Leggy
-
Posts
7,927 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
63
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Leggy
-
-
Rod this is fantastic. How did you get that data?
-
But Leggy, as we all know, common sense is not that common.
Yes, an exceptionally good idea.
Its an initiative that needs to be NZTR driven so they as the code body at least know what their code investors want.
Funnily enough, I put my idea to a northern Trainer just yesterday for feedback and he had no problem at all with having every grade of horse including pure maidens (ie not special cond mai races) catered for on a Premier day at the same (say) 30k minimum if it meant all other races across the board dropped by $1,000 each to reflect the current level of total funding.
We can always lift all races when our industry grows again (as it should be growing now, if better governed and the Act allowed entreprenurial thinking or at least entreprenurial people to be appointed and controlled by and responsible to the codes).
Well on a personal level, I don't have a strong view, but it is probably slightly different from yours in that even if I know that a horse can only 1 one race and then only with everything right including holding my tongue the right way, I enjoy the challenge of trying to achieve that. I'm not sure that would be greatly changed though whether mdn minimums were 10k or 3k.
-
Another of your oxymorons.
You suggest that most "buy horses because they love being a part of it, and the thrill of winning..." Yet you say 5k extra is your need as opposed to $1k which revolves around stakes rather than love and thrills.
I'm more honest. I say most owners get involved hoping for a flukily good horse to win flukily good money. And when most don't achieve that, they then want to race for good Premier stakes (available each Saturday for all grades) so they can better afford the financial mess they have got into with only an average horse - all the while still hoping they are developing a flukily good horse or that one comes along.
Well I think this is an important debate because before we can really decide what funding model distribution is best, we really need to know what owners want across the board. We have a couple of diverse views here and that determines the preferred funding model.
That takes me back to the point I raised earlier. Why on earth wouldn't the clubs via NZTR consult with or survey all registered owners with a range of models to determine which distribution model would be most attractive to the most owners. It seems a no brainer to me.
-
-
Bookie fight to go to High Court
Posted March 11, 2011 16:38:00
The long-running battle between New South Wales racing authorities and wagering firms Betfair and Sportsbet over rights fees will continue in the High Court later this year.
Corporate bookmaker Sportsbet and betting exchange Betfair were granted leave on Friday to appeal a Federal Court decision that they pay 1.5 per cent of turnover under the New South Wales race fields legislation.
Both maintain a fairer outcome is to pay the fee based on gross profit, arguing the current model discriminates against interstate operators and is protectionist towards wagering giant Tabcorp and New South Wales on-course bookmakers.
Betfair says because it is a low-margin operation which matches punters against each other with the company taking a commission from winning bets, the turnover fee will affect its ability to operate.
Sportsbet is licensed by the Northern Territory government while Betfair is licensed by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission.
Sportsbet chief executive Matthew Tripp said it was unfortunate mediation could not have resolved the situation.
"So far they have shut the door and it's disappointing given the discussions we've had over the last six months with Victoria, South Australia and Queensland," Tripp said.
"We have aligned ourselves with regulatory bodies who fully support a gross profit model.
"How much more money has to be wasted before we get to a conclusion."
Racing New South Wales chief executive Peter V'Landys said it was now important the case did go to the High Court to establish a precedent for all sports bodies.
He said the decision to grant leave for Betfair and Sportsbet to appeal was not unexpected given the case involved the interpretation of the Constitution.
"We need to go to the High Court to get the precedent, to get the certainty to charge the price we want. It's important for every sport around the world to finally determine we have the right to charge for our product."
V'Landys said it was important to note Sportsbet was only permitted to appeal seven of the 16 bases it sought.
Racing New South Wales is holding around $120 million in fees collected pending the outcome of the appeal.
If the regulatory body wins its case the money will be distributed to race clubs and participants throughout the state.
The appeal will be held most likely in June.
- AAP
-
As Prop said, more optimum field sizes would assist with punter attraction. It would be a quality, not quantity model, and also an attempt to make NZ racing more attractive generally. They keep adding more races from overseas, but that doesn't help turnover. With better quality of racing, more competitive fields and generally larger field sizes, I would expect local turnover to remain as is, and even grow, if this was combined with a sensible parimutuel system with competitive take out rates.
Reducing the number of races should also allow for reduction in some of the costs the industry faces as well (e.g. NZTR costs, broadcasting costs), which may allow even greater funding towards those races that remain, due to less overheads.
Logically, I agree with that Rod. The punter total spend should theoretically stay the same and possibly grow as you say with competitive takeout rates and resultant larger pools and liquidity.
