NZTR CEO Appointment

[Berri 2,131]

So let's just get this out in the open.....because once again I am confused and this has happened to me and others that I respect, on a number of occasions over the past 25 years, as I have watched the slow but gradual demise of the industry that I love. My caveat to this post is that I will not name names because that is not my beef. But all of what I say can be substantiated by those involved.

The appointment of the NZTR CEO may be a farce. I was approached some time ago by a friend who asked me who the best person would be to become the new CEO of the NZTR. I had to confess to him that I didn't know who that might be but that I would ask certain members of the industry to see IF someone appropriate existed. This friend of mine just so happens to have been asked the same question by the recruitment company that has been tasked with finding the NZTR CEO. I was asked whether I would be willing to talk with the representative of that company to discuss the matter. This I did. After spending 1 1/2 hours with them, I concluded that the representative knew very little about racing, betting, horses, technology or sports promotion and/ or development. Nice guy though. During that meeting I informed that representative that a group of well informed people who had the best interests of the industry at heart, would make a suggestion as to who might be:

1. Available; and

2. Capable of doing the job.

An appropriate group of industry participants discussed the role at length, and all agreed that there was only one person that fitted the bill, and in fact might have the potential of really creating the required decisions through experience, that would help the industry I the future. This person (the potential CEO) was asked to attend a meeting which was to be attended by various industry leaders. The meeting was held and after a 4 hour grilling on all matters that were considered material, everyone unanimously agreed that within the borders of New Zealand there existed the potential CEO who had the experience, drive, passion and skill set to help the industry.

The key issue was that he had not formally applied for the position for very understandable reasons. The recruitment consultant was formally notified of the "considered appropriateness" of the potential CEO (it may well have been that we all considered his appointment inappropriate), as was agreed between the consultancy company and the group.

To this date, the potential CEO, who has been recommended publically by all and sundry (he's not a stranger to the industry), has not yet been contacted by either the recruitment company or the NZTR.

So this is my conundrum, how should this process be executed? Surely the correct thing to do is ensure that the net is cast wide to try and discover who might be out there that could do the job. This would seem appropriate, and probably the best way to do this is to appoint a recruitment agency to handle this process. That company would be provided with a mandate to manage the process. Surely the mandate would be to make recommendations on the appropriateness of the applicant (i.e. weed out the non appropriate applicants). This is of course predicated by the notion that the recruitment company knows the elements that are essential to becoming the "right applicant". I would guess that post the deadline for the applications to be made, the board would discuss the recommendations provided by the recruitment company....and this is where things get interesting...

It was widely reported that the potential CEO was not available for the position due to family commitments. This was in fact not correct and this could be termed fake news, an option now widely used in politics. On hearing this, the potential CEO made it known that he was available. So if the NZTR and the recruitment company know that he is available, why hasn't anyone formally contacted him in respect of the position?

Now I hear that there is a short list of three people. Surely the NZTR should at the very least interview the potential CEO as his CV is impeccable, absolutely appropriate and as a benefit, he is a New Zealander. I don't get it.

 

 

[We're Doomed 4,855]

So, why didn't Midget apply then?

[N1MUE 1,877]

23 minutes ago, Berri said:

The key issue was that he had not formally applied for the position for very understandable reasons. The recruitment consultant was formally notified of the "considered appropriateness" of the potential CEO (it may well have been that we all considered his appointment inappropriate), as was agreed between the consultancy company and the group.

I don't understand the comment in brackets?  If you all considered this potential CEO's appointment inappropriate, and you notified the recruitment consultant as such, then why are you surprised that the recruitment consultant hasn't contacted this candidate?

Also, where you refer to a 4 hour meeting with "various industry leaders", did this include anyone from NZTR?

[Berri 2,131]

We all went to the meeting with an open mind so the potential CEO may have not been suitable....ie his appointment may have been inappropriate. It just so happens he's top class and ticks all the boxes. Of course we didn't have any NZTR member there. We were privately approached to recommend someone and our session was to ensure that who ever we recommended was appropriate.

