Racing Act Admendment Underway

[Midget 4,489]

I wouldn't take my figure too seriously, it could've been 100,000 options, I wasn't listening very hard.

As for one sport v many, no I meant each sport is responsible individually and if one specific event was unprofitable that'd be offset against other events from that same sport before proceeds are distributed.

[Tiger Tiger 139]

it was 100,000 options

[Berri 2,131]

2 hours ago, Leggy said:

I think that makes some sense if it were economically viable. On the sports, that's what the new agreement does, makes the distributions on a % of net profit basis. I think they could simply use a proportion of opex based on the proportion of total gross betting revenue as a basis for that allocation.

So there you go....self worth over rides the truth. You professed to know the deal but you're now offering an alternative.......If you knew the deal no alternative would have been proffered.....I knew you would catch yourself out because you can't prevent yourself from attempting to prove to others your self worth.....as I said before....yawn yawn...a bullshitter

Arbitraging is the simultaneous buying and selling of securities, currency, or commodities in different markets or in derivative forms in order to take advantage of differing prices for the same asset. This can be a bet.

The real issue with FO betting systems is that you either need multiple bets or multiple events available to the odds creator because you need to mitigate potential loss by arbitraging a hold. The process of FO offerings used to be done by human beings who either had ridiculously accurate inside information (insider trading of info... or cheating), or a researched hunch, or simply following a market. This changed considerably when Betfair entered the market because Betfair had new technology and liquidity. At the start of this era, a sucker would go to a rail bookmaker to place a bet. The bookmaker worked out that Betfair odds would give him a margin break because there was always someone willing to take on the odds in Betfair. He would accept the suckers' money and simply place a mirror bet on Betfair, thereby guaranteeing a profit margin. Then everyone got onto exchange betting so that ability was soon diluted.

So then you have the conventional bookmaker. He would accept bets, and if overly exposed, would off load some of those bets onto other bookmakers (or punters) but tried to work a guaranteed market by playing the difference of the odds of the other bookmakers...an arbitrage. In the meantime the tote is operating, and if enough liquidity, a gambler is relatively guaranteed that the odds they took the bet at eventually was the same as when they placed the bet (the success of Hong Kong). So you had bookmakers accepting bets that they thought they could arbitrage with the totes.

Then along came technology again in the FO betting platforms. Insider trading and hunches were forced into the background as the margins were established through either the bet event or a sequence of bet events, with the platform ensuring that the arbitrage between bets guaranteed a gross profit.

Gross profit is generally accepted as the amount bet minus the amount paid out. If you were a bad bookmaker, then you gross profit would be non-existent. So if we were to take the NZ environment, the issues have been that the odds makers were average, there were too few bets and bet events to play with and the literal paperwork a shambles. So good on John for suggesting that a FO betting platform be created/ implemented in order to take advantage of this mess. The question is, do you develop one or do you white label one, or do you outsource one? White labelling is using someone else's operating service but branding it your own so that it looks like you are providing the service. The online poker industry did this very well with Party Poker offering the room and places at the table, but clients of William Hill would come through the William Hill gateway, everything looked like William Hill, but it was actually Party Poker. The only concern to William Hill was the client's details, which they wanted to retain and not allow anyone else to have access to, and the settlement process of monies won or lost (commissions, rakes and the like).

So when looking at the NZ experience, these are the issues. With new technology, the bets can be automatically balanced (amended to accommodate the amounts bet), and this can occur over multiple bet events.

So here is the concern that I personally have. IF you change the distributions from the current structure to a new one, which offers 1000's of bet alternatives on sports (remember that racing struggles to have multiple bet types or events because of the nature of horse racing), and the tote cannot offer the alternatives, people will probably migrate due to appeal, with loyalty to the racing product becoming diluted, then racing's returns may diminish as race betting diminishes and sports betting increases. If the tote has less liquidity (its currently suffering), then less is bet and the merri-go-round spins faster. Racing suffers.

And please remember that the Act states that everything must be done to promote the welfare of the people in racing and the racing industry. I could take this discussion further but it would seem this needs to be a step by step brain dump.

So what the most important thing? The race fields legislation or the deal with Sports NZ?

Don't bother to comment Leggy....you wouldn't know and I cant believe anything that you say.

[mardigras 27]

7 minutes ago, Berri said:

So what the most important thing? The race fields legislation or the deal with Sports NZ?

Probably neither. Race field fees are already paid by the Oz TABs to NZ and likely have the largest market share on NZ racing in Oz as they do on Oz racing. And getting bookies to be good corporate citizens may not happen anyway so compliance is always going to be an issue.

