Chief Stipe

I haven't made any such claims. Now who's "mincing"! The Clubs OWNED the track assets - who's job in the first instance was it to look after their assets? Instead of looking for scapegoats (which seems to be a universal hobby in NZ) accept that ALL stakeholders are responsible for the state of the tracks. The industry used and abused those tracks for decades and never put anything back in. A collorary is the collapse of traditional farming systems throughout the country. At least with those the land owners knew they had to change or they wouldn't eat! Well the other side of the argument is that NZTR HAVE grasped "the bigger picture" however the Clubs dug their toes in and said "you can't touch our assets - we know best"! That's why the industry is in the situation it is with the need to sell assets to bring what's left up to standard!! Hell even one of you so called favoured Clubs had to sell its hill to fix it's track!!

Uh? Three meetings over 5 weeks is hardly a "Carnival"! Plus in recent years the first 10 days of September seem to have been wetter than average. But I guess @hesi you have joined those who are not open to change.

Now you are contradicting yourself @Huey . If the Clubs were run by experienced racing people surely they would know that they needed to maintain their very reason for being. As it is when NZTR did offer advice the Clubs gave them the big finger and said "we know best"! Anyway as you have argued time and time again NZTR doesn't (or didn't) own the track assets - perhaps you are now arguing they should have! That all got out of hand when Mckenzie did the sleight of hand with the TABNZ balance sheet and forced the marketing of racing onto each code individually. Some of us warned you about what would happen. Thankfully ENTAIN have stepped up now and even you would say that the marketing of the sport and wagering has taken a quantum leap forward. ENTAIN must be spending millions on marketing and advertising which makes what the codes were doing look a pittance. Duplicating what skill sets? It isn't apparent that any Club hired the right skill set and if they did adequately resource them. Or they have been hand picked to provide the expertise needed to drive NZ Racing in the right direction. Ballesty is hardly without knowledge in the entertainment and gamblin sector (which is what racing is). 30 years running large clubs in NSW, small time race horse owner and senior executive roles at Crown Resorts, SkyCity Entertainment Group and at Gateway Casinos. If he is the right person for the job (presumably he was the best candidate that applied) time will tell. But you must admit he is a step up from a banker!

When was the last time you went to one of the Hawkes Bay race days? I went to the first two last year and the place wasn't exactly rocking like it was 15 years ago. Arguably there was as many people there on those days as there was at Ellerslie on Saturday.

I posted this in another Topic in response to a plea by @hesi to those in control not to change the Hawkes Bay Spring Carnival. Firstly it isn't a 3 day meeting nor in fact a Spring Carnival. The only 3 day Spring Carnival in NZ racing is Cup Week at Riccarton. The Hawkes Bay - 'Triple Crown' is raced over 5 weeks with 3 weeks between the first two races and two between the last two. Of course there are some good age group support races on the programmes like the Gold Trail and the HB Guineas. I was thinking about possible changes to the Hawkes Bay 3 days. One that came to mind was moving the series ahead two weeks i.e. have the first day on the third Saturday in September instead of the first. Another change would be shortening the 3 week gap between the first two to two weeks. If you kept the 3 week gap between the first two then the final day would be Labour Weekend where the Friday before Labour Day is Hawkes Bay Anniversary Day. Even a 1 week later start would give Spring a chance to kick in. Some minor adjustments would need to be made to some of the age group races at other venues but in my opinion that pattern is all a bit screwed anyway. So for arguments sake in 2026 the dates would be: Day 1 - 20th September + 2wks Day 2 - 4th October +2wks Day 3 - 18th October or Day 1 - 20th September + 3wks Day 2 - 11th October +2wks Day 3 - 25th October