[Ohokaman 5,824]

Hardly surprising Berri. 

Having dealt with Recruitment organisations over the years, they are nothing more than glorified salespeople who tend to have overinflated opinions of their own superiority that are rarely justified. The fact the person you spoke to had not a clue about Racing, Sport or much else hardly bodes well for them "finding" the right candidate for the job.

What we don't know is what specific reference they were given by NZTR, or if they have been "steered" in a particular direction.

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

Although you probably wont reply Berri one must assume that your friend in para 2 is on the NZTR board

[Eclipsed 245]

what I don't understand in this process is why a headhunter needs to be involved?

 Their fees and on costs will be approx $50k -  industry rule of thumb is 3 months salary.

How hard is it for NZTR's HR head to put an advertisement out there plus shoulder tap the likelies,and then appoint a couple of  Board Members to join them in sifting through to shortlist,interview,reference check,pyschometric test et al and save maybe $40k in the process?

It's the difference between running your own business and spending your own money versus having the luxury to spend other people's money.

[Midget 4,489]

If the rumors are true it's just a charade anyway D.

The appointee is said to have been shoulder tapped months ago, but now the "let's pretend we're acting transparently" process has to be conducted.

[rdytdy 5,341]

 

Question Berri.

Did your potential CEO actually apply for the role and if not why did you not get him to do so? 

[Berri 2,131]

Yes he has put his hat in the ring. I'm afraid we once again may have all be shafted yet again by politics, personal ambition and closed door policy. I understand that the mandate included the requirement that the person needed to be domiciled outside of New Zealand. I agree with Midgie, this smacks of mirrors being placed in positions so that the sunlight doesn't get in. I fear we are getting fucked over yet again. I've seen this rubbish for many years and there never seems to be an end to it. The litany of irrelevant incompetent over paid non achievers being selected by people with little if not limited ability may reign again. Why don't they select the right bloke in a proper transparent manner that fills us full of confidence instead of this second rate rubbish that will do nothing but desalinate us all once again.

I love the recent idea of increased stakes but I'm once again confused. One report says that the latest stakes boost is over and above the original pledge to increase minimum stakes to $10,000. Now I understand that this latest initiative is also providing the funds for the original pledge. Which is it? What I want to know is where are these funds coming from? Is it from projections in relation to the race fields and fixed odds or is there something else? I like the idea of a FO platform but I've still to be convinced that the deal done with sports isn't materially important and we haven't been told what it is.

Oh dear. Yet again.

[Ohokaman 5,824]

When will we ever learn..?? You would have thought the Andrew Brown appointment would have put them off overseas applicants for a lifetime, but what do we get...Purcell, Bayliss, Saunders et al and now Saundry....????

As Midget says, we get what we deserve....

[slam dunk 1,317]

25 minutes ago, Berri said:

I like the idea of a FO platform but I've still to be convinced that the deal done with sports isn't materially important and we haven't been told what it is.

Oh dear. Yet again.

So what do you like about the FO odds platform and technically speaking just what is it?

[Berri 2,131]

We only deserve it if we act with complacency.

[rdytdy 5,341]

1 hour ago, Berri said:

I understand that the mandate included the requirement that the person needed to be domiciled outside of New Zealand. .

Then from understanding that would clearly be in breach of Employment Law.

I am 99.9% sure I know who your person is and agree it would be sensible appointment based on his record and obvious local knowledge and experience.    

[We're Doomed 4,855]

" I understand that the mandate included the requirement that the person needed to be domiciled outside of New Zealand."

If true I would find that absolutely bizzare, but then this is NZ racing.

I can't recall a single successful appointment we have ever made from oversea, and we have been doing it for about 30 years now.

[Leggy 4,075]

Does anyone have the advertisement, JD and person spec?

Has it even been advertised? I never saw it.

[Beck"s 40]

9 hours ago, Ohokaman said:

Hardly surprising Berri. 

