RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.
scooby3051

$100,000 Group 1's

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, nomates said:

I think you could be close to mark  with those stakes , no so sure regarding others 15k , if they can hold them at 10k i would call it a win .

Good luck getting any money out that lot , they worked hard to accumulate it so wont give it up .

I would love it if you were right regarding a 2 year re build , but i fear we could be looking at 10+ years of belt tightening , there is an awful lot to rectify . Got to get the right leadership in place to start with , no easy task .

The first objective must be to stop the $17,000,000 annual payments to Paddy Powerless!! 🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baz (NZ) said:

GROUP 1:  $100,000
GROUP 2:  $  75,000
GROUP 3:  $  50,000
LISTED:     $   25,000
OTHERS    $   15,000


I'd be happy with this stakes structure above while in the re-building stage over the next 2 years. I'd also be happy with John Allen, Glenda Hughes & the rest of the useless board to contribute $50,000,000 upfront plus $17,000,000 per annum to the NZ Racing Industry ! 🤬

The other thing that has to be seriously looked at is our G1's , i believe we only genuinely have one in the Derby , could be run for a stake of 250k , we would still get the same stake . so working along those lines i would be looking in the short to medium term having a goal of moving everything up a step , G2 100k , G3 75k , listed 50k , other 25k . I think those can be doable i 2/3 years , if people are realistic about our level of racing , that will be the hard bit . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

The first objective must be to stop the $17,000,000 annual payments to Paddy Powerless!! 🤬

Iv'e said before Baz , there must be some legal remedy available regarding the FOB platform , it's simply not what it said on the tin , then the annual payments is an obvious ad on . But apparently our esteemed leaders believe there is no issue , so convincing them could be the biggest hurdle to clear .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charlie Bukowski said:

So this it what interests me,

Did I hear ,see, read somewhere, are the horses who missed out on a start at Puke guaranteed a start next time , Te Rapa I take it ?

If so , won't this be an inferior class of horse who couldn't make the cut getting 1st dibs at Te Rapa , at the expense of a lot of the Te Akau/BakerPorsman/Marsh runners ?

 

I think that is really an unfair statement. At the first trial meeting at Te Rapa there were nearly 300 horses go round and then some eliminated. There was not a lot of the above named trainers horses at the first trials so why should they get priority at the first Te Rapa meeting. I am speaking as an owner and as far as I am concerned I pay money to have my horses trained with a non prominent trainer but surely I am entitled to a start too. Why should the big trainers get priority over anyone else. As owners we are all pay training fees so we are all entitled to a fair go. If the class of race is inferior then it is inferior. It was fairly evident that they needed to programme another meeting when around 50 horses missed out at Counties. If originally they had surveyed all trainers then they would have realised there were a lot more horses around than they anticipated.  If you take the 50 left out of counties add 150 to 200 from first trial meeting at Te Rapa then 100 odd from todays trials you are looking a 300 odd horse that could nominate for Te Rapa. Thats 18 races with fields of 16. Impossible really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, army said:

I think that is really an unfair statement. At the first trial meeting at Te Rapa there were nearly 300 horses go round and then some eliminated. There was not a lot of the above named trainers horses at the first trials so why should they get priority at the first Te Rapa meeting. I am speaking as an owner and as far as I am concerned I pay money to have my horses trained with a non prominent trainer but surely I am entitled to a start too. Why should the big trainers get priority over anyone else. As owners we are all pay training fees so we are all entitled to a fair go. If the class of race is inferior then it is inferior. It was fairly evident that they needed to programme another meeting when around 50 horses missed out at Counties. If originally they had surveyed all trainers then they would have realised there were a lot more horses around than they anticipated.  If you take the 50 left out of counties add 150 to 200 from first trial meeting at Te Rapa then 100 odd from todays trials you are looking a 300 odd horse that could nominate for Te Rapa. Thats 18 races with fields of 16. Impossible really. 

IMO....Shouldn't the best rated and form credentialed horses get preference over all other starters regardless? 🤔

Bring back qualifying trials! :ph34r:
That would fix this scenario...if you ain't capable of winning or placing in a trial you have no right to a start raceday ahead of others who have? :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

IMO....Shouldn't the best rated and form credentialed horses get preference over all other starters regardless? 🤔

Bring back qualifying trials! :ph34r:
That would fix this scenario...if you ain't capable of winning or placing in a trial you have no right to a start raceday ahead of others who have? :wub:

The problem with that argument when we are struggling to fund the game is that better horses don't generally generate more revenue than lower class horses in competitive events. So, the counter argument would be that the right to start should be based on the potential revenue generated by the runner, not based on the fact that it's a second quicker. Punters don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leggy said:

The problem with that argument when we are struggling to fund the game is that better horses don't generally generate more revenue than lower class horses in competitive events. So, the counter argument would be that the right to start should be based on the potential revenue generated by the runner, not based on the fact that it's a second quicker. Punters don't care.

No I didn't mean higher graded necessarily.
I meant as an example...say a 16 horse field of Maiden's. Don't expect a raceday start unless you have good raceday form or qualifying trial form.