As for the deal with Sport. Trivial and not worth wasting time on, IMO. Using net profit is likely to mean NZRB is not exposed to paying a sport even when they make no 'net' money from the sport. I expect it is more of a safety net for NZRB. And if it turns out that sport get 2 - 3 times more, then that would be a good thing.

[Leggy 4,077]

45 minutes ago, Berri said:

So here is the concern that I personally have. IF you change the distributions from the current structure to a new one, which offers 1000's of bet alternatives on sports (remember that racing struggles to have multiple bet types or events because of the nature of horse racing), and the tote cannot offer the alternatives, people will probably migrate due to appeal, with loyalty to the racing product becoming diluted, then racing's returns may diminish as race betting diminishes and sports betting increases. If the tote has less liquidity (its currently suffering), then less is bet and the merri-go-round spins faster. Racing suffers.

So how do you solve that potential problem, when punters are being attracted to offshore providers who do offer 1000s of bet alternatives on sports? Let them go and give up the sports revenue as well as the racing revenue?

[Guest 2Admin2]

4 minutes ago, Leggy said:

So how do you solve that potential problem, when punters are being attracted to offshore providers who do offer 1000s of bet alternatives on sports? Let them go and give up the sports revenue as well as the racing revenue?

Don't forget the Sports betting contributes to paying operating cost.

[Berri 2,131]

29 minutes ago, Leggy said:

So how do you solve that potential problem, when punters are being attracted to offshore providers who do offer 1000s of bet alternatives on sports? Let them go and give up the sports revenue as well as the racing revenue?

I suggested you not respond to me because you're a bull shitter. When will you learn that? And when will you learn to read?

I've supported Johnny in creating an inventory of betting platforms -  FO betting platform, an exchange, a tote (using new technology because our tote is rooted) and long odds bets. I've supported creating a structure that allows all bets, all bet events and all platforms to offer a uniform offering that allows affiliates schemes to be produced and managed....the more the better. I'm an advocate of making NZ a betting mecca by offering competitive take out rates across the board, events and platforms. These suggestions have been well documented over many years, including to the current NZRB.

25 years ago I formally suggested race fields legislation but was told it would be too expensive to police. I still support this initiative. By the way, does race fields include all content, including sport, that is created as a result of an event?

What I wasn't ready for was receiving news that the NZRB had already agreed to a deal with Sports NZ in respect of changing the equation which may or may not be advantageous/ disadvantageous to racing, who under the Act, should be the main beneficiary for distributions from betting and betting services. I am proudly a racing guy, fully blooded, fully functional and will proudly and resolutely stand up and fight for the corner of racing. That is why I have been/ am speaking out because I know the effect of stupidly thought through initiatives. I like sport, I like my kids to play sport, I like watching sport but my game is racing. I don't necessarily agree to betting on sports because man is intelligent and therefore can pervert the course of an event that could promote un-genuine actions due to greed. I don't think our kids need to be tainted with some of this rubbish from a young age.

But I am a realist, a capitalist and a business person. So bring on change. Just make sure its right and one thing I hate to feel is that I've/ we've (racing) been ambushed by a chameleon change of Racing Act. What is the deal? Can anyone tell me? It's been reported as being done so why can't anyone tell me/ us? Either its been badly reported (Bullshitter professed to know but he doesn't), or it doesn't yet exist, or it has yet to be completed. Why can't the NZTR, Trainers/ Owners/ Breeders/ Jockeys Associations tell us. 

That is why my voice is loud and my resolution extreme, on this site, to the bullshitters and imbeciles at this late stage. Has the horse bolted? The finer detail is often the most important.

Quote

 

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

3 minutes ago, Berri said:

I suggested you not respond to me because you're a bull shitter. When will you learn that? And when will you learn to read?

I've supported Johnny in creating an inventory of betting platforms -  FO betting platform, an exchange, a tote (using new technology because our tote is rooted) and long odds bets. I've supported creating a structure that allows all bets, all bet events and all platforms to offer a uniform offering that allows affiliates schemes to be produced and managed....the more the better. I'm an advocate of making NZ a betting mecca by offering competitive take out rates across the board, events and platforms. These suggestions have been well documented over many years, including to the current NZRB.

25 years ago I formally suggested race fields legislation but was told it would be too expensive to police. I still support this initiative. By the way, does race fields include all content, including sport, that is created as a result of an event?

