One Racing

[balmac 0]

As a discussion point .. where does this really take us? Into a brighter, united future or one in which the three codes will be like unhappy bedfellow???

http://www.nzracing.co.nz/Documents/4026/One%20Racing%20summary.pdf

[The Apprentice 1]

the report is timely but will only be of use if the various code participants realise where it's heading.

The way to go is quite simple and if the participants can't get into bed together to ultimately reduce the cost to the industry as a whole (and thereby provide significant benefits to the 3 codes), then (as it says in the report) the matter will be taken out of the Industry's hands and will be dealt with by either "fate" or "government intervention". I suspect the latter will prevail because I'm sure the THoroughbred side will not leave it to "fate".

NZ is a very small country, has a small population but often punches above it's weight on the international stage. However, like any organisation, if the Racing Industry continues to do things the same way it will get the same results and in this day and age, that's a recipe for being left behind.

[S2H 0]

Gee wizz, what a surprise to hear the greyhound code crying to the media about the prospect of the "one" concept.

Why are they so upset? Because they've been getting way too much time on the coffer's titty than they deserve. That's probably also the reason they're so bulging out of their clothes when you see them leading their dishlickers around.

[Rockhead 0]

As a discussion point .. where does this really take us? Into a brighter, united future or one in which the three codes will be like unhappy bedfellow???

http://www.nzracing.co.nz/Documents/4026/One%20Racing%20summary.pdf

It looks like the mutts people aren't happy with the recommendations. They believe they coped well during the recession.

[ashmayo 0]

Having read some of the other postings it looks as though the lack of consultation with two of the affected parties may well be a sticking point to this and its very understandable. To me it looks to make as much headway as Sparc proposing to merge the administration of NZ Rugby and NZRL!.

[Don Frampton 1]

Gee wizz, what a surprise to hear the greyhound code crying to the media about the prospect of the "one" concept.

Why are they so upset? Because they've been getting way too much time on the coffer's titty than they deserve. That's probably also the reason they're so bulging out of their clothes when you see them leading their dishlickers around.

I've never had a problem with codes batting together to save admin costs and share overheads (on a fair basis).

I still have a huge problem though with the Racing Act that does not allow each code to govern itself and use its own code-specific income in the process.

So long as Section 16 remains, the best that can be done is to make the distribution fairer to each code. But ultimately, Section 16 just has to go so that passionate and knowledgeable people will willingly contribute their time and investment to the code they favour - without being fettered by other codes or the tax gathers. In my opinion, the tax gatherers only see the industry as a tax number on a page - allowing someone else's lifestyle to be subsidised by owners who put in far more than they take out.

[Stig 0]

I've never had a problem with codes batting together to save admin costs and share overheads (on a fair basis).

I still have a huge problem though with the Racing Act that does not allow each code to govern itself and use its own code-specific income in the process.

So long as Section 16 remains, the best that can be done is to make the distribution fairer to each code. But ultimately, Section 16 just has to go so that passionate and knowledgeable people will willingly contribute their time and investment to the code they favour - without being fettered by other codes or the tax gathers. In my opinion, the tax gatherers only see the industry as a tax number on a page - allowing someone else's lifestyle to be subsidised by owners who put in far more than they take out.

Can't you contribute anything other than Section 16? What about the venue rationalisation that will occur, first cab off the rank being Te Rapa according to one of the Taskforce members at the BBQ last Sunday

[balmac 0]

For myself, I think rationalisation has potential in theory but the practicalities of getting the codes together appear almost insurmountable - it'd be like cats in a sack!

And as for the name .. NZ Racing and Wagering: wagering .. does not have much of a ring to it IMHO .. what would be wrong with just NZ Racing? I know it exists but who on earth ever uses the word 'wagering?'

[Eclipse 0]

Once managed an organisational change programme, which included establishment of a shared services centre on a larger scale - so it's something of a time warp to read NZTR's document.

This thrust drives headcount reduction of 46 from a starting point of 175 and delivers half of the $7m in targeted cost reduction.

I.T. where an ongoing saving of $1.4m is targeted, is also tagged with a one-off $2m cost, to effect the change.

Outside of IT,12 other activities are identified with the projected savings totaling $5.6m

So there's no real king hits involved.

Of the $7m in targeted savings almost 60% come from the NZRB who are already tasked with saving a further $10m from their remaining cost base of $125m or so.( potential to double count savings?)

