Great thread Caramello. How's the team btw? Good to be thinking about what we can do with what we have, which appears certain to become less before it becomes more.
I've seen the idea about reducing number of races tossed about before. I like the idea in principle but the problem I see is that turnover is closely tied to number of races and runners, so to make it work, we'd need the same number of runners for the 8 races as we have currently for 10, otherwise the funding generated would still probably only warrant current stake levels per race.
Likewise, when a R70 field is split to accomodate the number of runners, it generates sufficient turnover to justify the additional stake. I take your point though that it maybe the programming could be better adjusted so we have say an R65, an R68, and an R80, so the three fields are more evenly divided and more competitive.
One thing I do think that should be given maximum attention and every penny we can find, is the provision of the best quality and maintained racing and training surfaces we can possibly manage. There seems to be quite a number of tracks with faulty drainage and irrigation systems that could be made a lot more functional at relatively low cost. With one or two notable exceptions though, I think a bouquet is due to NZTR and the clubs and track managers for the much more forgiving tracks presented this summer.