So it's all about the punters is it ?

[Guest 2Admin2]

Now if you take the head post and look at it through the conceptual lenses (you will have read that theory Leggie) of each of the numbered participants we would give different opinions. The smart owner would like two 7 horse races has they have more chance of getting a return however that wouldn't be what the punter would want.

[Midget 4,489]

Go check the noms at Te Rapa, the problems with the flawed models being used manifest themselves there.

I note the Trackside staff have been "gushing" of late, celebrating the healthy state of the industry by using the "amazing numbers of horses racing" as a measure of our wellbeing !!!

[Midget 4,489]

Have a pick at this, and patch in some gambling data if you wish.

I rather like the correlation between stakes and participation.

[Guest 2Admin2]

17 minutes ago, Midget said:

Go check the noms at Te Rapa, the problems with the flawed models being used manifest themselves there.

I note the Trackside staff have been "gushing" of late, celebrating the healthy state of the industry by using the "amazing numbers of horses racing" as a measure of our wellbeing !!!

Well the stats say that at least 150 less horses ran around this year than last year alone.  Put 150 horses in a paddock and that would look amazing!

That equates to 10 x 15 horse fields at 7 meetings.  But the KPI spinners don't want that because they don't have the stakes to pay for them.

[Guest 2Admin2]

8 minutes ago, Midget said:

Have a pick at this, and patch in some gambling data if you wish.

I rather like the correlation between stakes and participation.

What do you like about it?

[Ohokaman 5,841]

The Spin Doctors will have a field day with this...

Average return per race has gone from $15,971 in 9-10 to $ 17,391 in 13-14 ( rounded )...

You can hear the clinking of glasses from here......

[Midget 4,489]

It clearly shows that the enhanced stakes post Fairtax had zero effect on participation, something I've always suspected and that rather makes a mockery of the stupid flawed mentality that suggests all profits should be plough end back in to stakes.

[Ohokaman 5,841]

16 hours ago, Midget said:

If the the punters do in fact drive the industry would you all be kind enough to dissect the relevant legislation and comment on the performance of the NZRB.

The more erudite amongst you ( no one from Nth Canterbury please ) might like to tackle 9(1)a and offer an opinion on that clause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slip of the tongue there Midgie, think you mean LESS erudite....what's that whistling overhead.....??? 

[aquaman 1,352]

I reckon you can have less racing, and increase returns to the industry via increased stake money. But it would require a complete overhaul of the Administration of all 3 codes. The intent to be, the lifting of the quality as against the quantity.

1st and foremost, all Administration would come under one body.

2nd, axe 50% of all tracks. Picnic tracks that race once a yr, and are self sufficient are exempt.

3rd Massive investment in strategic tracks in main metropolitan areas. 3 all weather tracks, two in the Nth, 1 in the Sth.

4th The focus to be on exporting racing globally from modern well presented tracks with quality racing.

5th Priority given to lifting turnovers by decreasing the takeout, and making punting more attractive to domestic and international customers.

6th Racing to only be conducted Wens to Sunday except picnic meetings.

7th Halve the number of race meetings. TAB can import any amount of racing to fill in the gaps.

8th Ignor the howls of anguish from affected stakeholders. They will need to adjust, or get out.

It would take an iron fisted policy, but if carried out over a 5 yr period, we would come out a stronger, leaner industry with the focus on quality that markets such as Asia would like to punt into.

[Guest 2Admin2]

19 minutes ago, Midget said:

It clearly shows that the enhanced stakes post Fairtax had zero effect on participation, something I've always suspected and that rather makes a mockery of the stupid flawed mentality that suggests all profits should be plough end back in to stakes.

You are assuming that stakes before Fair Tax weren't sufficient or at the level where marginal utility was zeo.  It appears the increase wasn't enough especially as in real terms owner/breeder returns are below where they were prior to 2007/8.  Look at the decline in the number of horses raced which is still declining.  Those participating, from your table "trainers", were hanging in with less cattle.  Presumably the increase in stakes has helped them keep participating. 

[Blue 1,099]

With three meetings canned recently there should be great field for the next meeting that actually gets off the ground as owners will be keen to get a run regardless. Or Maybe just cancel all races between June and August.

 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

21 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

You are assuming that stakes before Fair Tax weren't sufficient or at the level where marginal utility was zeo.  It appears the increase wasn't enough especially as in real terms owner/breeder returns are below where they were prior to 2007/8.  Look at the decline in the number of horses raced which is still declining.  Those participating, from your table "trainers", were hanging in with less cattle.  Presumably the increase in stakes has helped them keep participating. 

