Mattski

Messara Racing Review Full Report and 17 Key points

417 posts in this topic

 There are nearly 400 golf courses in NZ so there  has not been much merging. However, Featherston is about to close and Manor Park announced in the last week that they would probably have to close. They are the tip of the ice berg, there will be many more.

Those that are merging are doing so because they have to otherwise they will close. The numbers playing golf like many other traditional sports are in serious decline..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Racefields legislation , luckily never went through as it was not fit for purpose .

Wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

It was hurried together by JA and give us a break - David Bennett, dodged a bullet there did the Industry.

Allen and Hughes need be gone by lunchtime .

We drastically need something to happen but it seems we revert to our usual moaning and whinging when we at least have a light at the end of a tunnel to aim for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Melbourne, Peninsula merged with Kingsborough ( or a name similar). They sold the latter and got over $100m for the land. They renovated the Peninsula Courses (both of them), the Clubhouse and upgraded the accommodation. That left them with, more members, two great golf courses, new premises and accommodations and - about $40m in the bank! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Trump said:

In Melbourne, Peninsula merged with Kingsborough ( or a name similar). They sold the latter and got over $100m for the land. They renovated the Peninsula Courses (both of them), the Clubhouse and upgraded the accommodation. That left them with, more members, two great golf courses, new premises and accommodations and - about $40m in the bank! 

Trumps you can put your golf clubs in your garage when not in use , put them in the boot of your car when needed and drive to any golf course no hassle .Try doing that with 14 horses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, puha said:

Trumps you can put your golf clubs in your garage when not in use , put them in the boot of your car when needed and drive to any golf course no hassle .Try doing that with 14 horses.

You make a good point , NZTR should be able to pull up how many licence holders based at tracks signalled for confiscation, from stable returns how many horses in training including those spelling but not some who show up in training on website that are older than Phar Lap, and how many runs per season . Then as a percentage of runners in the whole . Therefore then how much potential loss to industry of business holders, skilled workers and horses. I would guess a hobby trainer with three in work isn't paying 9k a month to put them with the big yards unless pretty handy  so they will be lost most likely.

This report is just the basis of negotiation. Seen it before many times , make a proposal so unpalatable to some it's a straight out no you cannot do that, then parties  will talk , then right ok I accept what you are saying we will move but you got to move too  . The parties meet and management get what they want all along . For example tracks closed , but hey we won't take your money from sale of land you can keep it for your community we are'nt so bad. We don't want to drag it all though courts. That kind of thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Charlie Bukowski said:

The Racefields legislation , luckily never went through as it was not fit for purpose .

Wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

It was hurried together by JA and give us a break - David Bennett, dodged a bullet there did the Industry.

Allen and Hughes need be gone by lunchtime .

We drastically need something to happen but it seems we revert to our usual moaning and whinging when we at least have a light at the end of a tunnel to aim for

Perhaps you could tell us why Racefields Legislation is not fit for purpose , you see Messara recommends it , the RB recommends it , this type of thing is in use in many country's around the world , what's different about NZ ? . The truth is it will work , it's proven around the world , it's basic practice , the "Not fit for purpose "  line is bandied about with no evidence that it won't work ,  just opinions from some with dubious track records  , the sort of people who think spending on infrastructure is more important than boosting stakes , if stakes don't rise there will be no need for new infrastructure , there will be no owners or horses . What we do know is it WILL be introduced and then and only then  will all know it's true value . I come back to what the delay in implementing this is costing the industry at the moment . The New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) will provide an additional $24 million over the coming two years to increase stakes The additional $24 million will be specifically targeted at lifting stakes across the three racing codes. 

This extra money was in anticipation of Racefields Legislation being passed before the last election , we are still waiting and the overdraft must be growing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Nearco said:

I don't post very often, but I guess this is too important to ignore.

I've bred and raced horses most of my adult life. My latest 3yo might even pay her way. None of the 20+ horses I've bred and raced have so far.

closing racetracks. Yes, we have too many, but closing some of the 'iconic' country tracks doesn't seem sensible, if they can survive with community support.

We loved racing a horse at Kurow, for their once a year meeting, where the whole town played a part in a making it a great success. Woodville has always epitomised the country track where visitors are welcome, and it's always fun to participate.

