Chief Stipe

Immediately after interference. To suggest that the placement of the lure was some reason for his attempt to leap the fence is as equally implausible. The dog was interferred with and his vision of the lure was impaired by those in front of him.

Not that a self valued intangible asset is really worth that much.

So he wasn't interferred with at all in the running?

Arguably paying 10% for a $2b asset was a good deal on Entain's part.

I starting reading the Entain accounts and my prior assumption seems correct regarding the valuation of the NZ intangible assets. It would appear that the main intangible asset is the exclusive 25 yr NZ License. From the report: Intangible assets Intangible assets acquired separately are capitalised at cost and those acquired as part of a business combination are capitalised separately from goodwill. The costs relating to internally generated intangible assets, principally software costs, are capitalised if the criteria for recognition as assets are met. Other expenditure is charged in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. Following initial recognition, intangible assets are carried at cost less any accumulated amortisation and any accumulated impairment losses. The useful lives of these intangible assets are assessed to be either finite or indefinite. Indefinite lived assets are not amortised and are subject to an annual impairment review from the year of acquisition. Where amortisation is charged on assets with finite lives, this expense is taken to the consolidated income statement through the ‘operating expenses, depreciation and amortisation’ line item. The useful lives applied to the Group’s intangible assets are as follows: Exclusive New Zealand licence 25–year duration of licence Other licences Lower of 15 years, or duration of licence Software – purchased & internally capitalised costs 2–15 years Trademarks & brand names 10–25 years, or indefinite life Customer relationships 3–15 years The useful lives of all intangible assets are reviewed at each financial period end. Impairment testing is performed annually for intangible assets which are not subject to systematic amortisation and where an indicator of impairment exists for all other intangible assets. An intangible asset is derecognised on disposal, with any gain or loss arising (calculated as the difference between the net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the item) included in the consolidated income statement in the year of disposal.

Seems he learnt from the mishap. You can add not being able to read a race to the list of things you can't do as well. In the January race the dog was interferred with just before he hit the fence.

I'm not anti-whip I just think there is a lot of BS written about their use and the rules that govern their use and rein use are unworkable. Those rules are of now use to driver or horse. As I said before you don't need to whip a well trained horse that tries as hard as it can. Not that many drivers or stewards for that matter would know when a horse was giving everything i.e. not cheating. Some on the Galloping side such as @Thomass come up with this stupid metric that one strike of the whip is worth x lengths which is utter crap. Whipping is generally all show.

Bollocks. Go back and have a look a few races. For example look at this race and the three placgetters. All the drivers are cracking their reins. If you are trying to scare them then surely showing the whip at them is enough. That said a well trained horse will know when its time to move. Hence the good ones coming on the bit when the action starts. Really? Gammalite and Lord Module wouldn't be allowed to race today. What was done to those two horses was inhumane.

So you're just eating popcorn rather than making a serious comment? I know that you can wake a horse up with a good crack of a rein than fiddling around with a whip.

@Gammalite you are disappointing me. I thought you had more skills. I take it you were a turn key driver?

What @Blackie you don't have the skill to give a horse in front of you cart a good wack with the reins? Need a whip to do it?

Too tired to use the reins?

Meanwhile @Newmarket sitting at the pub on his fifth pint and chips is worried about Warren sounding poorly after he has ridden a horse full noise over a dodgy track in the middle of winter... Oh the life of a punter!

Contrary to what the Gallops guys think it was never just them.

He must be a good Jockey then because he can ride a winner when @Newmarket would have gone home for the day. Then of course @Newmarket can be an online doctor assessing someone in a 30 second interview as to their health. BTW if you are looking for a note to not turn up for work next week @Newmarket is offering an online service. Just get Trackside to interview you and it's sorted.

Obviously he wasn't fit...Not! Well done the Kennedy Team.

Wrong. They have memory. Are you saying breaking-in is a waste of time? That is they know exactly what they need to do without education?

What is the point? You speculate he has a cold or worse after he has just ridden a race. At least he turned up for work and obviously is fit enough to do so. Are you precious?

@Gammalite do you beat your dog if it is doing the right thing?

Well has the horse been well educated or not?

LOL that was an omen! Warren just rode a winner for the wife!

I assure you it wasn't a rocking horse. In fact if you went to whip it it would give you a swift kick in the cart. That's the problem with Whips and with the Luk Chin drive question - the whip is often for show and gives the punter more confidence than getting more from the horse. As I say most good horses I've had anything to do with didn't need a prompt (aka @Gammalite) and gave everything they had to win. Stewards are just as dumb as the punters - hence the contradiction with the whip rules. If you are over vigorous you get pinged and if you are undervigorous you get pinged. No consideration that the horse may have been giving all it could. Do you beat a dog if is doing the right thing? Why beat a horse if it is doing all it can to win? Turns them sour eventually. A lot of it comes back to how they are broken in and their early training. The old school Australian trainer was always a bit ignorant in that respect.

Reminds me of an exercise I had to do during my MBA studies. It was the analysis of annual accounts using a predictor formula based on key metrics in the reports. Two of those metrics were the value of intangible assets and the other was employee shareholding. If both were really high they were usually a sign that the company was essentially vapour waiting for the heat of a strong sun! For exmaple if they have valued the license as an intangible license then the company has next to zero resell value. Thinking about it a bit more though isn't the license ownership a bit murky? Does TABNZ own it and just outsources the operations?

@NZRacing the billion pounds quoted as assets are largely Intangible Assets. Intangible assets being things like brands, trademarks, copyright and even software. The latter I would imagine wouldn't be much as they are leveraging off their Group software. Perhaps one of the intangible assets is the monopoly license they have to trade in NZ given to them courtesy of the NZ Government. That must be worth a fair amount. It is intangible as it is only a license, not a physical asset and can't be traded.