As for the overseas races, I think a similar quantity and quality rationalisation would be a good idea there as well alongside your other suggestions. Afterall, the margin is 3% less on those races than NZ and all the increase in volume has done is bled turnover from the higher margin NZ ones (I know the 3% is hidden in the books as an operating expense:\ ).
On the other hand, historically, turnover has closely tracked number of horses and races. Perhaps the sensible approach would be a phased plan starting with your option one and aiming to achieve option 2 within 3-5 years say.
-
Well, if you take the funding provided last year from NZRB alone, Gallops received 67.7 million. They had 3068 races. According to NZTR, they had a budget for stakes of $59 million last season, and down to $49.5 million this year. NZTR costs seem excessive. Budgetted amounts of over $12 million on NZTR initiatives.
If you then said I will run each race stakes as follows
$10K - 55% of all races
$15K - 24%
$20K - 10%
$50K - 6%
$100K - 3%
$200K - 2%
The stakes would come at a cost of $64.7 million. Sponsorship should still be actively sought, and at even 10% of stakes, should gain $6.5 million. The excess would be used to cover NZTR costs, and other operational costs for clubs. Now these are just simple ideas and haven't been fully expanded as a business model, but the idea is straight forward. But even a model as simple as that, would average a race a week for $200K, and 3 - 4 races per week at $50K+.
But I would go further than that, and change the number of races run in NZ per year, down to something like averaging 5 meetings per week, running 8 race programmes. Then you would be funding 2080 races per year.
Taking the forecast figure of approx $50 million for stakes, you could have a stakes model similar to below (average # of each per week in brackets)
$10K - 50% of all races (20 per week)
$15K - 25% (10 per week)
$20K - 11.5% (4 - 5 per week)
$50K - 7% (3 per week)
$100K - 4% (1 - 2 per week)
$200K - 2.5% (1 per week)
which would cost $49.5 million. And on average 2-3 races per week would be run for $100K+, and 5 races a week could run for $50K+.
In my view, this would help retain owners far better than the current stakes model in use.
Thanks for doing this Rod. I don't know why on earth NZTR don't toss around various options with owners trainers and clubs like this.
A couple of things though. Minimum stakes funding was budgeted for 42 mil this year, about 7 mil I think for 'free racing' (now cut). Altogether budget was for about 57 mil to clubs including the 18% oncourse figure.
The obvious question with the second model is what will happen to turnover if you cut races by 1/3?
-
The 10k to 150k would need to be funded. Ignoring Winston's inappropriately used money which is temporary, how do you propose to lift minimums to 10K (given there are so many of those races and so few above 150k to pay for it)?
And anyway, given the huge proportion of races you speak of can only be won once, how does a few thousand won once help owners when costs are around 25k per annum?
Far better they can win a 30k mai once in town, on offer each Sat (with 2nd place money equal to our country type mai win).
How would you fund that Don?
-
I see at the foot of the TAB's 'Raceday' e-mail they ask:
Hi, Murray, ...
(Good start! Nice, friendly, chatty!)
... what do you use to study Race form?
Let us know by clicking on one of the buttons below and you'll be into win a $50 account top up just telling us.
(They think, I mean that I'll be in to win rather than into win but, hey, you know me, I never quibble about language usage and/or grammar! :e: )
* tab.co.nz free form guides
* Newspaper liftouts
* Turf Digest/Best Bets
* The Informant
* I don't study Race form
(Dunno how you cope if, like me, you use a combination of all the first three, heh heh, and - if I see a store selling it - will probably also use The Informant too...)
To my mind they need to expand the questioning a bit - maybe by asking what the good points and what the bad points are for each of the first four options, maybe by asking what isn't in your option of choice at present that you'd like in etc - but at least they are asking their public for feedback.
:y:
Prop, I'm flabbergasted that AB gets sent on garden leave (an interesting happening that I hear we may hear more about:tcheek: ), and a week later they actually start asking punters what they think. It's too much.
I agree.....'none of the above' as another and I suspect popular option might have been a helpful idea in the survey. You never know though, this rate of progress and they may even consider that's a possibility before too long.
-
Remarkably the 2 remaining are the wagering "experts" and 1 of them Bill "Takeout" Colgan has been promoted to acting CEO. No doubt reward for raising takeouts to 21% for doubles and quinellas on NZ racing and ensuring only the stupid or lazy bet on NZ racing.
Hear, hear. I think that should read 26% and 21% respectively though Punna.
