No New NZTR Business Plan since 2005

[Guest wayne larsen]

zzz you are continuously stating that NZTR is a toothless organisation and the redress is "one racing".

I suggest to you that since NZTR has failed to update a business plan since 2005 it has become toothless from a lack of dental care rather than an aging process.

The outdated Strategic Plan was drawn to my attention yesterday by Simon Cooper, when directing concerns to NZTR about an apparently significant drop of another significant income stream, namely sponsorship income. NZTR has no formal process of quantifying annual sponsorship incomes, nor an ability to monitor year on year performance.

I would suggest that sponsorship income would be the second highest contribution to prize money behind NZRB distributions ( now that Pokie distributions have fallen significantly) and we have no formal monitoring process quantifying the total annual amount or year on year performance.

zzz can you confirm to me that you consider the failure to produce a business plan since 2005 by NZTR to be good governance.

[Guest wayne larsen]

Can you then explain to me why we need to throw the baby out with the bath water ie "one racing" when by your own admission NZTR is dysfunctional and lacking coherant code leadership, and please don't refer me back to the 77 page document supporting "one racing" because that amateurish document would be below the standard of any quality higher secondary school dissertation. Now I am simple and I had to check the correct spelling of dissertation in the Collins dictionary so I would appreciate that your reply can take me through "one racing" simply

[Peter M 2]

Before flying off and expecting everyone to embrace this one racing thing what should have been done is create an internet voting system.

All club members would have one vote and breeders trainers, owners and jockeys extra votes as well others employed in the industry.

Instead we see a lot of duplication of computer racing information including some which can quite easily be handled by outside parties. I cannot see how any board member or manager can believe they are doing a good job when the basic fundamentals haven't been addressed.

Internet voting can be inexpensive and fast and bring into the fold many who feel marginalised.

[Guest wayne larsen]

So effectively you are stating that code obstruction has had the largest effect on the performance (or lack thereof) of the thoroughbred code.

Can you provide clear illustrations of the interference you suggest which have impacted the thoroughbred code.

I am also interested that you acknowledge the leadership at NZTR has been poor, I would be very interested over what time frames you think this has been and where accountability should lie.

[Nerula 1,403]

e

I am also interested that you acknowledge the leadership at NZTR has been poor, I would be very interested over what time frames you think this has been and where accountability should lie.

Wayne if I may butt in here. I have attended the two "Governance" workshop meetings run by NZTR. There was a general consensus that the existing structure needed replacing. Historically the governance been in the majority by the clubs, the "venue" providers and with smaller representation from the (so called) sector organisations. Strangely "Owners" are one of the latter. {It is obvious that without Owners there is no reason for the venue providers "clubs", service providers "trainers, jockeys etc' or product producers "breeders" to exist.}

When this was pointed out the response was that owners and service providers could and do have, significant representation in racing clubs. Thus they have representation by this avenue.

The rub here is that once that occurs the club hat is put on.

An appointment to NZTR is a political appointment. There have been examples of club appointees being fired by their clubs because they voted at NZTR for reasons held to be for the good of the game, by the individual, but contrary to the policy of the club

You will probably have heard talk of clubs on the one hand "White anting" and the the other of "need to protect ones own house". If there is truth in that it is easy to see that the focus is not entirely directed to progress of the sport of kings but more toward preservation of the parochial entities.

Now I am drawing a longer bow. The above situation has been reviewed analyised scoped and reported on to the extreme. So many side issues have been raised that the problems have become lateral to a major degree. As such they appear very difficult to solve. It will take a smaller number of people (Directors) to solve. They need to be independent and a have a range of skills and at the same time a knowledge of the industry. That is the current proposal under discussion and seemed to have general acceptance at the meetings I attended.

There will be a vote eventually and the clubs will decide the outcome. The question is whether they will be able to rise above parochialism. If not we may see eventually the solution in attrition caused by further regression of circumstances.

The above is entirely my own opinion. I have watched the discussion by people of goodwill and decided to support that.

Neil Miller

[Guest wayne larsen]

This is the problem zzz I cannot make an informed opinion. I don't have contacts, where I require information I attempt to approach the appropriate organisation to gather that knowledge.

I still hold an open minded position on "one racing" but could not support the proposal on the basis of the information contained in the amateur "one racing" document and contacted every board member of NZTR who was available at that time to express my personal view.

Whilst you wish to keep information "confidential" and shut down robust debate on a we know better basis I will be unable to develop an informed opinion.

