Ways forward for NZ thoroughbred racing

[Dennis 0]

Well it should be all turnover including FOB. If they offer FO, then they need to be able to trust they can set a market that takes bets and allows them to still profit. That is the skill.

I was also suggesting as a means to target NZ races in preference, any rebate scheme could relate to only NZ races, or could be at a higher rebate level for turnover done on NZ races. I am not sure whether the trial was based on NZ events or all racing.

Agreed but I guess the TAB is looking at margins and saying -well we make 8% gross on FOB, if we start giving rebates of 3-5% (albeit once a threshold has been met) then once we pay for the bookies salaries there is no money left!

I am just playing devil's advocate here, but given they think 26% is a suitable margin for exotics, they sure as hell won't think circa 6% is a suitable margin for FOB!.

[RodHill 0]

Agreed but I guess the TAB is looking at margins and saying -well we make 8% gross on FOB, if we start giving rebates of 3-5% (albeit once a threshold has been met) then once we pay for the bookies salaries there is no money left!

I am just playing devil's advocate here, but given they think 26% is a suitable margin for exotics, they sure as hell won't think circa 6% is a suitable margin for FOB!.

What you say is right, but they need to toughen up. Most big punters aren't likely to want to invest heavily into typically small NZ parimutuel totes, hence FO becomes attractive. 6% of a larger volume is better than 8% of sfa. I think 3% rebate over shorter periods would not be a bad start. And it will only be to a % of punters that reach whatever the target is.

I just think they need to put these things out there as until they do, it is speculation as to what might occur. And the trial sounds like a futile exercise, if only some accounts were targetted, and the period was over 3 months.

But as you say, they are unlikely to do that, so even something concrete in this arena would be a start.

[punnaponning 0]

NZRB continually confuse it with gaming citing Lotto facts as applying to wagering.

Sadly I suspect that with only the lazy and stupid left betting with NZTAB because of the high takeout rates that the difference with their punters and the gaming players is narrowing.

FOB is part of the problem at the moment as punters inevitably switch from Pari-mutuel 13% takeout to FOB at around 8%. It is difficult to see any potential improvement in profit there and it still won't compete with BF.

However, in the exotic area there is massive potential for profit improvement over time. This potential could be revealed by using trebles and or trifectas which are not commingled .

The reductions need to be significant and guaranteed for a substantial period of time e.g. I would suggest 10% for at least a year.

Also any reductions for big betting needs to be available to all and totally transparent

But I do continue to warn the current NZRB leadership has not the slightest interest in pursuing a low takeout strategy and remains convinced that high volume high takeout will maximise profits despite not providing any proof that it will.

[Leggy 4,077]

Agreed, but I am not sure the TAB systems can handle the degree of detail needed to 'slice and dice' customer's accounts and offer the type of incentives they need to.

I am certainly no apologist for the TAB but there are signs of a change in attitude towards 'key customers'.

There are people who work for the TAB who do know what key customers want.

Unfortunatly they have not always had success in persuading those higher up the corporate tree.

Whispers of a rebate system have been circulating for a while, hopefully the whispers turn into something more concrete.

I'm afraid I'm suspicious of 'whispers' Dennis. Even when they write it down they seem to manage to revers themselves from any logical strategy and do the opposite. In the RB submission to Govt. they promised in return for the duty reduction that they would:

[/align]

[align=left]Better Returns To Wagering

Means

[align=left]

[Dennis 0]

I'm afraid I'm suspicious of 'whispers' Dennis. Even when they write it down they seem to manage to revers themselves from any logical strategy and do the opposite. In the RB submission to Govt. they promised in return for the duty reduction that they would:

[/align]

[align=left]Better Returns To Wagering

Means

[align=left]

[punnaponning 0]

punters have had no say whatsoever and owners have had lots of say in the composition of boards/committees running races.

[Dennis 0]

You have alluded to the very core problem with NZ Racing Nerula, Stiassny, he wouldn't have an entrepreneurial or innovative cell in his body.

He'll just stymie anything he does nor agree with, and being a ruthless cost accountant that does nor bode well for achieving a paradigm shift.

If they must have an accountant heading the show, then Chris Liddell will do fine. If he can turn around GM,then NZ Racing should be a walk in the park.

Yes running a corporate undertaker business as well as Vector (a regulated lines company) is hardly the background needed to run the racing industry and it's associated wagering arm.

Couple that with a huge ego that means he refuses to listen to any of his minions, chuck in a bullying nature and extreme arrogance and is it any wonder the industry is being grossly mismanaged?

[punnaponning 0]

Is that MS has allowed costs in particular staff costs to get out of hand, but the sitting on annual and half yearly accounts is outrageous and totally lacking in integrity that he so fondly talks about .

The current half yearly accounts have still not been published more than 2 months after balance date as compared with Tabcorp a vastly more complex entity which has reported around 1 month after balance date in the last 2 years.

