.7 nominations for $200000 race at Otaki.

[mikenz 1,088]

That isn't really good .

Just looked again,I think there is 5 in another.

[mckenzie 607]

The G1 programme in NZ needs to be revamped. We have far too many over the 1600-2000m distance spread from September to March scattered around with no logical planning behind their placement.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

2 minutes ago, mckenzie said:

The G1 programme in NZ needs to be revamped. We have far too many over the 1600-2000m distance spread from September to March scattered around with no logical planning behind their placement.

Totally correct. No pattern whatsoever. This Otaki Group 1 meeting has long been an embarrassment. I can't even remember where the G1 came from.. It isn't a traditional race in the NZ pattern; not that there is any logical pattern to our G1 racing.

[mckenzie 607]

2 minutes ago, We're Doomed said:

Totally correct. No pattern whatsoever. This Otaki Group 1 meeting has long been an embarrassment. I can't even remember where the G1 came from.. It isn't a traditional race in the NZ pattern; not that there is any logical pattern to our G1 racing.

It was changed from 1400m to 1600m in 2006. So the central districts has the Captain Cook in December, the Thorndon in January and this race in February all over 1600m.

The Zabeel Classic, Herbie Dyke and NZ Stakes, all 2000m and spaced over a ten week period are just as poorly programmed.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

10 minutes ago, mckenzie said:

It was changed from 1400m to 1600m in 2006. So the central districts has the Captain Cook in December, the Thorndon in January and this race in February all over 1600m.

The Zabeel Classic, Herbie Dyke and NZ Stakes, all 2000m and spaced over a ten week period are just as poorly programmed.

That Captain Cook must be the most travelled race in NZ. I think it used to be in March. Pretty sure I was there the year The Twinkle beat Mun Lee. Then it moved to October I think, but of course aways wet then, now Dec, which used to be a very low key meeting. To be honest the Captain Cook and the Otaki race could probably disappear and no one would notice.

[Gruff 2,790]

2 hours ago, mikenz said:

That isn't really good .

Just looked again,I think there is 5 in another.

Hey if you had a runner in youd be pretty stoked 

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

There are no horses going through the grades in NZ, if you win a maiden and r65 you are about $60K plus in the hole (excluding purchase price).  Your whole plan is the sell somewhere along the line. If not sold you can’t carry on. 
 

Make matters worse the NZTR’s not programming enough maidens, so horses costing more to stay in training to get a run. 
 

We use to have small fields in open class racing. So NZTR removed r82 races, make a r75 horse open class. Now our r74 races are very thin (and r65 getting thinner like the old r74). The next solution will be to remove r74s!!!  It’s crazy, make maidens and r65 a minimum of $25k and a few more horses stay around. 
 

Without syndicated horses (generally not sold) we would have no horses above r65!!!

[mr_gee 416]

like  a mate said we just simply dont have the horses past  rating 85   open that are good enough   hence why likes of melody belle can came win at all distance   wait till probbeel n  her go and  watch group one races crumble  

 

 

[stodge 1,939]

To what extent (if any) does the NZ Pattern coincide with the Aussie Pattern?

Up here, the European Pattern includes Ireland, the UK and France and dictates which races get the Group 1 tag.

We go on a lot about the "story" of the season and that's reflected across the divisions - as an example, the older stayers have the Group 2 Henry II or the Group 2 Yorkshire Cup as "trials" for the Ascot Gold Cup in mid June. From there, it's to Goodwood in late July for the Goodwood Cup, then to Doncaster in early September for their Cup and finally the Stayers on Champions Day which is a Group 2 because the Cadran is a Group 1.

Does not the NZ Group 1 season have a pattern of races for each group? I think it's amazing there's such a huge gap between the Guineas and the Derby/Oaks - over here, it's 4-5 weeks.

[chevy86 2,704]

32 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

 It’s crazy, make maidens and r65 a minimum of $25k and a few more horses stay around. 
 

 

Totally agree. They do it in Oz on non-feature days where the stakes for all races are the same. Horses at all levels cost about the same to train and sustain so why the stakes discrepancy between races? And small fields that higher grades attract must surely impact turnover .

[We're Doomed 4,855]

1 hour ago, shaneMcAlister said:

There are no horses going through the grades in NZ, if you win a maiden and r65 you are about $60K plus in the hole (excluding purchase price).  Your whole plan is the sell somewhere along the line. If not sold you can’t carry on. 
 

Make matters worse the NZTR’s not programming enough maidens, so horses costing more to stay in training to get a run. 
 

