Ways forward for NZ thoroughbred racing

[punnaponning 0]

to say that betting appeal should be determined by domestic dollars bet per race is idiotic and takes no notice of racing now being a global game.

The object of any code should be to maximise their turnover and minimise their costs.

[Don Frampton 1]

....But everyone was crying out for this to return.

And I still didn't see an answer about why NSW pools on NZ racing were higher than what VIC TAB punters bet on NZ racing. Yet you said 'MOST importantly', was the benefit of co-mingling to provide these bigger pools to VIC TAB punters.

Yes, its return for many, many, reasons not just punting (a point you never got and still don't get, obviously).

I didn't see you had asked that question re NSW. But are you sure this is the case now, since co-mingling. I suggest to you based on my observations that there has been a huge flight of Aus betting money from NSW and UniTab to VicTab bacause VicTab is the co-mingled pool with NZ.

In fact, I can categorically confirm that this has been the case with UniTab which I am very familiar with. I am not so sure as to the degree that NSW has been impacted, but will wager a choc fish or so it will have been negatively affected to some degree.

[Don Frampton 1]

No I didn't overlook anything. I said it wouldn't happen. But you have zero idea of how much turnover the dogs would get, if they had the prime slots that the gallops get. And whilst as at last year, the gallops were achieving 5.5 times the turnover per race compared to the dogs, I think that ratio is reducing. And they still don't get Saturday afternoon in front of a captive audience.

And you just dismiss their ability to achieve higher turnover based on when they race. That is big of you.

It is irrelevant for the reason you say. It will never happen because the Dogs couldnt afford that luxury and they have no moral right to demand anything at the cheapskate level of entry they got away with.

Oh I forgot the governance model under their beloved Section 16 effectively gives them those rights. No wonder they don't want to show some over and above integrity and changing Section 16.

They know when there're on a horse's back.

[punnaponning 0]

well whatever nsw and qland punters are doing the aussies are still betting less on our races than we are on theirs despite Frampton theory no 2 "aussies will bet on anything" The pools on premier racing even are pathetic by aust standards so I cant imagine too many would be excited by them.

[Don Frampton 1]

to say that betting appeal should be determined by domestic dollars bet per race is idiotic and takes no notice of racing now being a global game.

The object of any code should be to maximise their turnover and minimise their costs.

I'm talking about relative code betting appeal as a fairer means of splitting by formula those surpluses which should in any event be split on a code specific basis (to avoid band-aid and unquantifiable inter-realtionships and same-code competition distortions).

You are talking about perpetuating the the possible wroughts under section 16 and ignoring such cross-code subsidies.

[Don Frampton 1]

well whatever nsw and qland punters are doing the aussies are still betting less on our races than we are on theirs despite Frampton theory no 2 "aussies will bet on anything" The pools on premier racing even are pathetic by aust standards so I cant imagine too many would be excited by them.

This was explained in earlier posts, try reading again. I will point you to the posts if you can't find them.

[Don Frampton 1]

Logging off now as have to do some other things now.

[punnaponning 0]

why are ARC turnovers down 15% over the last 5 years when we have had

1. the informant

2. stakes subsidised by smaller clubs

3. the majority of the winston 10 million

4. NSW and Qland punters transfering the Victorian TAB because of the bigger pools

[Leggy 4,090]

Whew! Does that mean we can get back to ways forward for NZ thoroughbred racing ?

[Leggy 4,090]

back in January it was reported that The NZ Racing Board will soon release an extensive report into the scale of the industry and its benefits to the economy in a bid to improve understanding of its importance.

Has anyone sighted this or have any idea when 'soon' might be?

[RodHill 0]

back in January it was reported that The NZ Racing Board will soon release an extensive report into the scale of the industry and its benefits to the economy in a bid to improve understanding of its importance.

Has anyone sighted this or have any idea when 'soon' might be?

Never heard of it. Will it just be political spin designed to try and attract additional support from government due to the importance of the sector, in both revenue and employment etc areas.

