John Clydesdale

He needs to listen to his trainers to be effective. He is a long way off showing he has the initiative to match it with the better riders. When he does what he is told he will learn that others have more experience than he does, and he will gain from their knowledge.

He is so deadpan that when he started I thought he was a take off of someone else. But no, he is still there talking as though his mouth is full of plaster of paris. I believe an oil slick would have more internation and variation in delivery than Russell manages. Sorry Russell, that is not the role for you.

Kevin, the magazine shop very close by, Magnation, has the Informant. Perhaps there is another reason that your favourite TAB may not be receiving the Informant? All the other 6 outlets down there are getting their deliveries OK.

I'm keen to hear about it?

I for one will be pleased to see the track in use again. It is a good track and so long as there is good track management input, the resulting surface will be ready and able to return with some later Winter dates. The buildings are yet another challenge?

Most recently they did the same thing to the Premier Day at Taranaki when they featured Southland as the DPS. Avondale Guineas Day at Auckland were very basic listings and no form info provided to inspire betting. What this repeated mistake does confirm is that the RB should not be publishers, they have no systems for publishing and they obviously have no checking protocols in place with whatever they distribute to publishers. RB did not learn from their last mistaken effort, at the cost of Auckland and Taranaki, the least they could do is compensate the Wellington Club for lost off course commissions they would have earned out of the Group and Listed races. The publishing manager should get his marching orders and they should wind the unit up, because clearly they would not know the difference between a Group One meeting and an industry meeting. Therefore they know nothing............and it shows. I feel sorry for you Wellington, the Oaks is such a great Classic and delivers up such tremendous horses and I will have to read the Informant to get my betting info. Thank goodness they are back.

NZTR can only act in that manner if they have a contract to act as a debt recovery agent. The Unpaid Forfeit list is acting on behalf of NZTR for services rendered, but they have previously acted as a collector when required. There are independent companies available to perform such services.

New Zealand does not have enough jockeys. The NZTR Board have to create appealing futures for youngsters to get involved in the industry. It is a tough industry to work in, especially when there are any number of easier earning opportunities for youngsters out there. At least the visiting jockeys riding skills will be able to be studied by the locals close up and personal.

Punna, the drop in turnover is a result of many things in my view, not just the takeout percentage,your favorite topic. We are still in a recession and feeling the effects of such is every person in NZ. There have been dramatic reductions in turnover in many business sectors, betting is one of them, because there has to be a budget for many things before you use a dollar to bet. Turnover is compromised throughout the globe in our code because the competition is strong for each dollar, even in a recession. My concern is the costs of management of the code. Just some figures on your favourite topic to consider.........In 2010 the take out was 17.58% (RB Annual Report) an improvement from 2001 when it was 19.55%. In ten years the RB have not moved much at all, $436.2 million bet on our code in 2001, $463.9 million bet in 2010. In 2005 our net assets were $101 milion, in 2010 they were $84. The numbers are not strong at all, apart from........the costs of administration of the industry three codes in the one office, they have skyrocketed. Mind you, we all know how we can save some of that overhead very quickly.

If you think that an industry like our code would not survive without the punter, I think it would be a great deal smaller, but it would survive. It did before the TAB was formed and it could do so again, because it historically has. The owners spend approx $110 million per year, racing for $75 million, they employ all forms of services..........but according to you that would disappear overnight because of the non appearance of the punter!! It would certainly shrink considerably I agree, but it would survive. Re your sponsorship reference. Those supporters try to make up the missing $25 million and also support the individual clubs.......they are vital to the industry. Put it all together and then think of sport, any sport......that's why many of us participate, we like the sport. The punters are integral to the prosperity of the sport/industry, of that there is no doubt, but they (punters) are not the be all and end all of the industry/sport. The point you make about changes is quite correct, but believe it or not the take out by the RB has dropped from 2001 @ 19.55% to 17.58% last year. These are the published figures of the RB, so they have improved the average return to punters. They just have not kept a lid on their costs. I am not knocking punters but some people on this thread have to keep their feet on the deck, both at the same time preferably, because punters are a part of the industry, not the total industry.

I think so, whether you breed, train, own or bet.........we are all punters!

Yes Rod, I have some figures but you should investigate it for yourself and you will learn a few things. See below

John, the blanket statement you have made is something you need to substantiate. How much money goes back to the code through the NZTR bulk funding process? Second question, do you know how much money is spent by owners to have their horses trained in New Zealand? Third question, do you know how much money is spent by breeders/studs/sales companies to support race stakes in New Zealand? Have a look and get the answers, you may be surprised what you find?

As an owner what should I be doing........not racing for good stakes as a matter of........what??? If the money is good enough and there to race and compete for......what do you suggest I do??

You raise a fair point about the Takanini money, what the present status is of the original sum I will have to look at the accounts to see what sits in the investments by the club. Obviously they loaned some large sum to Counties for the installation of the training track but there has been a significant usage of funds on the planning strategy for further use of the available land at Ellerslie. This is a hole in the ground that is like quicksand, it will continue to swallow cash whilst it is pursued at this particular time. The accounts presented at the last AGM were far from transparent and very confusing. Re your stakes versus betting turnover comparison, perhaps you can table something here that illustrates your case. I know that the fields over two of the three days at Xmas were really good and the twilight I attended at Karaka Millions appeared to be well patronised also.