Can these tracks be sold and the proceeds go to support racing? Well, maybe, but if they're going to line the coffers of NZTR who will fritter it away, the answer must be a resounding NO! I do not trust our racing administrators.

Some city tracks could definitely be sold for much-needed housing development, but I wonder how much money would be generated for the benefit of racing?

Racing administration. Poor, and in need of thorough revision. 

I'd hate to see training centralised around a few 'big' training centres. 

TAB. Would it be a disaster if it were sold to a foreign operator, as long as they were bound to run it for the benefit of we people who enjoy racing? Trackside should revert to free to air.  

Breeder's contribution. As a breeder who has sold the odd one abroad, I wouldn't object to a (say) 10% levy on all horses sold abroad, whether they're from the yearling, RTR, broodmare or private sales. If that money were to go to stakes, that would help increase stake moneys. Time the breeders played their part.

All weather tracks? Trentham is well past its use-by date. Sell it for real estate development, use the money for a decent (maybe all-weather track within fast commute from Wellington) encourage younger people to participate and enjoy racing as owners & punters, then the outlook is pretty bleak.

Racing has been poorly managed from the top down. A new broom needs to sweep out the dreadful administration and make it a pleasant experience to watch horses racing.

Winston, love him or hate him has delivered us an ultimatum of sorts. Rather than whinge and pick it to pieces, we need to get in behind and broadly support the initiative, ensuring that the bad bits are neutralised, and the broad thrust is supported.

 

On 9/6/2018 at 7:08 AM, puha said:

4 Winston Peters could stop the levy the government take and return to the industry at the stroke of a pen.

 

Yep agree guys... main points highlighted  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tripple alliance said:

Perhaps you could tell us why Racefields Legislation is not fit for purpose , you see Messara recommends it , the RB recommends it , this type of thing is in use in many country's around the world , what's different about NZ ? . The truth is it will work , it's proven around the world , it's basic practice , the "Not fit for purpose "  line is bandied about with no evidence that it won't work ,  just opinions from some with dubious track records  , the sort of people who think spending on infrastructure is more important than boosting stakes , if stakes don't rise there will be no need for new infrastructure , there will be no owners or horses . What we do know is it WILL be introduced and then and only then  will all know it's true value . I come back to what the delay in implementing this is costing the industry at the moment . The New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) will provide an additional $24 million over the coming two years to increase stakes The additional $24 million will be specifically targeted at lifting stakes across the three racing codes. 

This extra money was in anticipation of Racefields Legislation being passed before the last election , we are still waiting and the overdraft must be growing .

If you did what I originally suggested and go and read the DIA impact statement, you would realise that what CB, Phantom and I and maybe others have said is correct. The RB estimates are cobblers and JM has just regurgitated them. If you still don't believe me, since they already have Racefields agreements with CrownBet (since April this year) and I think at least one other that didn't require any legislation, email JA and see if what they are receiving from that arrangement is anywhere close to their estimates. When you've done that, come back with a sensible question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 4:57 AM, tripple alliance said:

All I can do is point out what's happened .

April 2017 ,   

The next two years are guaranteed at $12million extra per year though and not only is that number sustainable, it is a just a starting point. Allen told the Herald.

Some of the extra money will come from the ''''expected passing'''' of race fields legislation That legislation is expected to become law before the general election..

There you have it , they spent it before they had it and still don't have it , that's 16 months ago , 12 months = $12million .

Those who undermined the passing of racefields have a lot to answer for .

 

FAKE NEWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phantom said:

 

FAKE NEWS

Really , so the RB didn't advance the industry $24 million over two years specifically for stakes  , where did the $10k minimum stakes come from then ? , note the , '''future increase early ''.  “However, we recognise that more urgent financial assistance is needed by the industry, which is why we are committing to deliver some of this future increase early, ahead of full implementation,” says Ms Hughes.

The additional $24 million will be specifically targeted at lifting stakes across the three racing codes.

Yes this was all done because they had faith in their strategy , the irony is if their plans fail  the RB is off the hook , it was Winston and his backers who delayed the RBs plans so they cannot be held responsible  , no wonder they welcomed the report .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings everyone. Just joined this Site. I want to give my 10c worth re the Messara Report (MR).

