Don't be fooled by the spin - the truth on code funding

[Patiti 274]

Wouldn't more races produce more revenue?

[Patiti 274]

Wouldn't more races produce more revenue?

[Huey 2,037]

1 hour ago, Patiti said:

Wouldn't more races produce more revenue?

Not if they aren't covering costs. 

I fear they have taken away alot of the races/meetings that generated revenue at little cost,  but are too stupid to see that.

[Baz (NZ) 1,722]

1 hour ago, Patiti said:

Wouldn't more races produce more revenue?

IMHO....

Not necessarily? There is only so much cash that can go round. 

We need to attract and entice the punter to bet on our product before any other.

Personally I'd rather punt in a 16 horse field than say 3 x 6 horse fields.

When I see a very small field with low dividends I'm instantly disinterested.

Ideally the goal is more races with bigger fields to attract higher turnover and better value...not just more races for the sake of racing.

WIN WIN

[Stables 577]

I agree if you divide the distribution by the reduced numbers of races the average race stake should be up. If a horse is good enough it will still be able to win as much if not more money

[Mikie 326]

5 hours ago, Stables said:

I agree if you divide the distribution by the reduced numbers of races the average race stake should be up. If a horse is good enough it will still be able to win as much if not more money

The old saying was “half the racing’s in the placing”

That’s not possible now is it?

[Stables 577]

No especially at Addington

[nomates 3,605]

18 hours ago, Charlie Bukowski said:

Getting back on subject , any owners happy about 300 missing races coming up this season , 1500 cheques going begging , I know I'm not f**n happy , once again who's taken rita to task.

They seem to be puffing their chest out and patting themselves on the head

It's all well and good reducing the number of races but there has to be common sense applied as to where and how . 

In the CD between 31/7 till 25/10 a period of 13 weeks they have programmed , provisionally , 14 meetings , with 8 races programmed for each meeting . This is a reduction from 22 meetings for the same period last season , so a loss of 8 meetings over 13 weeks . Now for me this is over kill for one district . We are already over stocked on a reduced July calender , as shown by the number of horses missing a start over the first 3 meetings run . Wait till spring arrives and all the spring 3yo's and lightly tried mdns and those that wanting better surfaces start appearing , along with the big northern stables bringing down their younger horses . Where are the races for them going to be .

3 of the 14 meetings are H Bay premier days , so i wouldn't expect a raft of mdn and lower grade races being run , also 1 day is guineas at Wang and 1 day is Breeders day at Hawera . So if we take those 5 meetings along with the 5 during August , which is still winter racing , that is 10 meetings out of the 14 , leaving 4 meetings over 8 weeks for the influx of young horses along with all the lower grade 65s , and 70s , that aren't up to premier grade , to find opportunities .

Something has to give , i'm sure on the days left they will add races , but surely 1 raceday a week for 3 months is not sufficient for the CD .

Will they add meetings or will they stubbornly stick to what they have put forward , it will be interesting .

It's all well trying to reduce costs but if they don't i think there could be a few upset owners over the first 3 months of the season .

[Baz (NZ) 1,722]

2 hours ago, nomates said:

It's all well and good reducing the number of races but there has to be common sense applied as to where and how . 

In the CD between 31/7 till 25/10 a period of 13 weeks they have programmed , provisionally , 14 meetings , with 8 races programmed for each meeting . This is a reduction from 22 meetings for the same period last season , so a loss of 8 meetings over 13 weeks . Now for me this is over kill for one district . We are already over stocked on a reduced July calender , as shown by the number of horses missing a start over the first 3 meetings run . Wait till spring arrives and all the spring 3yo's and lightly tried mdns and those that wanting better surfaces start appearing , along with the big northern stables bringing down their younger horses . Where are the races for them going to be .

3 of the 14 meetings are H Bay premier days , so i wouldn't expect a raft of mdn and lower grade races being run , also 1 day is guineas at Wang and 1 day is Breeders day at Hawera . So if we take those 5 meetings along with the 5 during August , which is still winter racing , that is 10 meetings out of the 14 , leaving 4 meetings over 8 weeks for the influx of young horses along with all the lower grade 65s , and 70s , that aren't up to premier grade , to find opportunities .

Something has to give , i'm sure on the days left they will add races , but surely 1 raceday a week for 3 months is not sufficient for the CD .

Will they add meetings or will they stubbornly stick to what they have put forward , it will be interesting .

It's all well trying to reduce costs but if they don't i think there could be a few upset owners over the first 3 months of the season .

Agree....they do need to find the perfect balance.
If they have horses wanting to race they need to increase the amount of races on those days. I.E. More Races carded with full Full Fields !
Eight is not enough!
10+ Races minimum!

[nomates 3,605]

8 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

Agree....they do need to find the perfect balance.
If they have horses wanting to race they need to increase the amount of races on those days. I.E. More Races carded with full Full Fields !
Eight is not enough!
10+ Races minimum!

Mate with your horses down here you could be one of those owners .