The other $4m in savings to get to the $11m in the Press Release is one tier down at Club level. Have no doubt that inefficiencies would add up to a number of this magnitude - but squeezing this out of individual clubs would be nigh on impossible. The stronger likelihood is attrition.

The thrust for shared services within the NZRB and the 3 code Bodies for some of the activities identified,is sound.

But for mine, the ability to implement successfully across all 13 areas would take longer, encounter additional unidentified costs on the way through and even then,be unlikely to deliver on the full targetted savings that add up to the $7m forecast.

The first small step is to get all involved onto the same page....and the odds of that are....?

[Don Frampton 1]

Can't you contribute anything other than Section 16? What about the venue rationalisation that will occur, first cab off the rank being Te Rapa according to one of the Taskforce members at the BBQ last Sunday

What can you contribute?

All the nonsense you see today results through Section 16 being forced down everyone's throat.

In my opinion, if all codes could simply go about their business without the ridiculous non-commercial restrictions imposed on them through the Act and Section 16 in particular, we would have the ground roots for a successful and vibrant industry run by people who could bring all their skills to bear.

Currently it's a distaster from one year to the next and each "new" leader will fail to lift the stakes-bar for the same contraining reasons imposed by the Act that applied to leaders before them - no matter how brilliant their business and other experiences shown on their CVs might be.

Of course if they think they are working for the government (which is pretty close to the mark) then they don't have a reason to get exited about anything do they now!

It would be the most sole destroying and constrained job anyone could ever hope to take on.

And that explains why stakes in NZ every Saturday are still run at a way lower level than any one of even the second tier states in Aussie.

As for competing with Melb and Sydney, we are left to dream - even though our population makes us comparable with those states.

And we don't even have to compete with 5 other states on the same day!!

Woeful, shameful and disgraceful is what our racing industry is and it has been like that for years.

The only single pathetic excuse I have ever heard for the mess we are in is that we only have one TV channel to share.

Well with than excuse going, we should be leading the field soon eh? Yeah right!!

[Stig 0]

What can you contribute?

All the nonsense you see today results through Section 16 being forced down everyone's throat.

In my opinion, if all codes could simply go about their business without the ridiculous non-commercial restrictions imposed on them through the Act and Section 16 in particular, we would have the ground roots for a successful and vibrant industry run by people who could bring all their skills to bear.

Currently it's a distaster from one year to the next and each "new" leader will fail to lift the stakes-bar for the same contraining reasons imposed by the Act that applied to leaders before them - no matter how brilliant their business and other experiences shown on their CVs might be.

Of course if they think they are working for the government (which is pretty close to the mark) then they don't have a reason to get exited about anything do they now!

It would be the most sole destroying and constrained job anyone could ever hope to take on.

And that explains why stakes in NZ every Saturday are still run at a way lower level than any one of even the second tier states in Aussie.

As for competing with Melb and Sydney, we are left to dream - even though our population makes us comparable with those states.

And we don't even have to compete with 5 other states on the same day!!

Woeful, shameful and disgraceful is what our racing industry is and it has been like that for years.

The only single pathetic excuse I have ever heard for the mess we are in is that we only have one TV channel to share.

Well with than excuse going, we should be leading the field soon eh? Yeah right!!

12 or 13 ranting paragraphs later and you don't even address the issue of venue rationalisation, in particular Te Rapa. If you had been at the BBQ you would have heard of the vision to sell Te Rapa, shift Counties, and build a new track at Huntly, yes, Huntly.

Speaking of BBQs, what are contributors views on a PR firm being allocated between $250,000 and $500,000 to 'sell' the undertakers vision to the masses? Their brilliant idea? To have BBQs, get everyone lubricated so that they "will be in a more convivial and receptive mood". Brilliant stuff.

[Don Frampton 1]

12 or 13 ranting paragraphs later and you don't even address the issue of venue rationalisation, in particular Te Rapa. If you had been at the BBQ you would have heard of the vision to sell Te Rapa, shift Counties, and build a new track at Huntly, yes, Huntly.

Speaking of BBQs, what are contributors views on a PR firm being allocated between $250,000 and $500,000 to 'sell' the undertakers vision to the masses? Their brilliant idea? To have BBQs, get everyone lubricated so that they "will be in a more convivial and receptive mood". Brilliant stuff.

