NZTR CONSULTATION ON STRATEGIC PLAN CONTINUES

[dock leaf 142]

The NZTR Board met with Graeme Rogerson and Lisa Latta in Wellington today.

 

The meeting added to the extensive consultation process being undertaken by NZTR with race clubs, sector groups and thoroughbred participants in relation to the development of the 2016-2020 NZTR Strategic Plan.

 

NZTR Chairman Matthew Goodson said, “we all agree we need to sustainability increase prize money to better reward and incentivise owners, breeders, trainers and other thoroughbred participants and we all want to attract new ownership and participation to thoroughbred racing.”

 

Graeme Rogerson emphasised the need for the NZTR Board to expedite $10,000 minimum prizemoney levels and the need to maintain race club viability and sustainability, particularly in the South Island and for isolated community thoroughbred race meetings.

 

NZTR chairman Matthew Goodson said, “We have spent the past four years focused on getting ‘back into the black’ to ensure a more sustainable future for thoroughbred racing. To borrow to fund immediate arbitrary levels of prizemoney increases would take us backwards and undermine the future sustainability of the industry.”

 

“We had a useful discussion, the Board is still in information gathering mode to enable it to make decisions."

 

Matthew Goodson assured Mr Rogerson that a full range of views were being considered, “however it’s not realistic to keep doing more of the same and expect the outcomes to be meaningfully better”.

 

Mr Rogerson said, “the NZTR Board gave us a good hearing and we had a very open and honest discussion.”

 

“We all agreed that it’s important for all of us to work together to grow racehorse interest in thoroughbred racing in New Zealand,” Rogerson said.

 

Ends

10-09-2015 NZTR Strategic Plan Consultation Continues.pdf

[Leggy 4,093]

That amounts to consultation?

the Board is still in information gathering mode to enable it to make decisions.?

Haven't they had 5 years to do that?

 

You have to be kidding.

[gubellini 4,004]

Borrowing to fund increased prize money is a red herring! Fonterra style redundancies at the NZRB would easily release the $3.5 million needed to raise minimum Stakes to $10,000.

[gubellini 4,004]

Matthew Goodson was interviewed by Des Coppins on Trackside Radio this morning.He stated that it would take two years before $10,000 minimum Stakes could be achieved.Obviously slashing expenditure at both NZTR and NZRB is not on the agenda!

[puha 2,177]

Agree mate Goodson said the only way we can increase the funds is by increasing betting turnover no mention of cutting costs within the NZRB. Des Coppins line of questioning was interesting.He stated that we have to many racecourses in NZ.Then his first question was to Goodson.. If we closed down tracks will the funds go to the racing industry.Yes you severely need upgrades at Trentham but don't expect to get it that way!

[biff 2,158]

They're all in arse saving mode, it will take militant action to bring change, who has the balls?

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

Borrowing to fund increased prize money is a red herring! Fonterra style redundancies at the NZRB would easily release the $3.5 million needed to raise minimum Stakes to $10,000.

 

For  a good read on what new CEO of NZRB thinks of the current situation  everyone should read the interview/article in last weeks NBR.

[Huey 2,037]

Agree mate Goodson said the only way we can increase the funds is by increasing betting turnover no mention of cutting costs within the NZRB. Des Coppins line of questioning was interesting.He stated that we have to many racecourses in NZ.Then his first question was to Goodson.. If we closed down tracks will the funds go to the racing industry.Yes you severely need upgrades at Trentham but don't expect to get it that way!

Wow that's amazing that somewhat like Coppins would be going down that track, sell up the china to get the house painted. Once again racing wants to take the easy route out of it.

[Ashoka 1,179]

Huey...

 

I like the cut of your gib.

To paraphrase F Troop...whothefu*kareyou?

 

All the best.

Ashoka

Email: ashoka@vodafone.co.nz

[Leggy 4,093]

 Goodson said the only way we can increase the funds is by increasing betting turnover

That's a revelation. I agree. It should be the fundamental goal by which all strategy is tested. Let's hope the new strategic plan is focused on the means to do that.

[Ohokaman 5,844]

And how do they propose to increase betting turnover by reducing the number of meetings and races..??

[Leggy 4,093]

And how do they propose to increase betting turnover by reducing the number of meetings and races..??

Good question Ohokaman. I'm looking forward to seeing the rationale. All I was saying was that after five years Matt seems to have grasped the critical issue. I personally think it can be done with reduced meetings and races, but it depends on the strategies that sit along side that.

[hedley 1,900]

Good question Ohokaman. I'm looking forward to seeing the rationale. All I was saying was that after five years Matt seems to have grasped the critical issue. I personally think it can be done with reduced meetings and races, but it depends on the strategies that sit along side that.

..reducing the meetings and races Is their rationale., it'll never work because it can't

[Huey 2,037]

Good question Ohokaman. I'm looking forward to seeing the rationale. All I was saying was that after five years Matt seems to have grasped the critical issue. I personally think it can be done with reduced meetings and races, but it depends on the strategies that sit along side that.

That would only be the case if they looked to cut the right meetings to achieve that. I'm not certain thats the case.

 

Besides that some meetings should simply looked to be relocated to get the best out of them.

[Michael Roustoby 292]

Please remember it wasn't so long ago their strategic plan to increase turnover was more race meetings.

Monday racing was the Proverbial Gold mine.(because all Australians are cashed up after a weekend and sitting in a TAB at 10am)

 

Everyone doubted it,they did it anyway and it was a flop.

 

I hope they are working "with" Rogerson and co and a solution to keep the majority happy comes from that.

 

Theres obviously no simple solution and you'll never keep everyone 100% happy but we cant afford to have another flop and cost the industry more $.