[chevy86 2,707]

19 hours ago, Baz (NZ) said:

Personally I'd rather punt in a 16 horse field than say 3 x 6 horse fields.

 

Absolutely Baz. BEST punting days EVER were those full-field Pukekohe 30K days!

[Huey 2,037]

4 hours ago, nomates said:

It's all well and good reducing the number of races but there has to be common sense applied as to where and how . 

In the CD between 31/7 till 25/10 a period of 13 weeks they have programmed , provisionally , 14 meetings , with 8 races programmed for each meeting . This is a reduction from 22 meetings for the same period last season , so a loss of 8 meetings over 13 weeks . Now for me this is over kill for one district . We are already over stocked on a reduced July calender , as shown by the number of horses missing a start over the first 3 meetings run . Wait till spring arrives and all the spring 3yo's and lightly tried mdns and those that wanting better surfaces start appearing , along with the big northern stables bringing down their younger horses . Where are the races for them going to be .

3 of the 14 meetings are H Bay premier days , so i wouldn't expect a raft of mdn and lower grade races being run , also 1 day is guineas at Wang and 1 day is Breeders day at Hawera . So if we take those 5 meetings along with the 5 during August , which is still winter racing , that is 10 meetings out of the 14 , leaving 4 meetings over 8 weeks for the influx of young horses along with all the lower grade 65s , and 70s , that aren't up to premier grade , to find opportunities .

Something has to give , i'm sure on the days left they will add races , but surely 1 raceday a week for 3 months is not sufficient for the CD .

Will they add meetings or will they stubbornly stick to what they have put forward , it will be interesting .

It's all well trying to reduce costs but if they don't i think there could be a few upset owners over the first 3 months of the season .

It's quite clear they need to come up with a 2nd tier of racing,  whether that's for less prize money or whatever it's absolutely imperative there are enough races for horses to run in. I don't know why they don't identify these deficiencies in their plans and do something about it, there is just nothing no initiative ,no industry planning or surveying the current state the July fields are in is evidence of this.

I have absolutely no faith in NZTR to come up with anything of note to rectify these situations either, believe me they haven't got a clue. Not only that why aren't we hearing from some of these well paid racing club CEOs in identifying these situations?  Too many have taken the proverbial for too long and need to step up or step out. 

[Insider 3,960]

22 hours ago, Patiti said:

Wouldn't more races produce more revenue?

Not necessarily. The pie is only so big and can be cut into so many pieces. 

[Patiti 274]

The AWT's  designed to take the extra races in these cases.

Shouldn't have to be on the annual plan, they can be cranked up at short notice when the numbers require it.

[Insider 3,960]

1 minute ago, Patiti said:

The AWT's  designed to take the extra races in these cases.

Shouldn't have to be on the annual plan, they can be cranked up at short notice when the numbers require it.

Seriously? 

[Patiti 274]

6 minutes ago, Insider said:

Not necessarily. The pie is only so big and can be cut into so many pieces.

Negative humbug...

SERIOUSLY

[nomates 3,605]

9 minutes ago, Patiti said:

The AWT's  designed to take the extra races in these cases.

Shouldn't have to be on the annual plan, they can be cranked up at short notice when the numbers require it.

There are only a sufficient number of horses racing in any particular window of time i.e. season . Therefor only a certain number of races need to be run to match these numbers , so in a perfectly managed situation there should be very rare occasions where extra races should be required .

[Leggy 4,084]

24 minutes ago, Huey said:

It's quite clear they need to come up with a 2nd tier of racing,  whether that's for less prize money or whatever it's absolutely imperative there are enough races for horses to run in. I don't know why they don't identify these deficiencies in their plans and do something about it, there is just nothing no initiative ,no industry planning or surveying the current state the July fields are in is evidence of this.

I have absolutely no faith in NZTR to come up with anything of note to rectify these situations either, believe me they haven't got a clue. Not only that why aren't we hearing from some of these well paid racing club CEOs in identifying these situations?  Too many have taken the proverbial for too long and need to step up or step out. 

Agree except why do you want /need a second tier to do that?  Shouldn't they just survey trainers again to sort the programming for the new season? Hopefully this time turn that into a more accurate assessment.

[Huey 2,037]

3 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Agree except why do you want /need a second tier to do that?  Shouldn't they just survey trainers again to sort the programming for the new season? Hopefully this time turn that into a more accurate assessment.

I mean something affordable if they want to continue on with their high stakes strategies. 

[nomates 3,605]

26 minutes ago, Huey said:

It's quite clear they need to come up with a 2nd tier of racing,  whether that's for less prize money or whatever it's absolutely imperative there are enough races for horses to run in. I don't know why they don't identify these deficiencies in their plans and do something about it, there is just nothing no initiative ,no industry planning or surveying the current state the July fields are in is evidence of this.

I have absolutely no faith in NZTR to come up with anything of note to rectify these situations either, believe me they haven't got a clue. Not only that why aren't we hearing from some of these well paid racing club CEOs in identifying these situations?  Too many have taken the proverbial for too long and need to step up or step out. 