It isn't a 3 day meeting nor in fact a Spring Carnival. The only 3 day spring carnival in NZ racing is at Riccarton. The Hawkes Bay - 'Triple Crown' is raced over 5 weeks with 3 weeks between the first two races and two between the last two. Of course there are some good age group support races like the Gold Trail and the HB Guineas. I was thinking about possible changes to the Hawkes Bay 3 days. One that came to mind was moving the series ahead two weeks i.e. have the first day on the third Saturday in September instead of the first. Another change would be shortening the 3 week gap between the first two to two weeks. If you kept the 3 week gap between the first two then the final day would be Labour Weekend where the Friday before Labour Day is Hawkes Bay Anniversary Day. Even a 1 week later start would give Spring a chance to kick in. Some minor adjustments would need to be made to some of the age group races at other venues but in my opinion that pattern is all a bit screwed anyway. So for arguments sake in 2026 the dates would be: Day 1 - 20th September + 2wks Day 2 - 4th October +2wks Day 3 - 18th October or Day 1 - 20th September + 3wks Day 2 - 11th October +2wks Day 3 - 25th October

So it's all NZTR's fault? The Clubs just meekly followed along accepting what they got. Give me a break. The reality is no one invested in track infrastructure because they all believed that a track was just a big circular paddock that would last forever. But don't let that stop all the moaners looking for scapegoats.

The Clubs? Name one decent track. For that matter name one track that in the last 30 years that was properly maintained and renovated when necessary.

You haven't seen their CV's? Even De Lores says they look more like ENTAIN employees.

Where are the official statistics confirming the 16 deaths?

I saw nothing wrong with any of his posts and I understand fully his reaction. As well all know @Forbury goes off from time to time and generally talks absolute rubbish. I also understand how frustrating to those active in the industry of the constant negativity from some in NZ Racing at the moment. I've experienced first hand how it turns off new participants really quickly even those having an enjoyable and very successful time. Thankfully they've learnt to avoid those people on course and certainly have nothing to do with racing social media.

We had someone who raced 90 horses - that didn't work either did it? At least there are people employed now that understand where the revenue comes from.

Then De Lore shouldn't focus on figures at all and just justifying his opinion. If his and what is obviously your hypothesis is correct then why have so many Clubs been run into the ground by people who "understand racing"?

I'm sure she doesn't nor is it her role to be a BSA spokesperson as @Pete Lane mischeviously suggests. Most people know that the role of spokesperson is the Board Chair and or the CEO.

I think your 218 million is incorrect. Do you mean $21m? In my opinion they aren't spending enough on track infrastructure. They've relied on Clubs to do that and from what I can see most have avoided doing anything. The tracks haven't been NZTR's asset to manage but perhaps they should be.

Does your partner know you access all those sports?

They ran the first race over 1200m in 37 and 33! There's no way unless you are on pace that you can win from further back than 4 lengths. As for the camber they don't even seem to be even trying to improve. The lead in to the apex of the bend is cambered and slow turning. It's the last bit that's flat and sharper. Why can't you pump out of the gates and hold everything together until straightening or improve a few places from the 600m. They only other option is the Damask Rose one - stay on the rails and get up behind them before straightening. That said I know some very capable horses that just can't get round that bottom corner at anywhere near full speed.

Stream the Racing.Com live broadcast for Caulfield. Brilliant coverage. NSW is not so easy.

You can't sit back more than 4 lengths on a slow pace at Ellerlsie and expect to give your horse every chance to win! They seem reluctant to improve on the bend.

Why bother? The vision is not HD and you can stream better presentations online.

If some here think your syndication model is something to complain about they should check out the FRAC Club! Yours seem very fair by comparison.

You should try the other sites and FB for lack of context and accuracy!!!

He is mixing up two sets of figures in his article. On the one hand as @hesi has stated one figure which De Lore calls Operating cost the increase is from $6.3m to $9.6m. The figure of $13m is alleged and it isn't clear . How "is it known"? Note the $1m snuck in there as IT Infrastructure and Network costs - according to De Lore an increase of $900k. That isn't correct as the expenditure in 2015 was $597k NOT $163k!! The leap in staff costs of about $1.4m occurred in the 2021-22 year. If I have time I'll find out what that was for eventually! Regardless of what this 2024-25 alleged figure is the total expenditure in 2015 (less Stakes transfers) was $7.8m. 2023-24 it was $19.6m. Substract Special Projects and Track Reconstruction ($5m for Awapuni) of around $6.3m and the Expenditure is already $13.3m. That is an increase of $5.5m over 10 years. The % increase is 50% however you have to account for the fact that during the 10 period NZTR were lumped with increased marketing costs and ageing IT infrastructure coupled with a failed IT upgrade project. Not the first organisation to get hit by the latter. $13m is still only 10% of revenue i.e. 90% of the income funds stakes. How many organisations have that ratio? The average opex costs to reveneu for most organisations is 60-80%. $13m doesn't go very far in today's economy!