But first some background. Was once an avid galloping and harness racing fan from a teenager in the late 1960’s. Raced a few in both codes, bred a couple, and was Secretary of Masterton racing and harness clubs (now Wairarapa HRC) for a while back in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. Worked overseas since 1985. Still maintained interests in both codes until a decade ago – last galloper I had an interest in was about 8 years ago.

My interest now only resurfaces when the Australian spring racing comes around each year. But I still have friends back in NZ who remain strongly involved in racing. I don’t get any pleasure from seeing the Industry continuing to track downhill for the past 50 years.

This week, looking around race news, I came across the MR and Race Café comments.

If nothing else, my background gives me first hand experience of the parochialism which has historically pervaded NZ racing. Back in the time when I was a Race Club secretary some of the older committee members of Masterton and Wairarapa Racing Clubs would not talk to each other (20km down the road). It was a scandal for some when Masterton HRC changed its name to Wairarapa HRC! Now the next generation (aging themselves now) reached the stage, a couple of decades ago, where Wairarapa HRC combine with Wairarapa RC to successfully run a joint program each New Year at Tauherenikau. So, changes can be made to the benefit of all.

Masterton HRC used to race at Hutt Park. Similarly, Hutt Park had its issues. But, in my opinion their ultimate demise was mainly due to the indifference of the Wellington public together with the small base of harness horses trained in the region.

My comments on the Messara Report:

As everyone knows this is another in a long line of Reports, dating back to the Reid report in the mid 1960’s. The difference this time is that there is a Minister of Racing who seems keen to assist the Industry make changes. When is this likely to happen again? I think another round of inaction this time isn’t an option.

Structure

1.      Agree that improving prize money is the key

2.      Agree that NZRB should administer wagering, broadcasting and gaming only and other current responsibilities be handed back to the Codes.

3.      The Industry doesn’t have the scale to support NZRB’s current cost structure. They should be required to cut their cloth to fit their size.

Wagering

1.      Outsourcing of TAB operations. I agree outsourcing should enable economies of scale. An example being the funds currently being allocated for ‘fixed odds’ betting developments in NZ ($40m+?) would not have to be spent and would be available for redistribution – stakes and/or facilities/track refurbishment. Why? - because already large scale international wagering operators annually spend considerably more than this amount on similar developments in other countries. The improvements should be available in NZ at no extra cost.

2.      An issue with outsourcing TAB operations that doesn’t seem to have been discussed to date is on course betting facilities. I’m assuming on course betting equipment is (still) owned and operated by the NZRB/TAB.

My cursory research reveals that in 2016, 85% of race-meetings were attended by less than 2,500 patrons. I think the majority of these would have attendances of less than 1,500. The on-course turnovers must have been corresponding low. It follows that operating on course betting facilities at these meetings is very likely a loss-making operation. It would be interesting to know what break-even turnover is. But the point is - how long would an international operator want to continue this?

What is the solution? Should they be forced to continue it as part of their deal?

Should on course betting facilities be discontinued at meetings where historical on-course turnover has been less than break-even (whatever that is). Should on-course patrons just have access to screens with the odds and bet on their TAB accounts via their mobile phones.

Not sure of the answer but I think the issue is going to have to be considered soon.

 

Race Course Closures/Rationalization

1.      I think the MR is weakest in this area. It only contains cursory reasoning on which courses should be closed. It seemingly relies on other Reports and maybe selected industry figureheads. It takes their word as gospel.

2.      The old chestnut! Everyone agrees, so long as it is someone else. In the various Reports, there is broad consensus that around 28 courses, along with the proposed synthetic tracks, would suffice.

3.      What has changed however, in the past 50 years is the steady decline in on course attendance and turnover. A decline in public interest in attending race meetings. This should be an important factor in deciding which courses should be closed.

4.      The decline in race-day attendances should mean, that racetrack location i.e. must be in or near the largest population areas, is not so important. Quality of the track (or relative cost to get it back to good quality), proximity to horses in training etc should be more important.

