chevy86

Sales Washup

94 posts in this topic

Mmmmmm.......a few lonely but informed dissenters have been trying single handedly to fight this NZTR descent into oblivion for about ten years now......and whilst I note most have stopped criticising me ( that’s because everything I warned would happen has materialised ) you cannot suggest the intelligentsia don’t recognise we “have a problem”

That said I think the cavalry is coming and if they do nothing other than emasculate NZTR and their deranged lunatic supporters like Pikey/ NZTA et al .. we’ll be on the way to some sort of remedial strategy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

I'm inclined to want to say you are sounding very negative, but sadly I do find myself agreeing with most of what you say.  The demise of staying races in this country is very sad. They couldn't even get a $35,000 staying race off the ground at Riccarton last week. (It did surprise me a couple of trainers didn't pop in a couple of maidens just so six horses or so could race around and collect $35,000 for all of their connections, but that is another subject). We just don't seem to have stayers coming through the grades, and there isn't the excitement when a new-comer steps up to open grade. The saddest thing is that I can't see any sign that anyone recognises this problem and is doing anything about it. There is no sign of new races, changed programmes, boosted stakes, incentives; nothing to indicate that anyone recognises we have a problem.

Get rid of Everyone on the NZRB and NZTR boards and you might promote the necessary change. The real question is why do we need the NZTR board anyway? Name one thing they have done over the past 15 years that has a hint of progress, intelligence and courage. We have falling down facilities, bad racing services, bad racing programs and abominably bad media. We have less trainers, less horses, less jockeys and less people being employed. We have less betting and less people coming to the courses, betting at the TABs and less internet betting on NZ racing. Our horses are less predominant when racing in other races and our broodmare band and stallions are less effective than they have ever been in the history of the NZ thoroughbred.

Makes great reading. Nothing of this is incorrect. Unless we have a radical change, we are absolutely stuffed. All the board structures in NZ should change and if they don't the only other option s that all the people on the boards are removed. No other choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wagering experience a key requirement for TAB

When the NZRB talks about the final capital cost of the Fixed Odds Betting platform coming out at $40.8 million, in this writer’s view the figure they have settled on is only the one that emerges after the mirrors have been removed and the smoke has dissipated.

The smoke and mirrors reference is because NZRB have assigned the FOB a capital cost of $40.8 million. But this weekly column has been saying the all-up cost, in reality, is $50 million plus. And the FOB running costs of $17 million annually payable to Paddy Power-Betfair and Openbet are committed.

“Commissions to both are payable. Openbet is a 10-year contract and Paddy Power is five years,” explained NZRB CEO John Allen. “Openbet is a licensing agreement so we pay a licence fee to access the technology and with Paddy Power it’s a base fee but mostly is a profit share based on the performance of the platform.”

In my Waitangi Day interview with NZRB CEO John Allen, the question was posed as to why the total NZRB expenses shown in the 2018 Annual Report had risen from $204.6 million in 2017 to $213.3 million.

Allen responded, “You’re right, costs have increased overall but most of the increases relate to the strategic initiatives, particularly the work on the FOB platform and our customer acquisition programme – to take those two out is appropriate because they’re really investments for the future.”

That answer was drawn from my comment that in simple terms, costs have blown out considerably in one year while this industry’s contraction has been well chronicled at last week’s Karaka yearling sale.

All this on a turnover that’s down a couple of million dollars a month and a platform that’s about $1.5 million a month more expensive to run. Will the final result be any different to about seven years ago with the Typhoon betting platform debacle?

That was written off without ever being turned on but the true cost was never actually known because some of it had been assigned as operating expenses and estimates by some observers of a final debit were in range of $25 million to $30 million.

‘Déjà vu’ some will be screaming, and not without justification, except inflation has kept pace, and then some. It may also have also been ‘déjà vu’ for NZRB General Manager of Technology Dianna Taylor, who resigned from her position soon after the FOB was launched on January 7 and after only two years in the job.

Taylor had been previously employed at Kiwibank, which had an association with NZ Post, and on the NZRB’s website her brief biography read, in part, “…at Kiwibank Dianna led the consolidation and streamlining of Kiwibank’s operational banking functions, headed the development of the strategic technology roadmap that underpins Kiwibank’s strategy, and as CIO was accountable for enabling Kiwibank to continue to deliver its strategic business objectives, which are heavily predicated on technology deliverables.”

