RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
Guest 2Admin2

Thoroughbred industry participants call crisis meeting despite funding announcement

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Midget said:

I'd buy two or three 

I note the catalogues are on the chair beside me in my office, still securely zipped up in the courier bag. The fact I haven't opened it is countered by the fact I haven't used it as a firelighter. Hmmmm...decisions ...decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about 'stakes', firstly they need to bring back free racing, to bring us into line with most developed countries, then infrastructure, then stakes........get more people into ownerships and then you will deter good people like Paul Belsham and co from leaving the industry.....what a legacy to leave, both CEO's, the carnage of broken people, all because a once proud industry has foundered on the rocks, ''not our fault' is that the cry from the bridge? For Gods sake, something good must come from this meeting, just one resignation would be a start........does anyone really think Karen Z was itching to leave Otaki? her home for how many years? who's the next to leave there?....or anywhere for that matter? you don't expect in your 'golden years' to have to relocate or retire just to justify poor decisions by people on huge, fat salaries. Any other industry would have ousted these people, what makes them a protected species here? How the hell can you front every Monday when the reality is so many good, decent, talented and passionate people are going to struggle to pay their mortgage?........I'm at a loss, if I could understand even a little of what has happened here, well then you could ponder a pathway, or escape route, too many have had to take the escape route.......and all respect and understanding to those souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Leggy said:

I note the catalogues are on the chair beside me in my office, still securely zipped up in the courier bag. The fact I haven't opened it is countered by the fact I haven't used it as a firelighter. Hmmmm...decisions ...decisions.

We'll probably buy a couple, some lovely families, even in the Festival sale, the thing is, I'm able to get them up and running here, use wonderful facilities for us here, then pick the eyes out of them, take a couple to AUS and use a satellite stable, or send them to a mate [leading trainer] on mates rates? But why? why oh why, we have everything here, always have, we just have poor management and poor stakes, poor infrastructure, and poor future, otherwise nothing would give me greater pleasure than to end my days travelling to and fro race meetings here plying our trade in exchange for respectable pay days.....and employing 2-3 good local people......geezus, how bloody sad is all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not quite apples Vs apples comparing this to Fairtax though.

Then there was a target - slash the Duty. At $30m or so and it was 5/8ths of f all for the politicians to all agree with the newly appointed Racing Minister in Helen's coalition

Since then racing has acquired the poker machine license successfully - still doesn't come close to balancing the books though and things are what they are.

The major target left is the NZRB itself - its cost structure and the way it can influence the 3 codes.

An independent director I knew was appointed to the NZRB at the outset, however they exited stage left at the first juncture - described it as a cottage industry, That was 2006. A decade on and we're still a cottage industry with the cottage getting older.

For mine, an independent board could effect radical change.

That would requires a change to the current Racing Act. None of the codes are barking that and why would they, as then they'd lose control of the status quo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leggy said:

I don't see them treating the thoroughbred code any better or worse than the other two.

Possibly true but we could then explore the arguments of turf racing v AW tracks, number of tracks, production costs, RTO, contribution to GDP.........but I can't be bothered, I'm just excited that Jackson, the breeders and the trainers have finally delivered an ultimatum and that sooner rather than later this is going to spill over into confrontation, and then we'll see the swamp get drained and those who're preoccupied with non racing matters will be held to account and made to comply with the spirit of Racing Act for the good of the racing industry, as it was intended.

It's  exciting Leggy.....let's hope they roll their sleeves up and flex their muscles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Midget said:

Possibly true but we could then explore the arguments of turf racing v AW tracks, number of tracks, production costs, RTO, contribution to GDP.........but I can't be bothered, I'm just excited that Jackson, the breeders and the trainers have finally delivered an ultimatum and that sooner rather than later this is going to spill over into confrontation, and then we'll see the swamp get drained and those who're preoccupied with non racing matters will be held to account and made to comply with the spirit of Racing Act for the good of the racing industry, as it was intended.

It's fucking exciting Leggy.....let's hope they roll their sleeves up and flex their muscles.

 

You might be right. I hope so. But it sounds like a lot of chest beating, wailing, and arm flailing to me. Bring it on though and let's see what falls out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Leggy said:

You might be right. I hope so. But it sounds like a lot of chest beating, wailing, and arm flailing to me. Bring it on though and let's see what falls out.

I feel as though I'm repeating myself, but I will, the exciting thing about this meeting is that the gloves are off, enough is enough, NZTR and Jackson are bristling and they've assembled a team that'll clearly stand up to the NZRB and Glenda Hughes, they're empowered, Tony Pike is a reluctant and accidental front man but I can't help feeling that he's the right man, that this is truly a watershed event and it's the beginning of the end for the bludgers who've been feeding like parasites off the industry since 2003.

