PR Firms advice to Thoroughbred Racing

[Don Frampton 1]

given your codes savings were only $100k , what do you can the SO CALLED $11M, surely a big fat subsidy for you then?

Given that is a completely unrelated topic which I have not yet formed a fixed opinion on, I can not answer you.

However, it does prove you don't know what we have been talking about.

[Stig 0]

Given that is a completely unrelated topic which I have not yet formed a fixed opinion on, I can not answer you.

However, it does prove you don't know what we have been talking about.

Don, it is a pity that your fixation with Section 16 is so great that you manage to hijack most threads.

dale is quite right in that at present the funding is not based on current market share, fortunately for thoroughbreds

Lets not bother dwelling on it unless you want to start a thread of your own about it?

dale isn't on the ball about one thing, the $11m has been adjusted to $7m already

I have now read the entire report and what a pathetic document it is, no wonder there is a need to engage a PR firm to promote it, and no wonder their advice was to pour free grog down stakeholders throats before selling it, as any sane sober person would be a hard sell

This proposal will be the death knell of Sargent, he will be re-elected come January but he won't be Chairman

Heres hoping its Stiassnys swansong as well

[John Clydesdale 229]

GS has vocalised, as have his taskforce, that it's this or nothing.

I do recall that one Murray Acklin said the very same thing to the breeders when we opposed Section 16, "we had to have it or the Act would not go through", unfortunately for the code, it was just another measure of bulldozer tactics without enough backbone in the opposition.

The backbone required to stop the Oneracing thought pattern has to be a lot stronger.

If the very same raceclubs, that have their vote in January, cannot work out that this plan serves to undermine their own existance, then they need to think again. The two corporate bully boys will come visiting and try and convince them this is the future, but test their information, check their so called facts, then see the blood pressure increase from them. It will be measurable by the volume of the responses.

Guy, the plan is completely flawed and unworkable. Start again, but before you do that, get your own house in order by having true representation of the industry stakeholders. Get the balance of the Board right and then there may be some credibility ascribed to the management of our code. But maybe the first thing you should do is apologise to the other codes!

[d.burrow - Joan 224]

GS has vocalised, as have his taskforce, that it's this or nothing.

I do recall that one Murray Acklin said the very same thing to the breeders when we opposed Section 16, "we had to have it or the Act would not go through", unfortunately for the code, it was just another measure of bulldozer tactics without enough backbone in the opposition.

The backbone required to stop the Oneracing thought pattern has to be a lot stronger.

If the very same raceclubs, that have their vote in January, cannot work out that this plan serves to undermine their own existence, then they need to think again. The two corporate bully boys will come visiting and try and convince them this is the future, but test their information, check their so called facts, then see the blood pressure increase from them. It will be measurable by the volume of the responses.

Guy, the plan is completely flawed and unworkable. Start again, but before you do that, get your own house in order by having true representation of the industry stakeholders. Get the balance of the Board right and then there may be some credibility ascribed to the management of our code. But maybe the first thing you should do is apologise to the other codes!

John, you seem to have stopped the detractors in their stride with your compelling reply.

I can't believe that you have them beat just yet, however they are taking a long time trying to come up with their response!

Or are they finally seeing sense?

[Don Frampton 1]

Don, it is a pity that your fixation with Section 16 is so great that you manage to hijack most threads....

My fixation with Section 16 is because, as it is written, it represents an injustice that causes our thoroughbred code to stagnate. The City of Auck Cup on New Year's Day, $125,000 I believe - what a joke. Now there is a good example and there are plenty of others if one goes looking!!

When speaking with an unnamed person close to the NZRB and asking why Section 16 should not be changed, his opinion was effectively that the thoroughbred code can't make changes when a): the other codes don't want the change (and to me that sort of re-inforces the benefit other codes receive through the status quo continuing) and : the board independents see their role as working within the current Act (and I am left to presume they do not want to get offside with the tax collectors to whom they are responsible - which tax collectors have a much narrower focus that any injustice to any one code). Now there's an intelligent governance structure that only a nightmare could dream up. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

The assumption is it would take action at an industry level to obtain political change. To start that process, one needs groundswell of understanding in the code. Thus Stig, that explains why I will keep mentioning it so that as many owners as possible know that we have no real leadership representing our best interests the way the Racing Act is constructed (and that we are really treated little better than tax-producing fodder with about as much opportunity to grow as a foal without feed).