‘Technology deliverables’ is an interesting term. Taylor had left Kiwibank in 2017 but in that same year the new computer system she helped establish had to be mothballed and written off after being deemed unfit for purpose after just six months’ use, at a cost of between $90 million and $100 million.

“Dianna Taylor hasn’t left but she has announced she is going to leave,” John Allen said. “Nothing to do with the website; she’s terrific and has been one of the key drivers in getting this done and it’s been a hugely complex task and people really don’t understand how significant a change this has been.

“It would be the largest technology project this board has ever done and Dianna has just been a tower of strength in terms of doing all that.

“Glen Saville was the project leader for the FOB,” continued Allen, “as he’s our head of betting and leads a small executive team that included Dianna and Stephen Henry plus a lot of people working on this from both our team and our partners involved.”

6a6a9d55-saville-glen-200x300.jpgbc206d4a-taylor-dianna-200x300.jpg

Glen Saville (top) and Dianna Taylor headed the team developing on the TAB’s fixed odds betting platform.

According to his NZRB website profile, Glen Saville has worked for NZRB since 2014 and although his title is General Manager of Betting, very little has been heard publicly from Saville until last Sunday when he participated in a 20-minute interview with Des Coppins on Trackside Radio.

Saville’s NZRB bio states, “…was Head of Product with a corporate bookmaker in Australia, responsible for product development including betting products and channels – mobile and website.

“Glen also has 15 years’ experience in the financial services industry, working in product and project management roles, mainly in superannuation.”

To suggest that Saville’s biography fills one with confidence as the General Manager of Betting is a stretch, while to consider he is the person next in line to Allen on wagering decision-making is of major concern.

John Allen openly admitted in a previous interview that he had never stepped inside a TAB prior to his appointment as CEO of the NZRB in 2015, almost four years ago. It can therefore be assumed that Allen knows basically nothing about wagering and therefore relies on Saville – and the biography of Saville suggests he has had more experience in superannuation than he has in betting.

“The original budget was $37.5 million and in the end we came in at $40.8 million, only eight per cent over budget.”

So why was Saville sent off to Ireland to do a deal with Paddy Power to initiate the whole FOB scheme, on behalf of an ailing New Zealand racing industry which at that juncture needed someone highly experienced to perform a remedial miracle? NZRB Chair Glenda Hughes appointed John Allen, who in turn appointed Saville and Taylor.

Last Sunday on the Coppins show, Saville was less than convincing in responding to the plethora of problems punters were encountering with the new TAB website. At one point Saville said, “the original budget was $37.5 million and in the end we came in at $40.8 million, only eight per cent over budget.”

He appeared to believe he deserved a pat on the back following that statement, which didn’t correlate with a recording made by yours truly early in 2017 at an NZRB industry conversation meeting at Riccarton when Allen clearly stated that the cost of the FOB would be $25 million, and people who believed otherwise were out of order.

Allen was a political appointment. Former Prime Minister John Key didn’t care for racing, especially after a brief bloodstock investment that turned to custard, and his successor Bill English was well known for his disdain towards racing, albeit having a farming background.

Minister of Racing Peters hinted to this writer some time ago that Allen was a political appointment following his previous terms with NZPost and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is not talking behind Allen’s back, because in a previous discussion with him which subsequently was quoted in the pages of The Informant, the open debate questioned his suitability to perform adequately in the role of NZRB CEO based on his previous experience.

Allen, to his credit, has always fronted to my sometimes belligerent and less than complimentary questioning and has remained defiant and bullish about his ability to get the job done, but in this writer’s view nothing has happened to persuade the racing and breeding industry that he is about to fire the silver bullet that will save this industry.

Racing NSW CEO Peter Vlandys summed up the New Zealand situation best when interviewed in Sydney last August when he said, “It seems to be a fragmented system in New Zealand where you have the Racing Board overseeing the three codes and from what I can see the management aren’t really racing people, so they don’t understand the business.

“I think you need to have that wagering experience, not just a little bit but whoever is the CEO of the TAB must have a substantial amount of wagering experience– it’s different to any other part of the commercial world. John Messara understands wagering so he will know what I am talking about. He’ll know what to do.

“I think New Zealand has to fix the revenue first. After that, fix the costing. It shouldn’t be that difficult because they will eventually get racefields legislation through. Bookmakers in Australia are betting on Kiwi racing and are getting a free ride – they will get millions out of that, and if you run your TAB properly they will make millions out of that, too.

