-
Available Subscriptions
The Rest of the World
81,634 topics in this forum
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 107 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 171 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 126 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 122 views
-
-
- Journalists
The Week in Review: With Eclipse Ballots Mailed Out in Mid-December, Was Taiba at Disadvantage?
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 112 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 116 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 152 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 132 views
-
-
- Journalists
12 Questions: Richard Knight
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 125 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 126 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 134 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 132 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 125 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 128 views
-
-
- Journalists
Lady T Delivers in Attention-Grabbing Las Flores
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 100 views
-
- Journalists
Skippylongstocking Stamps Pegasus Ticket
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 126 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 114 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 103 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 106 views
-
-
- Journalists
Queen Goddess Fires Fresh in Frankel
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 117 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 208 views
-
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 93 views
-
-
- Journalists
Beverly Park Closes Out Year with 15th Win
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 97 views
-
- Journalists
Air Force Red Flies Away in Joe Hernandez
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 104 views
-
-
- Journalists
- 0 replies
- 93 views
-
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Nowornever · Posted
If you strip harness racing back to first principles, the decline in numbers is not mysterious or cyclical, it’s mechanical. People are leaving because the economics no longer work at the entry and middle levels, and nobody new is replacing them because the risk profile is irrational. Owners and trainers are not walking away because they’ve lost interest in horses or racing, they’re walking away because the money going in versus the money coming out is no longer defensible under current conditions. The sport keeps trying to fix the problem at the surface level by talking about marketing, promotion, engagement and “telling our story better,” but none of that matters if participation itself is financially unsafe. You cannot market your way out of a broken economic model. The root cause is that there simply isn’t enough money circulating among the people who actually supply the product — horses, trainers, owners — and the way stakes are currently distributed makes that worse, not better. At the moment, the stakes structure is designed for a healthy, growing sport where new horses and new people are constantly coming in behind the established ones. In that environment, heavily rewarding winners makes sense because losing participants can be replaced. In a shrinking sport, that logic collapses. When you have fewer horses, fewer trainers, and fewer breeders every year, concentrating money at the top accelerates the exit of everyone else. The result is exactly what we are seeing now: fewer participants doing more work, burning out faster, and leaving gaps that are never filled. The key mistake is treating stakes purely as prizes for success instead of as an economic tool to sustain participation. Winning should still matter, but participation must matter first. If finishing sixth or eighth in a standard race leaves a trainer and owner materially worse off than staying home, the system is telling them very clearly that development, learning and patience are not welcome. That is fatal for new owners, new trainers, and young people trying to establish themselves. A basic fix does not require more money, only a different split of the money already being paid. The simplest workable model is to divide every race stake into two parts: a participation component and a performance component. The participation component is paid evenly to every starter, while the performance component is distributed traditionally based on finishing position. For example, take a typical $10,600 race. Instead of paying over half of that to first place and token amounts to the rest of the field, the race could be structured so that around 35–40 percent of the total stake is allocated to participation. In a ten-horse field, that participation pool would be divided equally so that every starter receives a meaningful payment simply for competing. That payment should flow primarily to the trainer and owner, not be diluted through traditional splits, because it is designed to offset the real costs of keeping a horse in work and getting it to the races. The remaining portion of the stake is then paid out through the normal finishing-order structure, ensuring that winning still matters and quality is still rewarded. Good horses and good trainers continue to earn more over time, but the gap between winning and losing is narrowed enough that losing no longer forces people out of the game. Under this model, trainers gain predictable income every time they supply a starter, which directly addresses the issue of stable viability. It becomes rational to race horses through grades, to give young horses time, and to support owners who are learning. Owners, meanwhile, see their costs partially offset even when their horse is beaten, which changes the emotional and financial experience of ownership. Instead of every non winning start feeling like money wasted, it feels like progress being partially funded. Importantly, this structure does not eliminate incentives for excellence. Trainers and owners who win still earn more overall because they collect both the participation payment and the higher performance rewards. What it does eliminate is the current situation where the bottom half of the field is effectively subsidising the top few runners through repeated losses. In a declining sport, that transfer is destructive. This kind of stake rebalancing also has second-order benefits that are currently being ignored. Trainers are less likely to scratch horses for economic reasons, which improves field sizes. Better field sizes improve betting liquidity and confidence. Bettors respond to depth and competitiveness far more than they respond to marketing campaigns, and turnover improves naturally when the product becomes more predictable and robust. The same logic applies to attracting new owners and trainers. Right now, entering the sport requires absorbing significant losses before any competence or confidence can be developed. No rational young person looks at that and decides to jump in. A stake model that rewards participation gives newcomers breathing room. It turns early ownership and early training into an apprenticeship rather than a financial stress test. None of this punishes winners in any meaningful sense. Elite owners and trainers are the least sensitive to marginal reductions in winning prize money because they win repeatedly and at scale. New and mid-level participants are the most sensitive to repeated small losses. If the sport continues to design itself around the preferences of the strongest participants, it will continue to hollow itself out underneath them until there is nothing left to compete against. Harness racing does not need to abandon excellence or ambition. It needs to recognise that sustainability comes first. Stakes must keep people in the game before they reward people at the top of it. Until the economics are rebalanced so trainers and owners can survive without winning every second start, the vicious circle will continue regardless of how well the sport is marketed. -
Hawera and Taupo numbers wernt too bad, you seriously wonder if many just don't like going to A Park, traffic must be a pain getting there. -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
An apt description of one particular Canterbury resident! -
By Murray Fish · Posted
Directed at times at yourself? if so, how do you deal with it? For me, a bit like 'violence on the rugby field', if it ever happened in a match that I played in! Then I would if given the chance Address it with the players involved after the match!! Reflecting my long history of being involved in 'anti violence men education...'. I would like to think it help build character for all involved. For the a few of those 'social media bullies!!!' Note that 99% are right wing! seriously masochist ! peti bourgeois small businessmen, who have made a few shekels! rather blotting their already deluded world views!!! They don't actually make much traction with their chosen 'causes' coz they can't deliver when presenting in Public! People quickly see through their grandiosity bluster! The though of getting a chance to give them a WACK in the!!!! Keeps me at my fighting weight! On Day! -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
It also raises the question is the Ignore policy by administrators the correct one? I quite like the response.
-
-
Topics
-
