John Clydesdale

Yes, heat four and that was an education run. Look forward to her when she gets to the races. I'll go and buy a Lotto ticket as I would love to own her.

I was at the trials yesterday and saw a lovely filly by Royal Academy. She is strong, almost masculine, looks exactly like him, won as she liked and out of a Group One Straight Strike 2YO in Good Faith. It really does make the hard yards worthwhile when you get one like that....eh Donna.

A great catalogue, but there will be hot competition from the mid level up I suspect.

The process of democracy allows for questions and answers. If you believe your explanations on what and how things should happen are part of any democratic process, then you should go and live with Mugabe. As any stakeholder has a right to ask any question and get a response, that is what I ask. You just keep coming back to the personal attack as your means to answer any question. I thought there may have been more to you than that, The nature of your responses clearly undermines what could be regarded, at times, as an intellect with a quirky and eclectic bent. But I guess we all get it wrong at times.

The RB has also depleted the reserves of $103 million to $43 million, or I should say $63 million as $20 million had been earmarked for IT Capital investment. They sure are good operators and have got all the credibility in the world to lead us down the road with One Racing......yeah right.

Is there a problem with Veronica Franco that I misseded?

zzz, "stupid and naive" are the words used by people who believe they know it all. Often because they cannot get people to believe in what they say when they feel that they have used their most persuasive powers to convince them otherwise. Disappointing you do no read more and find other words that may help you convey your message, because in what you have said so far, and the manner in which you have stated it, albeit amusing at times, falls well short of explaining why TR is in the position it is now. Clearly it has been badly lead, badly governed, and in a position that is even worse than you claim Harness may be in. So leave out the personal jibes and put some constructive guidelines up for discussion, because TR have a long way to go to convince most people they have any credibility at all. You may be able to help them in a better way than you are presently.

Yet zzz believes that TR and RB have been clear and transparent in the processes thus far. The PR that was released after the AGM was just plain lies. It did not state that the motion as it was listed on the agenda underwent two further reviews before it was voted upon. Nor was the motion, as presented by the Masterton Racing Club that NZTR to review their own Board governance, even mentioned in the PR that was released from the NZTR AGM. Strangely, it had almost the same numbers of votes as the One Racing motion, and yet it wasn't even worthy of a mention. That's what I really like about NZTR, transparency and honesty, the full picture.....yeah right!!

Good to see the passion zzz, but the cynicism isn't that flattering for you other than being amusing. You have a way with the written word, but you know that already. We choose to disagree on the manner in which the subject matter is being approached with One Racing. I have no criticism with the people you outline, and I have told you that personally, most of whom I either know or have met and respect their skills. But they don't need you to blow any trumpets, and if you have read the threads, you will notice I comment on the role that the people have, not the people themselves. And Nerula, yes, you are right about the perception and comments about Race Cafe, but you would be surprised who reads it. There is no other published vehicle available for the comments made on it. Good or bad. Further, I am not the conveyer or convincer of any other persons views, other than my own. I just want people to think about the industry and the way it is governed, they can make up their own minds about that. But they do need the information, the correct information that is, to then make up their own mind. If they disagree with my view, that is fine, but they will have decided their position with more information than they were provided with at the start. When 115 - 120 members of the NZTBA, of the 2200 available, respond to the President requesting their view and input, then that statistic alone, I believe, is a very embarrassing testimonial as to how many people care about the wellbeing of the industry they are supposedly interested and involved in. But hey, I have had zzz respond, Dodgy and Nerula involved, Stig and Roughy commenting, so we have got some interest going.