“New Zealand could be going a lot better with the current revenues. Run your codes separately – everywhere they have tried to combine the three codes it’s a failure and it costs double – run the three codes separately.”

A punter probably summed it up best this week when he stated, “The root cause of the issues with the FOB platform is it doesn’t deliver the key requirements which the previous system did. Unfortunately, this should have been a show stopper.

“This leaves the only option to customise the system. This is very risky and expensive and you shouldn’t do it. The short answer is there might be some ‘tweaks’ that can be done but these will only be minor.

“Sorry to be pessimistic but I believe this to be the truth and the NZRB will know this. The die was cast when they purchased the system which wasn’t able to deliver the key requirements.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell. What a mess. If only we could do with Racing what we do with our computers when they have a melt down: reset everything back to an earlier time when everything was working properly. Could we just pretend the last 10-20 years in Racing never happened, and it was just a horrible dream?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80s and 90s virtually everyone involved in the TAB, Racing Board, Thoroughbred Racing Conference and Harness Racing Conference, even the dogs, was an actual racing person. Most of them used to attend racemeetings regulary, in their own time. Their work was also their main leisure interest.

I'm sure there is one, but I can't think of a single example in the industry over the last 20 years or so where a total non racing person has been appointed to a major role and done an incredibly good job of it.

I do hope John Allen has set foot in a TAB since he was appointed: someone needs to show Glends how everything works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

Back in the 80s and 90s virtually everyone involved in the TAB, Racing Board, Thoroughbred Racing Conference and Harness Racing Conference, even the dogs, was an actual racing person. Most of them used to attend racemeetings regulary, in their own time. Their work was also their main leisure interest.

I'm sure there is one, but I can't think of a single example in the industry over the last 20 years or so where a total non racing person has been appointed to a major role and done an incredibly good job of it.

I do hope John Allen has set foot in a TAB since he was appointed: someone needs to show Glends how everything works.

Says it all. Sadly we were all hoodwinked by being told that we now need our industry to be lead by the business leaders who occupied the boardrooms. 

Good god, even I accepted that crap and look what we have got now. 

Ljz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, poundforpound said:

Few fabrications in there fella.

Firstly the Japanese upgraded with Sunday Silence because the Americans didn’t want him, then they bought all the English classic horses that weren’t wanted up there.

Now your point about Cheltenham bumpers, that’s a definite “fuck off”.

I’ve ridden the best of my time in NZ, and the equivalent in the UK, a lot from Ballymacoll actually ( including the mighty Troy ) and their handicappers are inferior to ours because of their actions and the fact they’re trained uphill ( that’s to do with selection and survival, ask me about Danehill on that matter )

Their British G1 2000m - 2400m horses are miles better than our current lot though 

IMO your best stayers handicaps up there are the Cesarewitch and the Ebor....and the form out of those races is typically well below Melbourne Cup standard ( although the mug punters and silly journos fall for Ebor form every year )

To be effective in the MC you pretty much need NH group or classic form, and a bit of a turn of foot.

Those Ebor / Chester Cup / Cesarewitch types aren’t really suited to down here with their high knee grinding actions 

I know you’ll find an exception to the above, but I’m speaking generally, and whilst I can cop a bit of criticism of NZ I think you should back your dismissive denigration up with facts, not just opinions 

I’ll conclude with the Japanese form, only my theory but I think they’ve ended up with a breed of good horses with good actions because they race on hard ground, and Darwin means the high knee round actioned types can’t cope. 

In addition the Japs embrace technology so they can measure variables that improve the breed, we don’t measure anything except precocity and speed, and thus we can’t improve our stayers as a breed and hands we’re sliding into oblivion 

Firstly P4P to  Troy , an iconic horse and I take my hat off to you and your skills in being entrusted to ride him by a legendary trainer. I was at Sandown the day his first winning offspring Trojan Fen trained by Sir Henry  got rolled in the classic trial on Whitbread day 1984 , so my connection to the great horse  pretty piss poor  weak.

