Racing resumes early 20th June Pukekohe

[Red Rum 1,833]

16 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

If we don't improve prize money we are heading down a ever decreasing circle.  If you own 1% of a horse in a syndicate then it probably makes little difference, however those out there owning more than 25% of a horse won't last!!

People don't get into horse racing to make money, but they will get out because of the lack of return.

To be fair Shane if you own 1% , get 6250 minus costs for a rare win and get a division of 50 bucks most those owners won't last,  wouldn't buy a family a decent maccas after a win . Honestly I cannot see the point in 1% but each to there own .

[Leggy 4,076]

35 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

If we don't improve prize money we are heading down a ever decreasing circle.  If you own 1% of a horse in a syndicate then it probably makes little difference, however those out there owning more than 25% of a horse won't last!!

People don't get into horse racing to make money, but they will get out because of the lack of return.

I think you are missing the point Shane. We can't have higher or even this level of stakes unless the industry generates more revenue to fund that. They have been making stakes distributions well in excess of revenue for the last couple of years and are now broke. None of that money went to useful capital investment to refresh infrastructure etc. No company I know of pays out substantially more to shareholders than the profit they earn. Stakes have to clearly be brought back in line with earnings. There is no viable option unless there really is a fairy godmother.

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

3 hours ago, Leggy said:

I think you are missing the point Shane. We can't have higher or even this level of stakes unless the industry generates more revenue to fund that. They have been making stakes distributions well in excess of revenue for the last couple of years and are now broke. None of that money went to useful capital investment to refresh infrastructure etc. No company I know of pays out substantially more to shareholders than the profit they earn. Stakes have to clearly be brought back in line with earnings. There is no viable option unless there really is a fairy godmother.

Hi Leggy, this is the problem.  We can't keep reducing distributions.  Less funds, less horses race, less punting, less to distribute and the shrinking cycle starts.  REVENUE NEEDS TO BE GROWN.

[Huey 2,037]

5 hours ago, shaneMcAlister said:

No I would rather see 280 horses go around for $30k minimum. 
 

We can’t carry on accepting this shit, otherwise we are okaying it. 
 

Sorry but this shit is where we are at, its this type of thinking thats got racing into this mess. We aren't Aus. our product isn't that sort after, lets try to make the available funding fit the racing, not some pie in the sky claytons prizemoney that everyone here believes they deserve, because a few guys love buying overpriced yearlings and talking them up - if it isn't there it isn't there!

[Huey 2,037]

7 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

Hi Leggy, this is the problem.  We can't keep reducing distributions.  Less funds, less horses race, less punting, less to distribute and the shrinking cycle starts.  REVENUE NEEDS TO BE GROWN.

Sorry Shane but this is what your leadership are advocating for, shrinking the rabbit to fit into smaller hats. 

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

Just now, Huey said:

Sorry Shane but this is what your leadership are advocating for, shrinking the rabbit to fit into smaller hats. 

But then we get less punting, a reduced product and next year we are reducing prize money again.  Training fees don't and can't go down.

[Leggy 4,076]

10 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

Hi Leggy, this is the problem.  We can't keep reducing distributions.  Less funds, less horses race, less punting, less to distribute and the shrinking cycle starts.  REVENUE NEEDS TO BE GROWN.

Yes, we need to grow revenue and cashflow but there is nothing on the table to begin to do that. In the mean time we have to live and operate within our means.

[Huey 2,037]

Just now, shaneMcAlister said:

But then we get less punting, a reduced product and next year we are reducing prize money again.  Training fees don't and can't go down.

Yep youre correct, but this is the type of thinking  you have running the sport.

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

1 minute ago, Huey said:

Yep youre correct, but this is the type of thinking  you have running the sport.

Then we have no long tern (or shortish term) future.

[Leggy 4,076]

1 minute ago, shaneMcAlister said:

Then we have no long tern (or shortish term) future.

Correct.

 

[We're Doomed 4,855]

18 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

Then we have no long tern (or shortish term) future.