[Stig 0]

Try not to confuse Section 16 with the galloping codes incompetance. At present dale is right, thoroughbreds receive 64% approx of the overseas betting as opposed to their current 54% approx of domestic turnover, don't worry about whats going to happen in a year, that doesn't affect the stake for next months City of Auckland Cup does it?

The Thoroughbred codes internal incompetance is the current worry, so incompetant that they think handing over the reins to someone else is their only way out.

How is this for incompetance? The Thoroughbreds budgetted for gaming machine donations as part of their funding policy, thats right, they treated possible donations as a key income stream, the only one of the 3 codes to do so. Now they have joined the Manawatu RACE group in going cap in hand to the RIB for a bailout.

Its hard to blame the dogs for increased meetings, every time theres a gap they are asked to fill it.

[Eclipse 0]

an interesting PR side is the PR spin machine from the NZRB.

Official Press releases in 2007 and 2008 totalled 25 and 28.

This year so far,5 only press releases.

Lucky enough to make that select few, was this initiative.

Clearly the current 'policy' for issuing a Press Release is eons away from previously.

Seems a lot colder though?

[Don Frampton 1]

.

My response is within your post in CAPS below:

Start QUOTE: Try not to confuse Section 16 with the galloping codes incompetance. IT IS YOU ARE CONFUSING THE TWO, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF INCOMPETENCE.

At present dale is right, thoroughbreds receive 64% approx of the overseas betting as opposed to their current 54% approx of domestic turnover. ARE YOU SURE YOU HAVEN'T GOT THAT ALL MIXED UP A BIT? I'D SUGGEST YOU CHECK YOUR FIGURES. MY GUESS IS WE ARE FROZEN AT ABOUT 54% DOMESTIC SHARE AND EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS LIKELY DROPPED AS A RESULT OF DOGS BEING ENCOURAGED TO GROW RELATIVELY (EVEN IF AT COST ON OCCASIONS) THAT % IS USED TO SHARE A SURPLUS PIE PROBABLY 64% OF WHICH (OR MORE) IS CREATED BY THE BETTING APPEAL OF THOROUGHBREDS. AND THERE LIES THE SUBSIDY AND THE REASON THE OTHER CODES DON'T WANT TO CHANGE SECTION 16 SO THAT EVERY CODE CAN LIVE OR DIE BY THEIR OWN CODE-SPECIFIC INCOMES - AND OF COURSE MOST OF THE NZRB LEADERSHIP DON'T GIVE A TOSS SO LONG AS THEIR GRAVY TRAIN CONTINUES ON AND THE GOVERNMENT IS KEPT HAPPY COLLECTING TAXES FROM WHICHEVER CODE (WHETHER OR NOT BUGGERING THOROUGHBREDS IN THE PROCESS).

...don't worry about whats going to happen in a year, that doesn't affect the stake for next months City of Auckland Cup does it? PROBABLY NOTHING WILL FIX THAT NOW, BUT WHAT IS YOUR POINT? ARE YOU SAYING DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE YEAR AFTER AS WELL?

The Thoroughbred codes internal incompetance is the current worry, so incompetant that they think handing over the reins to someone else is their only way out. YOU MAY BE RIGHT, I HAVE ALREADY SAID I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE SMALL PRINT TO COMMENT.

How is this for incompetance? The Thoroughbreds budgetted for gaming machine donations as part of their funding policy, thats right, they treated possible donations as a key income stream, the only one of the 3 codes to do so. THE WAY THE RACING ACT IS STRUCTURED TO SHAFT THOROUGHBRED RACING, IT WOULDN'T SURPRIZE ME IF THEY INCLUDED INCOME STREAMS FROM SAUSAGE SIZZLES AS WELL.