Or trainers were racing less horses and surviving because they and owners were selling horses to supplement their meager incomes.

[Midget 4,489]

I think my point was that the ( relatively speaking ) massive increase in stakes did not see an equivalent massive increase in participatin at any level, by any sector, or for that matter in horses raced or bred.

I doubt there was a massive increase in associated gambling either but someone can research that and revert.

If you accept the above you can thus embrace my ongoing criticism that we spend too little on R&D, education, safety, welfare, and infrastructure, but we waste too much on stake money.

No other successful business does this, it's equivalent to distributing all your profits as dividends, and that's fatal if you're trying to "grow" your business ( as you pro the punters group quite reasonably wish for ).

I wonder if the rationale of artificially increasing stakes is more about making a certain individuals CV look good because it does nothing for the organic growth of a healthy and vibrant industry, so why do we do it ? it's nuts, plain fxxxing crazy stupidity.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Just now, Midget said:

I think my point was that the ( relatively speaking ) massive increase in stakes did not see an equivalent massive increase in participatin at any level, by any sector, or for that matter in horses raced or bred.

I doubt there was a massive increase in associated gambling either but someone can research that and revert.

If you accept the above you can thus embrace my ongoing criticism that we spend too little on R&D, education, safety, welfare, and infrastructure, but we waste too much on stake money.

No other successful business does this, it's equivalent to distributing all your profits as dividends, and that's fatal if you're trying to "grow" your business ( as you pro the punters group quite reasonably wish for ).

I wonder if the rationale of artificially increasing stakes is more about making a certain individuals CV look good because it does nothing for the organic growth of a healthy and vibrant industry, so why do we do it ? it's nuts, plain fxxxing crazy stupidity.

I wholeheartedly agree that we haven't spent enough on the right sort of infrastructure - especially the tracks adn R & D thereof.  Where the hoof hits the turf so to speak.  I'd even go so far to say that that is what we should be focussed on solely now.  Desperation stakes.  

We are fixated on getting people on course (marketing budgets) and providing flash facilities but have forgotten that most of the revenue by far comes from off-course.  How often do you see the cameras looking at the stands instead of the horses and them racing?  As yet we don't offer betting odds on who is the best dressed or who has the biggest cleavage on course.

[Midget 4,489]

7 minutes ago, Blue said:

With three meetings canned recently there should be great field for the next meeting that actually gets off the ground as owners will be keen to get a run regardless. Or Maybe just cancel all races between June and August.

 

According to some critics on here, eg.. the extreme pro punters lobby group, if we did ditch all domestic races and just imported product from abroad we'd all be better off, and the industry a lot more profitable with no overheads like code distributions, or Trackside services.

No racing but more punting with lower takeouts......there's your model..!!! Somehow I think the equation is slightly more complex than that, and what the likes of Aquaman would have us believe.

 

[Chris Wood 1,577]

I lost faith in the Trainers Association a long time ago and now the way our funding is structured through NZTR, if we speak out we are liable to lose that as an association. They have us by the short and curlies!

We did get a little action when they put the vote of no confidence forward awhile ago, but that fizzled out to, sad but true, we have a Toothless association, that is not doing its best for its members.

Please stand up and be counted, sad to see us go down without some sort of fight!

[SavetheShire 61]

2 hours ago, aquaman said:

3rd Massive investment in strategic tracks in main metropolitan areas. 3 all weather tracks, two in the Nth, 1 in the Sth.

 

Off-course betting is by far the most important focus, so starting with 1 all weather track that is central to the greatest concentration of horses in training, rather than a requirement that it needs to be in a main metropolitan area, would make better sense, in reducing costs to the owners in things like travel expenses and such, while providing a higher quality racing venue and cheaper development costs, servicing the greatest betting market. While the idea of taking better racing to the larger concentrations of people, it is still doubtful that they will bother to drive across the city in winter or throughout the year, than watch and bet at home. The fixation with oncourse turn out and associated marketing should be limited to summer only, where there is some attraction to the general public.

