LongOwner

Breeders violin really starts to play when anyone questions the share of the owners stakes they have managed to weasel into . If the stakes were higher then the owner would pay more for your horse - the present handout means the owner ,if he wins a race , only gets $5 k which lasts 2 months compared to if all the other payments were put back into stakes the win would cover 3 .5 plus months training .Owner pays the trainer already why should we pay him again out of the stakes pool - he gets 10% of stakes won - double dipping social welfare payment . I hope they pay tax on the earnings .

We race horses to win - not support the useless ! Shameful that the key to to sport is getting kicked in the guts by administrators - the majority of which only skin in the game is 1/50 share in a club syndicate horse with their share given to them to look after the syn . So really no skin in the game - and the owner gets robbed again. Same as the breeders payment - they sold the horse , they pay nothing to the owner towards training but get $500 from the stake pool . Clubs put everything back into the stakes and race for it - stop the rubbishing around with social welfare payments . These charity payments out of the stakes pool is really pi ..ing off owners .

He is already lost to the industry - he is going to sell real estate - because the industry / trainers didn't give him half a fair go ! Juniors cannot see a future in the sport as they add up the total hours a week they spend at the stable to get the minimum basic wage and then get the third string stable drive. Guys like Steve say what is the point in slogging your guts out to be kicked in the guts !

Social Welfare Department for harness trainers = ATC . Trainers get paid by the owner and are to nominate the horse in their care in the best interests of the owner - not to be bribed by the socialist state of ATC. ATC just put the $150 into the stakes for 1st to 4th and then everyone can race for it - which is what we are there for - horse racing.

Can someone tell me how race 5 at Auckland with 7 runners from the same stable be any good for the sport. My suggestion is the stable stop paying series entry fees because if they pooled all the payments from all the 125 plus horses a year they are involved in they could have there own race meeting. Then the rest of us ( from 5 horse stables to 50 horse stables ) can run in a race with no thought of team driving or this is hopeless get me out of spending money on horses and be left with a positive thought we could win this etc. Again I ask can someone sell me the idea of one stable having 7 runners in a field of 12 is good for racing and the sport of harness racing ? Maybe the stable private reporter can give us the reason why it is positive .

I agree with janitor - I always thought trainers were high in the practical and sport set and were not mathematicians but this paper turns that upside down . Too complicated and had me lost a third of the way through - a real bugger as the present system needs changing ! Things have to be easy to understand and concise if you expect to achieve and this is neither . Find a system which works , either code and any country , modify it a little for us and get change . The trainers doc is like the rugby rules - not clear or concise !

Excellent summary of the real situation - the frustration is the many who see it as not a problem. It is driving many out of the sport as the dream has been taken away !

I agree with your second paragraph. Maybe we restrict all trainers to 2 starters in any Group Race heat or Group 1-3 race. That may stop the rot - good idea - and if All Star owners don't like it then maybe a couple of the " tight " group , which they are , will be lost but the rest of the sport will be far stronger.

Read my opinion and I acknowledge skills A+. That is not in dispute - what the problem is , whether actual or perception , owners and breeders plus punters are putting up the white flag and saying I will spend my money on something else as we cannot win because of the numbers games and class of the opposition. The fun has gone as there is no such thing as a runners chance anymore.

Stakes Addington $250 k stakes Hawera $65 k .Basic maths says turnover needs to be say 3-4 times higher

Did Addington Saturday night loose some more owners, breeders and punters due to a single stables dominance? 15 starters in 8 races for 6 -wins , 2 -2nds and 3 -3rds , They won 6 out of the eight races they entered . They are great trainers - not questioning that at all - but it is a numbers and quality equation which I think no one can compete with. Lets say 60 horses main barn and 50 breaking in and through the year 60 in pre training - so at one time I think you can conservatively say the stable is directly involved in a stable of say 120 ! Then breeding and quality - the stable rejects would be every other stables racing team . As a breeder they generally do not want my mid quality stock - we all cannot bred to AdoreMe's family - as an owner it is a numbers game - I have say 2 in work and run around on Sunday or winter as no good coming 5th with a good run against them as they have got rid of my type of horse. The most distressing is the turnover - race 1 & race 6 turnover at Addington would of been worst than a CO trot at Forbury in August . They dominated the fields with numbers and quality resulting in two significant SS heats having very small fields as other trainer's ran away and the stable generally pays nothing on the tote. No turnover = no stake = no races ! As someone said in Saturday night - it would be good for them to be on the other side of the fence to see how it is stuffing the sport . I say again it is not a question of their professionalism, excellent judge of horse flesh, knowledge and training ability - all A + - but what will happen to the sport when they have no one to race against and the stakes continually drop as no turnover on big nights like Saturday as they dominate the card. Maybe Box Seat should investigate turnover when the stable dominates a race versus one where they do not and barn size versus other trainers etc instead of helping animal welfare start a whip debate .