Now they have joined the Manawatu RACE group in going cap in hand to the RIB for a bailout. WHY NOT? THAT IS THE BODY THAT HOLDS OUR FUNDS. THAT IS THE BODY THAT PUTS OUR CODE UNDER DISTRESS AND CAYSES US TO CONSIDER ALL MANNER OF SILLY THINGS. IF THE NZRB WERE DOING THERE JOB IN THE WAY I BELIEVE THEY OUGHT TO AND WE HAD CONTROL OF OUR OWN RESOURCES (NOT CONTROLLED BY EVERYONE BUT OWN OWN CODE LEADERS), WE COULD USE ALL OUR OWN CODE-SPECIFIC REVENUE STREAMS TO MAKE WHAT EVER MISTAKES WE CHOSE WITHOUT AFFECTING ANYONE ELSE AND WE WOULD HAVE NO NEED OR EXCUSE TO GO CAP IN HAND TO ANYONE. HENCE MY HATRED OF SECTION 16 AND ANY POLITICIAN WHO CONDONES IT.

Its hard to blame the dogs for increased meetings, every time theres a gap they are asked to fill it. BUT ONLY BY A BOARD THAT IS INTENT ON HELPING OTHER CODES GROW USING THE ACT AS AN EXCUSE - ALL THE WHILE ALLOWING THE DOGS TO USE THE BROADCASTING CHANNEL FAR BEYOND THEIR PROPORTIONAL SIZE SHOULD ALLOW, THUS SANTIONING THE ONGOING RAPE OF OUR CODE THROUGH A BANDAID SECTION 16 FORMULA .

end QUOTE.

[wph 49]

If TOTAL TAB turnover on ALL racing products no matter where in the world it comes from or here in NZ is lets say $1 billion and of that turnover 60% is on gallops...30% is on harness ... 10% on dogs...would it not be fairest to distribute the same %s to the codes involved.

Or is that to simplistict view??? Thoughts people??

[Don Frampton 1]

If TOTAL TAB turnover on ALL racing products no matter where in the world it comes from or here in NZ is lets say $1 billion and of that turnover 60% is on gallops...30% is on harness ... 10% on dogs...would it not be fairest to distribute the same %s to the codes involved.

Or is that to simplistict view??? Thoughts people??

Exactly, and particularly now two TV channels, if used wisely, can allow the codes to all do their thing - allowing them to GROW and push their codes (and even compete against each other if they think that will help).

Every racing jurisdiction in Aussie competes with same-code premier product every Sat. I'm only talking about competing with dissimilar codes which have lesser betting appeal.

[wobbly 76]

That simplistic formula was applied to sports bodies, via negotiation with each sport, under the Racing Act.

Therefore when England play France in a 4 Nations match...a set % of nett profit goes to the NZ Rugby Board.

Why was that not applied to the racing codes?

You have to assume there were outside influences at work, at the time.

Thoroughbred's higher cost structure pains the bean counters @ RB.

GR and HR are both cheaper 'products' for supply purposes.

Thoroughbred will therefore continue to perish under RB control.

That is why One Racing must be stopped in its tracks...and thoroughbred regain control of it's own destiny

[John Clydesdale 229]

Guys, the issue of Section 16 is one that can be resolved, in due course.

The problem confronting us at the moment is the hijack that is occurring from within our ranks of the TB Code.

One Racing is as flawed as you could believe. Just ask your own Racing Club CEO/Secretary to lose 10% of his expenses expenditure? His response will be the same, there is not 10% to lose.

Sutherland and Stiassny are in Fantasyland, they are bullying people into believing that it is the way forward. Yes, a receiver is particularly good at cashing up and closing down, but their rallying call is "this is it or nothing" is an absolute sham. There are other options, change the Board.

The NZTR Board has been inept and run secularly by selfish people for some time. How members on that board over the last 5 years, with a voting right, can say they have created good stategy and policy is a complete nonsense and misguidance of their role on that Board. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Yes, some of those existing vote holders have investments in the industry, some signficant, but it is not the sole income they rely on to live. They are club members, their loyalty is their clubs, they do not have knowledge of how the trainers in their regions are faring, how the infrastructre in the national industry is composed, and...where can the resources available be best shared. NO, they know diddly squat. You have to CHANGE the Board.