Settle petal, there is no need to rant on yourself. I presume you have a bee in your bonnet bigger than the one I have about Section 16.

The reason I have not instead addressed the issue of rationalisation is because I am not in a position to address everything - particularly when I have not even considered what rationalisation plans are afoot.

A question for you though, as I am interested. Is some rationlisation something that would not happen regardless?

And, I don't mean specifically Te Rapa, because if I was to turn my attention to those issues, on the face of it, I would need a lot of convincing that Te Rapa with its better track surface these days (suiting both owners and punters) would be first on the block anyway.

And, in case you are wondering, I am not currently one side or the other re the announced tri-code governance as the detail will be everything.

If it allows codes to do their own thing with their own money (ie Section 16 comes back into it if you get my point) then a savings through sharing admin overheads is all good.

But I didn't necessarily equate that to any particular rationalisation approach, so you know more than I do on that one.

[Stig 0]

Settle petal, there is no need to rant on yourself. I presume you have a bee in your bonnet bigger than the one I have about Section 16.

The reason I have not instead addressed the issue of rationalisation is because I am not in a position to address everything - particularly when I have not even considered what rationalisation plans are afoot.

A question for you though, as I am interested. Is some rationlisation something that would not happen regardless?

And, I don't mean specifically Te Rapa, because if I was to turn my attention to those issues, on the face of it, I would need a lot of convincing that Te Rapa with its better track surface these days (suiting both owners and punters) would be first on the block anyway.

And, in case you are wondering, I am not currently one side or the other re the announced tri-code governance as the detail will be everything.

If it allows codes to do their own thing with their own money (ie Section 16 comes back into it if you get my point) then a savings through sharing admin overheads is all good.

But I didn't necessarily equate that to any particular rationalisation approach, so you know more than I do on that one.

I certainly do Don, and I can assure you that one of the Taskforce members most eloquently spoke, perhaps after getting too lubricated himself, as to his vision to close and sell Te Rapa. For those that think that the assets belong to the members think again, that can be altered with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps the Stratford wombles might not have been so far off the mark with a protective Trust.

You didn't respond in respect of the money being spent on PR firms and BBQs Don?

Another pearl from the Taskforce members, "we only need 12 tracks in New Zealand". No thought as to where the product is to be trained?

I've read the report completely, never before have I seen a report so lacking in detail accompanied by so much waffle.

[The Apprentice 1]

the land at Huntly???

[Don Frampton 1]

I certainly do Don, and I can assure you that one of the Taskforce members most eloquently spoke, perhaps after getting too lubricated himself, as to his vision to close and sell Te Rapa. For those that think that the assets belong to the members think again, that can be altered with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps the Stratford wombles might not have been so far off the mark with a protective Trust.

You didn't respond in respect of the money being spent on PR firms and BBQs Don?

Another pearl from the Taskforce members, "we only need 12 tracks in New Zealand". No thought as to where the product is to be trained?

I've read the report completely, never before have I seen a report so lacking in detail accompanied by so much waffle.

Well ,yes, I agree cease money being spent on PR firms and BBQs immediately. There is part of the stakes deficit explained right away.

And, even though I have not given any time to the rationalisation question, one of the dangers with too much power in the hands of bean-counter types (without grass-root experience) is they sometimes lack common sense.

ie, they fail to see that while on the one hand some rationalisation might offer some benefits, wholesale closing of tracks for good is not necessarily the way to go.

Reason being you need both feeder and low level meetings (and thus low on-course facilities) still sprinkled around NZ to enable the product to be put to the wider population. And, as you mention, training facilities and trial facilities are also an issue.

Right now the number of times I can't get my horse to the races because of trials being cancelled or trials not run over long enough distances is just not funny.

I hope you see Stig, we are not necessarily poles apart just because I am additionally concerned by how much Section 16 has to answer for the shortfall in funding to our code.

Such shortfall makes everyone look at these other things which in comparison to the money flows we would gain if that part of the Racing Act was sorted out, is relatively minor and in some cases unnecessary.

