Daveski

Come on then Rumpers - 'fess up. How much did you pay John Mortimer?? Actually, we could start a decent conspiracy theory here. What was the first name of the actor who played Rumpole?? Is that a clue??

Clubs only benefit directly from the on course turnover. Last season it was 16%, this season 18%.

Hi John I think you'll find where saying the same thing. What shouldn't be happening is that the board is involved in day to day matters. The level of involvement in decision making and operations of the NZTR board would not be tolerated in the corporate world. Conversely, I suspect that many of the industry stakeholders distrust the paid management and want to put limits to their ability to work at arms length from the Board. Either way, it is a recipe for paralysis. It also encourages the leaders we need to take the industry forward to go elsewhere eg Paul Bittar.

One issue that hasn't been discussed enough is the role of the Board vs the role of management. Typically, the role of the Board is to provide governance to oversee the direction and in particular to appoint and manage the CEO. However, the Board appears to be involved in operational matters and from the comments I've seen here and elsewhere, this is actually expected. So not only is NZTR management hamstrung in terms of the relationship with the RB, the management appears to be playing second fiddle to the Board. Hopefully the proposed changes - and the independence of the Board - will address this and provide the platform for better management. And without wishing to agree with zzz, it may also encourage Paul Bittar to return!

It's not so much the cumbersome decision making process but the need for the changes to the governance process to be signed off by the Clubs at the AGM (or indeed an SGM). It makes sense to include this the substantive part of the AGM to avoid the costs of an SGM so the the governance review is dictated by the timing of the AGM. The question of course is whether the Clubs will agree to vote for change for the good of the industry rather than change for their own good.

Does that mean he posts on the other channel as a character called OBC???

To clear up any confusion, I think the post from Asiseeit was directed at my post and was along the lines of LRC members shouldn't be finding out things from RaceCafe. While I agree it is undoubtedly preferable for members of all clubs to be kept fully informed at all times, the reality is that with social media sometimes you need to be able to make comments to avoid confusion or rumour. IMO, a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. In this case, i thought it best to squash yet another rumour before it grew legs and became a centipede!

Stating rumours and opinion as fact is what is supposed to go on at the other site, Rumpers You need to get better sources too. In particular, the track has NOT been sold nor are there any discussions on this topic, apart from the lifestyle village proposal. There will be an SGM in August to discuss that proposal.

Bruce Apologies for delay responding - a lot on at present. It is interesting that this topic hasn't been picked up - if racing is to appeal to younger generations, then it will be forced to compete in the area of social media because that's where the action is. Your point regarding embedded videos is valid altho my use is more to highlight big races rather than all races on a card for form analysis. I suppose I was trying to point out that where some businesses are more social media inclusive and embrace say YouTube, racing keeps these videos buried in a site that only true enthusiasts will find. I'm always reluctant to comment on the jumpouts (where is Punta anyway??). The results were discontinued largely for practical reasons - recording time, entries etc. There was also an element of ensuring the accuracy of the information which was getting well beyond the scope of what the jumpouts were about. Likewise, the more that the jumpouts became formalised (such as results) the more like trials they became which lead to other issues. Put it done as a good idea (to record jumpout results) that became problematic to implement.

A lot to do with respect to web delivery let alone social media. The NZTR would be a perfect example of a poor information architecture ... you have to learn where things rather than find them intuitively. Race replays don't embed natively in CMS which is a pain for racing clubs who have to reply on people putting races on Youtube. The new TAB sight does not appear to have been developed with the view that web enabled devices exist. You can barely excuse the lack of an iPhone App (Aus TAB has one) but the fact that it barely works in a browser is poor. It's easy for this to be seen as more criticism and negativity. It's not meant to be but these are the online building blocks that every business needs to get right.

Merv's never really got the kudos for his consistency over the past couple of seasons altho the bookies certainly didn't overlook him. He gives 100% every time he goes around too and he's coming up 12. Pity the carnage detracted from the win but the owners are still rapt with another top effort.

Not so - most racing clubs have clauses in their constitution that if wound up the proceeds will be disposed of for charitable purposes or in the interest of horse racing or sport in New Zealand or the area or region. In terms of the second point, training is generally subsidised by the racing operations as wobbly alludes. Taking that a point further, there's little point in training more horses if there are less races. Fundamentally, racing clubs are no different to any other business - if you can't pay your bills, you eventually go out of business and everyone is the loser.

This post is bringing racing and the Club into disrepute. I have taken a copy of this and will follow up with both NZTR and our lawyers in the morning. There's been no attempt to verify the accuracy of this information. For example, a newsletter updating all members was sent in February providing a progress update. The comments about me not keeping my word are simply defamatory and I can happily confirm my actions, unlike Frederick. Likewise, all members of the club were invited to make a submission which "Frederick" chose not to do. The post omits key points and the writer clearly has not read the constitution nor has any understanding of the club's rules. I can deconstruct the rest of this post but I will simply recommend for your own interests that this post is removed immediately to reduce damage to both the Club and to this site. David Archibald

As for your analogy, One Racing is a jumps race. Surely it's better to clear the first fence safely than plough through the first in front of the stand?

Com'on zzz, drop the abuse and focus on the key issues here. Yes, there is lot to like about One Racing. I've acknowledged this on multiple occasions. But you miss my point. Those who presented it failed to do the job and rather than damning those who weren't prepared to vote for an amendment they hadn't seen previously, you need to take it on the chin that the One Racing public proponents made a mess of the politics. If the ideal hasn't changed, what does the mess with the motions tell you? It tells me more that you ignore that part of the discussion and introduce irrelevant points to deflect the issue I raised.