-
Booting this up. Excuse me. NM
Not that I'm likely to get to an Auckland Cup again midweek in March, but who is this room open to? Just the owners with runners on the day?
-
All those mentioned above were useless Ministers apart from Falloon.....he was feeling his way and did at least try!
Annette King kept promising the tax relief but never gave it. At least Winston was true to his word except on section 16
Get ye to the waterfront!
If I'm not mistaken that's exactly what Mannix was saying too.
-
Where is this Technology though.. what is almost there 1 year 5 years 10 years? who is developing it and at what cost?
I agree we would all like this as I would like Saturdays Lotto numbers...but as you all say the current system is clunky it has been around for years and is outdated...
When the TAB started investigating a replacement Im sure they looked at all the possible alternatives (I Dont know as I had left)
The risk and cost of someone developing a new system to one thats basically out on the shelf that could be modified I guess was the basis of the decision.. anyone who works in a corporate situation that has implemented a new computer system will know the cost and heartache that is associated with it thats why all our friends working in IT get paid the big bucks...
Maybe the new System has all that you want we wont know till its in operation...
You may be right Paul. From what I have seen it looks a big improvement. I was really just reacting to Berri's comments that
"Typhoon is limited.
Won't do what we need it to do. Doesn't provide the big boys market with the toys they need to play the game to the max. "
-
Apprentice....I quite agree that the CEO need not be an expert in everything, but wagering expertise is essential for the RB. There is none on the Board and the CEO had none. Surely they should be recruiting it or buying it in then at both the governance and management level?
I do agree with much of the balance of your post. At the end of the day it is for the RB to provide strategic guidance to the organisation via the CEO. Why haven't they?
-
Prop, I quite agree with everything you say. A brilliant effort on three weeks notice. If you accept the arguments therein, thence comes my support for 'keep the existing federal model for now, fix it as best as possible, get some sensible strategies in place AND being executed, then form a tri-code committee or something to advance the Option 2 ideas'
One thing you forgot....the date....I think once OneRace was gone that was the end of the dialogue from TR and RB.
-
Thanks for that input Berri. Yes, the World is our market and our competitor. It feels like the last few years we have made no headway in adressing that while much of the rest of the world surges ahead, further ahead. To think that the new betting system doesn't represent the cutting edge of the necessary technology makes me want to cry.
Clearly a wagering interface (and takeout rates) for punters that facilitates high speed arbitrage decisions is absolutely crucial. Volume and liquidity attracts more volume. That's a no brainer. So are we going further backwards when it sounds like the necessary technology is out there, or almost?
-
have not the foggiest idea about betting. The idea that they be allowed to open a casino or poker games is absurd .
The garbage that was ABs aspirational strategy report was going to produce mega profits without legislation changes.
He did have a note of warning about the possibility of victab reducing their takeouts in the future . This is inevitable and NSW is having an election soon which the opposition party which is certain to win has also promised tax relief for the NSWTAB . You can be sure that this money will going to reducing takeouts not where winstons tax relief went, to the owners. In ABs mind this was going to cost NZTAB more than 20 million
I don't think anyone could argue with you there Punna. The modelling that underlies the impact of takeout adjustments in the strategic plan is more than incompetent, it's plain idiotic and has no bearing on any of the global research and statistics on the matter. We've discussed that all before, but for what is primarily a wagering organisation to demonstrate their total lack of expertise and understanding so blatantly is a travesty. How can you have an wagering outfit with no-one on the Board or in senior management that has a clue about wagering?
-
Prop the link in the post above was the greyhound and harness response to OneRace and their alternative suggestions. And the quote above from Carter followed a facilitated meeting of the RB and 3 codes called by Carter to thrash out a way forward.Sheriff/You say that Carter's comments are 100% correct.
In the context you use that, I am guessing that you mean that the 100% correctness relates to his his reported comments.
What is your opinion on the correctness of what he says: that he needs majority agreement (within the industry) for him to proceed along the OneRace route?
His stance seems quite prudent to me - here he has 3 arms of an industry that can't even agree on a common way forward but which want him to 'do something' even if they can't define what that 'something' is...
But how proactive has the NZRB been since OneRace?
They've been knocked on the head (presumably by Standardbreds and Greyhounds) on OneRace.
Has the NZRB asked them (Standardbreds and Greyhounds) why they had objections and what those objections were but also what suggestions did they have?
Or, my thinking, have they just sulked and refused to play any more?
No-one ever gets what they want all of the time. Occasionally you need to compromise...