What I wasn't ready for was receiving news that the NZRB had already agreed to a deal with Sports NZ in respect of changing the equation which may or may not be advantageous/ disadvantageous to racing, who under the Act, should be the main beneficiary for distributions from betting and betting services. I am proudly a racing guy, fully blooded, fully functional and will proudly and resolutely stand up and fight for the corner of racing. That is why I have been/ am speaking out because I know the effect of stupidly thought through initiatives. I like sport, I like my kids to play sport, I like watching sport but my game is racing. I don't necessarily agree to betting on sports because man is intelligent and therefore can pervert the course of an event that could promote un-genuine actions due to greed. I don't think our kids need to be tainted with some of this rubbish from a young age.

But I am a realist, a capitalist and a business person. So bring on change. Just make sure its right and one thing I hate to feel is that I've/ we've (racing) been ambushed by a chameleon change of Racing Act. What is the deal? Can anyone tell me? It's been reported as being done so why can't anyone tell me/ us? Either its been badly reported (Bullshitter professed to know but he doesn't), or it doesn't yet exist, or it has yet to be completed. Why can't the NZTR, Trainers/ Owners/ Breeders/ Jockeys Associations tell us. 

That is why my voice is loud and my resolution extreme, on this site, to the bullshitters and imbeciles at this late stage. Has the horse bolted? The finer detail is often the most important.

 

Don't tell us Berri you are involved at any level with NZRB or NZTR?

[Leggy 4,077]

1 hour ago, Berri said:

So there you go....self worth over rides the truth. You professed to know the deal but you're now offering an alternative.......If you knew the deal no alternative would have been proffered.....I knew you would catch yourself out because you can't prevent yourself from attempting to prove to others your self worth.....as I said before....yawn yawn...a bullshitter

You are a hard case Berri and you do love to present assumptions as fact, especially about me, even though your assumptions are mostly dead wrong or based on your distortions of what I actually said. You did get one thing right. I have started a  degree that I didn't complete. Three actually.

You say you don't know who I am but FYI, we have met. It was a long time ago for sure (Vision Bloodstock days for you) but I once picked you up from the airport in Lexington,KY and delivered you to your lodgings. We shared a few beers in subsequent days, looked at a few horses, and I thought you were a pretty good bloke, a decent judge of a horse and pretty astute. I guess the years have not served you well, so next time you can catch a cab.

[Leggy 4,077]

11 minutes ago, Berri said:

I suggested you not respond to me because you're a bull shitter. When will you learn that? And when will you learn to read?

I've supported Johnny in creating an inventory of betting platforms -  FO betting platform, an exchange, a tote (using new technology because our tote is rooted) and long odds bets. I've supported creating a structure that allows all bets, all bet events and all platforms to offer a uniform offering that allows affiliates schemes to be produced and managed....the more the better. I'm an advocate of making NZ a betting mecca by offering competitive take out rates across the board, events and platforms. These suggestions have been well documented over many years, including to the current NZRB.

25 years ago I formally suggested race fields legislation but was told it would be too expensive to police. I still support this initiative. By the way, does race fields include all content, including sport, that is created as a result of an event?

What I wasn't ready for was receiving news that the NZRB had already agreed to a deal with Sports NZ in respect of changing the equation which may or may not be advantageous/ disadvantageous to racing, who under the Act, should be the main beneficiary for distributions from betting and betting services. I am proudly a racing guy, fully blooded, fully functional and will proudly and resolutely stand up and fight for the corner of racing. That is why I have been/ am speaking out because I know the effect of stupidly thought through initiatives. I like sport, I like my kids to play sport, I like watching sport but my game is racing. I don't necessarily agree to betting on sports because man is intelligent and therefore can pervert the course of an event that could promote un-genuine actions due to greed. I don't think our kids need to be tainted with some of this rubbish from a young age.

But I am a realist, a capitalist and a business person. So bring on change. Just make sure its right and one thing I hate to feel is that I've/ we've (racing) been ambushed by a chameleon change of Racing Act. What is the deal? Can anyone tell me? It's been reported as being done so why can't anyone tell me/ us? Either its been badly reported (Bullshitter professed to know but he doesn't), or it doesn't yet exist, or it has yet to be completed. Why can't the NZTR, Trainers/ Owners/ Breeders/ Jockeys Associations tell us. 

That is why my voice is loud and my resolution extreme, on this site, to the bullshitters and imbeciles at this late stage. Has the horse bolted? The finer detail is often the most important.

 

Thanks for the response but is there any chance you might directly answer the question I raised?