[Midget 4,489]

You talk a lot of sense STS

[Guest 2Admin2]

57 minutes ago, SavetheShire said:

Off-course betting is by far the most important focus, so starting with 1 all weather track that is central to the greatest concentration of horses in training, rather than a requirement that it needs to be in a main metropolitan area, would make better sense, in reducing costs to the owners in things like travel expenses and such, while providing a higher quality racing venue and cheaper development costs, servicing the greatest betting market. While the idea of taking better racing to the larger concentrations of people, it is still doubtful that they will bother to drive across the city in winter or throughout the year, than watch and bet at home. The fixation with oncourse turn out and associated marketing should be limited to summer only, where there is some attraction to the general public.

I agree with what you are saying unfortunately with the last bit concerning summer - the muppets are reducing the number of permits in those summer areas!!

I still think a contestable element should be introduced so that clubs can bid for permits and the composition of their cards.  For example what if Riccarton came up with more sponsorship than Ellerslie for the NZ Derby?  Why couldn't it be run Christchurch?  Or why not rotate the Derby around based on the bids of clubs?  I know that is an extreme example but it puts some responsibility back onto the clubs and could empower them.  As it is at the moment they are hanging on for grim death to their assets and being manipulated by muppet management at NZTR.

[Trump 2,741]

The so called " Pro The Punter" (PTP) Lobby as you referred it to Midgie is really only to answer your question re What's most Important. The money drives everything and it comes from betting. Once we acknowledge that and provide the most competitive betting environment that attracts the punters, you can then start to plan your strategy re infrastructure etc etc. Otherwise, where does the money come from? The TAB monopoly is def not the answer. Neither is the Takeout and return to the Industry. All Stakes do is attract the best available horses. Thats why the jump from $700k to $2m for the NZ Derby was a waste. The best were already racing for top stake money. Someone advised Winston poorly!

[Guest 2Admin2]

14 minutes ago, Trump said:

The so called " Pro The Punter" (PTP) Lobby as you referred it to Midgie is really only to answer your question re What's most Important. The money drives everything and it comes from betting. Once we acknowledge that and provide the most competitive betting environment that attracts the punters, you can then start to plan your strategy re infrastructure etc etc. Otherwise, where does the money come from? The TAB monopoly is def not the answer. Neither is the Takeout and return to the Industry. All Stakes do is attract the best available horses. Thats why the jump from $700k to $2m for the NZ Derby was a waste. The best were already racing for top stake money. Someone advised Winston poorly!

They could race for $300k and still attract the best Derby entrants.

[Palmy Panther 2]

6 hours ago, Midget said:

No other successful business does this, it's equivalent to distributing all your profits as dividends, and that's fatal if you're trying to "grow" your business ( as you pro the punters group quite reasonably wish for ).

check out the 8 listed property companies on the NZX - they pay out 95%-105% of their profits as dividends 

[Midget 4,489]

50 minutes ago, Palmy Panther said:

check out the 8 listed property companies on the NZX - they pay out 95%-105% of their profits as dividends 

Point taken, but are they trying to grow their businesses or are they sitting on their assets and enjoying capital gain ?

I doubt what you've said is true unless they were not interested in growth or acquisitions anyway, otherwise they could never build up equity and nor could they fund all growth by commercial loans.

If they were developing or building I'd have thought they'd be growing, and using profits in the process, but I suppose you'd argue they'd contract the work out and cash up the final entity.

I take your point though so let me rephrase and suggest racing might be considered a primary industry (even if it doesn't meet the strict criteria for primary) that needs retained profits for reinvestment and healthy organic growth. Is that fair enough ?

[Leggy 4,085]

1 hour ago, Palmy Panther said:

check out the 8 listed property companies on the NZX - they pay out 95%-105% of their profits as dividends 

Aren't these essentially investment trusts even if they have adopted a company structure officially?

[Jon Trum 56]

The only 'Massive' increase has been in the COST to race a horse, CLEARLY EVERYONE agrees with that? that is locked down no argument. So if the increase in stakes had kept up with the increase in racing cost there would have been no drop off in participation, so total stakes have doubled but the cost to race a horse has tripled or more! CLEARLY EVERYONE agrees with that. The graph prior makes no mention of that increase at all so the increase in stakes means absolutely nothing. It is a crisis alright, but back to the original topic, racing was going on thousands of years before punting and if punting stopped dead would horse racing stop? of course not! the biggest problem is NO ONE wants to work together this game is rife with jealousy and assholes, and in among it all are really decent people, racing has always been about prestige rather than money and somewhere along the way it is all business now but no one wants to risk their patch to make a difference.