PR Firms advice to Thoroughbred Racing

[Don Frampton 1]

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.]

Well I certainly wouldn't be expecting to call you.

Your contribution to any thread (for or against, come to that) is zero.

[wobbly 76]

Blue fighter,

The Racing Act allowed RB to step outside a set funding model.

The wording was simple but the implications were massive.

RB have been skimming and accrueing at will to fund RB expansion and wagering initiatives (most of which have been a step forward, granted)

Thoroughbred has major infrastructure issues. TR have been told to go back to the clubs and fund from within, which of course is 100-1 and drifting.

Whilst I support cross-code assistance and a united RACING industry...we must never forget - the TAB, RB, Harness and dogs all evolved out of the average kiwi's love of thoroughbred racing.

Yet now that it's past wealth has caught up with it, and is on the back foot, thoroughbred are now cut adrift to "sort out your own house".

Yes racing had to break down it's introverted governance of yester-year.

Just seems we have listed the ship too far the other way...and thoroughbred is copping it hardest

[Don Frampton 1]

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.

Not at all ludicrous Stig.

NZ owners, overall, loose money buying and racing thoroughbreds, FACT.

NZ owners, through putting on that product at high cost to themselves, creat a code betting appeal.

As a result the betting herd is successfully wooed towards the thoroughbred code (more than any other code).

Such code following then does not necessarily differentiate between local and overseas incoming product (it is simply the code that they have been induced to follow and favour).

Apart from any other breeding, selling or watching NZ horses racing in Aus arguments, the above alone explains our direct linkage to same-code product (a linkage that other codes do not have to our code, nor do their owners afford it).

Now add the fact that owners are not paid broadcasting rights for using their product, then, they should instead at least be assured that no other codes can spin off on their product in any way at all.

Also add the fact that when a same code product is beamed into NZ, it has a greater competitive affect on a same-code meeting than a different code (disproportionately to TBs, it also reduces thoroughbred on-course attendances - because in driving home from the races one misses a good part of the Aussie action, so it's easier not to go or to leave early).

And given TB incoming product has much higher betting appeal than other code incoming product, the effect upon the local TB code is greater than the same effect on other codes.

But any which way you look at it, the complexities are such that the only true way to ensure their are no cross-code subsidies, is to have each code benefitting on a code-specific basis.

That way there is a greater chance that everything comes out in the wash to automatically and properly compensate the true losers on the day.

[John Clydesdale 229]

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?

The formula submitted was to reflect code specific betting. You may or may not recall that prior to the Racing Act change the broadcast of offshore betting product was primarily TB based. At that time Jim Wakefield I'm sure recognised that HR needed to get a slice of that action when the Act was being reviewed. He stated that HR would not support the Act changing unless Section 16 was implemented. A very strategic and successful move. Blind Freddy could see the result of such a resolution, but then again TR have been that way (blind) for some decades. We breeders almost had enough support with the trainers, but the owners were completely rudderless at that time, (still are) and they could not provide support when required.

[Don Frampton 1]

The formula submitted was to reflect code specific betting. You may or may not recall that prior to the Racing Act change the broadcast of offshore betting product was primarily TB based. At that time Jim Wakefield I'm sure recognised that HR needed to get a slice of that action when the Act was being reviewed. He stated that HR would not support the Act changing unless Section 16 was implemented. A very strategic and successful move. Blind Freddy could see the result of such a resolution, but then again TR have been that way (blind) for some decades. We breeders almost had enough support with the trainers, but the owners were completely rudderless at that time, (still are) and they could not provide support when required.

Some good points.

And you are right in that the owners have never galvanised themselves into a political force.

If the inadequacies of Section 16 are not addressed by the NZRB, I am sure in time that will change.

Owners will form a representative group and do the business for them. Because as I said earlier, no one can force owners to keep providing product while they are being shafted.

And we all saw what happened when the Jockeys in Aus withdrew their services over silly and arrogantly conceived whip rules which required them to be mathematicians while riding a horse to the line (and with a padded whip anyway) - a record turaround from a Feb next year meeting, to resolution within days.

You see at the end of the day, the tax gathers still want to keep on gathering tax from us just as much as they do from similar sized industries like the Wine or Fish industries.

The only difference is, unlike those industries, owners across the board can't claim their very substantial losses each year incurred in producing the revenue that they tax.

And, to add injury to insult, we even get whacked GST on a trainer or jockey's share of the pie as if we are paying them for a service. What nonsense, its stakes they earn directly from the pie which we can't even prior touch.

What a disaster our game is with ineffectual leadership representing our TB as a whole.

[Nerula 1,403]

You say owners are rudderless and need politicising. I am fairly much a "johnny come lately" in owners affairs (2 years). However I can advise you that as of now NZTROF has taken over the existing owner associations databases and with assistance of NZTR will seek increased owner membership and provide better information streams..