[gary1 361]

56 minutes ago, Leggy said:

You are a hard case Berri and you do love to present assumptions as fact, especially about me, even though your assumptions are mostly dead wrong or based on your distortions of what I actually said. You did get one thing right. I have started a  degree that I didn't complete. Three actually.

You say you don't know who I am but FYI, we have met. It was a long time ago for sure (Vision Bloodstock days for you) but I once picked you up from the airport in Lexington,KY and delivered you to your lodgings. We shared a few beers in subsequent days, looked at a few horses, and I thought you were a pretty good bloke, a decent judge of a horse and pretty astute. I guess the years have not served you well, so next time you can catch a cab.

cracker

[mardigras 27]

Berri, it is good to hear you are an advocate of making NZ a betting mecca. Sadly that seems to contrast with your own view that you are a realist.

What is actually the issue if any deal with sports increases their payments by 100%, 200% or even more? You seem to be hung up on what the Act states currently without thinking about it being a moving piece of legislation. What might be suitable for racing up to now, might require tweaking because it is no longer suitable for racing to receive what it gets.

Did you expect the Racing Act to carry on supporting the racing industry in perpetuity irrespective of the level of interest and benefits the industry provides?

Is that how you think governments work?

[silver lad 6]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Mardi.Maybe it's time for the government to hit the racing authorities with the "you f....d it you fix it".

[Berri 2,131]

2 hours ago, Leggy said:

You are a hard case Berri and you do love to present assumptions as fact, especially about me, even though your assumptions are mostly dead wrong or based on your distortions of what I actually said. You did get one thing right. I have started a  degree that I didn't complete. Three actually.

You say you don't know who I am but FYI, we have met. It was a long time ago for sure (Vision Bloodstock days for you) but I once picked you up from the airport in Lexington,KY and delivered you to your lodgings. We shared a few beers in subsequent days, looked at a few horses, and I thought you were a pretty good bloke, a decent judge of a horse and pretty astute. I guess the years have not served you well, so next time you can catch a cab.

If that is the case then thanks for the ride, and knowing me, I bought the beers.. I still go to Lexington, still buy the odd nag when I'm overcome by a streak of stupidity but my nags seem to do OK. I enjoy smart debate and banter and do this site for entertainment....nothing really spins my head and its all a case of jollies....I call things as I see them with no axe to grind but don't suffer fools or people who twist the truth or are not genuine. What you see is what you get with me. You need to choose your words more carefully or you will have a blunderbuss like me come charging through the gateway. We could kiss and make up if you play the game straight.

In respect of mardigras, no-one can predict what any government will do. That's like predicting Donald Trump's next move. I've been immersed in betting systems for years and know a little bit to make some sort of debate. You asked what the problem was IF sports got more of the pie. I said it before and I'm a racing man. Until I know what the deal is I will always be fighting the corner for racing. Do you know what the deal is? Do you know anyone who does?

As for my stance on the NZ betting industry, the more is bet the more racing should receive UNDER the current Act. Long may it last. The real fear is that it won't and we'll all be crying as no-one does anything to debate the issues in preparation to influence the right change. I know the government is looking for an alternative funding provider for sports, in particular grass roots sports. It wants to limit pokies because the Act covering pokies has also got its issues, and as we have all seen, the risk of diversion has been defined through corrupt practice. It is also an evil offering that preys on the less privileged, and as such, I don't think we need to continue to expose our underprivileged young people to as they literally see their parents piss the food and education money up the wall.

But looking to the future, every business needs competition to flourish and continuously strip the lazy and incumbent from the process. NZ has only got 4.5m people ...not a lot. Our betting industry has been badly managed, as has our racing industry. People simply don't have enough knowledge of history or experience to identify the right thing to do. Even worse, once they know what is the right thing, they choose not to DO the right thing...an even harder event in many instances.

The best thing to do is open it right up with the right rules, operations and systems. Racing will need to aggressively pursue perfection in all it has to compete, and that needs co-operation between all parties with a very robust mandate. In the meantime I want to understand what has been agreed to because I am personally of the opinion that this may be a game changer. Better to make sure than to regret complacency at a later date.

[mardigras 27]

27 minutes ago, silver lad said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head Mardi.Maybe it's time for the government to hit the racing authorities with the "you f....d it you fix it".

Sadly, as much as many seem to want to take great steps to have racing protected with what they have got. Racing has reached this very point by its own actions (or inaction). Now 10-15 years down the track of cocking it up, it seems they expect the status quo should remain and the government largesse should just keep on going. It certainly isn't realist thinking, it is fantasyland.

