Ellerslie gets biggest crowd in 15 years

[Leggy 4,076]

My bad. It just shows that my thinking is consistently 24 hours ahead of you ]

If I'm at Boxing Day and you're still stuffing turkey I think that means I'm 24 hours ahead of you doesn't it? :confused:

[Daveski 13]

If I'm at Boxing Day and you're still stuffing turkey I think that means I'm 24 hours ahead of you doesn't it? :confused:

Or 364 days behind and I'm actually starting to veer towards the later position.

[Guest 2Admin2]

It seems you think that Ellerslie doing 2-3 times the turnover of the other clubs on the same day, is a good result.

I would call it close to pathetic.

So many that support this tiered model, refer to Australian stakes at metro level etc.

What ratio do you think is done on a metropolitan meeting compared to a country/provincial meeting in general, on the same day? I'll give you a hint. It is not anywhere near as low as 3.

Yet, in your example, the absolute top club supposedly, could manage about 2.5 times the turnover of Manawatu.

That is clear evidence, that the punters don't really like the Ellerslie product (to the level they should), since on that very day, Ellerslie had been provided with the premium races on the day.

You haven't factored in population bases in your comparison with OZ. You could manipulate statistics and argue that Ellerslie lost revenue to the other venues that were on the same day - i.e. if there were less meetings then Ellerslie would have picked up the slack.

[Daveski 13]

Yet, in your example, the absolute top club supposedly, could manage about 2.5 times the turnover of Manawatu.

That is clear evidence, that the punters don't really like the Ellerslie product (to the level they should), since on that very day, Ellerslie had been provided with the premium races on the day.

You seem to have been sucked into Leggy's time warp. ARC did 4.5 times the on course of MRC (ex fixed odds) and 7.5 times the on course of Otago.

The off course figures clearly have less variation for obvious reasons yet their was a clear preference for AK. However, I agree that this is to be expected based on the marquee races that the ARC had.

To be pedantic, the funding the ARC receives for stakes is at best for the club fiscally neutral. The minimum funding policy ensures that clubs must pass on to owners every cent received for stakes. The metric that should be tracked is not what stakes revenue is received (that must be paid out as a minimum to owners) but what added stakes or added value the club provides. The ARC's profit would not be affected at all if minimum stakes levels were raised or lowered.

[Leggy 4,076]

You seem to have been sucked into Leggy's time warp. ARC did 4.5 times the on course of MRC (ex fixed odds) and 7.5 times the on course of Otago.

The off course figures clearly have less variation for obvious reasons yet their was a clear preference for AK. However, I agree that this is to be expected based on the marquee races that the ARC had.

To be pedantic, the funding the ARC receives for stakes is at best for the club fiscally neutral. The minimum funding policy ensures that clubs must pass on to owners every cent received for stakes. The metric that should be tracked is not what stakes revenue is received (that must be paid out as a minimum to owners) but what added stakes or added value the club provides. The ARC's profit would not be affected at all if minimum stakes levels were raised or lowered.

I agree the primary metric for the club should be added value.

It is the industry/NZTR where the metric should mainly be revenue generated cf funding expended to achieve that for any given race or raceday.

That said any appropriate model should include some incentive tos to club performance with respect to offcourse turnover, especially with respect to information provision, weather and track conditions and the like.

[Daveski 13]

That said any appropriate model should include some incentive tos to club performance with respect to offcourse turnover, especially with respect to information provision, weather and track conditions and the like.

Agreed entirely. A punters' manifesto anyone?

[emmdee 0]

You haven't factored in population bases in your comparison with OZ. You could manipulate statistics and argue that Ellerslie lost revenue to the other venues that were on the same day - i.e. if there were less meetings then Ellerslie would have picked up the slack.

Mostly irrelevant I would contend. When I referred to metro/non metro turnover, I was talking across the country, and Auckland as a % of the NZ population is a good as any of the capitals in Oz, as a % of the countries population. And each of the metro meetings, has significant competition from other venues, in the same way Ellerslie does.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Mostly irrelevant I would contend. When I referred to metro/non metro turnover, I was talking across the country, and Auckland as a % of the NZ population is a good as any of the capitals in Oz, as a % of the countries population. And each of the metro meetings, has significant competition from other venues, in the same way Ellerslie does.

You miss the point - the real issue is that the TOTAL punting dollar in NZ is less than OZ on any % basis you wish to choose. Ellerslie as others have pointed out does comparatively well. I would argue that if we didn't have Ellerslie's premier meetings the leakage to OZ Metro's would be far greater than it currently is.