We have to be realistic Shane. People have to realise what income we are generating. Back in the 80s a decent Saturday meeting would be doing about $2m off course and $300,000 on. Now they are doing what? $1.2m off and $80,000 on? I have no idea how close that is. Turnovers don't seem to be published anymore. And yet people expect stakes to be significantly higher than they were 30 years ago. And at the same time we are discouraging on course attendance. To be honest it is hard to see much future for the industry., It would be fascinating to see what could be achieved with dynamic leadership.

[gubellini 3,993]

After yesterday’s Trials at Te Rapa I have shares in three last start trial winners. The two in NZ will be lucky to get a start. Next season they will be racing for sweepstake type money. 

[nomates 3,553]

10 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

And at the same time we are discouraging on course attendance

They seem to be doing the same for the off course punter as well .

[Huey 2,037]

45 minutes ago, gubellini said:

After yesterday’s Trials at Te Rapa I have shares in three last start trial winners. The two in NZ will be lucky to get a start. Next season they will be racing for sweepstake type money. 

Well hopefully you didn't pay an arm and a leg to go in those syndicates, I'm sure if you did they'll be off to Aussie pillaging OZ riches!

[Stables 577]

Gee you guys are a happy bunch of enthusiatic racing supporters. Always looking on the positive side of everything

[Huey 2,037]

1 hour ago, Stables said:

Gee you guys are a happy bunch of enthusiatic racing supporters. Always looking on the positive side of everything

Fire up and give us a list of the positives ???

[Stables 577]

1) We are back racing

 2) Turnovers are higher than expected

3) RITA have relented on the question of having tote operators at race meetings

4) It's a lovely sunny day

 

How's that for just a few

[Red Rum 1,833]

15 minutes ago, Stables said:

1) We are back racing

 2) Turnovers are higher than expected

3) RITA have relented on the question of having tote operators at race meetings

4) It's a lovely sunny day

 

How's that for just a few

On course racebooks ? . That would round it out nicely .

[barryb 2,064]

38 minutes ago, Stables said:

1) We are back racing

 2) Turnovers are higher than expected

3) RITA have relented on the question of having tote operators at race meetings

4) It's a lovely sunny day

 

How's that for just a few

All existed prior to lockdown.

What everyone is looking for is sensible cost cutting across the board to save the industry & then visionary leadership to get it out of the mess.

What's the statement of intent?

What's a milestone goal that shows the right track?

None of this sort of thing is evident currently, quickest way to disengage a team/industry etc is not having these evident for all.

If the plan is survival, then there is no plan & death is certain.

[Leggy 4,076]

1 hour ago, Stables said:

 2) Turnovers are higher than expected

 

They've been losing money as I understand it despite having no racing to fund. What exactly was expected? More of the same and what about revenue? Turnover is hardly a useful metric.

[rdytdy 5,341]

1 hour ago, Leggy said:

They've been losing money as I understand it despite having no racing to fund. What exactly was expected? More of the same and what about revenue? Turnover is hardly a useful metric.

Well what do you expect, it costs $300,000 a week just for the betting platform. 

[Red Rum 1,833]

24 minutes ago, rdytdy said:

Well what do you expect, it costs $300,000 a week just for the betting platform. 

A scroll through the divis from Conception races from Chile this morning are worth a look for a laugh . Not quite zero but I am confident I've been in a card game with more cash in middle than entire meeting turnover in NZ .

[Huey 2,037]

50 minutes ago, Red Rum said:

A scroll through the divis from Conception races from Chile this morning are worth a look for a laugh . Not quite zero but I am confident I've been in a card game with more cash in middle than entire meeting turnover in NZ .

Some seriously good Quinellas! 

[Huey 2,037]

1 hour ago, rdytdy said:

Well what do you expect, it costs $300,000 a week just for the betting platform. 

What so now thats an excuse as well? They just sacked 200 staff better be some significant improvement in performance forthcoming.

[Red Rum 1,833]

12 minutes ago, Huey said:

Some seriously good Quinellas! 

I was disappointed the last wasnt "The Field " as it would have gone through the card . Honestly if they get it for free my advice is turn it off save the electricity , knock Palm Beach dogs off and Uruguay races too as its just embarrassing .