(Compromise is probably in the NZRB dictionary under Commpromise, chaps!)
It seems to me that Thoroughbreds did their best to foul their own nest by not being very consultative about OneRace but basically releasing it to the world and saying 'Here's our own plan. We like it. It assures of us of majority voting rights and the lion's share of the industry cake. It should be done' without involving the other two codes much or even at all.
Has there ever been a Think Tank of the leaders of all three codes to hammer out some common ground so that, at the very least, the Minister could be presented with some plan that attempted to redress the ails that everyone agreed needed fixing?
Leggy/
Maybe we are at cross-purposes. Is the 'legislative reform' you mention simply to do with the governance structure?
My earlier comments were made thinking it was more along the lines of reform of betting legislation.
Yes, we may be at cross purposes by the sound of things but I don't see what legislative change for wagering purposes is necessary. The legislation already provides the RB with the power to introduce any kind of wagering (on Racing and Sports that they want).
-
Carter's comments are 100% accurate.
Until this industry develops a coherent strategy, unites, and utilises its resources and assets in a more constructive way we will never get help from the Government or the NZRB.
If want an example of why we aren't taken seriously look at Counties and their behaviour, and ask yourself what message that sends to head office, and the wider community.
I agree. But the leadership should surely be coming from the NZRB. That's their statutory function.
-
I think Paul was asking a rhetorical question Leggy (particularly given where he works, in what capacity, and for whom)
I appreciate that may be the case Sheriff but I wanted an answer so I rephrased the question. We have world leading software companies and IT brains right here in NZ. Can't we produce a world leading betting interface if such a thing as Berri suggests doesn't already exist?
-
Berri, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you are saying we have been sold another very expensive dummy that won't meet contemporary needs of sophisticated high end punters.
As Paul asked, can you say whether there is an existing alternative such as you describe or one in development? Or would such a thing need to be built from scratch here?
-
You could claim they tried Prop, but it's hard to believe it was only 9 months ago that ended and Carter was sold an alternative dummy, AB's vaunted strategic plan. Prior to the below mentioned leaders meeting, the other two codes proposed a structural way forward, two actually, but the status quo won the day. I'm not sure if the other proposal was ever advanced http://bit.ly/dmZSRQ (pp. 22-27). Nor is it clear if the recommended subset of strategies if the existing structure were retained, has been addressed.
Carter June 24, 2010 - NZHerald
But the Racing Board's strategic plan was over-arching, he said. "I'm excited by this strategic plan; it's aspirational, but so it should be."
Monday's leaders' meeting was not about the One Racing proposal, he told the breeders. The proposal, pushed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, seeks to bring all the racing codes and the Racing Board under one structure.
"One Racing is not palatable to two of the codes and while that is the case, it isn't on the table," Carter said.
He said everyone in the industry needed to back the Racing Board, the body that runs the TAB, and industry leaders.
"I'm not interested in dictating terms, agreeing to submissions that don't have industry-wide buy-in, or messing with racing's governance structure. I am interested in the industry working together to find solutions to its own problems and plans for growth. If there is majority agreement and it fits in with the end goal then I will back it.
"It is early days yet, but there is every intention of having the highest-quality racing industry in New Zealand. I sincerely believe that this is the objective of those tasked with managing the industry at the board and code levels."
-
I have watched the replay many times. In hindsight he probably got too far back but it pissed down before the race and she travelled OK to the 600 and from there till just into the stretch she appeared to flounder in the ground but once taken wide and balanced she ran home really well.
He has copped a bit of flack b ut the track which had been watered deteriorated very quickly and was virtually porridge by the last race. Maradona was hopeless in the going.
Why do these clubs keep watering the tracks???
She might have been better handier, but that's where she landed and if she hadn't been kept travelling comfortably might not have finished off as well as she did when going straight and balanced up on a notch better footing.
Don't worry, she wiped out a few multis of mine. Wouldn't blame the ride though.
-
What was your evaluation of CJ's ride.
WAs that the plan to get so far back?
Puha
Didn't look like it was handling it much, certainly when they quickened up appeared to be floundering. Still made up a bit when balanced up the last bit. She'll keep and came to no harm.
Basin Reseve Cricket NZ Racing Board
in Thoroughbred Cafe
Posted
Agree Prop. At work this morning everyone knew they raised 500k, everyone knew Fujitsu kicked in 100k cos John Key got a boundary. Not a soul knew that the TAB/RB had done anything ...??? Just like last week they all knew that the Crusaders wore the West Coast strip against the Waratahs and some have no interest in sports at all.