Waht do people think of the new proposal for NZ Racing??

[scooby3051 10,851]

Just wondering peoples thoughts on the new proposal being tabled for the three racing codes??It seems to be stirring up a bit of interest.

[Peter M 2]

This topic dosen't seem to excite anyone here for some unknown reason.

It dosen't need an Einstein to figure that sharing resources can save money.

On the other hand combining is not always the recommended recipe.

Example the old Post office was split into three and no one would want NZPost, Kiwi Bank and Telecom to combine again.

Whatever the solution those pushing the One racing proposal have not put up a convincing case. In fact an unnecesasary bureacratic layer is likely to be formed with salaries at the top far exceeding the responsibilities.

[scooby3051 10,851]

This topic dosen't seem to excite anyone here for some unknown reason.

It dosen't need an Einstein to figure that sharing resources can save money.

On the other hand combining is not always the recommended recipe.

Example the old Post office was split into three and no one would want NZPost, Kiwi Bank and Telecom to combine again.

Whatever the solution those pushing the One racing proposal have not put up a convincing case. In fact an unnecesasary bureacratic layer is likely to be formed with salaries at the top far exceeding the responsibilities.

I also thought it may have spurred a bit more interest as it seems to be a major change they are trying to get through.

[Hunterville 0]

Yeah surprising such a major overhaul has caused little discussion on here. It seems those leading it haven't tried very hard to push the case in the month leading up to the vote. It didn't help I guess that they were preaching all this need for cost saving when we know the exorbitant salaries they are on. But apart from the $ savings they haven't for me really highlighted the benefits for the change. We know $11 million doesn't go very far, what will it bring us long term? People in life are generally weary of change, there doesn't seem anything convincing for us to support this overhaul.

[Furlong 0]

The present situation where galloping people look after thoroughbred racing and harness and dog people their codes, seems to me to be the best way. I can see the potential for one code to gain more than their fair share of what should be equitable attention to each code. eg. one code getting a majority of the best dates.

No details of how the supposed savings are arrived at makes me nervous because when companies amalgamate jobs are lost and the price to the consumer always goes up.

[Freda 0]

The present situation where galloping people look after thoroughbred racing and harness and dog people their codes, seems to me to be the best way. I can see the potential for one code to gain more than their fair share of what should be equitable attention to each code. eg. one code getting a majority of the best dates.

No details of how the supposed savings are arrived at makes me nervous because when companies amalgamate jobs are lost and the price to the consumer always goes up.

That seems so to me as well.

I mentioned the Racing Bureau on another thread.

I have nothing against the Bureau or its personnel, however it was supposed to bring efficiencies and savings to the galloping code.

It has become a burgeoning monolith, I am sure it is costly to maintain and I wouldn't think too many racing clubs have laid off staff as a result.

[John Clydesdale 229]

The info in the One racing platform is flawed. Savings suggested as available by Harness and Grehounds are not available.

The costs to supposedly generate the savings is $4 million. The savings from race clubs around NZ, as suggested by the Taskforce is $4 million. Sounds like a great deal!? But it is also supposedly sustainable........?

The lack of consultation with industry Stakeholders was non existant. Even the Boardworks governance Report, on which this suggestion has been based, was extremely shallow and not robust enough. No live input from jockeys, three trainers had live input, very little input from breeders. But then, they are just stakeholders that, in some cases, have immense capital invested that need returns, and other stakeholders that are reliant on the industry health to make a living. Oh yes, the owners......how much input did they provide into the governance report? Don't be surprised when you hear, very little.

But hey, there was huge input from the Clubs, heaps of club members who have absolutely no accountability for their decisions and actions.....great substance to a report on governance that has heralded the biggest suggested change to the industry since it's inception. Go back Taskforce and discuss the contents of THAT report with the stakeholders before heading anywhere else.

Supposed governance weaknesses within the NZTR Board, as outlined in the Boardworks governance Report, have continued to prevail. There has not been any consultation, at Board level with either Harness or Greyhounds in the preparation of this recommendation by the Taskforce, so again the same old failings of governance continue.

There is enough legislation in place under a three code level at present for each code to continue to succeed or fail on each codes individual performance. Let that continue, because you will not find out what is really wrong with any code when you disguise the reason behind a smokescreen that is totally unworkable.

Personally, I want the RIB to tell our code Board what they are responsible for in performance terms, any merger with them negates that potential. Our code should ask why the RIB costs have increased so much over the last five years????

Using another analogy, does anyone really think that in Australia, where there are three users of the pointy ball, that the following is realistic. The Rugby Union, The NRL and The AFL, they should get together to form a single Board as there are some savings that could be made in one administration unit.....yeah right!

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

None and Bob in its current form.

[Priceless 0]

The Thoroughbred code administrators are well known for their bulldozing tactics and this is just another example of that.All the pomp and arrogence in the world and not one scrap of common sense.

[Peter M 2]

Priceless,

Are you sure there are gents there ?

I think the word is spelt arrogance.

[Priceless 0]

Priceless,

Are you sure there are gents there ?

I think the word is spelt arrogance.