If you don't.... back to the trials until you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

No I didn't mean higher graded necessarily.
I meant as an example...say a 16 horse field of Maiden's. Don't expect a raceday start unless you have good raceday form or qualifying trial form.

If you don't.... back to the trials until you do.

Another example of this was the great raceday initiative of yesteryear by the Counties Racing Club.

$30,000 DAY FOR ALL RACES AT PUKEKOHE.
Big fields and the majority of runners with good form...producing exceptional value on the tote for punters.
This should be NZTR and NZ Racing Clubs Goal at all meetings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

No I didn't mean higher graded necessarily.
I meant as an example...say a 16 horse field of Maiden's. Don't expect a raceday start unless you have good raceday form or qualifying trial form.

If you don't.... back to the trials until you do.

Why not have them race if they are fit and educated and thereby generate wagering revenue? Can't do that with them going back round at the trials. Just costs the owners money and causes non- revenue generating wear and tear on tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Why not have them race if they are fit and educated and thereby generate wagering revenue? Can't do that with them going back round at the trials. Just costs the owners money and causes non- revenue generating wear and tear on tracks.

I'm guessing that won't be possible with the lack of funds, proposed venue closure's and the reduction of meetings for the upcoming season's.
We may have the scenario of more horses wanting to race than meetings being held...so as an example higher rated maidens with good form and trial performers should take precedence over a first starter (non trialist) or horse with bad form.
Good for the Punter and that's who we want to embrace and hold onto! :wub:
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

IMO....Shouldn't the best rated and form credentialed horses get preference over all other starters regardless? 🤔

Bring back qualifying trials! :ph34r:
That would fix this scenario...if you ain't capable of winning or placing in a trial you have no right to a start raceday ahead of others who have? :wub:

Have you ever seen a TAB race sheet. If you had a 14 field maiden race would often pull in more income rather than a 10 field or even 14 field rating race. Secondly are you saying that only the good horses are entitled to race and that if a person doesnt oen a good horse they are not entitled to race. Think it's time you woke up a bit. A hugh part of NZ Racing is getting horses to win trials or races to sell so therefor you need the other horses for us to have a racing industry. Everyone dreams of a good horse but the reality is not everyone is lucky. If you want people to participate in the Industry you need to change your point if view that you have to be with a bug trainer ti have a good horse. Before covid the races that had the full fields or big nominations were Madison races and rating 65. As you went up the grades the numbers dropped off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

Another example of this was the great raceday initiative of yesteryear by the Counties Racing Club.

$30,000 DAY FOR ALL RACES AT PUKEKOHE.
Big fields and the majority of runners with good form...producing exceptional value on the tote for punters.
This should be NZTR and NZ Racing Clubs Goal at all meetings!

I agree. Less race meeting but bigger fields and more races per meeting. As a Industry we rely on the betting public to fund our Industry. If you had an 11 race day card with full fields compared to 2 race meetings with 6 or 7 races and fields if 8 to 10 horses which one would produce more money from betting. The bigger meeting just as Counties did. Nit only that money would be saved on costs because there would be one meeting instead of two. Win win as far as I am concerned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, army said:

I agree. Less race meeting but bigger fields and more races per meeting. As a Industry we rely on the betting public to fund our Industry. If you had an 11 race day card with full fields compared to 2 race meetings with 6 or 7 races and fields if 8 to 10 horses which one would produce more money from betting. The bigger meeting just as Counties did. Nit only that money would be saved on costs because there would be one meeting instead of two. Win win as far as I am concerned

Exactly what I'm trying to point out! 👌:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, army said:

I think that is really an unfair statement. At the first trial meeting at Te Rapa there were nearly 300 horses go round and then some eliminated. There was not a lot of the above named trainers horses at the first trials so why should they get priority at the first Te Rapa meeting. I am speaking as an owner and as far as I am concerned I pay money to have my horses trained with a non prominent trainer but surely I am entitled to a start too. Why should the big trainers get priority over anyone else. As owners we are all pay training fees so we are all entitled to a fair go. If the class of race is inferior then it is inferior. It was fairly evident that they needed to programme another meeting when around 50 horses missed out at Counties. If originally they had surveyed all trainers then they would have realised there were a lot more horses around than they anticipated.  If you take the 50 left out of counties add 150 to 200 from first trial meeting at Te Rapa then 100 odd from todays trials you are looking a 300 odd horse that could nominate for Te Rapa. Thats 18 races with fields of 16. Impossible really. 

Your right Army, they are already over prioritised in every area of the industry as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Good for the Punter and that's who we want to embrace and hold onto! :wub:

What is mostly forgotten is if there are no owners there will be no need for punters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Cobba said:

“Good for the Punter and that's who we want to embrace and hold onto! :wub:

What is mostly forgotten is if there are no owners there will be no need for punters. 

The punters of course can still bet on events other than NZ racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cobba said:

“Good for the Punter and that's who we want to embrace and hold onto! :wub:

What is mostly forgotten is if there are no owners there will be no need for punters. 

That would depend if owners prefer to race for $50,000 or Ribbons? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.