The election of the Owners NZTR rep for the next two years will be held soon. I understand there will will be a contest.

The previous situation resulted in parochial outcomes, where as an example one major association opted out, so I appreciate your preconception.

I am a delegate for Auckland owners and advise that our Association Committee take there duties seriously and act with diligence. Neil Miller

[Don Frampton 1]

You say owners are rudderless and need politicising. I am fairly much a "johnny come lately" in owners affairs (2 years). However I can advise you that as of now NZTROF has taken over the existing owner associations databases and with assistance of NZTR will seek increased owner membership and provide better information streams..

The election of the Owners NZTR rep for the next two years will be held soon. I understand there will will be a contest.

The previous situation resulted in parochial outcomes, where as an example one major association opted out, so I appreciate your preconception.

I am a delegate for Auckland owners and advise that our Association Committee take there duties seriously and act with diligence. Neil Miller

I understand where you are coming from.

However the only way that that particular organisation could be the one I am thinking of, is if they were given a mandate by owners to represent owners in a ruthlessly political way, for a ruthlessly short period of time, to get things acreoss the line.

Currently that body is not aiming to represent owners in that fashion and so it may take the formation of another group with a much more narrow focus to achieve the sort of earth-shattering outcome now needed.

[Stig 0]

Not at all ludicrous Stig.

NZ owners, overall, loose money buying and racing thoroughbreds, FACT.

NZ owners, through putting on that product at high cost to themselves, creat a code betting appeal.

As a result the betting herd is successfully wooed towards the thoroughbred code (more than any other code).

Such code following then does not necessarily differentiate between local and overseas incoming product (it is simply the code that they have been induced to follow and favour).

Apart from any other breeding, selling or watching NZ horses racing in Aus arguments, the above alone explains our direct linkage to same-code product (a linkage that other codes do not have to our code, nor do their owners afford it).

Now add the fact that owners are not paid broadcasting rights for using their product, then, they should instead at least be assured that no other codes can spin off on their product in any way at all.

Also add the fact that when a same code product is beamed into NZ, it has a greater competitive affect on a same-code meeting than a different code (disproportionately to TBs, it also reduces thoroughbred on-course attendances - because in driving home from the races one misses a good part of the Aussie action, so it's easier not to go or to leave early).

And given TB incoming product has much higher betting appeal than other code incoming product, the effect upon the local TB code is greater than the same effect on other codes.

But any which way you look at it, the complexities are such that the only true way to ensure their are no cross-code subsidies, is to have each code benefitting on a code-specific basis.

That way there is a greater chance that everything comes out in the wash to automatically and properly compensate the true losers on the day.

Such an inadequate and biased post that it is pointless to debate. Suffice to say that it appears you want Saturdays, plum dates plus overseas coverage and betting.

You seem to be of the understanding that if harness wanted Saturdays that they would have to just be in addition to the thoroughbreds that currently have that market, the same with plum dates and overseas product. No Don, plum dates would have to be divvied up (do you want Boxing Day or New Years Day) between the major clubs, your code would have to take their share of Tuesdays, not so palatable now?

You would be a great Treaty of Waitangi rep, you sell something but still want to have its earnings. I'm off to see my mate across the road, I grow asparagus and I've had a bad year, he grows some too, so I'm entitled to a share of his profits

[Kloppite 315]

and properly compensate the true losers on the day.

Good to see you have learnt to spell "loser". At least now your CV will be correct.

NZ owners, overall, loose money buying and racing thoroughbreds

Now you just need to work on the verb form.

Such an inadequate and biased post that it is pointless to debate

Never a truer word Stig. Unfortunately took me far too long to figure this out.

[Don Frampton 1]

See my comments below interspersed within your post.

Such an inadequate and biased post that it is pointless to debate. GIVEN YOU ARE BEING SO CRITICAL, ARE YOU SURE IT'S NOT YOU WHO FEELS INADEQUATE BECAUSE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION QUITE LOGICALLY AND YOU CAN'T THINK HOW TO DEBATE IT FURTHER?

Suffice to say that it appears you want Saturdays, YES. plum dates YES plus overseas coverage and betting. YES. AND YOUR POINT IS?

You seem to be of the understanding that if harness wanted Saturdays that they would have to just be in addition to the thoroughbreds that currently have that market, YES, AND I PRESUME YOUR POINT IS THAT HARNESS ARE AFRAID TO COMPETE FOR THE PUNTER'S ATTENTION?

the same with plum dates YES AND DITTO COMMENT AS ABOVE.

and overseas product. FOR OUR CODE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, BUT YOU CAN HAVE ALL YOUR OTHER CODE INCOME STREAMS SO ALL IS FAIR.