I am certainly in no way criticising the committee members of clubs. Nerula, again you jump too soon. As a personal friend of BC, he is aware that my point is not aimed at club committees, presidents or regional representatives. I am also not suggesting that people with the most invested have their personal right to be on the Board either. What I am trying to say is that ALL people with vested interests should have votes at the Boardroom table. Those votes should be cast by the appropriate Directors after full and robust discussion about the topic. But the Board, critically for me, has to generate the strategic planning for the industry for the next five, ten and twenty years. Put together a Board of experienced Directors, those without personal and vested self interests as their motivation and influencers of their vote decision making process, and you will make progress. When I first joined the NZTBA Council I tried to get the idea of microchip insertions, as a means for identifying our horses, discussed and progressed at our Board table. The President at that time, and another substantial studmaster, thought I had dropped in from another planet and completely quashed such a ludicrous suggestion. Ten years later, it was introduced. I have no axe to grind here, but I had the experience and exposure of IT to recognise how our industry can and should utilise IT to improve our efficiencies. Any Board requires experienced input. But first you have to get a VOTE on that Board that allows your presence to have some MEANING. As for the Punters being on the Board. Not applicable as far as I am concerned as Punters vote with their feet as they are consumers. Put the right product in front of them.....then they bet. To comment about the other competitive betting products. Yes there have been many, one armed bandits are by far the most serious competition, and yes, our TAB and RIB guys have failed to combat the competitors. They will have all sorts of answers as to why, but what cannot be denied is that while the gambling dollar has multiplied substantially over the years, our share of it has reduced. Our response to the competition is pathetic!!!!

The "Real workers" are part of the equation of stakeholders. Can you help identify who and what you mean by the reference "Real workers"? Your tone tends to indicate that you think there is a missing person at the Board table, but please explain what form the representation should be of "real workers". What sector is missing in your view?

I don't believe the Minister attended ?

Stig, I hope you are right. There is no point at all for Harness or Greyhounds to accept or discuss anything, given the treatment they have been handed. Nerula, Your reading of Freda's point indicates that you were unaware of the vote situation. Respectfully I suggest you may be unaware of other things. I AM a member of Auckland and have been for 25 years. I am a member of the NZTBA since 72 and sat on the Breeders Council for nearly a decade. Also Nerula, that gave me plenty of insight as to the problems within the industry, so please don't patronise me with your comment about romantic notions. I may forget more than you ever know. Dodgey, you highlight the very problem in your opening comments. Because they, the sitting Directors, may be owners or breeders and members of clubs all at the one time which is why there has to be a balance to the Board table from capable and forward thinking Directors who want to look to the future. You need robust discussion on the agenda items at Board meetings, not "you nominate and I'll second it" type of actions where certain parties get what they want and the industry is the casualty. Please read what I am saying clearer. ALL stakeholders have to have a VOTE including the clubs. It just has to be balanced, with the Chair being the deciding vote. If you believe the system of representation and voting on the NZTR Board is fair and equitable as it stands at the moment, then boy, you have no idea as to how far this industry is going to go backwards. A little statistic for you. 25 years ago racing had 87% of the betting dollar of the NZ public, now it struggles to get 6%. It loses $250 million dollars of turnover to off shore betting on top of that. And you seriously believe they, TR and RB, are doing a good job!!! .....Yeah Right. Oh, I almost forgot. Racing juristictions that are doing well at the moment. France, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore.....

Am I the only person who believes that racing clubs are the stage for the events.....That the owners, trainers, jockeys, breeders provide the product..... That the punters are the audience..... In my view it appears the clubs have all the say about thoroughbred racing in NZ, as any other representation on their Board does not get a vote........ In my view, that is democratically and fundamentally wrong. Why.....? Because those clubs have no exposure, no accountability, and certainly no risk that can cost them anything. The NZTR Board have already illustrated their capability by mishandling of the bulk funding coffers. The cupboard is bare. The Board needs more skill and experience, not try and integrate into another body and drag the other codes down to their level. I'm sorry to say, nothing will improve until the people that have the money invested get on that board, with their voting rights. When that happens you will see improvement in the code performance.