Rod it comes down to which Club, which meeting, which dates and their value to the sponsor. I could name clubs that have put zero into Group races this season but had 20% sponsors. But to me that is an issue between the club and the sponsor to be worked through. Sponsors will soon recognise what they get out of any sponsorship and make a judgement call from there. But in general terms, the better races claim more than 15% from sponsors. I hope that helps. We have to be very grateful for the larger regular sponsors, who, in general, have a strong interest in racing.

when I made that comment. There is no denying the stakes at Ellerslie are strong, compared to elsewhere. Very competitive fields and usually generating good interest and turnover. Admittedly not every meeting but certainly the better meetings do well. The profitability factor is yet another topic.

It is difficult to discuss a letter that hasn't been seen by many...can someone post the essentials...? With regards stakes money. I understand the model by NZTR changed last year to provide all stake money to certain levels. Whatever stakemoney that is offered above that certain NZTR level was provided by the Club and the sponsor. So using a $5K maiden at an Industry meeting, all stakes are provided by NZTR. If the stake remains at $5K, the club or sponsor has added nothing, anything more than that $5K is provided by the Club/Sponsor. I stand to be corrected now the NZTR forecast budget had been downgraded, but that was the case up until that point. The interesting thing is that so many people on this site are unaware of how important sponsorship is to racing. The percentages used in the thread are not reflective of the true picture. Ellerslie are doing a great job with their stakemoney and should be supported and congratulated for it.

There are some very good people that I know that work with the walls of 106-111 Jackson Street, but they know I am not referring to them when I mention cretins. Unfortunately the IP that is still retained is probably as frustrated as we are with some of those cretins that remain in positions they shouldn't hold. AB and two others in the sanctum should now all walk, and hey, the industry will have saved a couple of million as a result.

I have read the 20 pages speed read, but need to go back and gain some clarity. But it would appear on the surface of it that human judgement has far too much involvement in handicapping here. I will come back to you on that Punna.

If you own or manage a business Punna, you must recognise that any business is vulnerable if they lose a significant client. That client needs to be replaced by one or two of equal revenue status. Straight forward thinking I know you will agree. Business 101 suggests there may now be a different client or clients willing to support the publication. Unfortunately many people on this site obviously still don't get the fact that the RB is not a publishers b...side. Whereas previously, prior to their publishing days, they placed advertising in the Informant and paid for it just as any other client does. It becomes very measurable in terms of cost effective return. We shall have to wait to see what the RB accounts reveal in terms of the capital cost for the BB & TD and then the running costs of same. This is a straight forward cost and expense taken out of every betting dollar going through the TAB. How many per cent of any bet made, just so some wallies believed they should be publishers!!!!!! It was a very expensive and dumb decision to become a publisher, and the RB should stop trying to be publishers and concentrate on getting a much better return to the industry of every dollar bet. Surely that is what they are there to achieve. I hope the Informant gets all the support it deserves as quite clearly the Jackson Street cretins are leaving after making such expensive and stupid decisions .

I will take it home and have a read and get a grasp of how it all works. Cheers

Why is a R89 horse in a R94 race given 58kg.? Why is a R94 horse in a R94 race given 59k. Both are top weights agreed, so why is one weighted any different to the other. Surely the R89 in the R94 race should have a lesser weight than the 1kg difference noted. Or, why are they both not weighted the same as they are top weighted acceptors and everything gets weighted off them as topweights. Different race conditions, not that I am aware. Should they both be 58kg or 59kg as topweights? The weighting system is very opaque when there needs to be transparency. If you have a horse at R75 and you want to race in a R94 race, you should be able to ascertain what weight you are likely to get before the withdrawal time. Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me. If it were WFA, you would know exactly where you stand, so why shouldn't it be the same in handicapping?

There are two open races, and two R94 races, so why the difference in weights given the ratings of the horses. The horses are all rated at different levels. But those ratings are based on their performances. So I cannot see why a R94 horse in a R94 - 2400m race, "In To Win" carries more weight than a horse rated R105, "Veloce Bella" in an Open Group 2 2400m race. It does not make any sense to me. The race conditions are clear, R94 and Group 2 Open, so what makes the difference? My understanding is that ratings are the determining factor for horses, is that not the case?

Trentham tommorow paints a very confusing, perhaps conflicting picture about Handicapping. I am hoping someone can clarify some details for me. VT Summer Cup- 2400m - R94 race, topweight (R89) has 5 wins, has won $61k, carries 58kg CD Wgtn Cup - 2400m - open Handicap, topweight (R105) has 12 wins, has won $669k, carries 57kg Thorndon Mile - 1600m - open Handicap, topweight (R108) has 8 wins, has won $1403k, carries 58kg Douro Mile - 1600m - R94 race - topweight (R94) has 6 wins, has won $56k, carries 59kg This is totalling confusing to me as the horse with the least money won, carries the most weight?! Yes, he is rated at 94, compared to the Sumer Cup topweight, but then why should he carry more weight than the R108 and R105 horse. Can someone please explain or clarify how the handicapper works this out?