[wobbly 76]

attempting to marry saturation racing with asset rationalisation is the work of warped accountants...not visionary leaders

Sanitised sand track racing in clean green NZ, here we come...but at least the numbers will stack up

[lotsofggs 2]

For what reason would Te rapa be closed? Sorry, I am new to racing horses & I think given Te Rapa's fantastic location in a city would have meant if anything that a major upgrade of the buildings & better corporate hosting would have been a better way to go. If you want to go to the races have a good time & drink, there is a hotel within walking distance etc. I actually have thought that I don't know why they dont follow Ellerslie's lead & put on twilight meetings midweek during the summer period & encourage more families. Dont know much about the politics behind all this proposal but just my thought on the comments made re Te Rapa.

[Stig 0]

Well ,yes, I agree cease money being spent on PR firms and BBQs immediately. There is part of the stakes deficit explained right away.

And, even though I have not given any time to the rationalisation question, one of the dangers with too much power in the hands of bean-counter types (without grass-root experience) is they sometimes lack common sense.

ie, they fail to see that while on the one hand some rationalisation might offer some benefits, wholesale closing of tracks for good is not necessarily the way to go.

Reason being you need both feeder and low level meetings (and thus low on-course facilities) still sprinkled around NZ to enable the product to be put to the wider population. And, as you mention, training facilities and trial facilities are also an issue.

Right now the number of times I can't get my horse to the races because of trials being cancelled or trials not run over long enough distances is just not funny.

I hope you see Stig, we are not necessarily poles apart just because I am additionally concerned by how much Section 16 has to answer for the shortfall in funding to our code.

Such shortfall makes everyone look at these other things which in comparison to the money flows we would gain if that part of the Racing Act was sorted out, is relatively minor and in some cases unnecessary.

We are not poles apart, we share the same interests, racing and punting, you probably more succesful at the latter than me. We won't debate Section 16, thats a sideshow and you are set in concrete anyway.

I thought there would have been more robust discussion on venues closing, only having 12, thats a lot of closures, and the 12 is a direct comment from the top.

[Don Frampton 1]

We are not poles apart....

....I thought there would have been more robust discussion on venues closing, only having 12, thats a lot of closures, and the 12 is a direct comment from the top.

I can't argue with that.

[Freda 0]

If you had been at the BBQ you would have heard of the vision to sell Te Rapa, shift Counties, and build a new track at Huntly, yes, Huntly.

\? Their brilliant idea? To have BBQs, get everyone lubricated so that they "will be in a more convivial and receptive mood". Brilliant stuff.

What?

Can you elaborate?

[eljay 1,719]

No doubt Stratford top of the list

[Daveski 13]

No doubt Stratford top of the list

May be not!

For those that aren't full up to date, there is reference to $4m dollars in savings from club operations:

The adoption of a one industry approach will lead to additional savings in how the industry

organises the delivery of its product, i.e. regional and club costs. The Taskforce expects this

to achieve ongoing savings of at least $4 million a year.

Buried deep in the report at almost the very end of the appendices is the following:

A review of the current administrative structure of the industry at

NZRB and Code level also raises the question of whether such

examination should be extended further. The above sections have

suggested savings and efficiencies are available to the industry by

merging the responsibilities of the Industry administrative

structures.

Club operating expenses collated from 2007/2008 club financial

statements totalled $44 million (including depreciation) across all

three Codes, as summarised below:

The Taskforce is satisfied that an estimated savings of at least

$4.0 million per annum could be achieved by more innovatively

approaching the administration of product delivery.

No details of how or where the savings could potentially come from are provided.

[berleybag 0]

by making the new c.e.o. redundant.

[John Clydesdale 229]

What cornflake came up with that suggestion?

You take the mountain to Mohammed, not try and take Mohammed to Huntly.

The person who suggests that has the IQ of a bent and unusable paperclip!

[Rockhead 0]

I certainly do Don, and I can assure you that one of the Taskforce members most eloquently spoke, perhaps after getting too lubricated himself, as to his vision to close and sell Te Rapa. For those that think that the assets belong to the members think again, that can be altered with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps the Stratford wombles might not have been so far off the mark with a protective Trust.

You didn't respond in respect of the money being spent on PR firms and BBQs Don?

Another pearl from the Taskforce members, "we only need 12 tracks in New Zealand". No thought as to where the product is to be trained?

I've read the report completely, never before have I seen a report so lacking in detail accompanied by so much waffle.

Are the comments on Te Rapa and 12 tracks written down in a document? If it has come from a lubricating session at a BBQ, I would treat as reliable as a politican telling the truth.