If they achieve the aim of 'improve understanding of its importance'. What will the follow-on action be that will actually have any tangible benefits? Any ideas?

[Leggy 4,090]

Never heard of it. Will it just be political spin designed to try and attract additional support from government due to the importance of the sector, in both revenue and employment etc areas.

If they achieve the aim of 'improve understanding of its importance'. What will the follow-on action be that will actually have any tangible benefits? Any ideas?

I can't answer any of your questions Rod except I found where it was indicated:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4545886/NZ-racing-takes-punt-on-Aussie-court

[Properispomenon 1]

The NZ Racing Board will soon release an extensive report into the scale of the industry and its benefits to the economy in a bid to improve understanding of its importance.

Why?

I mean, who cares?

I haven't seen any other major industry prepare any similar reports.

Has the Kiwifruit industry, as an example, released an extensive report into the scale of its industry and its benefits to the economy in a bid to improve understanding of its importance?

And if it has, who would read it?

Why, those with a vested interest in the Kiwifruit industry, of course.

So, when this wonderful report is produced, who is going to read it?

Why those with a vested interest in the Racing industry, of course.

So they are, in effect, preparing a report on their own industry for their own industry to read...

At, doubtless, huge cost to the industry...

Again, why?

[RodHill 0]

I can't answer any of your questions Rod except I found where it was indicated:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4545886/NZ-racing-takes-punt-on-Aussie-court

That piece was interesting. Maybe AB commissioned the report, and with his demise, it has been put on the back burner.

To me, it comes across in that article, that they are focussed on generating revenue from external sources, rather than worrying about the revenue they need to generate from local racing. Even with references to online casino's etc. They are always trying to follow others with their so-called initiatives, rather than leading the way.

I thought the saying was 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'. We certainly got monkeys, or would apes be a better term.

[Leggy 4,090]

Why?

I mean, who cares?

I haven't seen any other major industry prepare any similar reports.

Has the Kiwifruit industry, as an example, released an extensive report into the scale of its industry and its benefits to the economy in a bid to improve understanding of its importance?

And if it has, who would read it?

Why, those with a vested interest in the Kiwifruit industry, of course.

So, when this wonderful report is produced, who is going to read it?

Why those with a vested interest in the Racing industry, of course.

So they are, in effect, preparing a report on their own industry for their own industry to read...

At, doubtless, huge cost to the industry...

Again, why?

Yeah Prop, well I thought it was quite peculiar at the time Prop, after all they had a similar report prepared by IER in 04 to inform the tax submission, so any change would seem to be able to be extrapolated from that. I just wondered if there was some other brief for the thing than what it seems which is what you have said.

[Properispomenon 1]

I thought the saying was 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

But, Rod, you must have seen that quote:

If you have enough monkeys banging randomly on typewriters, they will eventually type the works of William Shakespeare

The current NZRB must have finished 'R&J', 'The Tempest' and 'Hamlet' by now...

Quite what use that is going to be to the New Zealand racing model I have no idea but, hey, it at least shows they are doing something...

[punnaponning 0]

No doubt it was a prelude to begging the government for more support . However ,

that cupboard is very bare with the finance companies, insurance company and earthquake so lets not waste the money and yet another useless report.

The idea that NZTAB should run on line casinos or poker tournaments is just an admission that they can't run a pari mutuel system which is a licence to print money.

I really have serious doubts about their ability to be bookmakers.

[Laurie Sutherland 0]

Sorry Laurie, I'm a bit slow but would you say some more about this? I thought under the Act, the chair was appointed by the Minister after consultation with the racing industry, not the breeding industry?

There was a nomination process?

Who came up with that?

This may explain some things, especially the NZTR funding model which the Board approves.

Leggy - apology for delayed reply.

The procedures for appointing the Chair do seem rather vague. More clear-cut for the other 6 members.