To clarify  I was talking NZ stayers not Aussie stayers re the bumper though I would concede it was a slightly sweeping statement with no real basis as crossing that form is hard so I withdraw it up to a point  . I see the Ebor, Chester Cup  and Cesarewitch as quite different races , trip , track , time of year etc .Back to the bumper though the big guns target it hard with quality national hunt youngsters , it's not a normal winter highweight at all and flat jocks take bookings in it . I put my case for the quality of National Hunt runners as follows. All hurdle ratings in brackets .

Buveur D'Air    (172) The best at this time

Apples Jade (165) a superstar race mare 

Verdana Blue (157) said to be heading down under 

Not many hurdlers / chasers head down but here is  a sample of one's I can think of

Heartbreak City  (125) Ebor Winner . Failed by head to give Amandin 4 pounds in Cup

Qewy (142) hurdle (138 ) Chase 

Max Dynamite (141) 

Wicklow Brave (166)

Kherazabad (135) .Beaten in 6 runner Novice hurdle at gaff Plympton last run UK now 2 x Aussie flat winner Inc Saturday Flemington recently

The Statesman 1 win  out 1 win hurdle gaff but beautiful country track  Ludlow no rating allocated , Weir wins Saturday Flemington with him last spring 

And finally High Bridge (147) .6th in Champion Bumper 2016 , beaten 50 plus lengths last UK run , never been in starting stall until arrives Australia. Wins two metro Sydney first two races for Waller Yard, 4th in 2018 Metrop Handicap 3 Rd run Australia. I listened to Chris Waller on trackside after High Bridge second win and he remarked how surprised he was how quick the hurdlers are up there.Serious money paid for jump stock, Lloyd Williams paid nearly half million quid for winning pointer last year .

I've been lucky to be on track to  see some brilliant NZ bred jumpers power round jumps tracks in UK  , Playshool , Seagram, Lord Gyllane and an old Sandown favorite of mine The Argonaut but that was 80s and 90s . Everyone knew how tough the NZ suffix was in  jumps race card then , times have change the stayers here are weaker now are they not ?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, scooby3051 said:
Wagering experience a key requirement for TAB

When the NZRB talks about the final capital cost of the Fixed Odds Betting platform coming out at $40.8 million, in this writer’s view the figure they have settled on is only the one that emerges after the mirrors have been removed and the smoke has dissipated.

The smoke and mirrors reference is because NZRB have assigned the FOB a capital cost of $40.8 million. But this weekly column has been saying the all-up cost, in reality, is $50 million plus. And the FOB running costs of $17 million annually payable to Paddy Power-Betfair and Openbet are committed.

“Commissions to both are payable. Openbet is a 10-year contract and Paddy Power is five years,” explained NZRB CEO John Allen. “Openbet is a licensing agreement so we pay a licence fee to access the technology and with Paddy Power it’s a base fee but mostly is a profit share based on the performance of the platform.”

In my Waitangi Day interview with NZRB CEO John Allen, the question was posed as to why the total NZRB expenses shown in the 2018 Annual Report had risen from $204.6 million in 2017 to $213.3 million.

Allen responded, “You’re right, costs have increased overall but most of the increases relate to the strategic initiatives, particularly the work on the FOB platform and our customer acquisition programme – to take those two out is appropriate because they’re really investments for the future.”

That answer was drawn from my comment that in simple terms, costs have blown out considerably in one year while this industry’s contraction has been well chronicled at last week’s Karaka yearling sale.

All this on a turnover that’s down a couple of million dollars a month and a platform that’s about $1.5 million a month more expensive to run. Will the final result be any different to about seven years ago with the Typhoon betting platform debacle?

That was written off without ever being turned on but the true cost was never actually known because some of it had been assigned as operating expenses and estimates by some observers of a final debit were in range of $25 million to $30 million.

‘Déjà vu’ some will be screaming, and not without justification, except inflation has kept pace, and then some. It may also have also been ‘déjà vu’ for NZRB General Manager of Technology Dianna Taylor, who resigned from her position soon after the FOB was launched on January 7 and after only two years in the job.

Taylor had been previously employed at Kiwibank, which had an association with NZ Post, and on the NZRB’s website her brief biography read, in part, “…at Kiwibank Dianna led the consolidation and streamlining of Kiwibank’s operational banking functions, headed the development of the strategic technology roadmap that underpins Kiwibank’s strategy, and as CIO was accountable for enabling Kiwibank to continue to deliver its strategic business objectives, which are heavily predicated on technology deliverables.”

