Daveski

Is that Leigh or Holly?? It seems a little odd that an industry newcomer would find the other channel first

off course betting generates no commission for the club so it really made little difference for the WRC.

Thanks for that clarification John. I think there's enough evidence in your comments and others to show that the current governance model is not working. Other sports have had similar problems ie rampant self interest and horse trading (excuse the pun). Increasingly, this has resulted in the appointment of independent boards charged to run affairs for the greater good. There in lies the nub. The current model encourages self interest and any model that provides representation of other sector groups will likewise lead to a same outcome. The only approach that will solve this is to appoint independent directors and I can't see this getting through the current model unless forced from the very top. I'm not sure whether you were inferring I think the RB is doing a good job. I'm simply stating that they control the purse strings, even tho we provide the product. Your figures re betting are powerful as it illustrates the underlying social and economic problems facing racing. Racing is no longer a monopoly and has to fit for a smaller share which is why we need to focus on our customers as much if not more than the stakeholders.

There's a lot to respond to in JC's post. First, the view that clubs are completely separate from the "stakeholders" is largely myth. The primary reason is that the clubs and their committees are made up of owners, trainers, breeders, even commentators Second, the governance issues are real. The underlying problem from the code perspective is that the provider side of the equation (NZTR) is separate from the funder side (NZRB). The racing industry generates the revenues but these are collected and then paid out by the RB. Simply changing the chairs on NZTR governance side of things is going to have no impact on the deeper governance issues

You're right to say "could" as it's all ahead of us. TPS is quite right that perhaps the most significant issue facing racing is the governance issues ie two masters (NZRB and NZTR). The funder/provider split is also being challenged in other areas eg science and research. Interestingly, the govt is actively targeting shared services and purchasing as well. On that basis, there is a lot to like about One Racing in principle. However, the problems lie with the proposal and the way in which it has been promoted. The focus on shared services (the bulk of the estimated savings) could potentially be pursued without One Racing while anyone who has been involved with restructuring on the basis of the potential savings will agree that savings are often overstated and costs underestimated. The $4m of club savings potentially undermined the credibility of the report as there was NO analysis of where this would come from. The fat isn't in club administration. The broader concern that TPS (and Guy Sargent) has simply brushed aside is that those behind the proposal simply failed to display the political nous to get a motion in front of the AGM that would be supported. Without the amendments, it would have failed. To expect clubs to vote on such a major issue without considering the motion prior to the meeting highlights the problem. Sure amendments are part of the meetings but we supposedly talking about a once in a 60 years event that has the back of the professionals running the industry. It's no different to changing the wording for a referenda on the day of the voting. As it turns out, it's most likely the best outcome in that there is now the opportunity to develop the proposal further with the other codes and the RB while the clubs can then consider something more substantial. But the issue is far from resolved regardless of the enthusiastic cheerleading from some.

TPS states he's arguing facts. Indeed, the AGM did pass a motion but it was not the original motion. Nor was it the amended motion. This is not an unqualified vote for One Racing. Indeed the alarms bells should be ringing that the board and proponents of the One Racing proposal needed to be bailed out on the day by an amendment from the floor. The fact that club reps were expected to vote for a motion that was sighted on the day for something of such magnitude almost beggars belief. Now TPS may see this as attacking One Racing. I'm simply commenting on the fact that there is a long way from the ringing endorsement it is being claimed (altho conversely more than one club voted No on the basis that the mandate was for a completely different motion).

"That the Society be authorised to establish along with, and subject to the agreement of, Harness Racing New Zealand, New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and New Zealand Racing Board, a Racing Council comprising three appointees nominated by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, two appointees nominated by Harness Racing New Zealand, one appointee nominated by New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and the Chairman of the New Zealand Racing Board, to pursue a One Racing model and to determine the appropriate legislative environment to establish a new industry body in association with, and subject to the agreement of, Harness Racing New Zealand, New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and New Zealand Racing Board. That member Clubs be asked at a future annual general meeting or special general meeting to consider, and if found to be acceptable, to approve any proposal that results."

Hey Leggy, glad you don't have a gun as you'd shoot first and wouldn't bother asking any questions. I simply provided the explanation that has been given without any comment. Anyway, you seemed to have the answers now even if you're blaming the wrong people.

The dates are allocated to Canterbury Racing and not the individual clubs.

I don't have any inside knowledge whatsoever but something simply doesn't add up here. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but these clubs are tied up with the CJC. It could well be that the Clubs have been told that the CJC has the votes that are "earned" from these race days. I could be wrong but that would seem a more logical explanation than the clubs have simply had their votes take away. Anyone shed some light?