5.      This, of course, is leading to a comment on the Courses in the lower North Island with which I used to be familiar. I think if the various club accounts were unpacked properly, along with a detailed estimation of the monies needed to be spent on the track restoration/improvements, then Trentham would be shown to be beyond resuscitation. Book profits, if they exist, are meaningless if adequate monies are not spent on the track and facilities.

6.      I know Trentham has a proud history and I used to really enjoy going there back in the day when it was a mecca for racing. But in reality it has steadily gone downhill since the yearling sales were moved back in the 1970’s. In my view the Wellington public are largely indifferent to the situation.

7.       In terms of racetrack quality, horses in training, I think Woodville has a stronger case to continue. Sure, it is a smaller scale course but these days we are talking about conducting meetings primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. Smaller scale, less cost to maintain.

8.      So, sell Trentham and use the proceeds to improve Central Districts racing.

9.      I see there is a proposal in the Waikato region to build a ‘Greenfields racing/training Centre’ funded by the closure and sale of existing courses. Waikato today is NZ’s primary racing area. I don’t know the ‘specifics’ but it seems its go-ahead is independent of adoption of the MR. If so, the question is, if the largest players can agree on rationalization, why can’t the ones in smaller areas reach agreement?

10.   The broad proposal to sell various racecourses as part rationalization plans might have a better chance of success if it was legislated/regulated the funds raised from the sale of each racecourse can only be spent on improving infrastructure in that region. Maybe.

11.   As I understand it the MR recommends all racecourse land be vested in the NZRB not just the proceeds from racecourses sold. This might help solve what seems to be long standing animosity between some clubs e.g. Auckland and Avondale. If my suggestion per para8 above was adopted then a way also needs to be found so members of various Clubs in a regions have a say in policy decisions and operations of the remaining racecourse in their area – they are community facilities. That is, Avondale RC members have a meaningful say in in Auckland racecourse  policy and operations. Not just at the whim of the ARC executive. Again, maybe easier said than done.

 

General

1.      All sectors of the industry need to contribute to meaningful change.

2.      The MR recommends that the Government forgo the betting levy – currently around $13m per annum. In effect this is the general punter’s contribution.

3.      The Racing Clubs are expected to contribute by agreeing to rationalize and forgo some of their autonomy/independence.

4.      The breeding industry should also contribute. In my view a levy on all thoroughbred sales should introduced. It should be payable by the vendor and scaled. Maybe up to $50k should be nil (to encourage small breeders), K50,001 to $150,000 at 5%. And proceeds above that levied at 10%. So if a horse was sold for $200,000 the levy payable would be $10,000 (first $50k nil, next $100k at 5% =$5,000, next $50,000 10% = $5,000. Total $10,000).

To be fair some of the larger Studs race their mares in NZ thereby significantly contributing to racehorse numbers. But they should also contribute levies on sales.

5.      Race meetings nowadays are conducted primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. It therefore follows that track renovations (and some landscaping) should be a priority over new grandstands.

6.      Significant improvements in on-course attendance at race meetings are not going to happen. There are too many competing activities. But it might be marginally improved if there was some betting exotic that was only available on course. Unfortunately it is not in the TAB’s (or any outsourced wagering organization) interests to offer that.

7.      I see the Harness Racing section of Racing Café has a few, mainly positive, comments about the MR. Contributors don’t see it as impacting negatively on their Code.

 

Sorry my 10cents worth has turned into a novel (fiction of course). But best of luck to an industry that once gave me pleasure and one I still care for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard MJB. The report has certainly generated some comment and discussion and that can only be useful.

Many facets to be considered as you point out. Regional parochialism has always been a problem and no doubt there will be much discussion on who/how and why Clubs should stay or go.....some of the recommendations make little sense like Oamaru and Timaru. Then there is Avondale with a good track and delapidated infrastructure being valued at up to $200m.....obviously a prime target.

All weather tracks are certainly needed. There is a question whether the South Island warrants the expenditure of one there.

The outsourcing question needs very careful consideration and some smart negotiation to achieve the best outcome for NZ Racing. With apparently two offers on the table from Australian organisations...at $100m for 25 years...to include the timetable and broadcast rights but with returns only guaranteed for three years, we could end up a very poor cousin down the track at the mercy of Australian racing product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EmJayBee said:

Greetings everyone. Just joined this Site. I want to give my 10c worth re the Messara Report (MR).

