Ellis addresses NZRB AGM

[foxy 0]

Mike Dillon has published an edited version of Ellis's speech to the NZRB AGM on the Herald website today.

We all understand as business people here today that the solution to our predicament is having more money to distribute to our clubs and stake holders.

"The only way to do this is to drive wagering turnover higher - much higher. The relationship is clear. The better the stake money the better the horse and the better horses mean more money wagered on each race and more people coming to watch.

"The declining turnovers are a problem. It's the biggest problem we face in racing. Before you start to think the declining turnovers are due to economic conditions and are therefore acceptable, I say rubbish.

"[being resigned to] declining turnover is not acceptable and this will leave us with no industry at all if the current trends continue.

"Let me talk about the experience of racing in France over the same three-year period and they have seen betting turnover growth of 3 per cent in thoroughbred racing through their TAB.

"Why? It is very simple - they have their own trackside channel for the galloping code.

"I would suggest that there would be very few in this room that when they heard about the extra TV channel were not filled with the excitement of the knowledge that we were about to confront the cause of the decline in wagering of the thoroughbred code.

"So why are the two channels not working? "Well, I have over 650 owners so I asked them. "Nine out of 10 said they do not now watch trackside because the dogs and low-quality harness racing was a huge turn off."

Ellis went on to say that because people have a real passion for thoroughbred racing [by far the greatest financial contributor through the TAB] they do not necessarily have any interest in dogs or harness racing from Invercargill.

By pushing those down the throats of viewers they switch off and turn to golf or other sports, forget to switch back to another galloping race and the TAB misses out. He added that on the recent group one Levin Classic raceday at Otaki viewers were greeted with a dog race every 15 minutes on both racing channels. What's wrong with channel 35 handling the dogs and extending the coverage on the big raceday on channel 36?

Only one channel can be watched at one time, why have the dogs on both?

If the recession was the total reason for the decline, he said, how had he been able to fully syndicate 69 yearlings this year to more than 120 first-time owners?

"People want to invest in this great industry, but what they do not want is to have dog racing from wherever in Australia and trots pushed down their throat. All can be covered satisfactorily by the two channels with no disadvantage to anyone.

"A few years ago the TAB, together with the three codes agreed that the television channel was our prime opportunity to grow wagering and to this end unanimously agreed that the prime time, which is Saturday afternoon, would be given to the prime driver of revenue, the thoroughbred code. All three codes agreed to that and that led to Clause 16 of the Racing Amendment Bill, something which has greatly disadvantaged galloping and advantaged primarily the dogs.

"Now we see the first few galloping races from Sydney and Melbourne missed because a local trotting race is on channel 36.

"I don't want any of this to sound like I'm anti harness or the dogs. I actually enjoy top-end harness racing and I've got nothing against the dogs.

"But it's critical this thing is correctly driven."

Ellis was strong on his criticism of the Racing Board for what he sees as ignoring Clause 6 and 7 of the Racing Amendment Bill.

"They state clearly the NZRB has a responsibility to promote the galloping code, to promote participation and promote ownership.

"The NZRB used to have a very good programme, Retro on a Sunday morning - everybody watched it. They had trainers on that [who] had just won a big race and it gave them the opportunity to promote themselves, to get new owners.

"It gave people the chance to see how the industry was promoted - it encouraged participation.

"A couple of years ago the Racing Board said Retro was finished for Christmas and we're still waiting for it to restart.

"I wrote to the board and said if the reason was cost could I buy the hour from them and I would put Retro on and get sponsors to support the programme? Two years on and I am still waiting for a reply."

The coverage of harness racing and dogs being restricted to channel 35 on some days is not quite that simplistic.

The Racing Board believes there are up to 150,000 who do not watch Trackside through Sky Television and, therefore, can receive only channel 36 free-to-air.

Some would say that's a reasonably fair balance given the breakdown in interest levels in the three codes.

More fair, certainly, than the proliferation of dog racing running simultaneously on both television channels accompanied by a small betting turnover.

There is a valid point here: should those prepared to pay good money to have Sky Television be disadvantaged by those unprepared to fork out for a superior product?

Too much of that creeps into New Zealand society.

It wouldn't happen in Australia or the United States.

[aquaman 1,352]

Mike Dillon has published an edited version of Ellis's speech to the NZRB AGM on the Herald website today.

We all understand as business people here today that the solution to our predicament is having more money to distribute to our clubs and stake holders.

"The only way to do this is to drive wagering turnover higher - much higher. The relationship is clear. The better the stake money the better the horse and the better horses mean more money wagered on each race and more people coming to watch.

"The declining turnovers are a problem. It's the biggest problem we face in racing. Before you start to think the declining turnovers are due to economic conditions and are therefore acceptable, I say rubbish.

"[being resigned to] declining turnover is not acceptable and this will leave us with no industry at all if the current trends continue.