And the lucky winners of Starters Orders 4 were: Mike Fitzgerald, Waikanae Paul Thornhill Eugene Stannard, Wellington Kenpark, Feilding Lynnda McLachlan Draw was made by Mark Loveday, the game developer, in the UK. Almost 30 entries - thanks for the interest. Thanks to all the supporters of the Levin Racing Club over the past 12 months - best wishes for the future year's racing.

we now know who Bert is ... what about Ernie??

Races 10 and 11 at yesterday's Levin Racing Club meeting were sponsored by Starters Orders, the world

You may have a point re the finite life of the Heritage Subsidies - I can't find anything on line but will keep looking. Winston's gift expires next year. The Graded Stakes Committee simply turn the handle and generate a number but I think it is reasonable to say they are aware of the broader issues. Anyway, as you've said, it may turn out to be a stronger field than we all thought.

Thanks Peter. I'm trying to stay clear of this as it's all to easy to see my opinion or comments as the Club's view and I repeat that this is only my personal opinion. However, it's appropriate to add a few comments. There's a couple of issues tied up in this debate and perhaps the most obvious is the Group One status. It would indeed be possible and we've been encouraged to consider a change in timing although we were, to put it politely, surprised to see the suggestion we run in late Jan. I bet you the WRC was surprised too The problem of course is that regardless of what changes we make, there is NO guarantee that subsequent to any change we will retain group one status. This has to be considered in the context of the "pyramid model" where NZTR have flagged another 4 or so Group Ones for the chop. The timing of the current event is strongly supported by the local community so there is a risk we change the date, lose Group One status and destroy the current event. I won't comment more broadly on the other points suffice to say we are engaged with NZTR on a regular basis and at least can make our case. The bigger problem we face is that all four other 3yo only Group Ones receive significant additional subsidies. So it's not a level playing field. The Graded Stakes process is supposedly objective but it simply reflects the subjective decision on these subsidies. Even so, the Classic continues to perform well given the challenges we face. I should also point out that in 2006 and 2007, the LRC put more of its own money into a lower stakes than the CJC did to either Guineas races. The event still stacks up both on and off course - off course on a Friday was $1.8M compared to $2.1 for the 2000 Guineas on a Saturday. Anyway, I think I need a new anonymous personna

Looking at your post, the explanation would appear to be simple - it covers a 12 month period and issues with funding racing clubs emerged around mid year

Clearly, I need to be careful with my comments so these are my own personal observations. However, since 2000, the Classic field has attracted the same size or larger fields than the 2000 Guineas. Both Guineas races also benefit from an additional subsidy of close to $100K. However, it is undoubtedly the impact of the $1m Guineas that has lead to this situation which has IMO undermined the credibility of the Graded Stakes process. This is now irrelevant as the successful Group One races are naturally going to be those in receipt of the largest subsidies. Changing the timing of the race is almost certainly not an option as the race is embedded in the social calendar. Perhaps when the Ministers fund dries out, things may change but the impact on races like the Classic reflects decisions made at the top table.

This Friday

May be not! For those that aren't full up to date, there is reference to $4m dollars in savings from club operations: Buried deep in the report at almost the very end of the appendices is the following: No details of how or where the savings could potentially come from are provided.

Not so. You're confusing the Nahkies sp? BoardWorks International governance review which was released in April and recommending NZTR and NZRB align governance as confirmed in the report: "The taskforce was formed in May 2009 following the recommendations of the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing governance review that was completed in April 2009.[p2]" Having said that, I'm not aware of any consultation within racing on the composition of the taskforce or the terms of reference. Interesting point that they can only find $7m of savings by bring the three codes and NZRB together. I could suggest an easy $900K of savings

I think CATR needs to seen as part of the long game ie getting people back on track. In the short term, clubs will be double dipping anyway - getting a higher % of profit from the food and bevvies and on my experience getting higher on course turnovers. As I said, in many cases, these are no more than industry days that through a bit of effective spin have become successful "events". Will it turn these people into long term racing fans? Hard to say but it's a positive start. I agree that there are another 40 weeks we need to work on but CATR and the other promotions are starting to build up racing audiences again.

Not sure who you've been talking to but the CATR marketing has been very effective and much to my surprise, the CATR meeting is wildly exceeding my expectations. In this case, the success of the marketing appears to be that they have reached non-racing people. I've been aware of some of the marketing but I have to admit their research and implementation has hit the mark. Admittedly, they've put some resources into it but turning mid-week industry days into successful events is a real achievement, particularly in this climate. In this case, hats off to the NZRB

Sweepstakes themselves are legal but I suppose there's always the question as to whether they are following the letter of the law. (Apologies for long urls) http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Casino-and-Non-Casino-Gaming-The-Rules-for-Running-a-Gambling-Activity?OpenDocument The critical test would be the value of the sweepstake and so long as they are under $500 it would seem to be no issues. http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Casino-and-Non-Casino-Gaming-Classes-of-Gambling?OpenDocument