[bloke 1,232]

I agree Michael, the proposal to race on Monday's with the purpose of attracting Aussie betting was dumb. There was already wall to wall racing over there on a Monday, quite simply it was poorly researched by Purcell.

 

Rogie did make one interesting comment to Des stating that since  thoroughbred racing in Nelson has ceased, betting from that area on thoroughbreds is very poor.

[hedley 1,900]

Please remember it wasn't so long ago their strategic plan to increase turnover was more race meetings.

Monday racing was the Proverbial Gold mine.(because all Australians are cashed up after a weekend and sitting in a TAB at 10am)

 

Everyone doubted it,they did it anyway and it was a flop.

 

I hope they are working "with" Rogerson and co and a solution to keep the majority happy comes from that.

 

Theres obviously no simple solution and you'll never keep everyone 100% happy but we cant afford to have another flop and cost the industry more $.

..the simple solution is a far leaner and 'meaner' bureaucratic machine as Hesi states below (there a far too many created positions within NZRB)(duplicitous)

 

growth will follow from improved track surfaces and an improved foal crop seeding so that an improved product will be forthcoming to Bet on

 

Seems like a lot of 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'.

There is only so much punter money available, a number that is decreasing because of an increasingly poorer product and competition.

How will reducing the number of races/race meetings increase the tote turnover.

As many have mentioned, the cost of running the industry is the big issue.  A leaner, meaner machine will mean millions of dollars available to re-invest back into the industry, to build an improved product, which in turn will increase wagering turnover etc etc

It's only when the industry is on a better footing can the tinkering begin

[Michael Roustoby 292]

Trimming the fat is the obvious solution to increase funds but we need to increase turnover and racing profile for long term sustainability. Government do nothing even though racing is a massive GST earner and employer of thousands. They could do alot more. Where is the minister?

[Ohokaman 5,844]

Seems like a lot of 're-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'.

There is only so much punter money available, a number that is decreasing because of an increasingly poorer product and competition.

How will reducing the number of races/race meetings increase the tote turnover.

As many have mentioned, the cost of running the industry is the big issue.  A leaner, meaner machine will mean millions of dollars available to re-invest back into the industry, to build an improved product, which in turn will increase wagering turnover etc etc

It's only when the industry is on a better footing can the tinkering begin

You are right Hesi, the discretionary dollar only goes so far..

I can't for the life of me see how reducing the Calendar as they have suggested will increase turnover...

- 69 races Dec 1 2015 - July 31 2016

- 21 Meetings Aug 1 2016 - July 31 2017

And meanwhile, they are still farking about with this Co-mingling issue resulting in more disgruntled punters adding to leakage.

I don't think they would know a decent Strategic Plan if they fell over it....

[Guest 2Admin2]

Ohokaman, on 13 Sept 2015 - 11:18 AM, said: You are right Hesi, the discretionary dollar only goes so far.. I can't for the life of me see how reducing the Calendar as they have suggested will increase turnover... - 69 races Dec 1 2015 - July 31 2016 - 21 Meetings Aug 1 2016 - July 31 2017 And meanwhile, they are still farking about with this Co-mingling issue resulting in more disgruntled punters adding to leakage. I don't think they would know a decent Strategic Plan if they fell over it....

Since the 2011-2012 season we have seen a 4.6% decline in meetings and a 7.6% decline in the number of races. However domestic turnover has increased 1.8%.

<p><strong>So a decline in the number of races has seen an increase in turnover.</strong></p>

<br>

If the foal crop is declining then it is ludicrous to keep the number of races and meetings at the level they are. The foal crop has declined at a faster rate than the number of races.

[Ohokaman 5,844]

How many races and meetings in that Admin..??

Hardly Earth shattering numbers over 4/5 years is it...??

[Guest 2Admin2]

Ohokaman, on 13 Sept 2015 - 11:30 AM, said: How many races and meetings in that Admin..?? Hardly Earth shattering numbers over 4/5 years is it...??

It was over four years so there is variance - if you take the peak for meetings and races and compare to last year then we have:

<p><strong> 24 less meetings and 236 less races.</strong></p> <br> Note they haven't been able to align to horse numbers until now due to the export agreement. Hence I guess, what appears to be, the sudden reduction.

<p>There is good data to show that races less than 8 in number have a greater impact on revenue. 16% of the total races have less than 8 runners.</p>

For a long time we have focused solely on quantity and ignored quality of the product.

<p>In my opinion if we had less races and better quality fields we would see the pools increase and become more attractive to punters.</p>

[Guest 2Admin2]

hesi, on 13 Sept 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

But as you say, this 1.8% increase is as a result of the big increase FO, which as you say is lower profit and at the expense of the higher profit tote.

I would debate, that increase in FO is not directly related to the number of races.

FO options are presented by the TAB on all sorts of different things, HTH, jockey challenge etc etc. In any one race, they could offer many different FO options.

Just look at the recent WC Cricket, so many options on just one match, I gave up counting after about 100

Another folly Hesi - why scramble your golden goose egg? The low cost high yield totalisator. Geez it does all the work for you and if you removed rebates provides a level market for punters to make value judgements.

[Guest 2Admin2]

hesi, on 13 Sept 2015 - 12:31 PM, said:

Yes, but probably a folly they had no choice on.

They probably looked at the poor field sizes and poor quality and determined the tote is a cot case, so they put in place plan B(FO)

Unfortunately they have not been able to get the luxury margins and with the huge increase in fixed costs, mean't it is all a futile strategy.

So why continue, no other option I guess

Add to that hooking into an agreement that doesn't allow you to do something about field size and quality. Of course tiered stakes accentuates the poor quality of the fields.