"Let me talk about the experience of racing in France over the same three-year period and they have seen betting turnover growth of 3 per cent in thoroughbred racing through their TAB.

"Why? It is very simple - they have their own trackside channel for the galloping code.

"I would suggest that there would be very few in this room that when they heard about the extra TV channel were not filled with the excitement of the knowledge that we were about to confront the cause of the decline in wagering of the thoroughbred code.

"So why are the two channels not working? "Well, I have over 650 owners so I asked them. "Nine out of 10 said they do not now watch trackside because the dogs and low-quality harness racing was a huge turn off."

Ellis went on to say that because people have a real passion for thoroughbred racing [by far the greatest financial contributor through the TAB] they do not necessarily have any interest in dogs or harness racing from Invercargill.

By pushing those down the throats of viewers they switch off and turn to golf or other sports, forget to switch back to another galloping race and the TAB misses out. He added that on the recent group one Levin Classic raceday at Otaki viewers were greeted with a dog race every 15 minutes on both racing channels. What's wrong with channel 35 handling the dogs and extending the coverage on the big raceday on channel 36?

Only one channel can be watched at one time, why have the dogs on both?

If the recession was the total reason for the decline, he said, how had he been able to fully syndicate 69 yearlings this year to more than 120 first-time owners?

"People want to invest in this great industry, but what they do not want is to have dog racing from wherever in Australia and trots pushed down their throat. All can be covered satisfactorily by the two channels with no disadvantage to anyone.

"A few years ago the TAB, together with the three codes agreed that the television channel was our prime opportunity to grow wagering and to this end unanimously agreed that the prime time, which is Saturday afternoon, would be given to the prime driver of revenue, the thoroughbred code. All three codes agreed to that and that led to Clause 16 of the Racing Amendment Bill, something which has greatly disadvantaged galloping and advantaged primarily the dogs.

"Now we see the first few galloping races from Sydney and Melbourne missed because a local trotting race is on channel 36.

"I don't want any of this to sound like I'm anti harness or the dogs. I actually enjoy top-end harness racing and I've got nothing against the dogs.

"But it's critical this thing is correctly driven."

Ellis was strong on his criticism of the Racing Board for what he sees as ignoring Clause 6 and 7 of the Racing Amendment Bill.

"They state clearly the NZRB has a responsibility to promote the galloping code, to promote participation and promote ownership.

"The NZRB used to have a very good programme, Retro on a Sunday morning - everybody watched it. They had trainers on that [who] had just won a big race and it gave them the opportunity to promote themselves, to get new owners.

"It gave people the chance to see how the industry was promoted - it encouraged participation.

"A couple of years ago the Racing Board said Retro was finished for Christmas and we're still waiting for it to restart.

"I wrote to the board and said if the reason was cost could I buy the hour from them and I would put Retro on and get sponsors to support the programme? Two years on and I am still waiting for a reply."

The coverage of harness racing and dogs being restricted to channel 35 on some days is not quite that simplistic.

The Racing Board believes there are up to 150,000 who do not watch Trackside through Sky Television and, therefore, can receive only channel 36 free-to-air.

Some would say that's a reasonably fair balance given the breakdown in interest levels in the three codes.

More fair, certainly, than the proliferation of dog racing running simultaneously on both television channels accompanied by a small betting turnover.

There is a valid point here: should those prepared to pay good money to have Sky Television be disadvantaged by those unprepared to fork out for a superior product?

Too much of that creeps into New Zealand society.

It wouldn't happen in Australia or the United States.

Agree with all said, but think takeout rate is and will be the prime mover of turnover.

[chelseacol 2,488]

Agree with all said, but think takeout rate is and will be the prime mover of turnover.

We have a winner...!!!

Such a simple concept, yet no-one seems to be talking about it. if I was running NZRB I would be knocking on the minister's door every day about this issue....

[Furlong 0]

Agree with all said, but think takeout rate is and will be the prime mover of turnover.

I think you are right aquaman. For example, as a rule of thumb quinellas several years ago used to pay about 75% of the two horse's win divs mutiplied together. Then it reduced to 67% and then to 60%, and now it is around 50%. Have the dividends reduced because the pools are smaller owing to a bigger and bigger take out, or is there some other reason?

[aquaman 1,352]

I think you are right aquaman. For example, as a rule of thumb quinellas several years ago used to pay about 75% of the two horse's win divs mutiplied together. Then it reduced to 67% and then to 60%, and now it is around 50%. Have the dividends reduced because the pools are smaller owing to a bigger and bigger take out, or is there some other reason?

Takeout rate moved from 14.7% to 21% for quinellas on domestic racing 15 odd months ago. Real smart move.

[G Unit 1]

No wonder they are offering huge cash prizes to people for taking quinellas at the moment.

[d.burrow - Joan 225]

No wonder they are offering huge cash prizes to people for taking quinellas at the moment.

that we are all fools!

[Don Frampton 1]

Takeout rate moved from 14.7% to 21% for quinellas on domestic racing 15 odd months ago. Real smart move.