Figures aren't De Lores expertise. The metric of overhead cost per race is spurious at best. I daresay he uses it to incite a reaction from those focussed entirely on stakes. As I and others repeatedly pointed out on BOAY the cost of running NZTR would rise after the decisions made by Mckenzie when he was CEO of TABNZ. He moved cost iems off that balance sheet and forced them into the codes e.g. marketing. (Thankfully ENTAIN has picked up some of that again and seem to be doing a good job). His 10 year comparison doesn't account for inflation and his swipe at Special Projects doesn't consider what those are. NZTR still have a stuffed and not fit for purpose IT system after a failed $2m+ project under Cameron Georges watch. Also from what I've read in the annual reports the majority of the special project expenditure is going on track upgrades and renovations which was well overdue. Where was De Lore 10 to 20 years ago when the capital investment needed to maintain core racing infrastructure wasn't done? The irony of course is the very people he says that should be running the show now with their "racing industry specific knowledge" were in fact running it then!!!! The model he suggests hasn't worked very well for Racing Clubs has it?

Administrative decline is sending racing down a rabbit hole by Brian de Lore Published 17th October 2025 Anyone in racing long enough will be aware of the wonderful history the NZ thoroughbred has carved out over the past 150 years, but they will also know that the headwinds facing the horse business today come only minimally from climate change, and mostly from a sharp decline in the quality of its administration. The incumbents will argue that it’s a global thing, and a modicum of truth exists in that belief, but for NZ, the thoroughbred business has declined in tandem with a series of unsuitable director and executive appointments over the past 20 or so years. From the days of good governance, when the ‘Captains of Industry’ and the leading names of racing and breeding had a lifetime of experience when they went onto boards, the degradation of the decision-makers is matched only by the depletion of clubs, members, racegoers, race meetings, races run, foals born and every other stat that applies to horse racing. A major difference between the people who once made it work and those who now can’t is that they used to be on the inside looking out into the clear blue; now they’re on the outside looking in through a hazy fog that won’t lift. The former typically had extensive experience and a vested interest in the business, remaining in it after serving their time. Institute of Directors a curse for racing Today, decision-makers from outside the industry, often introduced through the Institute of Directors, typically arrive with limited or no knowledge of racing and depart for another sector before the allocated time of their tenure. Their departure leaves the industry with another lemon to suck on. The paradigm shift towards this recurring theme happened around 2005, when it was decided that paid professionals would replace the horse-passionate honorary directors who had industry knowledge. Suddenly, all you needed was a degree in something, completion of a five-and-a-half-day course at the Institute of Directors, and you qualified to sit around the NZTR board table knowing little more than what end bit and what end kicked – enough to collect your directors’ fees. Worst of all, the appointment to the board is made by the ‘Members’ Council’, a hotchpotch of appointed people from around the country, including jockeys and trainers, none of whom would have the qualifications to recognise a good director if one bit them on the arm. Since regional representation was killed off in 2011 and replaced with the Member’s Council, of the 30 NZTR directors appointed that have come and gone, not one has stayed long enough to serve out their full term. Members’ Council also a curse I recently spent an hour talking to a prominent person on the Members’ Council and came away shocked by how little they knew about the problems facing the racing industry. The administrative structure of racing in NZ is broken; the stakeholders all know this, so why haven’t we seen a revolution to bring change? It’s a one-word answer – apathy. They sit on their hands, hoping someone else will do something. When NZTR called for applications for the board in 2021, they asked for “proven corporate governance experience and understanding of governance policies and processes, strategic insight, and guidance of change.” They then requested seven additional skills and attributes in bullet points, all of which were corporate world requirements. Notably, there was no mention of racing knowledge, and the word ‘horse’ did not appear anywhere in the document. You reap what you sow. In the latest ‘Position Description’, extended to four pages, the requirements are much more detailed and corporate-specific. On the last page, in the last paragraph, on the very last line under the heading of “Desirable but non-essential skills of applicants currently include’, it says, ‘An interest or involvement in thoroughbred racing.’ Racing hijacked by corporates If this document wasn’t written by the ‘Institute of Directors, then it was written for them, because it all but eliminates anyone with a deep knowledge of racing and racing experience. The Institute of Directors has gradually hijacked NZTR and now controls it for its own monetary gain. We know that when you have a board weak on racing knowledge, they will fail to deliver on racing’s core mission: to appoint a competent and experienced chief executive and have an educated overview of what to prioritise for the long-term value and sustainability of racing, to know where the problems lie, and provide strong oversight and strategic support to the management. Do we have that at NZTR? Not on any available evidence. But if you had watched the Guerin Report a week or two ago, when he interviewed the Institute of Directors graduate, NZTR CEO Matt Ballesty, you would have heard Ballesty say, “My board is an exceptional board, everyone has an opinion, and they are very knowledgeable about racing and are steering me along the way.” What else is he going to say about the people who employed him? He did, however, virtually admit he knows nothing about racing. “My skills are unique” – Ballesty He said, “My skills are unique; I’m unique in that I have a bit of grassroots mixed with the corporate side of things. Whilst I’m learning the racing industry, I’m learning very quickly – a product is a product – and I believe I can learn it very quickly.” The simple fact is, Matt Ballesty has come to NZTR from the casino business, and three of his new appointees to new key positions come from the same area of experience – one from OlyBet, Tabcorp, and William Hill, another from Tabcorp, Sportingbet, BlueBet and Bet365, and a third from Racing and Wagering Western Australia. You will likely think that these new individuals are better suited to Entain or TAB NZ, and doubt that wagering professionals possess the expertise to make a meaningful impact on NZ racing. Well, everyone knows that racing knowledge is a lifetime of learning, and you cannot absorb it quickly, and it raises more concern when you’re planning to make fast and dramatic changes. There was more arrogance displayed in that interview than has been witnessed by racing people for a very long time, and it should be ringing alarm bells. Quoted in ‘The Straight’, Ballesty talked in platitudes when he said, “These changes reflect feedback we have received from industry participants about the need to enhance our leadership capability and sharpen our focus on delivering better outcomes. Bold change is the theme of our strategic focus going forward, and this restructure is a key part of enabling that.” Relocation of group and listed races??? The numerous changes that Ballesty alludes to include an eight-page policy, currently in draft form, for the relocation of group and listed races. This policy outlines the clubs’ role only as custodians of these time-honoured races and threatens relocation if certain expectations are not met. That appears to be a veiled threat to the Canterbury Jockey Club about losing the 1000 and 2000 Guineas races at Cup time. In recent times, NZTR has markedly increased its operating costs in deference to the contracting industry it presides over. Not including special projects and other one-off expenses, but only the day-to-day running of the organisation, in the ten years between 2014-15 and 2023-24 seasons, the cost per race run has risen from $2200 to $3900. In other words, racing in NZ is now living well beyond its means, and although the 2024-25 Annual Report is yet to be released, it is known that the NZTR spend for the season has risen to over $13 million. The arrival of Ballesty, his new executive appointments, and the projects he intends to undertake, will balloon that figure outwards again for the current racing season; all against the tide of racing, and which costs that will have to be eventually borne by the most underrated and maligned group of people – the owners of racehorses. It’s about time the true stakeholders in racing got together and discussed a complete overhaul of the administrative structure of racing. It badly needs change, and if it doesn’t change, the corporate ‘comers and goers’, who are the takers and not givers, will surely condemn racing to obscurity.