[Bigdog 0]

1)

I am really concerned by "seepage" to Australian corperate bookmakers and Asian betting exchanges.

They offer discounts of up to 24%, or "best price +12%".

In general 5% of punters account for more than 90% of turnover. We dont need to lose many of the big pounters to a devastating affect on turnover. I believe it has been happening for a while, and I cannot believe the TAB has done nothing to combat the situation.

2) Too much crap racing, especially during winter months.

[Properispomenon 1]

Here we go again...

A fave grumble of mine...

It's Grand National Weekend...

Likely a field of 30 to 35 will run...

JUst as Royal Ascot in two months will alos have fields of 30 to 40 runners in some races...

Which means that the NZ TAB can't offer tote facilities because

a) their antiquated tote machinery can't cope with a field of more than 24

and

their long-awaited replacement tote machinery is just that: long-awaited...

So the NZ TAB will, I expect, offer Fixed Odds Win Betting only...

As I say every time when this scenario happens, why can't they be innovative (and, no, NZ TAB, that doesn't mean 'stay in the pub') and do what they do with big sporting fields like the Masters: offer a Fixed Odds To Run In The First Five market too?

Dolts!

I see, too, that the market I may or may not be using for my bet (obscure enough, sheriff?) is offering a 'We pay five places - and we'll refund your bet if your horse doesn't run' carrot.

I wonder how we'd fare here if we told our customers 'Oooh, our system can only cope with 24 trades. And the one you want ain't one of them. Go away...'

[Don Frampton 1]

Well it should be all turnover including FOB. If they offer FO, then they need to be able to trust they can set a market that takes bets and allows them to still profit. That is the skill.

I was also suggesting as a means to target NZ races in preference, any rebate scheme could relate to only NZ races, or could be at a higher rebate level for turnover done on NZ races. I am not sure whether the trial was based on NZ events or all racing.

This time I agree with you.

The rebate should be on all (we are not interested in their cost of supply or ability to profit from their base business model).

Besides, it is to profit from extra turnover which could be over and above base fixed overheads anyway.

And, if not on all, they will cause distortions again and still drive part of their customer support to other providers.

[Don Frampton 1]

Yes, we've discussed it before but I think it's flawed, in that there is little certainty of achieving it till the end of the period therefore it creates little or no churn or re-investment.

Not well thought out. So much so I didn't even bother with it even though invited to participate.

Needs to be open to all and simply related to turnover fullstop (and open to everyone).

[The Apprentice 1]

This thread started well. Plenty of ideas about the way forward but you guys have gone back to the personal abuse "go nowhere" crap. Forget bagging Stiassny and focus on what needs to be done. Open discussion etc. The right people will probably read it and discuss it also. They won't take notice of personal attacks.

[Dennis 0]

This thread started well. Plenty of ideas about the way forward but you guys have gone back to the personal abuse "go nowhere" crap. Forget bagging Stiassny and focus on what needs to be done. Open discussion etc. The right people will probably read it and discuss it also. They won't take notice of personal attacks.

Maybe, but MS has not got the skill set or personality to lead the industry forward and out of it's current mire.

The other problem is of course there seems to be no accountability for what has been constant failure.

If the NZRB was a publically listed company shareholders and fund managers would be baying for blood and the board and CEO would have been dismissed long ago.

[RodHill 0]

The TAB could easily run simple promos.

I get invited to participate in promos from other companies every week or so. They aren't worth much, but if they encourage participation from many with little cost, then they may be worthwhile.

e.g A promo to invite customers to take an all up consisting of at least 3 (maybe 4) legs, on NZ racing only. If unsuccessful by missing on only 1 leg, the TAB could refund the bet up to a maximum of X (say $20). One entry per account etc. Allup provides great churn on money invested, and the costs are relatively small.

[punnaponning 0]

There is a need to recognise reality and establish why change is impossible and that is because of the people involved in the decision making at NZRB.

We have not even been able to get the chairman to release the half annual accounts so we can how things were going for NZRB over 2-8 months ago.

The acting CEO is still 100% certain that increasing the takeout on quinellas and doubles will increase profits for NZRB in the medium to long term .

Yet every single person on here believes we need to reduce takeouts.

[Larry 0]

If there is a successful racing and betting industry somewhere in the world with similar demographics to NZ then why don't we copy it, or is that to difficult.

[punnaponning 0]

But more importantly the wagering environment is changing daily . We need to offer something different and competitive to attract overseas interest and retain our own customers.

[RodHill 0]

The difficulty in righting the ship, is that things have been allowed to slide too far and for too long.

The ability to bring customers back is questionable. And whilst not getting into the debate about the leadership, whatever approach is taken, will need to be somewhat radical, otherwise getting customers back and attracting new, will not happen.