Utterly ridiculous. Standardise our takeout rates with Aus and the differential goes away.

This is why the codes with grass-roots understanding should be controlling the TAB, rather than an ivory tower NZRB - who meet every now and then to discuss where they keep getting it wrong.

[aquaman 1,352]

Utterly ridiculous. Standardise our takeout rates with Aus and the differential goes away.

This is why the codes with grass-roots understanding should be controlling the TAB, rather than an ivory tower NZRB - who meet every now and then to discuss where they keep getting it wrong.

Problem is Don, and I agree, standardise the takeout rate with Aus is obvious answer, but because we are top heavy with administration, ie Trackside TV, junkets overseas, CEO's on $900,000, [Andrew Brown], and an ever diminishing band of punters, then one can see why NZ is hamstrung with a huge takeout rate to pay for it all. Why, we even send people from Trackside to cover the Melbourne Cup, or Hong Kong. How stupid is this. Who the hell wants to listen to a Trackside presenter when the local feed is far superior and cheaper. The whole system we operate under is imploding, top heavy with bludgers in administration with the costs being foistered onto the punters via the takeout rates and closures of stand alone TABs, demise of form in papers, lack of cash to pay out punters, and a complete lack of affinity with their clients.

[Don Frampton 1]

Problem is Don, and I agree, standardise the takeout rate with Aus is obvious answer, but because we are top heavy with administration, ie Trackside TV, junkets overseas, CEO's on $900,000, [Andrew Brown], and an ever diminishing band of punters, then one can see why NZ is hamstrung with a huge takeout rate to pay for it all. Why, we even send people from Trackside to cover the Melbourne Cup, or Hong Kong. How stupid is this. Who the hell wants to listen to a Trackside presenter when the local feed is far superior and cheaper. The whole system we operate under is imploding, top heavy with bludgers in administration with the costs being foistered onto the punters via the takeout rates and closures of stand alone TABs, demise of form in papers, lack of cash to pay out punters, and a complete lack of affinity with their clients.

Another post right on the button.

A lack of grass-roots understanding means no one is properly able to understand what expenditure is necessary as against not.

As you can no doubt see for yourself, if you have a TAB unaccountable to the codes it (should) serve, it basically can do whatever it likes in whatever inappropriate fashion it cares.

With the codes also having no control over the NZRB/TAB, it just makes our industry structure unworkable and as I have said before, utterly convoluted and disfunctional. The last two decades of malaise is proof enough of the abject failure of the status quo.

This is why a Minister for Racing needs to step in and sort out the mess and change the Racing Act to stop these sorts of shenannigans - and put TAB control in the hands of code-people who it serves (who have the subject matter dear to their hearts, who have the advantage of grass-roots knowledge on matters of horses and punting and who will have a vested interest in properly controlling unnecessary costs).

[Don Frampton 1]

.....and put TAB control in the hands of code-people who it serves (who have the subject matter dear to their hearts, who have the advantage of grass-roots knowledge on matters of horses and punting and who will have a vested interest in properly controlling unnecessary costs).

And, if they don't so control costs, at least be turfed out in favour of people who can.

[Tauhei Notts 1,414]

Aquaman,

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I understand that Quinella take out rates are 14.7% on commingled pools and 21% on pools that are not commingled.

Your erudite opinion would be appreciated.

[aquaman 1,352]

Aquaman,

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I understand that Quinella take out rates are 14.7% on commingled pools and 21% on pools that are not commingled.

Your erudite opinion would be appreciated.

Not quite Tauhei, 14.7 if betting on a co mingled offshore bet, but 21% if doing the same bet domestically. To my way of thinking, its nothing short of discrimination against local racing Clubs in NZ. It hardly invites overseas punters to bet into local pools when hit with the inflated takeout on Quinellas.

[Don Frampton 1]

Not quite Tauhei, 14.7 if betting on a co mingled offshore bet, but 21% if doing the same bet domestically. To my way of thinking, its nothing short of discrimination against local racing Clubs in NZ. It hardly invites overseas punters to bet into local pools when hit with the inflated takeout on Quinellas.

For clarity, I think you are saying the host country determines the takeout rate that co-mingled partners must follow (otherwise it would mean a different quinella dividend in Aus to NZ on the same race)?

But the rub is punters are encouraged to mainly back quinellas on Aussie races if they offer the lower take-outs. In essence, we in NZ become a boutique TAB rather than a volume-based operation.

The more astute/serious punters eventually work out such distortions and the 20% who do the 80% of the business gravitate towards where they have the best chance of overcoming takeout odds.

Of course, if that happens, the TAB then causes punters to feel that they have been ripped off or taken advantage of - and that is not the way to grow/hold your loyal support base.

Its like playing on a double-zero roulette wheel, once you've played on a single-zero table which is (very close to) twice as kind, you avoid the double-zero establishments like the plague.