‘Technology deliverables’ is an interesting term. Taylor had left Kiwibank in 2017 but in that same year the new computer system she helped establish had to be mothballed and written off after being deemed unfit for purpose after just six months’ use, at a cost of between $90 million and $100 million.

“Dianna Taylor hasn’t left but she has announced she is going to leave,” John Allen said. “Nothing to do with the website; she’s terrific and has been one of the key drivers in getting this done and it’s been a hugely complex task and people really don’t understand how significant a change this has been.

“It would be the largest technology project this board has ever done and Dianna has just been a tower of strength in terms of doing all that.

“Glen Saville was the project leader for the FOB,” continued Allen, “as he’s our head of betting and leads a small executive team that included Dianna and Stephen Henry plus a lot of people working on this from both our team and our partners involved.”

6a6a9d55-saville-glen-200x300.jpgbc206d4a-taylor-dianna-200x300.jpg

Glen Saville (top) and Dianna Taylor headed the team developing on the TAB’s fixed odds betting platform.

According to his NZRB website profile, Glen Saville has worked for NZRB since 2014 and although his title is General Manager of Betting, very little has been heard publicly from Saville until last Sunday when he participated in a 20-minute interview with Des Coppins on Trackside Radio.

Saville’s NZRB bio states, “…was Head of Product with a corporate bookmaker in Australia, responsible for product development including betting products and channels – mobile and website.

“Glen also has 15 years’ experience in the financial services industry, working in product and project management roles, mainly in superannuation.”

To suggest that Saville’s biography fills one with confidence as the General Manager of Betting is a stretch, while to consider he is the person next in line to Allen on wagering decision-making is of major concern.

John Allen openly admitted in a previous interview that he had never stepped inside a TAB prior to his appointment as CEO of the NZRB in 2015, almost four years ago. It can therefore be assumed that Allen knows basically nothing about wagering and therefore relies on Saville – and the biography of Saville suggests he has had more experience in superannuation than he has in betting.

“The original budget was $37.5 million and in the end we came in at $40.8 million, only eight per cent over budget.”

So why was Saville sent off to Ireland to do a deal with Paddy Power to initiate the whole FOB scheme, on behalf of an ailing New Zealand racing industry which at that juncture needed someone highly experienced to perform a remedial miracle? NZRB Chair Glenda Hughes appointed John Allen, who in turn appointed Saville and Taylor.

Last Sunday on the Coppins show, Saville was less than convincing in responding to the plethora of problems punters were encountering with the new TAB website. At one point Saville said, “the original budget was $37.5 million and in the end we came in at $40.8 million, only eight per cent over budget.”

He appeared to believe he deserved a pat on the back following that statement, which didn’t correlate with a recording made by yours truly early in 2017 at an NZRB industry conversation meeting at Riccarton when Allen clearly stated that the cost of the FOB would be $25 million, and people who believed otherwise were out of order.

Allen was a political appointment. Former Prime Minister John Key didn’t care for racing, especially after a brief bloodstock investment that turned to custard, and his successor Bill English was well known for his disdain towards racing, albeit having a farming background.

Minister of Racing Peters hinted to this writer some time ago that Allen was a political appointment following his previous terms with NZPost and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is not talking behind Allen’s back, because in a previous discussion with him which subsequently was quoted in the pages of The Informant, the open debate questioned his suitability to perform adequately in the role of NZRB CEO based on his previous experience.

Allen, to his credit, has always fronted to my sometimes belligerent and less than complimentary questioning and has remained defiant and bullish about his ability to get the job done, but in this writer’s view nothing has happened to persuade the racing and breeding industry that he is about to fire the silver bullet that will save this industry.

Racing NSW CEO Peter Vlandys summed up the New Zealand situation best when interviewed in Sydney last August when he said, “It seems to be a fragmented system in New Zealand where you have the Racing Board overseeing the three codes and from what I can see the management aren’t really racing people, so they don’t understand the business.

“I think you need to have that wagering experience, not just a little bit but whoever is the CEO of the TAB must have a substantial amount of wagering experience– it’s different to any other part of the commercial world. John Messara understands wagering so he will know what I am talking about. He’ll know what to do.

“I think New Zealand has to fix the revenue first. After that, fix the costing. It shouldn’t be that difficult because they will eventually get racefields legislation through. Bookmakers in Australia are betting on Kiwi racing and are getting a free ride – they will get millions out of that, and if you run your TAB properly they will make millions out of that, too.