What I do know is that at present many state the system is broken, I prefer to believe the system is poorly managed at best, and an argument could be well presented that in fact the current system is recklessly managed.

A recklessly managed system could be argued on the basis of

1. No renewal of NZTR's business plan since 2005

2. No fiscal analysis of major income streams year on year by NZTR

3. The appointment of a short term CEO at NZTR whose skill set may or may not be commensurate with the position

4. An NZTR Board skillset that may or may not have the required skill set to develop an appropriate organisation strategy when confronted with international competition

5. No fiscal analysis of wagering year on year when new initiatives are intoduced

So zzz you as the owner of Race cafe wish to promote robust intelligent debate and I have attempted to engage on that basis, so could you please detail the issues of code performance being interfered with as this issue now appears to be integral to "one racing"

[Guest wayne larsen]

Thanks Neil for your views. Can you tell me if those workshops expressed concern at no revised business plan since 2005 by NZTR or examined NZTR performance as part of those "Governance issues". Surely without a robust examination of existing structures, and their problems. Once those problems are clearly identified appropriate robust changes can be effected.

My concerns about current governance were recently highlighted when the NZTR Board, NZTR management and all club administrator's North of Taupo chose to reward the owners of rating 70 horses at a higher level than rating 80 horses for the region north of Taupo. No racing jurisdiction internationally asks that better performed horses race for less money, so when that occurs in my "home town" I am forced to closely examine current governance decisions.

[Leggy 4,096]

This is the problem zzz I cannot make an informed opinion. I don't have contacts, where I require information I attempt to approach the appropriate organisation to gather that knowledge.

I still hold an open minded position on "one racing" but could not support the proposal on the basis of the information contained in the amateur "one racing" document and contacted every board member of NZTR who was available at that time to express my personal view.

Whilst you wish to keep information "confidential" and shut down robust debate on a we know better basis I will be unable to develop an informed opinion.

What I do know is that at present many state the system is broken, I prefer to believe the system is poorly managed at best, and an argument could be well presented that in fact the current system is recklessly managed.

A recklessly managed system could be argued on the basis of

1. No renewal of NZTR's business plan since 2005

2. No fiscal analysis of major income streams year on year by NZTR

3. The appointment of a short term CEO at NZTR whose skill set may or may not be commensurate with the position

4. An NZTR Board skillset that may or may not have the required skill set to develop an appropriate organisation strategy when confronted with international competition

5. No fiscal analysis of wagering year on year when new initiatives are intoduced

So zzz you as the owner of Race cafe wish to promote robust intelligent debate and I have attempted to engage on that basis, so could you please detail the issues of code performance being interfered with as this issue now appears to be integral to "one racing"

Wayne, I couldn't agree more, that trying to develop an informed opinion in this industry is (to borrow the metaphor from your headpost), like pulling teeth. That aspect in itself probably reflects the reckless management, and I would suggest reckless governance, that you speak off.

I may be acused of whingeing again, but it is evident to me if not anyone else that the constructive suggestion inherent in the whingeing is to remedy this problem with wide-rangeing transparency and publicising of full information. Likewise the other matters listed in your post.

[Nerula 1,403]

Thanks Neil for your views. Can you tell me if those workshops expressed concern at no revised business plan since 2005 by NZTR or examined NZTR performance as part of those "Governance issues". Surely without a robust examination of existing structures, and their problems. Once those problems are clearly identified appropriate robust changes can be effected.

s.

Wayne, No the meetings were set up to discuss the Masterton Racing Clubs carried resolution at the 22 Jan 2010 AGM. If One Racing had progressed this would have become redundant. It didnt hence the consultation

The agenda covered the whole spectrum of Governance from Board Compositiion, Appointment Process, Term of office, NZTR Membership and Voting, Conflicts of interest, Consultation.

Specific matters such as you mention were not addressed. I believe they are instruments of management directed by governance. The bigger issue of Governance and what form it should take was the reason for the meeting.

There will be final wind up meetings around the country in December prior to the AGM next January. One may presume that the outcome of that will be decided by NZTR affiliated clubs throughout the country. A 3/5 majority will be required to make change.

One would hope that all club members give this matter some real weight of thought, that they can be informed and that the horizons are seen to be far behind the parish boundaries.

[Guest wayne larsen]

Thanks Neil were the standards of skill set required by board members also examined as part of the process.