Get on board Leggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Midget said:

I feel as though I'm repeating myself, but I will, the exciting thing about this meeting is that the gloves are off, enough is enough, NZTR and Jackson are bristling and they've assembled a team that'll clearly stand up to the NZRB and Glenda Hughes, they're empowered, Tony Pike is a reluctant and accidental front man but I can't help feeling that he's the right man, that this is truly a watershed event and it's the beginning of the end for the bludgers who've been feeding like parasites off the industry since 2003.

Get on board Leggy.

That's a shame Tony is 'reluctant' as you say Midget, the front man needs to be more than that.....everyone that saddles a horse at this mornings trackwork, every person that mucks out a box, or throws a leg over and rides a few work, they/we need someone that want to be there......it's bare knuckle time, otherwise it's a nothing....for Christ's sake surely it's now or never. Might get caught up in the Karaka euphoria, or succumb to external forces, whatever, I hope Tony says it like it is, otherwise people who have left the industry are lost forever, if it brings change, and massive change, then some or all of those people may feel empowered to return....hopefully, and IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leggy said:

Sorry, for some reason I can't reply on the Glenda thread SD. But the announcement from the RB was made last year wasn't it?

http://www.theinformant.co.nz/racing/archive/2016/12/SJ60233/NZRB-announces-engagement-with-FOB-provider-Paddy-Power

You sure you're not mixing stories here ?

The PP deal is apparently some sort of temporary arrangement whilst they develop their own F/O platform after which you'd imagine PP would be surplus to requirements given that they'll be direct competition in the global market.

The NZRB wants to spend another 90 million in conjunction with the PP deal. The concern this current group ( the drivers of  Sunday's meeting ) have is that if the NZRB outsourced everything to Tabcorp instead of heading down this PP path we'd receive a cheque for 100 million, we'd also save the 90 million required for building a F/O platform, and reduce our NZRB staff numbers and retail footprint by ( think of a figure but those who've seen precedents abroad say 70-75% is realistic although I can't see that given that we're running Trackside etc...)

A Tabcorp deal would reduce the NZRB's role to that of a simple clearing house for industry funds, and that's arguably all it was ever intended to be before the series of drunken debauched bankers hijacked the show and began this orgy ( literally in the case of one highly polished orange banker ) of self indulgent recruitment and uncontrolled spending, in defiance of the industry.

Dog has tail, dog wags tail, tail gets bigger, tail wags dog, tail gets really big and wags dog so hard dog gets exhausted, tail starts to consume all nutrients and energy, dog begins to wither and die, tail thinks "so what ? we don't need dog because we're really big now ", then dog slowly grinds to a halt and dies, tail doesn't care and barely notices until the blood supply dries up, tail goes pale and grinds to a halt, then tail dies.

Don't know why I wrote that, I think it's an analogy to help five year olds understand our predicament, but I just wanted to write it for some reason.

Anyway Leggy these two potential events are quite separate and I get the feeling your blending them for some reason. Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving the dog and its tail aside, part of the problem here is that public information on exactly what the deal is that has been made is sketchy and you may be privy to information that I don't have or gossip at least that I haven't heard. That announcement in the Informant refers to a deal with Openbet/PaddyPower/Betfair.

Openbet is the fully owned sportsbook division of NYX, and PaddyPower/Betfair are customers, so my assumption is that the RB are referring to a single deal here which of course involves NYX. In the Informant article, JA said that the deal was consistent with the SOI objective, so I assume it is.

The additional 90m spend rumour seems to have emanated solely from you. Where it comes from I've no idea. It is not mentioned in the SOI which costs the four key strategies at 60-75m. It is hardly believable that they would then suddenly decide to spend an additional $90m without it being in the SOI approved by the Minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Midget said:

 

Dog has tail, dog wags tail, tail gets bigger, tail wags dog, tail gets really big and wags dog so hard dog gets exhausted, tail starts to consume all nutrients and energy, dog begins to wither and die, tail thinks "so what ? we don't need dog because we're really big now ", then dog slowly grinds to a halt and dies, tail doesn't care and barely notices until the blood supply dries up, tail goes pale and grinds to a halt, then tail dies.

 

when tail dies it falls away from dog, dog was only acting dead and begins to rise from the ashes ..... then

Image result for image of phoenix rising from the ashes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Leaving the dog and its tail aside, part of the problem here is that public information on exactly what the deal is that has been made is sketchy and you may be privy to information that I don't have or gossip at least that I haven't heard. That announcement in the Informant refers to a deal with Openbet/PaddyPower/Betfair.

Openbet is the fully owned sportsbook division of NYX, and PaddyPower/Betfair are customers, so my assumption is that the RB are referring to a single deal here which of course involves NYX. In the Informant article, JA said that the deal was consistent with the SOI objective, so I assume it is.

The additional 90m spend rumour seems to have emanated solely from you. Where it comes from I've no idea. It is not mentioned in the SOI which costs the four key strategies at 60-75m. It is hardly believable that they would then suddenly decide to spend an additional $90m without it being in the SOI approved by the Minister.

I thought you said you went to the JA roadshow ?