NZRacing sold the programming to Sky for $3 mill a year . Sky then contracted it all out to Aussie Racing Sky and we have nil say - actually Aussie like making it hard for us ! We have no show of getting the correct time slots in the right channels etc . Also that is why no free to air as sole rights Sky - shocking business decision made by NZRB .

Paying bad trainers to become horse farmers at owners cost , like ATC are doing , will guarantee more being sold . They are sold as low stakes but Clubs think lining fat trainers pockets will help - nonsense - but increasing stakes etc will keep more.

Next Cambridge will offer $100 more to the trainer to start and where does that come from - stake pool so therefore the owner . Then ATC go up and next you know appearance money will be $ 1000 and the owners stake a horse is running for will be only $5000. Trainers continually cry I am broke - at least last 20 years - but as with all professions the above average have nice cars , own the $1 mill plus farm they train from and are lucky enough for trips to Cup meetings , holiday circuit etc paid for ,again , by the owner .

Trouble is Goat the turnover is so low when the "stable" is in a field , particularly when multiple runners. Therefore no turnover/profit to pay stakes , horses sold as owners sick of been beaten by the high cost and large numbers game ( I am sure other trainers could compete if each season they had 100 horses going through their barn to wean out the duds and only keep the good ones) and soon the sport is buggered. Soon they will be running there own sweepstake races at home as there will be no opposition.

I was going to have a bet on a horse with shocking form and stinking hot favourite on FF .

TAB say they do them now the day before - and as for the odds - no balls TAB why bother betting early !

Sky pay NZRB $3 million a year for the rights and they then gave Aussie the racing coverage, programming and filming etc. We have no say, no control and will always run/play a poor second to the galloping dominance in Aussie . That is why there is no free to air as Sky own Trackside - dumb decision and very short sighted by NZRB. The coverage for Harness is shocking and Aussie will not listen . A feature NZ harness meeting which falls on a Saturday gets dumped to Trackside 2. Between trying to bet Purdon and TV coverage I have decided to be 100% seller .

Why put a 2 year old in the Sapling stakes when most owners want to sell to Aussie as they are sick of been beaten up by Purdon. Run 7th in Sapling and discount your horse you want to sell by $20 plus K . The bread and butter owner is just not keeping early horses . The price Aussie will pay is too good and the horse has to be exceptional to even get near the Purdon factory who probably have 50 plus young horses to wean down to say the top 5 ! Impossible to compete with as the odds are too tough when normal stabe starts with say 5 young horses to get 1 above average young horse versus Purdon numbers. I do not begrudge the stable success but like Brodie if you don't think it is not stuffing up our sport you have your head in the sand ! Racing is not about the perfect All Black game / team but punting to pay the stakes to keep people investing in horse flesh. No punting as Purdon scares every other owner and trainer away or shocking odds because Purdon's horses ( on form ) are favourites and we know they win or small fields because Purdon nominated a few and other trainers withdraw there horses all means low / poor punting then low stakes as low turnover then no horses as stakes rubbish then no races ! It is quickly stuffing the game !

Have read this with interest and if you have read my past posts you will know I am not a fan of amateurs but it has got the better of me. Off the real topic but Tim have you changed your medication because your comments are reasoned , fair and not a rant with expletives. Your argument today is far more compelling .

I totally agree with 2Piper - it is right through the industry from HRNZ to every Club administrator and committee member . It is beneath them to ask the main driver in the industry - the owner and then the trainer as without them they have no product and like the Pelorus the sport will be cancelled. This race has struggled in recent years - have they asked the owners and trainers why have they stopped supporting the race - should of been asked during the last 24 months ! Is it the time of year, conditions, location , stake, distance - what has now made it a non runner? Clubs and HRNZ get off your bums and ask the people who pay your wages why they don't support the race then re-program it or put the stake money somewhere else !