Domestic racing and wagering is having to compete at an ever increasing rate with international competition and I have concerns that if NZTR Board Members have not seen the importance of reviewing their business plan since 2005, are not monitoring year on year revenue streams, are not monitoring wagering revenues year on year with new initiatives, have not promoted community buy in through club vehicles to best effect, and are disincentivising club challenges on industry days with increased funding payouts then why blame the system.

Surely when a system is operating at it's best level and still has governance challenges then alterations to the model are required. If it is not operating at its best how then do we know what are the real challenges that need fixing.

At present the NZTR Board is attempting to update its business plan but again that is flawed, it should be the role of management under board direction.

Change for the sake of a "call for change " will never be as effective as change demanded from an efficiently operating organisation when confronted to new fundamental challenges.

I suggest that fundamental challenge now exists in that owners and bettor's participation now have greater international options and administration has been and still is remarkably slow to adjust

[Nerula 1,403]

Yes the skill sets were discussed. It was aknowledged that they would need to be complimentary across the whole spectrum, at the same time as having a knowedge of the industry. It became apparent that independance was a fundemental tenet.

The meetings I attended were held in goodwill. Leaving the NZTR management officers out of it there was accord in general that change of governance of NZTR was necessary.

Apart from the fact that NZTR do provide monthly figures of revenues etc, annualised basis: I do not disagree with your other points.

Governance is the main issue. Currently it is shackled and it seems to me to have difficulty in progressing policies in the current climate.

[Leggy 4,096]

There will be final wind up meetings around the country in December prior to the AGM next January. One may presume that the outcome of that will be decided by NZTR affiliated clubs throughout the country. A 3/5 majority will be required to make change.

One would hope that all club members give this matter some real weight of thought, that they can be informed and that the horizons are seen to be far behind the parish boundaries.

I thought the AGM was 15 December. That's what's advertised still.

[Nerula 1,403]

I thought the AGM was 15 December. That's what's advertised still.

Yes I have just checked my material and it confirms what you say. The final workshops tour will be early December then no doubt.

[John Clydesdale 229]

Good discussion points raised in this thread. What I get from the discussion is that;

a) The departing CEO is clearly incompetent for that role...who appointed him and checked his credentials?

The Chairman should retire at the AGM and...

c) The Board members are required to have a conscious hard look at themselves individually and ask how they can contribute to that Board....and perhaps re-consider their positions...and

d) Also ask why an employee suddenly becomes the spokesperson for the Board......the answer lay in point

These are some of the reasons why we are going in the wrong direction at a rapid rate!

[Nerula 1,403]

No you didnt get any of that from me.

Really if you are looking for heads on a stick, or even to address past perceived wrongs, or shortcomings and punish people for those, that just makes you part of the problem.

The only matter I wrote about was proposed change of Governance of NZTR.

[Leggy 4,096]

Wayne, No the meetings were set up to discuss the Masterton Racing Clubs carried resolution at the 22 Jan 2010 AGM. If One Racing had progressed this would have become redundant. It didnt hence the consultation

The agenda covered the whole spectrum of Governance from Board Compositiion, Appointment Process, Term of office, NZTR Membership and Voting, Conflicts of interest, Consultation.

Specific matters such as you mention were not addressed. I believe they are instruments of management directed by governance. The bigger issue of Governance and what form it should take was the reason for the meeting.

There will be final wind up meetings around the country in December prior to the AGM next January. One may presume that the outcome of that will be decided by NZTR affiliated clubs throughout the country. A 3/5 majority will be required to make change.

One would hope that all club members give this matter some real weight of thought, that they can be informed and that the horizons are seen to be far behind the parish boundaries.

So Neil, are you saying that the proposal that you and the workshops favour is essentially the appendix 4 recommendation from the April 09 Boardworks' Governance Review? If not, how does it differ?

[John Clydesdale 229]

Nerula, I wasn't referring directly to what you had written in the previous comment.

My comment is an observation I have made for some time. But unfortunately I hold a different methodology to you. As I believe you cannot effectively create change until you identify the problems confronting you. In my view, systemic problems have been with NZTR for many years, and they are still there. Governance is one of them. This has been acknowledged, but has it changed?? I don't think so, because if it had been, then the employee who has a job to do under the Board's direction should not be making public comments of any description about the state of the industry and the tracks being used.

I am not trying to malign people as individuals, I know a fair few of them and they are generally good people, it is just that they are under-equipped in some instances for the seat they fill.