[emmdee 0]

You miss the point - the real issue is that the TOTAL punting dollar in NZ is less than OZ on any % basis you wish to choose. Ellerslie as others have pointed out does comparatively well. I would argue that if we didn't have Ellerslie's premier meetings the leakage to OZ Metro's would be far greater than it currently is.

I am not the one missing the point. You are talking total spend, I am talking relative spend. Relative spend on Ellerslie is pathetic. What might be your next point?

[Guest 2Admin2]

I am not the one missing the point. You are talking total spend, I am talking relative spend. Relative spend on Ellerslie is pathetic. What might be your next point?

I'm afraid you are missing the point probably through your clouded judgement as evident in your continual reference to Ellerslie as "pathetic".....

Relative to what?

You are focussed on local optima when the constraint is global. If you look at the total spend for each day it is relatively constant for each day albeit declining in comparison to previous years. This highlights a market constraint - the total spend on thoroughbred racing gambling is declining. There are a number of reasons for that including competition from other codes and sports.

Ellerslie has no more influence on these factors than other clubs such as those based at Awapuni or Hastings. The NZRB through the TAB controls the revenue gathering - their marketing their takeout rates their focus determines the global optimum not the clubs.

For example what has the recent promotion on Quinella betting done for increasing the total pie? I would say nothing except waste probably close to $200k. Would it have attracted new punters? No - for the novice even a Quinella bet is complicated. Plus they are less than likely to either listen to Radio Trackside or watch Trackside at a specified time the next day. This promotion only canabalises existing expenditure - I very much doubt it has increased total revenue.

Can we even remember a promotion that the TAB has done to attract new racing punters in the last two years? What has it done to retain existing punters? To stop leakage to other codes and sports and other betting agencies?

Your parochial negative focus on local relative optima clouds your judgement and you miss the main point.

[Nerula 1,402]

This is a dopy argument. You're not looking at the overall picture. You cant compare any other club with Ellerslie

Never are they apples for apples.

What is important is the clubs bottom line and its ability to support stakes. Then to look at how that is trending.

I just hate the continuation of puerile provincial parish politics. Its whats lead TR into the parlous hole they are trying to climb out of.

IMO of course

[aquaman 1,352]

I'm afraid you are missing the point probably through your clouded judgement as evident in your continual reference to Ellerslie as "pathetic".....

Relative to what?

You are focussed on local optima when the constraint is global. If you look at the total spend for each day it is relatively constant for each day albeit declining in comparison to previous years. This highlights a market constraint - the total spend on thoroughbred racing gambling is declining. There are a number of reasons for that including competition from other codes and sports.

Ellerslie has no more influence on these factors than other clubs such as those based at Awapuni or Hastings. The NZRB through the TAB controls the revenue gathering - their marketing their takeout rates their focus determines the global optimum not the clubs.

For example what has the recent promotion on Quinella betting done for increasing the total pie? I would say nothing except waste probably close to $200k. Would it have attracted new punters? No - for the novice even a Quinella bet is complicated. Plus they are less than likely to either listen to Radio Trackside or watch Trackside at a specified time the next day. This promotion only canabalises existing expenditure - I very much doubt it has increased total revenue.

Can we even remember a promotion that the TAB has done to attract new racing punters in the last two years? What has it done to retain existing punters? To stop leakage to other codes and sports and other betting agencies?

Your parochial negative focus on local relative optima clouds your judgement and you miss the main point.

You certainly have a good grasp of the current situation as it apply's in NZ 2Admin2, couldn't agree more.

Have always been of the opinion, the pie is only so great, that is the total spend by punters is only so much per week, and any shuffling of the deck chairs is not going to change this. The quinella advertising highlights just how far out of touch the TAB is. They are reduced to gimmicky raffles to the converted after increasing the takeout rate on quinella betting 2yrs ago. This i would imagine was the reason for the decline. Australian participation in our comingled quinella pools would of dropped away after increasing the takeout from 14.7 to 21%. So now the stupid TAB think that by running a raffle at some expense they are going to increase turnover. All it will achieve is shifting some money from other pools to the quinella pool, ie shifting the deck chairs syndrome. Little wonder NZ Racing is in the position it now finds itself with overpaid under performing top heavy administration. Very little understanding of the gaming market in todays world.

[Leggy 4,076]

I suspect the quinella strategy is aimed at shifting non price sensitive bettors to the higher gross margin quinella product.

However, in all likelihood it won't work. The TAB will simply get thesame amount of revenue and do so more quickly with lower turnover. Those punters will be more disillusioned and less likely to come back.