A seven member Board is required at NZTR, 1 for each region, North, Central, South to represent Clubs. Individual Board members for Jockeys, Trainers, Owners, Breeders each and the Chair is independant, appointed by the Board, but that person is not and never has been a member of a club, or any of the organisations represented at the Board table.

Guys, the challenge confronting us is to get our own Board in order, first and foremost, then look at the likes of Section 16 once the Board is sorted. Change the Board, that should be the call.

I could not believe the Board nomination of the Southern Region. The man who bullied the Section 16 through, the man who took the funding away from NZTM to put it into race stakes in Canterbury, and it did not make a blind bit of difference to the fields, and the man who.......oh well, you Southern boys have little memory, but boy you will continue to propagate the same old situation all over again.

Back on One racing, talk to your Club Manager or Secretary and ask him where he going to save 10%.......that will help you understand why Wellington HQ of racing has lost so much intellectual capital over the years. Bad judgement calls........

Don't let it happen again now!

[wobbly 76]

John,

I recall a paper put forward by sector groups and a couple of race clubs (Chris Wood was a signatory so may wish to comment) prior to the Racing Act becoming law.

It predicted the exact situation we now find ourselves in and questioned why a simple performance based funding formula was being overlooked.

All the Act achieved, despite it's architects claiming "industry efficiencies" (popular catch-cry), was to turn TR in to a mere administrative body answerable to it's lord and master - RB.

Seems to me it matters little how you structure, or who you have on, the TR Board...it now has no teeth!

Any attempts by TR to overturn the Racing Act and wrest control away from Stiassney and co would be smartly dressed up as code greed, and repelled.

As much as we all dislike consultants, the best starting point is surely to carry out a comprehensive 03-09 impact report and target the Minister with some ammo?

[Nerula 1,400]

As I am interested in owners affairs I am following this thread with interest. May I say that I find the use of CAPS to belabour a point aggravating. Accordingly I do not read that stuff. It just looks pompous and unhelpful to the discussion or argument if you will.

[John Clydesdale 229]

Wobbly

Your are right about the sector groups opposition to Sec 16, however the bully of the day, said it has to be this way or nothing. Yes, you have heard that before.

It was clear to a few of us looneys that have investments in the industry, that Jim Wakefield was outthinking Mr Acklin, but not according to Mr Acklin. So we got what we have now, total and unrefuteable evidence that it was a dumb decision.

However, back to your thought. The composition of the code boards is not as clearly defined by the Racing Act as you may think. I understand that each Board can effectively redesign their own composition, if they agree to do so themselves. Very much along the lines of how Mr Acklin wanted to quell the fire of a Dr Murray Blue, so Mr Acklin generated a seat for small clubs just for Dr Blue and there was one. Another fine decision as we have all come to see.

So I believe the Board composition can change, but off course I stand to be corrected on that one.

Credibility? Well that has to earned through efforts and substance of good governance and coupled with elements of good judgement, good strategy and have it all glued together with integrity and scrupples. Then you may get there.

So we have to start again, but another Report is a bit premature at this stage.

[sheridan 0]

If TOTAL TAB turnover on ALL racing products no matter where in the world it comes from or here in NZ is lets say $1 billion and of that turnover 60% is on gallops...30% is on harness ... 10% on dogs...would it not be fairest to distribute the same %s to the codes involved.

Or is that to simplistict view??? Thoughts people??

As I have mentioned in a previous thread The current formula was agreed to as a trade off with Harness to transfer there Saturday night permits to Thursday thereby enabling Australian racing to be made available.In addition the existing voting arrangements between the codes was put in place to avoid a code being shafted like Sargent and Co are trying to do.The first priority for the thoroughbred industry is to first look in house,flush out those with personal agendas and put stratagies in place with which they have control over.

[Don Frampton 1]

As I am interested in owners affairs I am following this thread with interest. May I say that I find the use of CAPS to belabour a point aggravating. Accordingly I do not read that stuff. It just looks pompous and unhelpful to the discussion or argument if you will.

Are you serious??

We have too many PC and precious people in the world now, so don't add to the pile.

EMPHASIS never hurt anyone so get over it, contribute if you can and move on.