But here is the problem , the people charged with managing this planning are fundamentally lazy , they have been working the same structure for so long that as the racing climate has changed they have been unable to restructure the way they organize programming .

The whole way the structure of programming needs to change . And as this changes ratings/handicapping needs to be remodeled .

Outside of lack of horse numbers as a base issue , the other two major issues we have are , along side horse numbers we need away of prolonging the careers of horses of limited ability , and with prolonging careers we need to keep and retain owners . As well showing prospective new owners there are lots of avenues to race a limited horse .

Therefor we need to think outside the square regarding what races we put on . 

We have to stop re rating horses in certain grades by too many points . a large proportion of our lower grade races are won by the best ride or luck in the running as the majority of horses are working with same amount of ability , so run the race 10 times you would get multiple different winners . If a very good horse gets more than a couple of chances sobeit , he'll soon be out of that grade . 

Stop giving horses that are consistent more and more points for it , they are entitled to win as well . I would suggest most races run at set weights with only winners getting re rating . A horse that finds form from the bottom of the ratings could then possibly win 3 65's , but a talented horse straight out of mdns the might win only twice before going into next grade .

Perhaps races where horses don't get re rated but run for lesser stake , but can only win once or twice in these races annually .

Just some ideas , not perfect but as i have said previously if 20 other people have some tweek for an idea it can soon become a workable proposition .

Do i think the people we have in charge now are capable of lateral thinking in regards things like this , NO .

[nomates 3,605]

24 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Agree except why do you want /need a second tier to do that?  Shouldn't they just survey trainers again to sort the programming for the new season? Hopefully this time turn that into a more accurate assessment.

Mate trainers as a rule can't even keep up with their stable returns , iv'e had to remind trainers on nomination morning that they haven't done a stable return for my horse and they are frantically working the phone to do it . But i agree , if every month a trainer could submit a working plan for the next 3/4 months that could work . 

But even if the trainers could do their bit i have serious doubts about the will and mentality of those tasked with collating that information into productive form .

[Baz (NZ) 1,722]

2 hours ago, nomates said:

Mate with your horses down here you could be one of those owners .

Yes...more than likely. I'm not one to feather my own nest.
I'm all for the Industry as a whole to move forward and succeed for the betterment of all.
If my runners are not competitive enough raceday I don't expect to get a start ahead of others who are.
Back to the trials for mine to gain a start.
As a punter I want to see the best 16 in form runners take their place on raceday in any given grade. They will generate more turnover than a horse with a row of duck eggs next to it's name.
Mike Pitman suggested $2000 races.
If the TAB can afford these over and above existing funds allocated to the planned Calendar... then by all means run them.
Run $2000 races for lower rated Maidens & 65's midweek as there's a bottleneck currently of these types but don't take away funds from better performed horse's who generate better income for the industry.
 

[nomates 3,605]

1 minute ago, Baz (NZ) said:

Mike Pitman suggested $2000 races.

I would think they could run 1 meeting like this every 4 weeks in each district , they should also be able to afford to run them for at least 4/5 k . Plus placegetters get no re rating and winner gets only a small re rating but 1/2 guaranteed starts back in normal grade races . Ideas mate , it's where it all starts , alas those in charge don't have them and don't want anybody providing them . The great wall of China is small in comparison to the wall around their ideas department .

[Leggy 4,084]

11 minutes ago, Baz (NZ) said:

 but don't take away funds from better performed horse's who generate better income for the industry.
 

They do? You have some data to support that Baz?

[Baz (NZ) 1,722]

6 minutes ago, Leggy said:

They do? You have some data to support that Baz?

Nope...common sense thinking suggests I could be right?  Example below...what maiden field with form below would generate more interest and turnover for the average Punter (A) (B) or (C)....
Maiden Field (A)
1.   22222 Runner A
2.   33333 Runner B
3.   22223 Runner C
4.   33334 Runner D
5.   2222   Runner E
6.   3333   Runner F
7.   4443   Runner G
8.   2232   Runner H
9.   2234   Runner I
10. 22       Runner J
11. 33       Runner K
12. 44       Runner L
13. 234     Runner M
14. 2432   Runner N
15. 5522   Runner O
16  4522   Runner P

Maiden Field (B)
1.   00000 Runner A
2.   99999 Runner B
3.   99908 Runner C
4.   00009 Runner D
5.   98760 Runner E
6.   0000   Runner F
7.   0090   Runner G
8.   0679   Runner H
9.   9690   Runner I
10. 0070   Runner J
11. 8890   Runner K
12. 770     Runner L
13. 086     Runner M
14. 7690   Runner N
15. 0096   Runner O
16  0668   Runner P

Maiden Field (C)
1.   00000 Runner A
2.   0000   Runner B
3.   0090   Runner C
4.   0370   Runner J
5.   02800 Runner K
6.   7700   Runner L
7.   0467   Runner M
8.   7690   Runner N