But first some background. Was once an avid galloping and harness racing fan from a teenager in the late 1960’s. Raced a few in both codes, bred a couple, and was Secretary of Masterton racing and harness clubs (now Wairarapa HRC) for a while back in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s. Worked overseas since 1985. Still maintained interests in both codes until a decade ago – last galloper I had an interest in was about 8 years ago.

My interest now only resurfaces when the Australian spring racing comes around each year. But I still have friends back in NZ who remain strongly involved in racing. I don’t get any pleasure from seeing the Industry continuing to track downhill for the past 50 years.

This week, looking around race news, I came across the MR and Race Café comments.

If nothing else, my background gives me first hand experience of the parochialism which has historically pervaded NZ racing. Back in the time when I was a Race Club secretary some of the older committee members of Masterton and Wairarapa Racing Clubs would not talk to each other (20km down the road). It was a scandal for some when Masterton HRC changed its name to Wairarapa HRC! Now the next generation (aging themselves now) reached the stage, a couple of decades ago, where Wairarapa HRC combine with Wairarapa RC to successfully run a joint program each New Year at Tauherenikau. So, changes can be made to the benefit of all.

Masterton HRC used to race at Hutt Park. Similarly, Hutt Park had its issues. But, in my opinion their ultimate demise was mainly due to the indifference of the Wellington public together with the small base of harness horses trained in the region.

My comments on the Messara Report:

As everyone knows this is another in a long line of Reports, dating back to the Reid report in the mid 1960’s. The difference this time is that there is a Minister of Racing who seems keen to assist the Industry make changes. When is this likely to happen again? I think another round of inaction this time isn’t an option.

Structure

1.      Agree that improving prize money is the key

2.      Agree that NZRB should administer wagering, broadcasting and gaming only and other current responsibilities be handed back to the Codes.

3.      The Industry doesn’t have the scale to support NZRB’s current cost structure. They should be required to cut their cloth to fit their size.

Wagering

1.      Outsourcing of TAB operations. I agree outsourcing should enable economies of scale. An example being the funds currently being allocated for ‘fixed odds’ betting developments in NZ ($40m+?) would not have to be spent and would be available for redistribution – stakes and/or facilities/track refurbishment. Why? - because already large scale international wagering operators annually spend considerably more than this amount on similar developments in other countries. The improvements should be available in NZ at no extra cost.

2.      An issue with outsourcing TAB operations that doesn’t seem to have been discussed to date is on course betting facilities. I’m assuming on course betting equipment is (still) owned and operated by the NZRB/TAB.

My cursory research reveals that in 2016, 85% of race-meetings were attended by less than 2,500 patrons. I think the majority of these would have attendances of less than 1,500. The on-course turnovers must have been corresponding low. It follows that operating on course betting facilities at these meetings is very likely a loss-making operation. It would be interesting to know what break-even turnover is. But the point is - how long would an international operator want to continue this?

What is the solution? Should they be forced to continue it as part of their deal?

Should on course betting facilities be discontinued at meetings where historical on-course turnover has been less than break-even (whatever that is). Should on-course patrons just have access to screens with the odds and bet on their TAB accounts via their mobile phones.

Not sure of the answer but I think the issue is going to have to be considered soon.

 

Race Course Closures/Rationalization

1.      I think the MR is weakest in this area. It only contains cursory reasoning on which courses should be closed. It seemingly relies on other Reports and maybe selected industry figureheads. It takes their word as gospel.

2.      The old chestnut! Everyone agrees, so long as it is someone else. In the various Reports, there is broad consensus that around 28 courses, along with the proposed synthetic tracks, would suffice.

3.      What has changed however, in the past 50 years is the steady decline in on course attendance and turnover. A decline in public interest in attending race meetings. This should be an important factor in deciding which courses should be closed.

4.      The decline in race-day attendances should mean, that racetrack location i.e. must be in or near the largest population areas, is not so important. Quality of the track (or relative cost to get it back to good quality), proximity to horses in training etc should be more important.

