From what I know and from joining a few dots together:
Some time ago the 'bright sparks' decided that the new site format should give punters only what they perceived to be the critical information needed to make a decision of which horse to bet on. They wanted to streamline the information provided so chose to implement a style more akin to the KISS style which works in some situations, but IMO, not on a TAB site.
Punters, even the Joe Average's, tend to have their own 'systems' & they religiously stick to them, be they based on recent form, breeding, horses for courses, barrier draws, speed maps, gear changes, a combination of factors, etc. etc.. Many also want to know the prize-money, ownership etc. too. The 'picture' needs to be a complete one. The site also needs to react quickly once the punter decides how their precious dollars are going to be invested. To many clicks and lagging are a certain way to send punters to the overseas opposition, or to make them keep their money in their wallets in protest.
Making it difficult to find & use any of the above (and a few more I've probably missed), all of which were easily viewed or used on the old site, was pure folly. To put a label on it one could call it "How to alienate your current customer base 101'. If it was working in a way that encouraged a new generation of punters into the game, then I would be willing to forgive some of the things that frustrate the hell out of me, but it fails here too. Then, the industry leaders have the gall to deny there are major issues, preferring to promote ' fairy tales' instead! Wow, they are seemingly intent to just keep on insulting Kiwi punters, spending to fix the stuff that should have been available & working at the launch, and to spin the line that the obscenely huge initial spend on the site is good value is truly beyond belief.
Some fixes have been made since the inception, but at what extra cost? I am no expert in the IT field but I suspect that getting the base platform right from day one is critical to the success or otherwise of a site. A few tweaks will always be needed, but the scale of changes needed here are signs of a disaster being covered up.
Unfortunately, what we have is a 'dog', cosmetically applying fixes might make it a 'prettier, marginally more user-friendly dog' over time, but it will never fix the underlying deficiencies.
Rome's burning fiercely!