The Mr Stiassny PR machine is very timely to help support the flawed One Racing proposal. The vote is today...now. $6 million to buy some votes......Mr S might say "we only took that out of reserves because but we haven't made it yet....the same as we took out $22 million last season to help the industry survive....and we didn't replace that, sorry" Mr Stiassny has to address the issues confronting him, not reducing the Reserves to create a false impression that he and his Board are doing a good job.... Timing is everything in politics, but our industry is a good deal bigger than that. Leave the politics to the Beehive and the other majority of government employees, just address the issues confronting the industry, but maybe you want to indentify them first.....that would be a good start. How good is a Chairman that agrees to replace a CEO, in times of financial constraint and shrinking turnover, with another CEO that is rumoured to cost an additional 80% more than the previous. That sounds like a good decision from the Chairman and his Board.....doesn't it? Mr Stiassny needs to go to the industry particpants, talk to them, go to the track, talk to trainers where they work, let them explain the issues that confront them. Then he might start to understand what is going on in the industry.

He did so and given the crosses he has with NZ mares, I think you will find that they get stronger and better. At this stage, he gives you the impression that he will leave a versatile performer, as they are running good times over a variety of distances. He could have runners in both classics that could be regarded as contenders. That is a reasonable and encouraging start for any stallion. I doubt you will see him back unless a stud in NZ buys him. The matriach of US breeding, who has the major say about him, isn't keen on shuttle stallions and he is going better here than in the US.

What people are paid in the role of a CEO is determined by the Board and the Chairman. If any Board is paying overs for their CEO, relative to their turnovers, then the Board and Chairman have got it wrong. At the moment their does appear to be two Boards under such delusions. Both Boards run no risk businesses. No losses or exposure of risk against borrowings. Both Boards do not have to account to their shareholders as such because the "dividends" involved are called bulk funding. Both Boards have not direct accountability to their shareholders, so when a bad decision is manifested in lower stakes and turnover leakage, what do they suggest they do.....merge!!!!? Ask yourself the question, are both Chairman and their Boards doing the job?....The answer is obvious. The other major concern is that Mr Stiassny has now alienated himself with the other two codes, I believe they should ask for his resignation.....and get it. How could any stakeholder in any of the codes have any faith in his judgement after such methodology was used to put the gun to your head to accept "one racing". I applaud Harness and Greyhounds for the non support of One Racing because they are running their own ships and creating their own futures, they do not need clandestine management meetings, flawed strategies, shallow and baseless reports to try and convince them they should join the leaky Titanic. The legislation exists, no changes to that are required. All the thoroughbred code has to do is get rid of incapable management and Board members, who are only looking to build empires and ivory towers made of balsa wood. Balance the Board of Thoroughbred Racing with representatives of the industry stakeholders, who have voting powers, and that will be the starting point to a better future.

The info in the One racing platform is flawed. Savings suggested as available by Harness and Grehounds are not available. The costs to supposedly generate the savings is $4 million. The savings from race clubs around NZ, as suggested by the Taskforce is $4 million. Sounds like a great deal!? But it is also supposedly sustainable........? The lack of consultation with industry Stakeholders was non existant. Even the Boardworks governance Report, on which this suggestion has been based, was extremely shallow and not robust enough. No live input from jockeys, three trainers had live input, very little input from breeders. But then, they are just stakeholders that, in some cases, have immense capital invested that need returns, and other stakeholders that are reliant on the industry health to make a living. Oh yes, the owners......how much input did they provide into the governance report? Don't be surprised when you hear, very little. But hey, there was huge input from the Clubs, heaps of club members who have absolutely no accountability for their decisions and actions.....great substance to a report on governance that has heralded the biggest suggested change to the industry since it's inception. Go back Taskforce and discuss the contents of THAT report with the stakeholders before heading anywhere else. Supposed governance weaknesses within the NZTR Board, as outlined in the Boardworks governance Report, have continued to prevail. There has not been any consultation, at Board level with either Harness or Greyhounds in the preparation of this recommendation by the Taskforce, so again the same old failings of governance continue. There is enough legislation in place under a three code level at present for each code to continue to succeed or fail on each codes individual performance. Let that continue, because you will not find out what is really wrong with any code when you disguise the reason behind a smokescreen that is totally unworkable. Personally, I want the RIB to tell our code Board what they are responsible for in performance terms, any merger with them negates that potential. Our code should ask why the RIB costs have increased so much over the last five years???? Using another analogy, does anyone really think that in Australia, where there are three users of the pointy ball, that the following is realistic. The Rugby Union, The NRL and The AFL, they should get together to form a single Board as there are some savings that could be made in one administration unit.....yeah right!