“New Zealand could be going a lot better with the current revenues. Run your codes separately – everywhere they have tried to combine the three codes it’s a failure and it costs double – run the three codes separately.”

A punter probably summed it up best this week when he stated, “The root cause of the issues with the FOB platform is it doesn’t deliver the key requirements which the previous system did. Unfortunately, this should have been a show stopper.

“This leaves the only option to customise the system. This is very risky and expensive and you shouldn’t do it. The short answer is there might be some ‘tweaks’ that can be done but these will only be minor.

“Sorry to be pessimistic but I believe this to be the truth and the NZRB will know this. The die was cast when they purchased the system which wasn’t able to deliver the key requirements.”

Dianna Taylor is probably fortunate that the $150m + she appears to have flushed down various toilets isn't recoverable.....:rolleyes:.

John Allen has some answering to do regarding some of his appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ohokaman said:

Dianna Taylor is probably fortunate that the $150m + she appears to have flushed down various toilets isn't recoverable.....:rolleyes:.

John Allen has some answering to do regarding some of his appointments.

Gut wrenching waste of money OM , some  hardworking strappers could have seen a bit not to mention the owners who put it all on.

Share this post


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

Firstly P4P to  Troy , an iconic horse and I take my hat off to you and your skills in being entrusted to ride him by a legendary trainer. I was at Sandown the day his first winning offspring Trojan Fen trained by Sir Henry  got rolled in the classic trial on Whitbread day 1984 , so my connection to the great horse  pretty piss poor  weak.

To clarify  I was talking NZ stayers not Aussie stayers re the bumper though I would concede it was a slightly sweeping statement with no real basis as crossing that form is hard so I withdraw it up to a point  . I see the Ebor, Chester Cup  and Cesarewitch as quite different races , trip , track , time of year etc .Back to the bumper though the big guns target it hard with quality national hunt youngsters , it's not a normal winter highweight at all and flat jocks take bookings in it . I put my case for the quality of National Hunt runners as follows. All hurdle ratings in brackets .

Buveur D'Air    (172) The best at this time

Apples Jade (165) a superstar race mare 

Verdana Blue (157) said to be heading down under 

Not many hurdlers / chasers head down but here is  a sample of one's I can think of

Heartbreak City  (125) Ebor Winner . Failed by head to give Amandin 4 pounds in Cup

Qewy (142) hurdle (138 ) Chase 

Max Dynamite (141) 

Wicklow Brave (166)

Kherazabad (135) .Beaten in 6 runner Novice hurdle at gaff Plympton last run UK now 2 x Aussie flat winner Inc Saturday Flemington recently

The Statesman 1 win  out 1 win hurdle gaff but beautiful country track  Ludlow no rating allocated , Weir wins Saturday Flemington with him last spring 

And finally High Bridge (147) .6th in Champion Bumper 2016 , beaten 50 plus lengths last UK run , never been in starting stall until arrives Australia. Wins two metro Sydney first two races for Waller Yard, 4th in 2018 Metrop Handicap 3 Rd run Australia. I listened to Chris Waller on trackside after High Bridge second win and he remarked how surprised he was how quick the hurdlers are up there.Serious money paid for jump stock, Lloyd Williams paid nearly half million quid for winning pointer last year .

I've been lucky to be on track to  see some brilliant NZ bred jumpers power round jumps tracks in UK  , Playshool , Seagram, Lord Gyllane and an old Sandown favorite of mine The Argonaut but that was 80s and 90s . Everyone knew how tough the NZ suffix was in  jumps race card then , times have change the stayers here are weaker now are they not ?

 

 

 

 

I'm a big fan of seeing more crossover between hurdling and flat racing; a real missed opportunity there. In the SI all jumps racing stops at Cup week, just when horses are peaking. I would love to see the hurdlers keep going, and perhaps if a couple are showing good form mixing hurdling and flat racing they could target the NZ Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, We're Doomed said:

I'm a big fan of seeing more crossover between hurdling and flat racing; a real missed opportunity there. In the SI all jumps racing stops at Cup week, just when horses are peaking. I would love to see the hurdlers keep going, and perhaps if a couple are showing good form mixing hurdling and flat racing they could target the NZ Cup.

