Look how bad racing is going....

[Don Frampton 1]

Turnover down just a little but stakes down a lot!

I understand the Wgtn Cup (the one that used to be an iconic race) is now down from 350k to 250k.

Obviously, the reduction of distance from 3200m to 2400m was to match the lost race mana and stakes.

To think, in earlier times, one would have retired from racing a happy person if they could have won the Wgtn Cup.

What a joke! In real terms, this race is now run for stakes which are about 50% of what it was run for years ago!!

This is what happens under Section 16. when "he who pays the piper" (thoroughbreds) is forceably playing a tune for the Dogs.

I suspect a certain Judge would see that as unfair given a judicial review has decided that NZTR club voting rights should be proportional to the number of meetings (because they are the pipers that generate the revenue).

A judicial review on the appropriateness of enforced cross-code subsidies under Section 16 would be interesting.

No matter what savings may or may not be achievable under code overhead sharings, no case can be made for sharing or proportionalising by formulae the separate code revenues.

In my opinion, Section 16 has been the best anti-growth formulae that could ever have been invented for thoroughbreds.

Let's hope the extra channels can be the stimulus for change to the Act so that code specific revenues (which represents good business and common sense) will prevail.

[Bert 0]

What do you expect Don when people are flocking to Betfair rather than supporting the local TAB?

How much did Betfair pass back to the industry from it's Kelt futures book?

[Don Frampton 1]

What do you expect Don when people are flocking to Betfair rather than supporting the local TAB?

How much did Betfair pass back to the industry from it's Kelt futures book?

Don't you go disguising the problem Bert. You know there was only about 10k matched on the futures markey and as you so knowledgeably pointed out, this is about 5k.

Alas not the problem (yet) Bert.

Do you know the % by which stakes have dropped this year while Dogs are flourishing and putting on extra meeting after meeting (subsidised by gallops so who can blame them) so they can increase domestic turnover and grab even more next year?

Interestly, do you know the stakes drop was by far and away greater % than the turnover drop. What do you put this down to?

It was all forecast as being anti-growth for thoroughbreds and is now coming home to roost.

[Chris Wood 1,576]

Not the only stakes dropping Don, City Of Auckland Cup and the Waikato Cup have both taken a stake decrease as the clubs cannot sustain last years stakes!

Waikato down from $135,00 to $100,000 and Auckland from $200,000 to $125,000.

We try to be positiveand promote our industry, but things like this make it hard for everyone!

I am not knocking the Racing clubs, as they to have to balance the books!

[blue fighter 0]

In my opinion, Section 16 has been the best anti-growth formulae that could ever have been invented for thoroughbreds.

Don

You KNOW that this statement cannot possibly be True, because I have told you before on this forum that the RIB's funding policy that was in place for the years prior to Section 16 was much more pro-greyhound.

The arrival of Section 16 DECREASED greyhound funding by $900,000 in Year One.

The $900,000 funding lost by dogs became an INCREASE for NZTR and HRNZ.

Also Section 16's funding formula has NOT been used since the 06/07 season, so surely it cannot be blamed for anything today, can it?

[spongebob 0]

wall to wall racing in all codes must affect turnovers in a recession, the money is just not there,also factor in gaming grant changes as well.

on a positive note though the crowd on saturday at tauranga was impressive and i believe turnover was good.

lets hope thats the upward rise we all want!

like bert says, bet with our tab, its how our clubs are funded.

[Bradez 5]

if our bookmakers were not so weak... people like myself wouldnt have to bet offshore.

auckland reactor on tuesday at the nz cup.

$1.10 here. contacted my bookie in oz and got 1.40.

why bother with $1.10

[Don Frampton 1]

Don

You KNOW that this statement cannot possibly be True, because I have told you before on this forum that the RIB's funding policy that was in place for the years prior to Section 16 was much more pro-greyhound.

The arrival of Section 16 DECREASED greyhound funding by $900,000 in Year One.

The $900,000 funding lost by dogs became an INCREASE for NZTR and HRNZ.

Also Section 16's funding formula has NOT been used since the 06/07 season, so surely it cannot be blamed for anything today, can it?

That is a nonsense blue fighter and you know it.

The only reason, technically, the formulae has not been "used" is because it has been frozen as an agreed fixed % split. But it is still used alright.

And, given the Dogs have no huge on course days like (say) Wgtn Cup Day, where do you think the money has come from to see extra licence after licence being given to Dogs when thoroughbreds have been cut back (and in the CD slaughtered!)?

Next you will be telling me that Greyhounds are so well supported by punters that the clip on turnover alone, is funding their growth. Well I'm sure even you will suspect that's not the case.

No, the Doggies through Section 16, are dipping into the Thoroughbred product betting appeal and lapping up the popularity of our code. Look how much they get from Melb Cup Day alone!

Allowing the Act to continue to serve up this injustice to the Thoroughbred Code is shameful.