Sorry!!Need to find spell check on my computer.

[Stig 0]

None and Bob in its current form.

Interesting that Guy and his mates are now trying to alter the motion, wonder when they will realise that such action is 'illegal' under their Constitution.

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

Interesting that Guy and his mates are now trying to alter the motion, wonder when they will realise that such action is 'illegal' under their Constitution.

Either way it has no hope of being passed in its current form. Poorly marketed and done without support of other codes/industry participants.

The misery continues as they try and rearrange the deck chairs.

[von Smallhaussen 3,226]

The misery continues as they try and rearrange the deck chairs.

Where will they get another job?

[rumpole 483]

The info in the One racing platform is flawed. Savings suggested as available by Harness and Grehounds are not available.

The costs to supposedly generate the savings is $4 million. The savings from race clubs around NZ, as suggested by the Taskforce is $4 million. Sounds like a great deal!? But it is also supposedly sustainable........?

The lack of consultation with industry Stakeholders was non existant. Even the Boardworks governance Report, on which this suggestion has been based, was extremely shallow and not robust enough. No live input from jockeys, three trainers had live input, very little input from breeders. But then, they are just stakeholders that, in some cases, have immense capital invested that need returns, and other stakeholders that are reliant on the industry health to make a living. Oh yes, the owners......how much input did they provide into the governance report? Don't be surprised when you hear, very little.

But hey, there was huge input from the Clubs, heaps of club members who have absolutely no accountability for their decisions and actions.....great substance to a report on governance that has heralded the biggest suggested change to the industry since it's inception. Go back Taskforce and discuss the contents of THAT report with the stakeholders before heading anywhere else.

Supposed governance weaknesses within the NZTR Board, as outlined in the Boardworks governance Report, have continued to prevail. There has not been any consultation, at Board level with either Harness or Greyhounds in the preparation of this recommendation by the Taskforce, so again the same old failings of governance continue.

There is enough legislation in place under a three code level at present for each code to continue to succeed or fail on each codes individual performance. Let that continue, because you will not find out what is really wrong with any code when you disguise the reason behind a smokescreen that is totally unworkable.

Personally, I want the RIB to tell our code Board what they are responsible for in performance terms, any merger with them negates that potential. Our code should ask why the RIB costs have increased so much over the last five years????

Using another analogy, does anyone really think that in Australia, where there are three users of the pointy ball, that the following is realistic. The Rugby Union, The NRL and The AFL, they should get together to form a single Board as there are some savings that could be made in one administration unit.....yeah right!

such perception such understanding

do not forget the level of salaries at the Racing Board Brown $900,000 and the next one down to help Brown do his job is on $700,00,,Hansen got $500,000

and was worth $200,000 at the most.

NZTR need to get their own house in order..they have a new CEO who is a very good bloke but he is only there to get one racing through.. the rest of the office is a disaster and there is no morale

Guy Sargent is a puppett and Sutherland is pulling the strings

As for NZ Harness has Stiassny answered the questions asked b4 Xmas???

[Stig 0]

Yeah surprising such a major overhaul has caused little discussion on here. It seems those leading it haven't tried very hard to push the case in the month leading up to the vote. It didn't help I guess that they were preaching all this need for cost saving when we know the exorbitant salaries they are on. But apart from the $ savings they haven't for me really highlighted the benefits for the change. We know $11 million doesn't go very far, what will it bring us long term? People in life are generally weary of change, there doesn't seem anything convincing for us to support this overhaul.

The spin doctors are envisaging 10% cost savings across clubs under One

Racing, but have now acknowledged thats not going to happen. I find it amazing that the proponents of this have overlooked that staff costs at the Racing Board went up 57% over 3 seasons and that was before the $900k m,an and his $700k mate

[Laurie Sutherland 0]

This idea needs FAR MORE RESEARCH to realistically assess any possible savings, and any costs of reaching such savings.

There were many major differences of opinion when the thoroughbred code and the harness code (plus one civil servant to help keep the peace) formed the Board to manage the TAB upon its formation in 1952. If two parties found it hard to get on, it would likely be even harder with the other code included.

An earlier poster drew attention to the unlikelihood of the 3 sporting codes which play with an oval ball combining into a single administration.

There are numerous other similar examples.

For instance, NZ has at least 7 differing political parties represented in Parliament, with many more in the wings. Each has a Leader, most have a Deputy plus shadow spokespeople on the various portfolios of government, and have a fundraising organisation. Why do they not join together in a combined administrative and policymaking body?

The broad answer is that the 3 oval ball codes are competing against each other for players and for spectators.

The numerous political parties are also in competition for members and for funding contributions, and for THEIR policies to find favour with as many people as possible.

Similarly with all the many different religious groups.

And likewise with the three racing codes. Each is competing with the other two for the hearts of the people who put money into racing, i.e. the Owners and the Punters.

I would be very concerned at the likely lack of checks and balances in a single body which would be about as powerful in racing as was Nazi Party and the SS in controlling Germany, or Stalin and the Comintern in controlling the USSR. It seems potentially dangerous to have that amount of power concentrated into a very small number of hands.