If you get a chance WD  check out Racing  Post and search Wicklow Brave form. The iron horse to beat all iron horses , country to country all over world  , hurdle to flat , flat to hurdle , big weights , top races . He's coming to end now and the 166 I quoted was his peak hurdle,  now 151 . Bred by Juddmonte under their Millsec offshoot but sold unraced and kicked off in bumpers . Sort horse as fan I really hope walks away into retirement safe and sound .

Share this post


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

If you get a chance WD  check out Racing  Post and search Wicklow Brave form. The iron horse to beat all iron horses , country to country all over world  , hurdle to flat , flat to hurdle , big weights , top races . He's coming to end now and the 166 I quoted was his peak hurdle,  now 151 . Bred by Juddmonte under their Millsec offshoot but sold unraced and kicked off in bumpers . Sort horse as fan I really hope walks away into retirement safe and sound .

They do a good job of mixing hurdling and flat racing in Australia as well, but it is something we have never really done much in NZ. With the new breed of horses not being genuine mudlarks like the days of old, I think hurdling could go a bit longer on better tracks. And of course above I did mean to says SI jumps stop at GN Week, not Cup week. We did of course see one hurdler in the NZ Cup this season,well backed too, something we should encourage more of.

Share this post


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

Australia and the UK use a far smaller and more forgiving type of hurdle than NZ don’t they.....maybe that’s why their horses can mix hurdling and flat racing.....

Haven't got the exact measurements P4P but have stood next to both many times and UK/Ire quite solid and top bar wooden in traditional ones ,  however most falls kind of trip falls and top bar kicked out at times .NZ hurdles more in  the French mode of smaller brush fences.Haydock use brush hurdles now. , most dangerous thing about UK/Ire ones is in big fields a horse in front hits one it moves forward then swings back and horse in behind is faced with  hurdle swinging back on them so in this respect it's validates your more forgiving point for front horse  as does not seem to happen here over hurdles . They have put them in deeper into ground to try stop this . The other danger in UK/Ire hurdles is horse puts leg under top bar traps it and snap .The new plastic hurdles look similar to traditional ones and used at Taunton, these  stop this leg trapping and less maintaince cost.

A lot of top hurdlers bred for jumps game and not ex flat and rarely many chasers ex flat . A lot of French imports in fact are non thoroughbred , Buveur D'Air is one iam sure .

Chase fences whole different ball game , solid birch and really stop a horse when they hit them , no brushing through top like here , they need jumping . Buveur D'Air didn't handle them as he skims over his hurdles with incredible speed.  Geraghty said he scares shit out of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:22 PM, Berri said:

The sales were an unmitigated disaster for the industry as a whole. It is 4 years from now that is the real problem. Another 10-14% drop in foals on the ground see us move closer to the Germany/ Italy/ Spain and Ireland before the zero tax scenario. Germany is on notice for its group ones and Italy and Spain have lost their Group ones. Numbers have crashed, fewer runners/ decrease in betting/ racing industry runs out of options. Aussie trainers give up coming to NZ because they can't syndicate NZ horses because they can't win group ones in Aussie when they race in Aussie. Means that the NZ thoroughbred devalues further and then we have collapse

A bit of fake news here Berri. The NZ foals crop has been pretty stable over the last 5 years with a less than 1.5% decrease in that time. Germany has 2 Group 1 races on notice out of the 7 it currently runs - interestingly all of the German Group 1's are run at 2000m or further, 5 of them at 2400m. Their problem is that they have a high number of black type races to races (over 7%) when the average of countries in Part 1 of the Bluebook is around 5%. Spain has NEVER in recent times had an internationally recognised Group race never mind a Group 1. Italy, well we all now know what letting Governments hold the purse strings does for a racing industry. Italy's woes can be solely directed at the fact that owners, trainers & breeders weren't getting paid prizemoney for periods of 6 months or longer - it is no wonder the investment in the industry disappeared completely. Whoops, that does sound a bit familiar. And Ireland, Ireland seems to live in a world of it's own - 10.5% black type races to races and 6% Group races to races - most countries are 3% or less.

 

however....the last 2 sentences of yours above should make us get off our arses and start to demand change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my bad..I meant the last 4 years...and not ending at 2016 like you have - 2017 crop approx. 3471+ & 2018 estimated to be 3462 (and these 2 numbers come from Studbook as well) ....which looks to me actually like a small increase or at least nowhere like a 10-14% drop.....

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