Which ideal is that zzz? The one espoused in the original motion? The first amendment? Or the face saving third amendment that was not circulated prior to the meeting? If racing is to move forward - and it needs to - you need to move on from blaming others and accept that there were major problems with the analysis, the presentation of the concept, and especially the management of the politics. I realise some of these people are close to you but that's where we need to start if the concept is to be revisited.

Archie It's well known on the racing forum I'm David Archibald, the President of the Levin Racing Club. That said, I consistently like to keep separation in terms of my role as President and my persona here. In this particular situation, I have responded as President given the nature of "Fred"'s comments. The key points are: 1. The issue has not and never has been raised with myself or the secretary. One then has to question the motivation for raising this in a public forum when names, numbers and email addresses are totally accessible. 2. Having asked for some explanations, Fred's posts are a distortion of the facts deliberately spun with negative connotations. The informal arrangements that are in place are to benefit trainers rather than disadvantage the club or its members. However, these had not been formalised at the committee level. 3. Fred is categorically wrong to state that the full Committee was aware of this or condoned double dipping. There is no confusion that such a statement unsubstantiated by any facts is nothing more than defamatory. I hope that answers your questions, Archie ... we are not related You too may ask why such a matter has been raised here without being raised with the appropriate committee members who are known to Fred. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions. I do not expect such transparency or honesty from "Fred".

As I expected, you have avoided the points I raised. 1. The issue has not until today been raised with the President or Secretary. 2. The Club does not sanction double dipping, regardless of what statements individuals may have made. Your comments confirm that you have spoken with individuals but no formal complaint has been made until today. To suggest that the Club sanctions double dipping is not only incorrect but defamatory as you are implying this is condoned by the committee as a whole. Clearly, others would ask if you are experiencing such frustration, why you chose not to raise the issue with the President or Secretary. That you choose to attack the Club and its members in such a way suggests you have an agenda different to that which you claim. My role within the club is clearly established on this forum. Yours isn't. Any issues could easily be addressed to secretary@levinracingclub.co.nz or by using the contact form on the web site.

Yes, all clubs have their problems but perhaps the biggest issue with racing is the inability of many to deal with these problems in a sensible and transparent fashion. There are two separate points here. 1. If the person undertaking these duties is indeed "double dipping", then the appropriate action would be to raise it with the club officials. This has not been raised with the secretary nor the president and one therefore questions the motivation for raising this issue anonymously in an internet chat site. Needless to say, the club would follow up if such a complaint had been made. 2. The last comment is completely erroneous and defamatory. I request that frederick withdraw the comment as it is not supported by the facts of the case. If this does not happen, I will follow up with the site's operators. I have no problems with anyone stating their opinion, but when the opinion is not only factually incorrect but defamatory in nature, it is only reasonable to expect action to be taken.

zzz - I understand the point your making but the first part of your comment is literally quite incorrect and potentially very misleading. The NZTR constitution explicitly prevents the proceeds of any dissolution going to the members:

And no, I don't mean zzz. I had major issues with the way in which One Racing was presented and the uneven analysis within. It is easy to take a pot shot at the savings because as shown above. In any cases, anyone who has experienced a major restructuring realises that cost savings are over estimated and additional costs under estimated. Conversely, the analysis of the long standing social, economic, and other changes over the past 30-40 years was outstanding and should be compulsory reading. However, the point that is continually overlooked is that the benefits of the One Racing proposal address the key problem that came up time and again in the original governance review - that is NZTR is toothless and cannot control the revenues it generates. Read Wobblie's post for confirmation. It's kind of like being on the Titanic and turning down the lifeboats because you don't like the drop!

You're right Bruce - there was a fair bit of money on the second horse, some of it no doubt thanks to Formpro But to make that change at that time meant that all the analysis prior to 2 mins out went out the window. In fairness, it's a no win scenario from here so perhaps the fairest option would have been to scratch Cheeky Red. Cheeky Red punters would be no worse off (nor admittedly no better off) but all other horses would have run according to their carded weight. It makes you wonder whether there was a process in place for this type of situation. Let's hope it's covered in the future because it's a very poor look.

I've seen positive comments about Andre in the past but would simply like to underline what an asset he is to the industry. He is absolutely outstanding in the way he manufactures an oncourse experience and goes out of his way to make the day a success for the punters. He'd be a legend for his skills behind the mic alone. However, yesterday at Otaki, he turned every punters club $5 ticket into $26. Legend plus!!

Link to press release. http://www.hrnz.co.nz/ONE%20RACING%2022%202%2010.pdf Regardless of the many issues with One Racing and the poor way it was presented to stakeholders, the key issue still remains - the codes need to rein in (pun intended) the NZRB.

The current Graded Stakes process is a mockery at least in terms of the Group Ones. Rather than objectively measuring the relative performance of races, it simply reflects the industry funding decisions. In addition to the 4 $1 million races, four 3 yo races also get addition heritage subsidies (the 2000 Guineas benefits both ways). If we are to have a supposedly objective process to compare race quality and to manage grade status, all races should be on level playing field so the work of committees and sponsors would be fairly assessed. As it stands, it is not a level playing field and does not accurately assess the roles of clubs and sponsors in making our top races.