Lamour you are so right - Clubs seem to think the owner is the weakest part of the link but in fact it is the most important - piss off the owners and the Clubs will have no product - the horse. Maybe Clubs should ask the owner about what they need and not the greedy trainer . The owner has the investment in the horse not the trainer who normally have shocking communization skills and clip the ticket if the horse wins while charging you a high daily rate plus everything else . The lack of recognition to the owner by Clubs is so frustrating.

I totally agree with Frankie - owners should not be asked to line trainers pockets and owners don't want $500 from clubs taken off them to go to the breeder. It is all getting far too messy and too many noses in the trough ! Every sector of the industry has it place - the breeder sells and that is that ( if the stakes are higher then more buyers and then higher price ) , the trainer trains the horse and gets paid every month with no skin in the horse ( third party normal training situation like Dunns & Purdons etc ) plus %5 of stakes - that is - all they should get. They can charge more and win more if you think you are not getting enough ! Lastly in my opinion the owner who has all the capital outlay , has to rely on the trainer to get the best from the horse needs a fair stake . If not the owner will walk and the game will have no horses ! He looses a total of 15% from his stake share to the trainer and driver plus GST and now a tiny figure so poor horse can go around - why support rubbish horses and trainers . I am totally against lining the trainers pocket more - the stakes are for the horse not the hangers on ! The stakes should not be watered down to pay last place - we are a sport that should support winners not losers whether it is the horse or trainer.

John Ryan The $300 k I assume you are talking Methven who have a farm. Take out all one race meeting Clubs - Kiakoura etc - JohnRyan you tell us what South Island Clubs are in positive funds . Southland Clubs - except the one which owns its property - most have limited or nil reserves and one has stakes this sason of $5 k - that is 30 years ago stake level. Nelson has reported it is on a knife edge , Mot is struggling even though it gets a huge xmas crowd and Southland Clubs enjoy travel subsidy from HRNZ so Canterbury horses travel down there to fill the fields. How would they track without travel subsidies ? The Clubs need to work together like the Gallops do for the overall good instead of stroking your egos. If you are so positive then no clubs should receive any travel subsidy - Forbury is a problem but it is needed to keep Southland horses a venue in winter as it has lights. Last thing JohnRyan - reading other posts and replies you have made you are an angry person - take some chill pills.

HRNZ only has a small marketing team - Staff Profile list all staff. It is smaller than each team at the two big Clubs so does not have the horse power to be a full Harness Racing marketing organisation. Marketing of race meetings has always been the Clubs domain - whether that is right and are they are any good at it one can argue but it does/may result in some double overhead because HRNZ , in a small part , do the same thing. This is a the question I am asking. Field selection and marketing seem conflicting or double cost as each body seems to think it is their role. Surely race programming and field selection should be HRNZ as a central body - efficient one stop shop for racing undertaken by HRNZ. I totally agree re HRNZ board - it is a collection of industry nominated interest groups who are trying to improve/argue their own position ( Club , Breeder , Owners/Trainers ) and seem to not be a collective body acting in the interest of the overall sport. All are individuals with their own agendas - this is hopeless. As a breeder I did not ask to be subsidised $500 by the horse owner who bought my horse at the sales and has taken all the risk and paid the trainer and driver . It was not part of my business plan and shouldn't be - I breed to sell and the reason foal numbers are down is buyers don't pay enough for mine or other yearlings so hard to make money - if they paid double the present sale average we would have heaps of mares being bred. The $500 would be better put into stakes so the buyer feels he has a chance of getting to break even racing a horse and then they will pay more for my yearling. The Breeders payment is stake money not going to the owner who is paying $2,000 mth to race a horse. This is an example of interest groups pushing their own " barrow " without looking collectively at the overall sport . How can HRNZ be objective and tell a Club they are not preforming and should program a meeting like xyz, stakes should be this as a minimum and a feature race stake should be less so the greater part of the industry gets rewarded - increase lower grade stakes by reducing NZ Cup to $500 k as an example - when the Board is a collection of own agendas. All entities have Mission Statements which are nice but are not fully implemented - too much double handling I am saying and as the big two Clubs have both said their main driver is using the horse racing industry accumulated assets for none racing purposes then let the Clubs continue doing that ( development, function centre etc ) and take the responsibility of drafting programs, all fields and minimum stake levels off them and let it solely be done by HRNZ. The HRNZ review of Clubs supported by NZRB is excellent and I hope everyone looks at the overall plan with objective eyes and not solely worried how it effects the little patch they are involved in- the sport cannot afford to maintain a track in every settlement in NZ.