Sec. 11(1) of the Act states:-

"Membership of governing body

The governing body consists of 7 members, acceptable to the Minister, as follows:

(a) an independent chairperson appointed by the Minister after consultation with the racing industry; and

(, ©, (d) abbreviated, one person appointed by the Minister from nominations of each of the three Codes; and

(e) 3 persons appointed by the Minister on the advice of the nomination advisory panel referred to in Sec. 12 ...."

But, back to the Chair.

The Minister must appoint a Chairperson after consultation with the racing industry. The term 'racing industry' is not defined by the Act, and so helps cause the vagueness.

In practice I understand the Minister publicly invites nominations for the Chairmanship, after which he informs all the recognised racing organisations the names of those nominated, then waits a reasonable time for any comments, then decides who to appoint.

Getting to the current situation, Mr Stiassny's predecessor as Chair was Mr Warren Larsen, whose 3-year term expired on 31 July 2006.

The then Minister (Rt Hon W Peters) invited nominations.

Mr Larsen was re-nominated (I don't know by whom), and to the best of my memory the only other nominee was Mr Stiassny - nominated solely by the New Zealand Thoroughbred Breeders Assn.

The 'racing industry' was then given opportunity to comment, and after an unusually long time the Minister chose Mr Stiassny and appointed him with effect from 1st January 2007.

Upon learning that his then boss was not re-appointed, Mr Allan Jackson (as an independent member of the Board, saw fit to resign as from 31 December 2006.

[punnaponning 0]

was he had lost the support of the thoroughbred code. Definitely a case of be careful what you wish for.

It is actually hard to believe the industry could find itself in the position it is now after receiving the massive tax relief.

But all that did was paper over the cracks the biggest one being the industry had totally lost touch with its customers .

[Leggy 4,090]

Leggy - apology for delayed reply.

The procedures for appointing the Chair do seem rather vague. More clear-cut for the other 6 members.

Sec. 11(1) of the Act states:-

"Membership of governing body

The governing body consists of 7 members, acceptable to the Minister, as follows:

(a) an independent chairperson appointed by the Minister after consultation with the racing industry]

Thanks for that Laurie. I guess that though 'racing industry' is not defined, since NZTBA is named as a 'racing industry organisation' in the Act, it's probably OK that they 'nominated' a candidate. It's interesting that the codes and more 'racing' influenced organisations didn't successfully object during the 'consultation' period though.

[Leggy 4,090]

object to what??

the merits of the NZTBA nominee

[punnaponning 0]

sounds like he got it by default

[Leggy 4,090]

sounds like he got it by default

I don't know if it was by default, but Laurie's comments are certainly consistent with media reports at the time which suggested that "that Stiassny had been promoted by influential breeders intent on changing section 16 of the Racing Act."

[Properispomenon 1]

Stiassny had been promoted by influential breeders intent on changing section 16 of the Racing Act.

And has Section 16 been changed?

Not to my knowledge...

Another 'FAIL' for Mickey S to add to his CV...

[RodHill 0]

However when presented with some factual numbers from the Rosehill Guineas, together with the only slightly lateral concept that

Real Takeout = Cashflow = Bets less Dividends

...out comes the abuse.

Then months later he starts a thread about cashflow !!

Imitation remains the sincerest form of flattery.

No, you're still wrong. Real takeout is the takeout. Cashflow is the cashflow.

The discussion was in relation to lowering takeouts as an option.

As for the abuse, well I'll apologise for that. And if you want to take credit for the question posed in this thread, if it will help you sleep at night, you go for it.

But let's remind everyone of what you said, and since the discussion being had was about takeout rates, and not cashflow.

In my view with such an enormous range of possibilities, from as low as -150% to a high of 90%, surely only an idiot would waste time even thinking about takeouts.

Which means, you don't understand the difference between takeouts and cashflow.

Or don't you understand that if you lower takeouts (which are never -150 to 90%), increases cashflow to all co-mingling partners (that have at least one winning ticket).

Nothing more need be said.