Hi Freda, with respect I think your friend is way off the mark. M Acklin will continue the bullying process deployed by himself some years ago. This is the very same man that created a seat for Dr Murray Blue on NZTR because Blue kept asking too hard a question for Mr Acklin to answer. Mr Acklin is also responsible for bull dozing the Section 16 clause through on the Racing Act because the Harness Racing Chairman at the time had out thought Acklin as to the future returns to come from offshore racing, and he is also the very same man who thought the answer to South Island racing prize money woes was to take a significant amount of money from NZTM - New Zealand Thoroughbred Marketing - to put into stakes for the 1000 and 2000 Guineas. This was money that was from the original idea of NZTM, generated by thier CEO to help fund that Marketing Organisation for the good of NZ Racing, and NZTR were the collectors of the export funds, and they benefited from such funds, but Acklin's localised pressure forced him to take those NZTM funds and had them used for stake money for the Guineas racing.....good judgement,,,,,Yeah Right! He is giant step backward for that Board, but we have already had full disclosure from their own Chairman as to how (in) competent that Board already is!!!! That is why, in the first instance the Board structure has to change, as per the recommendation of the Governance Report completed in May 09.

The formula submitted was to reflect code specific betting. You may or may not recall that prior to the Racing Act change the broadcast of offshore betting product was primarily TB based. At that time Jim Wakefield I'm sure recognised that HR needed to get a slice of that action when the Act was being reviewed. He stated that HR would not support the Act changing unless Section 16 was implemented. A very strategic and successful move. Blind Freddy could see the result of such a resolution, but then again TR have been that way (blind) for some decades. We breeders almost had enough support with the trainers, but the owners were completely rudderless at that time, (still are) and they could not provide support when required.

Wobbly Your are right about the sector groups opposition to Sec 16, however the bully of the day, said it has to be this way or nothing. Yes, you have heard that before. It was clear to a few of us looneys that have investments in the industry, that Jim Wakefield was outthinking Mr Acklin, but not according to Mr Acklin. So we got what we have now, total and unrefuteable evidence that it was a dumb decision. However, back to your thought. The composition of the code boards is not as clearly defined by the Racing Act as you may think. I understand that each Board can effectively redesign their own composition, if they agree to do so themselves. Very much along the lines of how Mr Acklin wanted to quell the fire of a Dr Murray Blue, so Mr Acklin generated a seat for small clubs just for Dr Blue and there was one. Another fine decision as we have all come to see. So I believe the Board composition can change, but off course I stand to be corrected on that one. Credibility? Well that has to earned through efforts and substance of good governance and coupled with elements of good judgement, good strategy and have it all glued together with integrity and scrupples. Then you may get there. So we have to start again, but another Report is a bit premature at this stage.