We use to have small fields in open class racing. So NZTR removed r82 races, make a r75 horse open class. Now our r74 races are very thin (and r65 getting thinner like the old r74). The next solution will be to remove r74s!!!  It’s crazy, make maidens and r65 a minimum of $25k and a few more horses stay around. 
 

Without syndicated horses (generally not sold) we would have no horses above r65!!!

To be totally honest some pretty ordinary horses are getting to race for better stakes than they ever have, but it isn't helping field sizes. I think all four 65s and 74s at Otaki have 11 noms, which is pretty light for $25,000 and $27,500 stakes. Even the "open" race for $32,500 has only seven noms. In the SI a $25,000 rating 65 would have six ballots and others eliminated.

The problems are very much structural and not simply stakes related. I haven't seen a single sign that anything is being done to address any of the structural problems. Personally, I'm not a big fan of taking quite substantial amounts of money off the placegetters to subsidise the horse who runs last.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

54 minutes ago, stodge said:

 

Does not the NZ Group 1 season have a pattern of races for each group? I think it's amazing there's such a huge gap between the Guineas and the Derby/Oaks - over here, it's 4-5 weeks.

Over here clubs move races on a whim, notably Auckland and Wellington. Our Guineas, Oaks, Derby etc are not the equivalent of their British counterparts. Here they act as lead in races to the real races in Australia, so to some extent fit around the pattern of those races.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

All the talk about Otaki, but that Matamata Breeders Stakes is not flash. Thank god for the Southerner. Not the race it used to be. Group 2? Seriously?

[mikenz 1,088]

I see Otaki has a maiden race,only 12 in that,last night I noticed only 5 noms for open handicap yet 7 I think in the field,do they shift the odd one over from another race,does anybody know?

Maybe one was canned.

[tasman man 742]

Overall those Matamata fields look pretty good...........often those 2 x year old races very low on numbers.

As for Otaki feature , sure 7 starters far too light but overall the quality pretty good by our current and recent standards.

All 7 are group performing horses and the favourite Avantage is right up there with our best performing horses of any era .

IMO.

Start diluting the Group races much more and trickling more down to the battlers will further discourage owners from racing in NZ.

But Maiden stakes need an increase ...Ive taken it to my clubs AGM on at least 2 x occasions and have yet got any reasonable explanation.

[Peter R S 411]

2 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of taking quite substantial amounts of money off the placegetters to subsidise the horse who runs last.

Well said, I’m with you on that one. The NZTROF of which I’m a member tells me they are pushing for change but it has so far fallen on deaf ears it would seem.

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

2 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

Personally, I'm not a big fan of taking quite substantial amounts of money off the placegetters to subsidise the horse who runs last.

The NZTR love this, because this means if there are only 11 runners in a $10K race they only pay out $9.4K.  Average field sizes are just over 11 so they are making massive savings!!  This is so wrong, this should be distributed to the owners who pay for the show!!!!

[mikenz 1,088]

22 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

The NZTR love this, because this means if there are only 11 runners in a $10K race they only pay out $9.4K.  Average field sizes are just over 11 so they are making massive savings!!  This is so wrong, this should be distributed to the owners who pay for the show!!!!

The harness heirachy  love those smaller fields,every less starter less cost,I I imagine the gallops the same, maybe though on the flip side there is a reason for the smaller fields,I wonder if anybody can work it out.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

24 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

The NZTR love this, because this means if there are only 11 runners in a $10K race they only pay out $9.4K.  Average field sizes are just over 11 so they are making massive savings!!  This is so wrong, this should be distributed to the owners who pay for the show!!!!

Just in case some people don't realise, under the old stakes distribution a $100,000 race would have been paid out $65,000, $20,000, $10,000, $5,000. Under the new regime it is paid out $54,000, $17,500, $8,500, $5,000. For some reason the 4th placegetter does well under this system: no idea why, I have always just assumed the person who devised it was too thick to know any better. So a current day $100,000 race is equivalent to an $83,000 race in years gone by. So effectively stakes have dropped by 17%.

I always feel sorry for the poor bugger who runs last in a 15 horse race. Whoever devised the new system obviously forgot some races have more than 14 runners, there is no other explanation for it.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

10 minutes ago, mikenz said:

The harness heirachy  love those smaller fields,every less starter less cost,I I imagine the gallops the same, maybe though on the flip side there is a reason for the smaller fields,I wonder if anybody can work it out.