He spoke quite openly at the Auckland event about spending 70 million to build a 1000 option F/O platform catering primarily for the growth area of sports.

Did you go or not and if you did are you saying he didn't mention this at the show you attended ?

As for 70 morphing into 90, well that's the figure the architects of Sunday's meeting are using, and I'm told JA is not disputing the figure when confronted about it, just as he's apparently not disputing that they didn't enter into negotiations with Tabcorp at the same level as they did with PP, hence you can assume Tabcorp was not given the same opportunity as PP to enter into a working relationship with the NZRB, despite what Glenda claims.

I guess ( given your feigned indifference ) that you think Sunday's crisis meeting ( as reported in the mainstream media ) is just another chance to eat donuts and not in fact to deal with this potential crisis ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Midget said:

I thought you said you went to the JA roadshow ?

He spoke quite openly at the Auckland event about spending 70 million to build a 1000 option F/O platform catering primarily for the growth area of sports.

Did you go or not and if you did are you saying he didn't mention this at the show you attended ?

As for 70 morphing into 90, well that's the figure the architects of Sunday's meeting are using, and I'm told JA is not disputing the figure when confronted about it, just as he's apparently not disputing that they didn't enter into negotiations with Tabcorp at the same level as they did with PP, hence you can assume Tabcorp was not given the same opportunity as PP to enter into a working relationship with the NZRB, despite what Glenda claims.

 

I went to the road show. The 70m was talked about as the total cost of implementing all four key strategies. See below from the SOI. About half of that was for the FO platform. If the 75max has morphed into 90m we are talking an extra 15m not an extra 90m and half of that has nothing to do with the FO platform cost.

 

 

SOI.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one said an "extra" 90 million did they ? they just said 90 million I thought.

What I've intended to say, but obviously not clearly enough, is that aside from the PP deal there's a total cost of 90 million to develop and implement the new F/O platform. That may or may not be a part of four simultaneous strategies but we're getting a bit bogged down anyway.

The multiple sources who're keeping me in the loop are using that figure in the context I've used it so I'll just stand by that until I'm told otherwise, but perhaps of more importance is that if the NZRB develops a flash new platform doesn't it follow that they're then going into direct competition with PP who they've just outsourced to? and secondarily,  and probably more importantly, it's claimed Tabcorp ( who had a 100 million offer tabled ) did not get the same opportunities to present their proposal for due diligence ( or whatever they call it  pwhen they're receiving tender proposals ).

That suggest the NZRB is adopting a blinkered approach and not considering all options to me, and that's a real concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Midget said:

 just as he's apparently not disputing that they didn't enter into negotiations with Tabcorp at the same level as they did with PP, hence you can assume Tabcorp was not given the same opportunity as PP to enter into a working relationship with the NZRB, despite what Glenda claims.

That is not surprising, if true. It's the nature of these type of negotiations. Openbet is possibly the premier FO platform in the world used by the likes of PaddyPower, Betfair, WilliamHill, Ladbrokes etc. I doubt TABCORP could offer anything close and so it would be understandable that the RB would extend and pursue negotiations with what seemed the best option. I'm not clear what the fascination is with dealing with TABCORP as some kind of preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, biff said:

In layman's language, is this lies and deceit?

No, I think it's the RB doing what they said they would do, and I think the FO platform development is the one strategy that has some merit. Let's hope they don't stuff it up. If Jacko and a few others that don't understand wagering want to try and derail it, sobeit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Midget said:

No one said an "extra" 90 million did they ? they just said 90 million I thought.

What I've intended to say, but obviously not clearly enough, is that aside from the PP deal there's a total cost of 90 million to develop and implement the new F/O platform. That may or may not be a part of four simultaneous strategies but we're getting a bit bogged down anyway.

The multiple sources who're keeping me in the loop are using that figure in the context I've used it so I'll just stand by that until I'm told otherwise, but perhaps of more importance is that if the NZRB develops a flash new platform doesn't it follow that they're then going into direct competition with PP who they've just outsourced to? and secondarily,  and probably more importantly, it's claimed Tabcorp ( who had a 100 million offer tabled ) did not get the same opportunities to present their proposal for due diligence ( or whatever they call it  pwhen they're receiving tender proposals ).

That suggest the NZRB is adopting a blinkered approach and not considering all options to me, and that's a real concern.

That's just not so. The total cost is supposed to be 30 odd million for the FO platform. That's not aside from the PP deal. The PP/OpenBet deal IS the FO platform deal. If that cost has extended by 15m, so what? They need to develop the best FO platform they can and it should pay for itself quickly. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from but it makes no sense at all cf. what is in the public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone at the RB with any semblance of knowledge re Bookmaking, profit and loss/margins etc Leggy, in your opinion? Having trained for a former rails bookmaker I had it drummed into me the differences, framing a market/making a book = making a profit.......if indeed they don't understand said nuance's, then how and why sell off? Is it to raise capital to keep the ship afloat?  pay the wages etc........I need enlightening, someone put me out of my misery, please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.