5.      This, of course, is leading to a comment on the Courses in the lower North Island with which I used to be familiar. I think if the various club accounts were unpacked properly, along with a detailed estimation of the monies needed to be spent on the track restoration/improvements, then Trentham would be shown to be beyond resuscitation. Book profits, if they exist, are meaningless if adequate monies are not spent on the track and facilities.

6.      I know Trentham has a proud history and I used to really enjoy going there back in the day when it was a mecca for racing. But in reality it has steadily gone downhill since the yearling sales were moved back in the 1970’s. In my view the Wellington public are largely indifferent to the situation.

7.       In terms of racetrack quality, horses in training, I think Woodville has a stronger case to continue. Sure, it is a smaller scale course but these days we are talking about conducting meetings primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. Smaller scale, less cost to maintain.

8.      So, sell Trentham and use the proceeds to improve Central Districts racing.

9.      I see there is a proposal in the Waikato region to build a ‘Greenfields racing/training Centre’ funded by the closure and sale of existing courses. Waikato today is NZ’s primary racing area. I don’t know the ‘specifics’ but it seems its go-ahead is independent of adoption of the MR. If so, the question is, if the largest players can agree on rationalization, why can’t the ones in smaller areas reach agreement?

10.   The broad proposal to sell various racecourses as part rationalization plans might have a better chance of success if it was legislated/regulated the funds raised from the sale of each racecourse can only be spent on improving infrastructure in that region. Maybe.

11.   As I understand it the MR recommends all racecourse land be vested in the NZRB not just the proceeds from racecourses sold. This might help solve what seems to be long standing animosity between some clubs e.g. Auckland and Avondale. If my suggestion per para8 above was adopted then a way also needs to be found so members of various Clubs in a regions have a say in policy decisions and operations of the remaining racecourse in their area – they are community facilities. That is, Avondale RC members have a meaningful say in in Auckland racecourse  policy and operations. Not just at the whim of the ARC executive. Again, maybe easier said than done.

 

General

1.      All sectors of the industry need to contribute to meaningful change.

2.      The MR recommends that the Government forgo the betting levy – currently around $13m per annum. In effect this is the general punter’s contribution.

3.      The Racing Clubs are expected to contribute by agreeing to rationalize and forgo some of their autonomy/independence.

4.      The breeding industry should also contribute. In my view a levy on all thoroughbred sales should introduced. It should be payable by the vendor and scaled. Maybe up to $50k should be nil (to encourage small breeders), K50,001 to $150,000 at 5%. And proceeds above that levied at 10%. So if a horse was sold for $200,000 the levy payable would be $10,000 (first $50k nil, next $100k at 5% =$5,000, next $50,000 10% = $5,000. Total $10,000).

To be fair some of the larger Studs race their mares in NZ thereby significantly contributing to racehorse numbers. But they should also contribute levies on sales.

5.      Race meetings nowadays are conducted primarily for broadcasting racing to off track punters. It therefore follows that track renovations (and some landscaping) should be a priority over new grandstands.

6.      Significant improvements in on-course attendance at race meetings are not going to happen. There are too many competing activities. But it might be marginally improved if there was some betting exotic that was only available on course. Unfortunately it is not in the TAB’s (or any outsourced wagering organization) interests to offer that.

7.      I see the Harness Racing section of Racing Café has a few, mainly positive, comments about the MR. Contributors don’t see it as impacting negatively on their Code.

 

Sorry my 10cents worth has turned into a novel (fiction of course). But best of luck to an industry that once gave me pleasure and one I still care for.

Good sentiment, many of us on here have been preaching on here for sometime that the main source of focus should be the track and not the stands or history etc. but I doubt they'll ever take that into account .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ohokaman said:

Welcome aboard MJB. The report has certainly generated some comment and discussion and that can only be useful.

Many facets to be considered as you point out. Regional parochialism has always been a problem and no doubt there will be much discussion on who/how and why Clubs should stay or go.....some of the recommendations make little sense like Oamaru and Timaru. Then there is Avondale with a good track and delapidated infrastructure being valued at up to $200m.....obviously a prime target.