No Don, plum dates would have to be divvied up (do you want Boxing Day or New Years Day) between the major clubs, WE WANT BOTH AND WITH TWO TV CHANNELS AND EVERYONE ABLE TO COMPETE, WHY NOT?

your code would have to take their share of Tuesdays, IF WE OR YOUR CODE OR BOTH OF US THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD FOR US, WHY NOT?

not so palatable now? YOUR POINT IS MISSED.

You would be a great Treaty of Waitangi rep, you sell something but still want to have its earnings. CAN'T FOLLOW YOUR DRIFT THERE.

I'm off to see my mate across the road, I grow asparagus and I've had a bad year, he grows some too, so I'm entitled to a share of his profits WELL YES I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW YOU HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO THE PRIVELEGES BESTOWED UPON YOU UNDER SECTION 16 AND NOW THINK A HANDOUT APPROACH IS THE WAY TO GO. LET YOUR MATE PAY THE BILLS AND DO ALL THE HARD WORK AND THEN YOU GO AND PINCH PART OF HIS PRODUCE!!

WHATEVER IDEAS YOU HAVE, THEY BELONG WITH THE RUSSIA OF OLD.

[Don Frampton 1]

Good to see you have learnt to spell "loser". At least now your CV will be correct.

Now you just need to work on the verb form.

Never a truer word Stig. Unfortunately took me far too long to figure this out.

I see you have reverted back to your nitpicking personality.

[Stig 0]

Such an inadequate and biased post that it is pointless to debate. GIVEN YOU ARE BEING SO CRITICAL, ARE YOU SURE IT'S NOT YOU WHO FEELS INADEQUATE BECAUSE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION QUITE LOGICALLY AND YOU CAN'T THINK HOW TO DEBATE IT FURTHER?

Suffice to say that it appears you want Saturdays, YES. plum dates YES plus overseas coverage and betting. YES. AND YOUR POINT IS?

You seem to be of the understanding that if harness wanted Saturdays that they would have to just be in addition to the thoroughbreds that currently have that market, YES, AND I PRESUME YOUR POINT IS THAT HARNESS ARE AFRAID TO COMPETE FOR THE PUNTER'S ATTENTION?

the same with plum dates YES AND DITTO COMMENT AS ABOVE.

and overseas product. FOR OUR CODE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, BUT YOU CAN HAVE ALL YOUR OTHER CODE INCOME STREAMS SO ALL IS FAIR.

No Don, plum dates would have to be divvied up (do you want Boxing Day or New Years Day) between the major clubs, WE WANT BOTH AND WITH TWO TV CHANNELS AND EVERYONE ABLE TO COMPETE, WHY NOT?

your code would have to take their share of Tuesdays, IF WE OR YOUR CODE OR BOTH OF US THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD FOR US, WHY NOT?

not so palatable now? YOUR POINT IS MISSED.

You would be a great Treaty of Waitangi rep, you sell something but still want to have its earnings. CAN'T FOLLOW YOUR DRIFT THERE.

I'm off to see my mate across the road, I grow asparagus and I've had a bad year, he grows some too, so I'm entitled to a share of his profits WELL YES I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW YOU HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO THE PRIVELEGES BESTOWED UPON YOU UNDER SECTION 16 AND NOW THINK A HANDOUT APPROACH IS THE WAY TO GO. LET YOUR MATE PAY THE BILLS AND DO ALL THE HARD WORK AND THEN YOU GO AND PINCH PART OF HIS PRODUCE!!

WHATEVER IDEAS YOU HAVE, THEY BELONG WITH THE RUSSIA OF OLD.

Don, calm down old chap, how many meetings in New Zealand on a Saturday can be serviced, do you think there is enough tote operators to say service Addington and Riccarton at the same time? Of course not.

The problem isn't Section 16, your problem is incompetant leadership at the moment, focus on that

[Don Frampton 1]

Don, calm down old chap, how many meetings in New Zealand on a Saturday can be serviced, do you think there is enough tote operators to say service Addington and Riccarton at the same time? Of course not.

The problem isn't Section 16, your problem is incompetant leadership at the moment, focus on that

Nothing to do with Tote operators.

Besides, with on-course turnovers being as they are, that will be the easiest thing to fix.

Section 16. is what is exposing the cracks on everything. You focus on that.

[Theysay 0]

I am an avid follower of Race Cafe and the Thoroughbred Code. Your postings that immediately preceded this one are as factual, honest and to the point as any that I have seen posted on here for months.

Why are there not more out there willing to stop Stiassny, Sutherland and Sergent in their tracks before it all really does turn to S....T?

[ Funny how the three names all start with S ]

respect.