To give harness racing credit they actually increase the advertised stake if there are more than 12 starters and pay out extra money. Gallops never pay further back than 14. So the last four horses home in an 18 horse Auckland galloping Cup get nothing, whereas the last horse home in a 14 horse race gets a payout. Go figure.

Also harness racing in their results list the actual stakes paid out, not the advertised stake. In that Otaki race for instance the total stake paid out will be no more than $179,000, less if there is a scratching, but it is advertised as a $200,000 race, and the results will say it was a $200,000 race. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[tasman man 742]

23 minutes ago, shaneMcAlister said:

The NZTR love this, because this means if there are only 11 runners in a $10K race they only pay out $9.4K.  Average field sizes are just over 11 so they are making massive savings!!  This is so wrong, this should be distributed to the owners who pay for the show!!!!

This is a separate issue.....

1. Should there be an 'appearance' stake for all runners ......this reduces stake to winner and placed horses.

2. Should monies not paid out because of less starters be held back or paid out to starters.

I actually favour the current system of most starters getting a stake......Australia and Singapore do it so must have some merit. Possibly keeps field size higher which helps betting figures . Betting pays for stakes.Singapore dont pay to horse finishing last !

I did a quick check of Avondale Cup payout last weekend compared to 2011 and 2008.Stake gone nowhere !....$100k

Last week Robusto got $54k for first , $ 17.5k for second etc.5th to 14th got $1500...4 missed out

2011 winner got $60k ,then $19.5 .......5th got $2.5k then 6th to 13th got $1k.....7 missed out

2008 winner got $62 k , then $20k....5th got $2.5k then rest missed out

As to NZTR loving the savings from small fields ....surely it is these funds that enable them to put on extra races when the nominations demand it !

There one week ,gone the next.

If my horse wins a race with a $7k winning purse , I dont expect it to become $7.3k cos it was a small field !

JMO

[Huey 2,037]

4 minutes ago, tasman man said:

This is a separate issue.....

1. Should there be an 'appearance' stake for all runners ......this reduces stake to winner and placed horses.

2. Should monies not paid out because of less starters be held back or paid out to starters.

I actually favour the current system of most starters getting a stake......Australia and Singapore do it so must have some merit. Possibly keeps field size higher which helps betting figures . Betting pays for stakes.Singapore dont pay to horse finishing last !

I did a quick check of Avondale Cup payout last weekend compared to 2011 and 2008.Stake gone nowhere !....$100k

Last week Robusto got $54k for first , $ 17.5k for second etc.5th to 14th got $1500...4 missed out

2011 winner got $60k ,then $19.5 .......5th got $2.5k then 6th to 13th got $1k.....7 missed out

2008 winner got $62 k , then $20k....5th got $2.5k then rest missed out

As to NZTR loving the savings from small fields ....surely it is these funds that enable them to put on extra races when the nominations demand it !

There one week ,gone the next.

If my horse wins a race with a $7k winning purse , I dont expect it to become $7.3k cos it was a small field !

JMO

Well there is one thing you and I can agree on.

But shouldn't the extra races that are put on be self funding , after all they are mostly only $10k races , surely there is something wrong if we can't fund the $10k through betting on the race or as part of the meeting?

[Huey 2,037]

1 hour ago, Peter R S said:

Well said, I’m with you on that one. The NZTROF of which I’m a member tells me they are pushing for change but it has so far fallen on deaf ears it would seem.

Perhaps the distribution needs to be sorted , but I see nothing wrong with the last horse getting some form of compensation in this case what appears to be a starters fee that pays for the jockey, what however does need looking at is why on a Saturday that amount needs to be be twice or even 3 x that amount for what is effectively a starters fee.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

2 minutes ago, Huey said:

Perhaps the distribution needs to be sorted , but I see nothing wrong with the last horse getting some form of compensation in this case what appears to be a starters fee that pays for the jockey, what however does need looking at is why on a Saturday that amount needs to be be twice or even 3 x that amount for what is effectively a starters fee.

So many sensible points here. There is no logical reason why appearance fees should differ widely from race to race. Every aspect of this system is indicative of the fact it was devised by someone who has no idea. It seems extraordinary that it got right through the system without someone pointing out it was flawed. In any other business it would have been sent back to the person who devised it and he would have been told to get it right next time.

[shaneMcAlister 1,425]

i would like to see no noms/acceptance/entry fees for maidens and r65s and just pay first 3!
 

First $8k (two months training) 2nd $4k (one months training) and 3rd $2k (half a months training). Maybe $500 for 4th and 5th. $15k total stakes.