[mardigras 27]

30 minutes ago, Berri said:

In respect of mardigras, no-one can predict what any government will do. That's like predicting Donald Trump's next move. I've been immersed in betting systems for years and know a little bit to make some sort of debate. You asked what the problem was IF sports got more of the pie. I said it before and I'm a racing man. Until I know what the deal is I will always be fighting the corner for racing. Do you know what the deal is? Do you know anyone who does?

As for my stance on the NZ betting industry, the more is bet the more racing should receive UNDER the current Act. Long may it last. The real fear is that it won't and we'll all be crying as no-one does anything to debate the issues in preparation to influence the right change. I know the government is looking for an alternative funding provider for sports, in particular grass roots sports. It wants to limit pokies because the Act covering pokies has also got its issues, and as we have all seen, the risk of diversion has been defined through corrupt practice. It is also an evil offering that preys on the less privileged, and as such, I don't think we need to continue to expose our underprivileged young people to as they literally see their parents piss the food and education money up the wall.

I think it is pretty easy to predict where this is going. NZ racing is now minute. A very small contributor to the economy. I expect a new report is likely to be sought detailing what they believe that economic benefit to be in the not too distant future. No government that wants to stay in power will just gift 100 million+ dollars to something each year without some level of justification. They likely had the justification 15 years ago. I can't see that they do now. Eventually, politicians being politicians, this will come to a head.

I don't know what the deal is. But if the government is to keep gifting funds to racing (and some to sports), I bloody well hope that the fees to sports go up a lot. That might help NZ racing buy some time in which they hopefully start working through a strategy of focusing on NZ racing and how to make it self sustainable. Rather than relying on revenue from sport, pokies and off-shore racing.

At some point, some one is going to ask the question as to why the government is persisting with propping up an industry delivering no benefits to NZ. I have been a huge fan of racing in NZ. But what we have now is not something the government should waste the current level of money on. I think there are areas more needing of those funds. The country was up in arms about spending a few million on the flag debate. Imagine if they actually knew what the government gifts the racing industry every year from revenue that is 100% unrelated to it.

Instead of worrying about why revenue unrelated to NZ racing is possibly going to be lost to NZ racing, perhaps start worrying about what NZ racing needs to do to actually start generating revenue for itself.

[Leggy 4,077]

2 hours ago, Berri said:

If that is the case then thanks for the ride, and knowing me, I bought the beers.. I still go to Lexington, still buy the odd nag when I'm overcome by a streak of stupidity but my nags seem to do OK. I enjoy smart debate and banter and do this site for entertainment....nothing really spins my head and its all a case of jollies....I call things as I see them with no axe to grind but don't suffer fools or people who twist the truth or are not genuine. What you see is what you get with me. You need to choose your words more carefully or you will have a blunderbuss like me come charging through the gateway. We could kiss and make up if you play the game straight.

I can assure you I have no desire to kiss you. You should choose your words more carefully. Yes, I'm pretty sure you bought the beers. Thanks. You just left me the bill for the accommodation and the whisky from memory. Next time you get a camp stretcher in the tack room.

With respect to Mardi's post above, I think it's dead on. You have to realise that RB FOB turnover on sports is now closing in on that of FOB racing at around $600m. That's also well ahead of the entire turnover on domestic thoroughbred racing. It's only a matter of time before the politicians and public notice. So while I respect your right to fight from racing's corner to preserve as much of what it has as possible for as long as possible, longer term and starting asap, racing needs to figure out how it can be largely self sustaining again as Mardi says. Preferably before the government says what silver lad suggests they might, "you f....d it you fix it". I suspect JA smartly has realised this with the pending legislation amendments and chucked Sports a morsel to keep them quiet while the legislation is on the table. Whatever the cost of that turns out to be, it has to be worth it if it works. As you and Midget continue to point out, he is mandated to make these deals in the best interests of racing under current legislation.

What is for certain IMO, racing needs to get off the beneficiary list of things that as Mardi points out are 100% nothing to do with their own product. I doubt any government will take away racing's right to the revenue they generate from their own product but removal of subsidies from sports betting, offshore racing and pokies will always only be a pen swipe away. In your words Berri, if the horse hasn't bolted yet, it inevitably will sooner or later and in racing's best interests I sometimes think that sooner might be better than later which would force the issue to be addressed.

I learned this the hard way, but what government gives, government can take away.