I want each Board member to review there own performance, if that means, in your view, that I am part of the problem, then quite clearly you and I are on a different wavelength and I will quite happily let you go down your road alone.

[Nerula 1,403]

So Neil, are you saying that the proposal that you and the workshops favour is essentially the appendix 4 recommendation from the April 09 Boardworks' Governance Review? If not, how does it differ?

No Leggy I am not saying that. All that I am saying is that I attended meetings in one area. At those meetings it was apparent that those who attended favoured a change in "governance". I was not party to all the other meetings around the country and I have not been officially told at to what the outcomes of those were. These will be discussed at the final workshop meeting early in December.

In an earlier post I put forward my OWN personal views. They should not be ascribed to any organisation I belong to. What I would like to say is that I believe participants need to keep open minds and broad horizons.

John I chipped you because I thought your post of 10.25 yesterday was inflammatory and that sort of stuff is redundant anyway, if the issue is a complete change in Governance

[Peter M 2]

These will be discussed at the final workshop meeting early in December.

Why wait till December. Surely that is the problem. Slow cumbersome decision making and problem solving.

Any workshop can be preceded with submissions to a forum website organised by NZTR. This is 2010.

[Daveski 13]

It's not so much the cumbersome decision making process but the need for the changes to the governance process to be signed off by the Clubs at the AGM (or indeed an SGM).

It makes sense to include this the substantive part of the AGM to avoid the costs of an SGM so the the governance review is dictated by the timing of the AGM.

The question of course is whether the Clubs will agree to vote for change for the good of the industry rather than change for their own good.

[trakdap 390]

The question of course is whether the Clubs will agree to vote for change for the good of the industry rather than change for their own good.

And therein lies the problem!!

[Leggy 4,096]

No Leggy I am not saying that. All that I am saying is that I attended meetings in one area. At those meetings it was apparent that those who attended favoured a change in "governance". I was not party to all the other meetings around the country and I have not been officially told at to what the outcomes of those were. These will be discussed at the final workshop meeting early in December.

In an earlier post I put forward my OWN personal views. They should not be ascribed to any organisation I belong to. What I would like to say is that I believe participants need to keep open minds and broad horizons.

I understand those are your own personal views but you did say there seemed to be an acceptance of the current proposal considered at those workshops. I doubt there are too many that would disagree that some change in governance structure at the NZTR level is necessary. The internal governance changes recommended by the Governance Review sound very similar to what you say are your personal views and would seem to be a sensible starting point for any consideration of change with the key tenet independence of directors.

The question I asked was how does the proposal that you favour and suggest was accepted at the workshops you attended, differ from that proposed by the April 09 governance review?

[Nerula 1,403]

Leggy I went along as a representative of a "sector group". You will appreciate that whilst these have some representation in Governance, when it comes to constitutional decisions, power rests with the clubs. Any change in governance will require constitutional change and a 3/5 majority.

I am an honorary member of a club (30+yrs) but dont wear that hat. I was not there to suggest change, but to state our sectors position as affected by the agenda items and future direction of Governance changes

Re-aquainting myself with the NZTR Governance review of April 2010 the supposition you make is fairly correct as far as the meetings I attended was concerned.

Salient to all this is 2;2;1 and 3.2. Perhaps a model of 6;1;2 may be favoured? and perhaps the possibility of change will come will come from enlightenment and the putting aside of entrenched views

It would be useful if people with racing at heart would Google and print NZTR Governance Review April 2010.

Really I cant add much more to this discussion. NM

[John Clydesdale 229]

There is a Board meeting prior to the Awards on Friday and perhaps there could something to announce as a result of the meeting??!!

[Leggy 4,096]

Leggy I went along as a representative of a "sector group". You will appreciate that whilst these have some representation in Governance, when it comes to constitutional decisions, power rests with the clubs. Any change in governance will require constitutional change and a 3/5 majority.

I am an honorary member of a club (30+yrs) but dont wear that hat. I was not there to suggest change, but to state our sectors position as affected by the agenda items and future direction of Governance changes

Re-aquainting myself with the NZTR Governance review of April 2010 the supposition you make is fairly correct as far as the meetings I attended was concerned.

Salient to all this is 2]

Well here's the relevant link (see appendix 4) to save them the trouble and it's April 09, btw: http://www.nzracing.co.nz/Downloads/NZTR%20GOVERNANCE%20REPORT%20%20FINAL%20%200904.pdf