All weather tracks are certainly needed. There is a question whether the South Island warrants the expenditure of one there.

The outsourcing question needs very careful consideration and some smart negotiation to achieve the best outcome for NZ Racing. With apparently two offers on the table from Australian organisations...at $100m for 25 years...to include the timetable and broadcast rights but with returns only guaranteed for three years, we could end up a very poor cousin down the track at the mercy of Australian racing product.

Thanks for your welcome and comments.

I’m not qualified to comment on South Island racing issues, in fact my lower Nth Island knowledge is dated, to say the least.

So, the cases for Timaru and Oamaru continuing I can’t say. But assessment logic similar to what I suggested in my original post should still be applicable.

Whether the cost of an all-weather track is justified in the South Island.

The justifications for all-weather tracks by the ‘Authorities’ is they would (1) provide an alternative venue for meetings cancelled due to unsafe track conditions and, (2) provide a better winter training facility.

On transferring race-meetings I, and presumably others, have questions about how it would work in practice. I see back in the New Year a couple of West Coast meetings had to be abandoned and one in Central Otago. Would it be practical from a trainer’s (and other stakeholder’s) viewpoint to simply transfer the meetings to Riccarton? Even with at least 48 hours notice. Or is it just intended to arbitrarily transfer dates when the annual meetings calendar is set?

If winter training facilities need upgrading they could surely be improved to a satisfactory standard with a more cost-effective solution than a synthetic track.

I agree the outsourcing needs careful consideration. $100m per annum sounds very low given, on my reading, the NZRB is already generating some $140m per annum. Even given capital development costs re betting technology, and other direct wagering costs, would be saved. Doubt they with make up the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EmJayBee said:

Thanks for your welcome and comments.

I’m not qualified to comment on South Island racing issues, in fact my lower Nth Island knowledge is dated, to say the least.

So, the cases for Timaru and Oamaru continuing I can’t say. But assessment logic similar to what I suggested in my original post should still be applicable.

Whether the cost of an all-weather track is justified in the South Island.

The justifications for all-weather tracks by the ‘Authorities’ is they would (1) provide an alternative venue for meetings cancelled due to unsafe track conditions and, (2) provide a better winter training facility.

On transferring race-meetings I, and presumably others, have questions about how it would work in practice. I see back in the New Year a couple of West Coast meetings had to be abandoned and one in Central Otago. Would it be practical from a trainer’s (and other stakeholder’s) viewpoint to simply transfer the meetings to Riccarton? Even with at least 48 hours notice. Or is it just intended to arbitrarily transfer dates when the annual meetings calendar is set?

If winter training facilities need upgrading they could surely be improved to a satisfactory standard with a more cost-effective solution than a synthetic track.

I agree the outsourcing needs careful consideration. $100m per annum sounds very low given, on my reading, the NZRB is already generating some $140m per annum. Even given capital development costs re betting technology, and other direct wagering costs, would be saved. Doubt they with make up the difference.

That $100m is an offer ( an early gambit clearly ) for 25 years of the licence.

Taking out Oamaru and Timaru means nothing between Christchurch and Dunedin. Just more travel. Not big centres but where do the horses go ? Both are dual code tracks anyway so they might have a fight on their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ohokaman said:

That $100m is an offer ( an early gambit clearly ) for 25 years of the licence.

Taking out Oamaru and Timaru means nothing between Christchurch and Dunedin. Just more travel. Not big centres but where do the horses go ? Both are dual code tracks anyway so they might have a fight on their hands.

Don't forget Ashburton.. close to Christchurch, .identified as being 'necessary'  but needing extensive upgrading.

Timaru on the other hand has excellent facilities,  a very sound track and caters for quite  few trainers of both codes...hosts jumps racing,  all in all a very bad call there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pam Robson said:

Don't forget Ashburton.. close to Christchurch, .identified as being 'necessary'  but needing extensive upgrading.

Timaru on the other hand has excellent facilities,  a very sound track and caters for quite  few trainers of both codes...hosts jumps racing,  all in all a very bad call there.

Lets face it JM has Limited knowledge of the make up of NZ racing.Hes not qualified to dissect the racing heartland to that degree.Who is pulling his strings ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now