question

[Varro 244]

Hi,

This is to help with my own knowledge, and is mainly general.

I understand the Racing Board determine how much each code gets via budgets and profit, returns over say a financial year (correct me if im wrong) and that the TB code gets a the largest slice of the pie as distributed by the board.

How much did the RB board allocate for the TB code for say the last racing year?

Of this proportion, how much is from an allocated budget, say versus government contribution? (if there is any)

Does the RB board determine the amount of additional funding via revenue from gaming and betting?

Is the racing board responsible for determining average race worth, and race value for stakes races or is that more NZTR?

For some I appreciate these may be odd or silly questions, this is a former owner trying to get interested again and looking to understand how things are.

With the birth of a young boy I have been out in the wilderness for 3 years

 

[Midget 4,489]

Don't worry Varro, those running the show have been "out in the wilderness too", I'm surprised you didn't see them there, thousands of them 

[Leggy 4,101]

22 minutes ago, Varro said:

Hi,

This is to help with my own knowledge, and is mainly general.

I understand the Racing Board determine how much each code gets via budgets and profit, returns over say a financial year (correct me if im wrong) and that the TB code gets a the largest slice of the pie as distributed by the board.

1.How much did the RB board allocate for the TB code for say the last racing year?

2. Of this proportion, how much is from an allocated budget, say versus government contribution? (if there is any)

3. Does the RB board determine the amount of additional funding via revenue from gaming and betting?

4. Is the racing board responsible for determining average race worth, and race value for stakes races or is that more NZTR?

For some I appreciate these may be odd or silly questions, this is a former owner trying to get interested again and looking to understand how things are.

With the birth of a young boy I have been out in the wilderness for 3 years

 

1. about 70mil

2. No govt contribution, except to the extent they let the RB keep profits from sports, pokies and oversease race betting. Distribution is from RB profits.

3. Yes.

4. No, NZTR decide that primarily aside from what individual clubs might add.

You might want to go back to the wilderness?

[Varro 244]

well it really is quite sad. thanks leggy.

Does no one think it would be beneficial for the industry as a whole, whilst stakes level are quite low in general, to trim top line races, and re-distribute to lower end races.  Atleast that creates a better platform for most industry participants to see greater returns.

 

And for top end races, put the onus on the club to seek more sponsorship should they wish to maintain their larger races at either same levels or more?

For the average owner, 9.5 times out of ten, they would be lucky to get a horse that could make 20k.  Surely clubs, through NZTR and RB offer appearance money for horses racing from maiden level to rating level.  The re-distribution of stakes would mean that potentially more owners would see a return, then keeping more people in the game, more people interested?

Trainers would be getting more from percentages of stakes.

Would the above work?

[Leggy 4,101]

Probably. Some of us have been saying exactly that for years. However, NZTR and whomever happens to be influencing them via the Members' Council and the Board, have gone in the opposite direction and applied more and more funds to top end races, as sparse as those additional funds have been. The results are evident. The wilderness is probably looking increasingly attractive?

[Varro 244]

Leggy I have been obsessed with the game since I was 3 years old.  At every opportunity was on the farm helping my uncle and gdad with racing and doing work.  Only thing that kept me back was rugby.  Now with having a young boy, being responsible is imperative.  At this point in time, trying to be an owner would just be too irresponsible.

But I want to contribute again in some way, shape of form.  But im trying to improve my understanding and figure out the climate.  This helps immensely.  I am too passionate about the game to walk away.

[Varro 244]

and an example of why under Gregg Purcells leadership we will never be successful, and Mr Molloy will re-call this, I sent a private email to Mr Purcell questioning his travelling and expenses against this industry and asked how this was beneficial, amongst other related and best intended type questions.  Admittedly the email was scrappy and had a few spelling mistakes.

 

Mr Purcell decided to publish this email, my name and make me look foolish.  He published an email I sent to him that was intended to clarify how what he was doing was beneficial to the industry and instead used it to put me down.  Hopefully Mr Molloy you will re-call this incident.

Under this type of leadership, and with this attitude I struggle to see how he will help this industry prosper

[Midget 4,489]

That incident when the private email was published and used to humiliate you has been well documented and will not be forgotten, ever.

It was the current regime at NZTR that abolished free racing, and really all racing should be free and devoid of raceday fees.

Furthermore they waste money in an extravagant fashion, and there's no better example than the Wellington Cup.

It's a G3 handicap race of dubious worth featuring 70s grade Australian visitors, therefore it's supposed to be raced for a stake of $70,000, yet NZTR gives that race "iconic" status and upgrades the stake for what is an R85 and lower event of no consequence, to $250,000 !!!

Two week ago the countries finest ( except Kawi, he was in the cattery or at the dairy getting more milk ) raced in the G1 Zabeel Classic, a proper race of international quality featuring horses like Volkstok'n'barell, an Australian G1 performer, and that was raced for just $200k. Work that out because I certainly can't.

Anyway I'm digressing, welcome back Varro, but don't try to make any sense of NZTR and their policies because like you they're from the wilderness, mixed with a good dose of "Delhi belly", a bad LSD trip, whatever George Michael was on, plus some planning ideas from the local preschool, a pinch of Donald Trump's lexicon of 'alternate facts', all baked in the midday sun, and garnished with a generous dose of horse shit.

Good luck understanding what they're trying to achieve Varro.