I consider racing clubs are like any other sporting club. They were formed through community money and effort to bring racing to their own local communities.

They continue to operate for this main purpose.

It is entirely reasonable that all the racing clubs together should appoint a central body to formulate a common set of Rules, and enforce same; to set racedates and raceday programs to avert clashes, and to operate the betting systems.

After that, the profits from such betting should be paid out to the clubs (for on-payment as stakes to the raceday owners) in proportion to the volume of betting generated by each club, and the clubs then be left to get on with organising and running their racemeetings.

[barry 0]

Well spoke Laurie!

Its about as good as the Cadbury take over by Kraft....just watch the job losses.

But in the case of NZ racing just watch the receivership or the liquidation of NZ racing.

[The Apprentice 1]

1. The Racing Minister - is he up to it? I doubt it.

2. The NZRB - an Admin Body

3. NZTR - an Admin Body

Why are they talking about "potential cost savings" when the NZRB itself has been driving up its own costs? I mean, how can a NZ Racing Board support paying a $900k CEO? If as has been reported the previous guy was reaping $500k, then what has the industry got for the extra $400k so far?? Some would say SFA.

The clubs provide the product, the TAB provides the betting forum and the Codes run their admin. It's quite simple really.

What a mess.

The Australian Qld Racing Board are trying to do much the same but without what many players are saying - ample consultation or consideration within the various codes.

At some point in time, someone is going to have to bite the bullet and make some unpopular decisions but in the end, if there is sufficient consultation and "COMMUNICATION" it should not be too big a hurdle. Therein seems to lay the problem - lack of consultation and communication prior to the big announcement.

My personal opinion is to support a situation that sees "ONE" Administrative body for the 3 codes. I believe it is needed and is inevitable. However, there are ways to go about getting things done and judging by some of the comments on this Forum, there's a lot more to be done!!

[Peter M 2]

I mean, how can a NZ Racing Board support paying a $900k CEO?

The biggest fallacy is believing that the racing Board is a billion dollar business.

Turnover in a gambling business is totally different to turnover say for a biscuit factory.

For real comparison the NZRB turnover should be treated as 20 per cent of $1.5 billion i.e. $300.00 million the total takeout.

Then when that is established compare CEO pay rates to businesses with gross sales of $300 million.

[John Clydesdale 229]

What people are paid in the role of a CEO is determined by the Board and the Chairman. If any Board is paying overs for their CEO, relative to their turnovers, then the Board and Chairman have got it wrong. At the moment their does appear to be two Boards under such delusions.

Both Boards run no risk businesses. No losses or exposure of risk against borrowings. Both Boards do not have to account to their shareholders as such because the "dividends" involved are called bulk funding.

Both Boards have not direct accountability to their shareholders, so when a bad decision is manifested in lower stakes and turnover leakage, what do they suggest they do.....merge!!!!?

Ask yourself the question, are both Chairman and their Boards doing the job?....The answer is obvious.

The other major concern is that Mr Stiassny has now alienated himself with the other two codes, I believe they should ask for his resignation.....and get it.

How could any stakeholder in any of the codes have any faith in his judgement after such methodology was used to put the gun to your head to accept "one racing".

I applaud Harness and Greyhounds for the non support of One Racing because they are running their own ships and creating their own futures, they do not need clandestine management meetings, flawed strategies, shallow and baseless reports to try and convince them they should join the leaky Titanic.

The legislation exists, no changes to that are required. All the thoroughbred code has to do is get rid of incapable management and Board members, who are only looking to build empires and ivory towers made of balsa wood.

Balance the Board of Thoroughbred Racing with representatives of the industry stakeholders, who have voting powers, and that will be the starting point to a better future.

[hedley 1,900]

..there's your truth folk., . .ball'n'racquet in your courts i believe.

..you were all warned about Stiassny too.

..global communists

[rumpole 483]

The biggest fallacy is believing that the racing Board is a billion dollar business.

Turnover in a gambling business is totally different to turnover say for a biscuit factory.

For real comparison the NZRB turnover should be treated as 20 per cent of $1.5 billion i.e. $300.00 million the total takeout.

Then when that is established compare CEO pay rates to businesses with gross sales of $300 million.

and as for andrew Brown the word is he was recruited at 450,000 ... he thought

Euros and the NZ Racing Board thought

dollars..guess who won????? the max the CEO of the Racing Board should get is $250,000

how can they lose money?????????

if the turnover is down down go the stakes and the salaries just go up and up

[Mark Daly 0]

and as for andrew Brown the word is he was recruited at 450,000 ... he thought

Euros and the NZ Racing Board thought

dollars..guess who won????? the max the CEO of the Racing Board should get is $250,000

how can they lose money?????????

if the turnover is down down go the stakes and the salaries just go up and up

Probably used the same human resources consultants that Maori TV did in hiring their bogus Canadian.

[hedley 1,900]

Probably used the same human resources consultants that Maori TV did in hiring their bogus Canadian.

[clapping] :beer:

..and you're a Fine stalwart sensibility contributor . ."all th'best for you Mar:y:"