Having dealt with Recruitment organisations over the years, they are nothing more than glorified salespeople who tend to have overinflated opinions of their own superiority that are rarely justified. The fact the person you spoke to had not a clue about Racing, Sport or much else hardly bodes well for them "finding" the right candidate for the job.

What we don't know is what specific reference they were given by NZTR, or if they have been "steered" in a particular direction.

Totally agree... I have seen that first hand....grab anyone to pick up the commission !!!

[Ohokaman 5,824]

3 hours ago, Berri said:

We only deserve it if we act with complacency.

More like apathy Berri. That particular trait has led us to where we are now.

[toolittletoolate 80]

They should have taken the opportunity prior to advertising to re-scale the job description and salary band as it is clearly an over paid job.

This is all on the NZTR board I'm afraid they are not addressing the real issues we face and do not want to make some hard decisions. We will not get ahead until our infrastructure is rationalised and restructured to position ourselves to sell our product that is affordable for its participants and sellable to at least an Australian market. 

If they haven't got the balls to make these decisions then it is simple - regionalise the funding into say the rugby franchise territory's fund each region to provide x amount of racing (based on current or amended programming), have penalty clauses if the regions do not met program targets and let the regions sort it out. If they are funded to program say 36 meetings per year and they have say 10 tracks in their region then they will soon earn that it will be uneconomical to maintain them all or provide unreliable surfaces.

fund the regions to provide the central admin and place the studbook and compliance functions under RIU and do away with NZTR altogether.

Next stop NZRB

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

I think we all know who the person is but we all forget one thing. Appointing him would exhibit common sense and the one thing most of the NZ racing hierarchy lack is common sense.

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

So in totality what we are seeing here is the NZTR board expressing its desire to have an overseas CEO at all costs. Why, only they know.

 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

11 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

" I understand that the mandate included the requirement that the person needed to be domiciled outside of New Zealand."

If true I would find that absolutely bizzare, but then this is NZ racing.

I can't recall a single successful appointment we have ever made from oversea, and we have been doing it for about 30 years now.

Thats what the board have asked for and 3 are to be interviewed in the next few weeks

 

 

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

15 hours ago, Midget said:

If the rumors are true it's just a charade anyway D.

The appointee is said to have been shoulder tapped months ago, but now the "let's pretend we're acting transparently" process has to be conducted.

Would be on a par with J A appointment at NZRB

[Huey 2,037]

8 hours ago, toolittletoolate said:

They should have taken the opportunity prior to advertising to re-scale the job description and salary band as it is clearly an over paid job.

This is all on the NZTR board I'm afraid they are not addressing the real issues we face and do not want to make some hard decisions. We will not get ahead until our infrastructure is rationalised and restructured to position ourselves to sell our product that is affordable for its participants and sellable to at least an Australian market. 

If they haven't got the balls to make these decisions then it is simple - regionalise the funding into say the rugby franchise territory's fund each region to provide x amount of racing (based on current or amended programming), have penalty clauses if the regions do not met program targets and let the regions sort it out. If they are funded to program say 36 meetings per year and they have say 10 tracks in their region then they will soon earn that it will be uneconomical to maintain them all or provide unreliable surfaces.

fund the regions to provide the central admin and place the studbook and compliance functions under RIU and do away with NZTR altogether.

Next stop NZRB

Some of the infrastructure needs improving or upgrading but rationalising and restructuring what do you mean by that? 

Decentralisation to the regions will just create more bureaucracy,confusion and cost, not to mention there is hardly the expertise to improve those functions in the current setup not to mention what you're suggesting.

Whoever comes into to take over NZTR won't have much trouble in improving the current performance at NZTR with a few quick wins , not to mention they have the momentum to function with this increase in funding. 

[Midget 4,489]

15 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

Would be on a par with J A appointment at NZRB

Not sure about the JA appointment, I thought that was kosher, unlike AJ at NZTR, that was just chicanery ( in conjunction with the Member's Council ) and arguably an indicative symptom of what's been contributing to our fundamental problems for years now.

If a licencee did the equivalent the RIU would no doubt describe it as corruption.