter reads Over recent months there have been a number of articles and letters to the editor dealing with racing industry distributions in The Informant. One claim made by your columnist Brian de Lore was that greyhound racing, he understood, was being subsidized by the thoroughbred code to the tune of $5m per annum. It has been a common thread in letters to the editor that thoroughbred racing does not receive the full benefit of earnings from the export of its product. Further it is being stated that Section 16 of the Racing Act is unfair on the thoroughbred code as it focuses industry distributions on domestic turnover share. Fact or Fallacy? Over the past few weeks I have trawled through publicly available information and also made the odd enquiry to try and ascertain the true position. From the publicly available information we can establish in the 2017 season that: 1. Section 16(3) of the Racing Act that requires racing industry funds to be distributed based on NZ domestic code turnover has not applied since 2011 and did not apply in 2017. 2. it appears that betting on greyhound racing via the NZ TAB was 20% of total racing turnover. 3. it appears the gross betting margin the NZ Racing Board earned on greyhound turnover exceeded that of harness racing. 4. the export turnover commission received by the NZ Racing Board on greyhound racing was approximately 31% of its total export income. 5. the greyhound code received only 16.1% of the distribution made under Section 16. 6. a quick calculation indicates if the racing industry distributed its turnover based on each code receiving its share of gross betting revenue and its actual export commission earnt the greyhound racing share of the pie would have grown by approximately $8.8m. It seems to me on figures published the thoroughbred export turnover percentage was well under 50% of the total racing turnover in the 2017 year. Allocating export turnover by each code on an actual basis would have disadvantaged the thoroughbred code. Anybody interested can download my full analysis and some pertinent comments via my website http://rodewaldconsulting.co.nz/blog/racingindustrydistribution/ T L Rodewald Chartered Accountant Accredited Insolvency Practitioner It makes me wonder why our GRNZ have not been more forthcoming in highlighting just how successful the greyhound code has been in recent years turnover and income wise. AC