Guys, the issue of Section 16 is one that can be resolved, in due course. The problem confronting us at the moment is the hijack that is occurring from within our ranks of the TB Code. One Racing is as flawed as you could believe. Just ask your own Racing Club CEO/Secretary to lose 10% of his expenses expenditure? His response will be the same, there is not 10% to lose. Sutherland and Stiassny are in Fantasyland, they are bullying people into believing that it is the way forward. Yes, a receiver is particularly good at cashing up and closing down, but their rallying call is "this is it or nothing" is an absolute sham. There are other options, change the Board. The NZTR Board has been inept and run secularly by selfish people for some time. How members on that board over the last 5 years, with a voting right, can say they have created good stategy and policy is a complete nonsense and misguidance of their role on that Board. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Yes, some of those existing vote holders have investments in the industry, some signficant, but it is not the sole income they rely on to live. They are club members, their loyalty is their clubs, they do not have knowledge of how the trainers in their regions are faring, how the infrastructre in the national industry is composed, and...where can the resources available be best shared. NO, they know diddly squat. You have to CHANGE the Board. A seven member Board is required at NZTR, 1 for each region, North, Central, South to represent Clubs. Individual Board members for Jockeys, Trainers, Owners, Breeders each and the Chair is independant, appointed by the Board, but that person is not and never has been a member of a club, or any of the organisations represented at the Board table. Guys, the challenge confronting us is to get our own Board in order, first and foremost, then look at the likes of Section 16 once the Board is sorted. Change the Board, that should be the call. I could not believe the Board nomination of the Southern Region. The man who bullied the Section 16 through, the man who took the funding away from NZTM to put it into race stakes in Canterbury, and it did not make a blind bit of difference to the fields, and the man who.......oh well, you Southern boys have little memory, but boy you will continue to propagate the same old situation all over again. Back on One racing, talk to your Club Manager or Secretary and ask him where he going to save 10%.......that will help you understand why Wellington HQ of racing has lost so much intellectual capital over the years. Bad judgement calls........ Don't let it happen again now!

GS has vocalised, as have his taskforce, that it's this or nothing. I do recall that one Murray Acklin said the very same thing to the breeders when we opposed Section 16, "we had to have it or the Act would not go through", unfortunately for the code, it was just another measure of bulldozer tactics without enough backbone in the opposition. The backbone required to stop the Oneracing thought pattern has to be a lot stronger. If the very same raceclubs, that have their vote in January, cannot work out that this plan serves to undermine their own existance, then they need to think again. The two corporate bully boys will come visiting and try and convince them this is the future, but test their information, check their so called facts, then see the blood pressure increase from them. It will be measurable by the volume of the responses. Guy, the plan is completely flawed and unworkable. Start again, but before you do that, get your own house in order by having true representation of the industry stakeholders. Get the balance of the Board right and then there may be some credibility ascribed to the management of our code. But maybe the first thing you should do is apologise to the other codes!

Don the problem is the ego of the people manipulating the puppets. My challenge for the puppeteers is to go out to each regional cluster meeting and talk to the club representatives, because the info they are presently receiving at their Board meetings is clearly not reflecting the realities of life out in racing land for the trainers, jockeys and dare I say owners. Try and determine how many trainers have lost owners this year, and how many owners have been lost, possibly for good. The industry is now staging open class races with pitiful stakes. Outside of stakes races, and the Premier days of Auckland, Wellington and Waikato there is not an open race being run anywhere in New Zealand between now and February 6th 2010, that is worth more than the $25K Thames Cup in the New Year. Sorry, there is one at Marton for $35K. But for all the open handicappers in NZ, sprinters or stayers, who have earned their stripes to be open class horses, they are now racing for $22k or less on average. So who bares the responsibility for this......ultimately the Racing Board, but just exactly who is not representing the Stakeholders of the industry very well at all?.........The NZTR Board that's who! They have been derelict in their duty, therefore their Board composition must be wrong. You guys need to get out more. There is no $4 miilion of savings at clubs? Just ask Stiassny and Sutherland to go and have a review of the accounts of most clubs in NZ. Let them appraise how much FREE input is provided by hard working Committee members to stage the races that are so poorly funded. Let them find how they are going to save 10% of Opex year on year at each club. (The Tui Billboard comes to mind) Let them also quantify the cost to that Club when some of those FREE Committee inputs tell Stiassny and Sutherland where to go if they continue to try and implement their changes. They may then get the reality of life that their own PR training people are so adept at training them to avoid. Well done Stig, you are dead right about the answers being supplied to the speakers. Given the turnout for the Auckland launch press conference you could be light on the costs involved.