No other sensible business model in the world (other than in a communist state) would allow such a cross-subsidy to apply - allowing a poorer performing part of the business be propped up by a better performing part of the business.

And, particularly when the better performing part has an entirely different overhead structure compared with the poorer performing part (who is treated, distribution-wise, as if it has the same overheads).

It is an economical model for disaster and that disaster is now becoming apparent.

And worse still, when/if the frozen % splits are unfrozen, the Section 16 distribution formulae has the potention to see the Dogs take an even bigger share of both the Trots and Gallops betting appeal driven turnover.

Why you may ask? Because the Dogs may have increased further their proportional share of total domestic turnover (used in the Section 16 split formulae) courtesy of the Trots and Gallops subsidising their multitude of extra licences and disproportionate use of the Trackside channel.

You see it doesn't actually matter too much to the Dog meetings if all they ever do is break even. So long as they keep increasing their turnover relative to Gallops and Trots, they will be allowed to "steal" an increasingly bigger share of the total overseas turnover driven through Gallops and Trots product.

It is a complete joke, as is the Act that sanctions this injustice.

Give us the extra TV channel, as I say and use it so that codes can live and die by their own resources, profits and betting appeal initiatives.

A Code-specific distribution policy is the only true and fair way. That way Thoroughbreds can governed by their own code and flourish through a GROWTH policy - which is sadly lacking as I write.

[Don Frampton 1]

if our bookmakers were not so weak... people like myself wouldnt have to bet offshore.

auckland reactor on tuesday at the nz cup.

$1.10 here. contacted my bookie in oz and got 1.40.

why bother with $1.10

Right on the button.

Their level of monopoly-thinking greed tied to we must win all the time (instead of looking at the full year picture) means they probably do half the FOB turnover they are capable of doing.

Let's hope they see the light so we can support our own TAB and as Bert rightfully points out, support our own industry in the process.

FOB is a mammoth growth opportunity for the NZ TAB if they would only look to make a smaller profit across the gendre and look to double their turnover to both compensate and secure customer loyalty.

[Bert 0]

Don't you go disguising the problem Bert. You know there was only about 10k matched on the futures markey and as you so knowledgeably pointed out, this is about 5k.

Alas not the problem (yet) Bert.

Do you know the % by which stakes have dropped this year while Dogs are flourishing and putting on extra meeting after meeting (subsidised by gallops so who can blame them) so they can increase domestic turnover and grab even more next year?

Interestly, do you know the stakes drop was by far and away greater % than the turnover drop. What do you put this down to?

It was all forecast as being anti-growth for thoroughbreds and is now coming home to roost.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the same Don Frampton who only recently was telling us he did most of his betting with Betfair on Australian races and who was bemoaning the fact Betfair wasn't allowed to advertise or attract customers like the NZTAB can. Make up your mind Don, you can't expect the industry to flourish and stakes to increase while 'big' punters like yourself are taking their business away from the NZTAB (which gives money back to the Racing Clubs) and actively wanting the 'parasites' like Betfair to gain a bigger foothold in NZ.

PS Brad, $1.10 or $1.40...what did it matter?

[Peter M 2]

Heard a comment from non racing person.

"If racing can pay $900kplus for a CEO they don't need pokie money".

Work it out for yourselves.

[GONSTA 1,148]

PS Brad, $1.10 or $1.40...what did it matter? ]

It mattered 30% to a dollar how hard is that to see?

Am amazed someone would put up 1.40 against that field on tues!

[Bert 0]

It mattered 30% to a dollar how hard is that to see?

Am amazed someone would put up 1.40 against that field on tues!

Hey Reilly,

I read the post as being for Friday when the price for AR didn't matter in the end coz he lost.

I know for a fact the NZTAB didn't offer anything above $1.04 for the Reactor on Tuesday so not sure where Brad was getting $1.10 as a comparison. I suspect he meant Friday, because as you say who would have given $1.40 on Cup Day?

[elsu is awesome 1]

I suspect he meant Friday, because as you say who would have given $1.40 on Cup Day?

Philip Butcher

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Philip Butcher

Yeah - well said!! I suspect you may have also got similar money from his 'Little' mate!!!

[Theysay 0]

by CC in yr TAB a/c and get clipped $60...Betchoice,etc...no charge.!$900,000 for a CEO is an absolute joke..must have been done to make all the K100 plus salaries look reasonable.Hopeless.

[Bert 0]

by CC in yr TAB a/c and get clipped $60...Betchoice,etc...no charge.!$900,000 for a CEO is an absolute joke..must have been done to make all the K100 plus salaries look reasonable.Hopeless.

What's the CEO of Betchoice on p.a. Theysay?

[Don Frampton 1]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the same Don Frampton who only recently was telling us he did most of his betting with Betfair on Australian races and who was bemoaning the fact Betfair wasn't allowed to advertise or attract customers like the NZTAB can. Make up your mind Don, you can't expect the industry to flourish and stakes to increase while 'big' punters like yourself are taking their business away from the NZTAB (which gives money back to the Racing Clubs) and actively wanting the 'parasites' like Betfair to gain a bigger foothold in NZ.