[Don Frampton 1]

As I have mentioned in a previous thread The current formula was agreed to as a trade off with Harness to transfer there Saturday night permits to Thursday thereby enabling Australian racing to be made available.In addition the existing voting arrangements between the codes was put in place to avoid a code being shafted like Sargent and Co are trying to do.The first priority for the thoroughbred industry is to first look in house,flush out those with personal agendas and put stratagies in place with which they have control over.

Yes trade offs have occurred, but only in the context that the TB code have always done everything under duress.

They were (and still are) by far and away the most popular of all three codes per race and overall in terms of betting appeal. But TB is never allowed to excercise a level of control proportional to its betting appeal (even though it costs owners 10's of millions more than other codes to generate that betting appeal).

But the only excuse I ever heard for not allowing TB a better deal, was all codes were clamouring for the one TV channel.

Well that problem is now easily solvable with two TV channels. Thus there is no major impediment to scraping Section 16 and allowing codes to compete as they see fit and live by their own efforts.

The funny thing is, if they did that, overall betting would increase and ironically the overall tax take would increase even if the odd club learns its lesson along the way that working with other codes (VOLUNTARILY) to make the best of both worlds can still be advantageous.

Even if run on separate channels, I'm not so sure Harness for example would do that well in a head to head on a Sat daytime slot as they think. There is an element of bluff in that talk and I think they would soon see that some of their current night slots aren't such a bad way of gaining exclusive viewer market share afterall (ie NOT always competing with thoroughbreds can have advantages).

Regardless, with two channels, codes are more able to compete in prime time if they think that is best - but for god's sake let tham all keep their own code-specific revenues no matter where they source it from by scrapping Section 16.

My call is that if the NZRB or politicians don't do something about this, owners will eventually form a lobby group to take over the control of TB racing.

And the reason is, that they own and fund the product. Accordingly, they can withdraw the loss-making supply if they think they are being shafted through the hands of others who should be acting in their best interests (but who are not when it comes to seeking legislative change on their behalf).

In nut shell, Section 16 has to go if TB owners are going to be able to growth their industry and not worry about cross-code subsidies sucking them dry.

[Nerula 1,400]

Are you serious??

We have too many PC and precious people in the world now, so don't add to the pile.

EMPHASIS never hurt anyone so get over it, contribute if you can and move on.

Maybe its because I have a large delete button. but the use of CAPS brings to mind the phrase "he protesteth too loudly".

It may be my problem not yours, but I do exercise discretion in what I read and I wont read your CAPS.

I wonder if others are turned off too.

I dont have an opinion on the matters discussed as I am keeping an open mind.

I do believe the current governance is dysfunctional. Me PC?, sheez

[Kloppite 314]

I wonder if others are turned off too.

:y:

[Don Frampton 1]

Maybe its because I have a large delete button. but the use of CAPS brings to mind the phrase "he protesteth too loudly".

It may be my problem not yours, but I do exercise discretion in what I read and I wont read your CAPS.

I wonder if others are turned off too.

I dont have an opinion on the matters discussed as I am keeping an open mind.

I do believe the current governance is dysfunctional. Me PC?, sheez

As I say don't be so delicate.

Emphasis is just that among lower case. I would use bold or italic if only I could use my confounded computer better.

Anyway, you can tell if someone is shouting at you if that is your concern.

As for turning you off, I'd rather that than the opposite.

[Don Frampton 1]

:y: ]

I thought you'd turned yourself off.

[blue fighter 0]

All the Act achieved' date=' despite it's architects claiming "industry efficiencies" (popular catch-cry), was to turn TR in to a mere administrative body answerable to it's lord and master - RB.[/quote']

Wobbly, given that the previous RIB had the power to alter the Rules of the codes, which the RB does not, can you elaborate on what you mean by lord and master?

John, given that Section 16 meant an increase in funding for thoroughbreds over the RIB policy, did the breeders put forward an alternative formula?

[Stephen Harris 0]

It looks like Don is about to engulfed by a wall of intelligence again.

Time to call in your trusty eunich's Don in Goodlobster and the Torch to help you out.

[Stig 0]

.

And the reason is, that they own and fund the product. .

This is a ludicrous statement Don. You don't own the Australian product and you certainly don't fund it. At best your link is tenuous and limited to having bred some of the product which you then sold.