And the other thing about all this, is understanding one of the things that also drives betting, is the attractiveness of what you are betting on (even if the TAB was actually looking after its customers). And NZ racing is way behind the nearest competition, and falling further behind. So they need to come up with more ideas on how to improve what is NZ racing.

Improving TAB service and takeouts is only going to be a patch, or a facade to what are bigger issues, surrounding things like track quality, field quality - which leads into entertainment quality. They need to be addressing these as well, although they are likely a longer term fix.

So fix the easy short term stuff like TAB service/takeouts/rebates etc that has been discussed here, but at the same time, put in place a programme that addresses the racing side of things.

[Dennis 0]

The difficulty in righting the ship, is that things have been allowed to slide too far and for too long.

The ability to bring customers back is questionable. And whilst not getting into the debate about the leadership, whatever approach is taken, will need to be somewhat radical, otherwise getting customers back and attracting new, will not happen.

And the other thing about all this, is understanding one of the things that also drives betting, is the attractiveness of what you are betting on (even if the TAB was actually looking after its customers). And NZ racing is way behind the nearest competition, and falling further behind. So they need to come up with more ideas on how to improve what is NZ racing.

Improving TAB service and takeouts is only going to be a patch, or a facade to what are bigger issues, surrounding things like track quality, field quality - which leads into entertainment quality. They need to be addressing these as well, although they are likely a longer term fix.

So fix the easy short term stuff like TAB service/takeouts/rebates etc that has been discussed here, but at the same time, put in place a programme that addresses the racing side of things.

Couldn't agree more, to right the ship NZRB need to fix the wagering side of things and provide governance and leadership and NZTR need to improve the attractiveness of domestic thoroughbred racing, which covers a myriad of things from handicapping to tracks.

I also sense consensus on this and other forums that the NZRB strategy of high take outs and wall to wall racing is a complete failure and needs to change.

Given just about everyone on here likes a bet then surely the message must get through to the NZRB/TAB that there strategy is not what the customer wants.

However, despite there been some progress from the TAB that they need to regain there large customers, the overwhelming feedback from the TAB is that takeout rates will not be reduced.

Until this is changed then any progress made by NZTR in improving the racing side of things will not deliver profits for the industry as overseas leakage will not be reversed.

[RodHill 0]

Just inverting things a little here, how about if the take outs are left as is but the VIP clients and international syndicates get say a 5% rebate to bet into comingled pools through NZ.

No problem with that sheriff, although I would want to push that being on NZ racing direct, as opposed to overseas events, which will just cause another wasted discussion on the code distribution model.

[Dennis 0]

Just inverting things a little here, how about if the take outs are left as is but the VIP clients and international syndicates get say a 5% rebate to bet into commingled pools through NZ.

That way you squeeze maximum juice out of the pathological gamblers but give your VIP clients an incentive to bet here, and good value at the same time.

That would work for me personally, as the TAB lost the vast majority of my quinella business when they increased the takeout to 21%.

(I don't touch exotics at 26%, bar bonus weekends).

Also just about all my betting is on NZ domestic racing win/place and FOdds so

a 5% rebate (once a threshold was met) would definitly increase my turnover, quite substantially in fact.

Bearing in mind that is only me, others who bet more on Australian racing will have an opinion as well.

[Leggy 4,077]

Yep, I agree too (I think I already did), since they won't look at takeouts. Hopefully, if they couldn't do that now, the new Typhoon system would allow it based on reasonably short-term (say weekly) turnover.

As I said before there may be a need for differential rebates levels based on product type as well.

I'm also with Rod & Dennis, that wagering alone is only a beginning and in the slightly longer term, the quality of the product -tracks, handicapping, programming etc. need attention and a clear plan. Improving cashflow via wagering and possibly stakes funding distribution first makes sense though, as that will facilitate and provide incentive for imrpoving attractiveness of the product.

[punnaponning 0]

our takeouts for pick 6, trebles, trifectas, quinellas would all be higher than TABCORP.

I am fundamently opposed to continue to ripping off the paths as they spend all regardless of takeouts so charging them more achieves absolutely nothing. But simply encourages rip off thinking.

The focus needs to be value for money for all. We are in the entertainment industry which is highly competitive if we don't offer value for money we are stuffed.

If you want to target international customers surely the way to do it is via discounts for internat betting , which is the cheapest form of betting with easy recorded betting.

Regardless, Rod is 100% right in saying things have been allowed to slip far too far and the solution needs to be radical.

[Laurie Sutherland 0]

Maybe, but MS has not got the skill set or personality to lead the industry forward and out of it's current mire.

The other problem is of course there seems to be no accountability for what has been constant failure.

If the NZRB was a publically listed company shareholders and fund managers would be baying for blood and the board and CEO would have been dismissed long ago.

Guess who nominated him - the NZ Thoroughbred Breeders Assn,as their sole nominee