 

[fitzy 143]

4 hours ago, Varro said:

Does no one think it would be beneficial for the industry as a whole, whilst stakes level are quite low in general, to trim top line races, and re-distribute to lower end races.  Atleast that creates a better platform for most industry participants to see greater returns.

 

So socialism may be dead in the rest of the economy but its great to see some in the racing industry is keen to keep it alive.

I'm not for one second defending the NZRB performance but how does cutting stakes from the top to make minor increases to maiden and R65 horses make sense? Yes $250k for a glorified highweight is excessive but what other chance do handicappers have to earn a fair stake under the current rating system? Are we as an industry better off if Savaria is sold to some big Aussie breeder and JimmyMac is sold to race Aus as well because they cant earn any decent money here?

The first fact plain and simple is that any horse only capable of winning 1 or 2 races are never ever going to get close to breakeven. They will always lose money, maybe just a bit less.

The second fact which should be obvious is that if you have a better quality horse it needs to be able to race for better money. Why you ask - cause if you cant then the obvious alternative is to sell the horse to Aus or Asia and take the profit (or cost recovery).

The net result of cutting stakes from the top to prop up the loss makers at the bottom is that the quality of racing declines as a whole due to most of the better horses being sold offshore.

There is no doubt the industry needs to radically change its cost structures and operating models if it is to survive but cutting stakes at the top isn't moving the deck chairs on the Titanic its altering course to head straight for the iceberg.

 

[Leggy 4,101]

3 hours ago, Midget said:

It was the current regime at NZTR that abolished free racing, and really all racing should be free and devoid of raceday fees.

 

No, it was the previous regime under Sargent that did that in response to a sudden funding reduction from the RB mid-season, though the current regime refused to reinstate it.

[Midget 4,489]

6 minutes ago, Leggy said:

No, it was the previous regime under Sargent that did that in response to a sudden funding reduction from the RB mid-season, though the current regime refused to reinstate it.

Check your facts, I can't go into details for reasons you understand.

[Leggy 4,101]

Check yours. This is from the FY11 Chair's annual report, Goodson's first.

In December 2010 the previous NZTR Board announced the cessation of Free Racing from 31 January 2011 and,

in March 2011, a reduction in winter stakes funding during the months of May, June and July of 2011.

[Varro 244]

15 minutes ago, fitzy said:

So socialism may be dead in the rest of the economy but its great to see some in the racing industry is keen to keep it alive.

I'm not for one second defending the NZRB performance but how does cutting stakes from the top to make minor increases to maiden and R65 horses make sense? Yes $250k for a glorified highweight is excessive but what other chance do handicappers have to earn a fair stake under the current rating system? Are we as an industry better off if Savaria is sold to some big Aussie breeder and JimmyMac is sold to race Aus as well because they cant earn any decent money here?

The first fact plain and simple is that any horse only capable of winning 1 or 2 races are never ever going to get close to breakeven. They will always lose money, maybe just a bit less.

The second fact which should be obvious is that if you have a better quality horse it needs to be able to race for better money. Why you ask - cause if you cant then the obvious alternative is to sell the horse to Aus or Asia and take the profit (or cost recovery).

The net result of cutting stakes from the top to prop up the loss makers at the bottom is that the quality of racing declines as a whole due to most of the better horses being sold offshore.

There is no doubt the industry needs to radically change its cost structures and operating models if it is to survive but cutting stakes at the top isn't moving the deck chairs on the Titanic its altering course to head straight for the iceberg.

 

Very few of our good ones here stay in NZ anyway, and we will never in the forseable future be able to compete with the stake money in Australia.  There has been many many success stories of good kiwi horses doing hit and run missions in Australia, and making very good money.  And we are a selling country in regards to horses, its always been like that as far as I can remember, so I don't think that would make any difference.

 

My argument is that the top end stakes, and increase in top end races only benefit a few.  But I would say that (hypotheitical) if we trimmed 20% of stakes from listed level up, and re-distributed from maiden to rating level, this would benefit all participants and would surely be well received.  It would benefit owners, trainers and jockeys, because then everyone is getting a better share of the pie.

I would also argue that there needs to be a rating level between maiden and rating 65.

 

[Midget 4,489]

2 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Check yours. This is from the FY11 Chair's annual report, Goodson's first.

In December 2010 the previous NZTR Board announced the cessation of Free Racing from 31 January 2011 and,

in March 2011, a reduction in winter stakes funding during the months of May, June and July of 2011.

Is there a common denominator that traverses both administrations ?

[Ohokaman 5,854]

29 minutes ago, Midget said:

Is there a common denominator that traverses both administrations ?

Apart from incompetence you mean....?

[Leggy 4,101]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

Is there a common denominator that traverses both administrations ?

Not during the period that this occurred I'm afraid, other than some senior executives, but this was a significant decision that went to the Board which didn't change until May 2011. The initial free racing reduction was announced June 2010, effective August 2010, before the new Board structure was even approved. The decision to wipe it altogether was taken in December 2010 and announced by Sarge at the December 2010 AGM at the same time the new board structure was approved, from memory. GP took up his position in mid-January 2011, 2 weeks before it took effect on Feb 1 2011, so inherited the decision, in case that's who you are referring to.

I know Sarge and co would prefer not to be associated but it was clearly enacted under the previous board, albeit as an interim measure which the new regime chose not to reverse. In fact they went further by removing free noms for FY 2012 but reinstated them since FY13.

[Midget 4,489]

Let's agree that you've touched on my point and let it rest then.