 

[Berri 2,131]

Quote "I can assure you I have no desire to kiss you. You should choose your words more carefully. Yes, I'm pretty sure you bought the beers. Thanks. You just left me the bill for the accommodation and the whisky from memory. Next time you get a camp stretcher in the tack room."

I take back the potential making up. You actually are a nutter if you really believe what you posted. I don't drink whisky...have always had an aversion to it in fact, stay at the Radisson and still can't remember you so you obviously really made an impression. I did get it right first time round.....a nutter with an indulgent self worth.

Not sure about your brain status so I'm now out of this process because you are all never ending carousels. You guys are advocating Racing gets less. That is a notion I never thought I'd read about on a Racing dedicated site.

quite surreal really. Got get your meds  boys. You need them

[Leggy 4,077]

5 hours ago, Berri said:

 You guys are advocating Racing gets less. That is a notion I never thought I'd read about on a Racing dedicated site.

If that's what you think then you've obviously missed the whole point of the conversation.

Sites I visit in other fields seem to be quite able to have sensible conversations about what might be best in the longer term for those fields, for others, the country and even the world at large. Not adopt myopic, greedy, short-term views and fly into a name-calling rage when any one disagrees with that.

[mardigras 27]

Missing the point is spot on. I advocate racing getting more. A lot more. From racing. At the time of the Racing Act, racing was largely self sufficient. And when the tax rules changed on betting, they had every chance of getting a lot more and still being largely self sufficient. They aren't. NZ racings contribution to the NZRB net surplus is likely around 20% - 25% of the funding they get. Not bad. And most of that comes from race field styled fees generated off-shore. And their contribution level is decreasing each year. Yet you think that is all fine. Because you are a fan of racing and support racing and everyone on this site should want that - since it is a racing site.

[Midget 4,489]

Thoroughbred racing is a complicated beast.

I agree that the NZRB is bloated and not performing, but so is the TB code.

We haven't changed with the times at all, if anything the product has deteriorated to the point it now appeals only to the older generation of pathological gamblers.

The irony is that of the three codes TB has the strongest asset base, but we use our assets so poorly.

All these matters are complicated by the amateur club system, parochialism, the Members Council being impotent, NZTR failing to develop coherent visionary policies, and perhaps even the inability of the Trainers Assn to act effectively and constructively.

We need a massive overhaul but we lack the leaders to do it.

If ever an industry needed a strong autocratic leader it's TB right now, and I mean strong, consultation has gotten us no where, we need a bully with intelligence and vision, and the truth is that NZ racing will only ever reach the lofty heights of years gone by again if we have the guts to appoint someone to lead who won't tolerate mediocrity or bullshit.

I'm not available ( but what a leader I'd be ) so that leaves two people, Peter Vela, but he has no reason to do the job, or Garry Chittick, and as much as he might polarize people he has attributes that are appropriate and he could give this game a decent bloody shake up and get the industry kick started. 

My dream team would thus be Chittick as Chairman, Dean McKenzie as CE, me as deputy chair, at least one intelligent trainer or jockey on the NZTR board, and a new NZRB board with three TB members on that board.

And my mantra, no more consultation, either do it our way or deal with the confrontation, and that applies to the Minister, the NZRB, and to the racing clubs.

[mardigras 27]

Whilst change is needed, I'd rather all the prospective people being sufficiently intelligent and you don't qualify. You need to drop the superiority complex. Of course I realise you were taking the piss, so on that basis, your point is well made.

[Trump 2,741]

At some point, there has to be some pain through some really hard-nailed actions. Actions taken for the good of the whole business and to the short, medium and long term benefit of "all" the remaining participants. It's the only way. I've done it in business several times and it does work. The remaining players thrive, as does the industry. TB racing is in that situation. It needs the overhaul. Blood on the floor, pissed off people, etc. But in the end, the racing industry can flourish. You may think Midget was taking the piss re he, Vela, McKenzie or Chittick etc, being the right ones to drive the critical change. Someone even suggested that The divine MR M's "superiority complex" might be a problem? But think about it. The person driving it has to have, a passion to get the job done,  a hide as thick as a NQ crocodile, plenty of front, be able to cop abuse (only for a while), not be averse to change, and above all, have a clear vision of what the TB Racing landscape in NZ needs to look like in order to flourish. Going by what is written on this site, he may just be your man!

[Berri 2,131]

Then that's decided....Midgie gets the top job

[Guest 2Admin2]

1 hour ago, Berri said:

Then that's decided....Midgie gets the top job

Well he's looking for a gig.