PS Brad, $1.10 or $1.40...what did it matter? ]

Please answer my question in post #3 and read my post #9

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

[PS Brad, $1.10 or $1.40...what did it matter?

It mattered to Betfair! THEY got the bet...

[wobbly 76]

Bert,

Isn't the point of Don's initial comments that RB are not returning the required commision back to thoroughbred, beit for stakes, skills training or R & M.

I know the thoroughbred code is expensive to run and provides far less 'product' but merely channeling funds away for media, technology and administration, at the expense of code infrastructure, is going to strangle our premier show.

You have to wonder if they give a toss about thoroughbred racing. After all they now have access to 'clip-the-ticket' international racing and can grow the low cost, reliable dog/harness product to cover thoroughbred's demise.

All Weather tracks suit their blueprint for "betting units" over cost equation. Dogs and Harness have them. Thoroughbred aren't allowed them

RB, in my opinion, are operating in direct contravention to the intent of the Racing Act.

[Don Frampton 1]

Bert,

Isn't the point of Don's initial comments that RB are not returning the required commision back to thoroughbred, beit for stakes, skills training or R & M.

I know the thoroughbred code is expensive to run and provides far less 'product' but merely channeling funds away for media, technology and administration, at the expense of code infrastructure, is going to strangle our premier show.

You have to wonder if they give a toss about thoroughbred racing. After all they now have access to 'clip-the-ticket' international racing and can grow the low cost, reliable dog/harness product to cover thoroughbred's demise.

All Weather tracks suit their blueprint for "betting units" over cost equation. Dogs and Harness have them. Thoroughbred aren't allowed them

RB, in my opinion, are operating in direct contravention to the intent of the Racing Act.

You are on to it! A DB for you alright!

The problem is we have a NZRB trying to be everything to everyone (to the extent they are not Dog leaning and trying to do everything for the Dogs - disproportionate to their herd betting appeal).

What Thoroughbreds need is a thoroughbred appointed board trying to do everything for thoroughbreds with thoroughbred derived code-specific income.

Section 16. of the Racing Act is a communist joke and it subsidises the Dogs, at our expense.

The Act is also a joke as it fosters a silly multi-code governance allowing Dog people to effectively control/shaft thoroughbreds and this is in the context that any CV pre-requisite to so govern does not, in my opinion, include an appropriate real in-depth/grass roots knowledge of the thoroughbred industry (from an owner and punter perspective).

[Bert 0]

Don't you go disguising the problem Bert. You know there was only about 10k matched on the futures markey and as you so knowledgeably pointed out, this is about 5k.

Alas not the problem (yet) Bert.

Do you know the % by which stakes have dropped this year while Dogs are flourishing and putting on extra meeting after meeting (subsidised by gallops so who can blame them) so they can increase domestic turnover and grab even more next year?

Interestly, do you know the stakes drop was by far and away greater % than the turnover drop. What do you put this down to?

It was all forecast as being anti-growth for thoroughbreds and is now coming home to roost.

No I don't know the % by which stakes have dropped this year Don. Clearly you do as you know its a greater % than the turnover drop so rather than playing games Don, come out of the closet with all these figures and put them up for scrutiny.

[Bert 0]

Bert,

Isn't the point of Don's initial comments that RB are not returning the required commision back to thoroughbred, beit for stakes, skills training or R & M.

I know the thoroughbred code is expensive to run and provides far less 'product' but merely channeling funds away for media, technology and administration, at the expense of code infrastructure, is going to strangle our premier show.

You have to wonder if they give a toss about thoroughbred racing. After all they now have access to 'clip-the-ticket' international racing and can grow the low cost, reliable dog/harness product to cover thoroughbred's demise.

All Weather tracks suit their blueprint for "betting units" over cost equation. Dogs and Harness have them. Thoroughbred aren't allowed them

RB, in my opinion, are operating in direct contravention to the intent of the Racing Act.

So how much are the RB returning? And how much should they? And where are the sums to back it up?

[Block 0]

Bert,pop next door and ask Chris,he has all those numbers after assessing them to reduce the Cily Of Auckland Cup down to $125,000

[Don Frampton 1]

No I don't know the % by which stakes have dropped this year Don. Clearly you do as you know its a greater % than the turnover drop so rather than playing games Don, come out of the closet with all these figures and put them up for scrutiny.

If I knew the exact figures I would have told you, rather than asked you.

Unsubstantiated, I have heard the turnover has dropped by about 3% but that thoroughbred stakes have been reduced by about 17%.

Taking that at face value, perhaps you can answer the question?

And, this is in the context that costs have supposedly been trimmed in some areas (I wonder if there are blowouts in other areas then)?

ps: Bert, don't be all defensive on this as I am not trying to score points against you, rather I am looking for reasoned input from anyone, including you if you are able to contribute.