Chief Stipe

It will be interesting around the table at divvy up time. Will there be an argument put forward by NZTR that because they have the largest piece of the pie that they should get more than their contribution because they have greater costs e.g. a COO, a new Marketing team, a new IT system?

But some of those cost savings have been smoke and mirrors i.e. pushing costs onto the codes. One big question is who will be responsible for growing the racing wagering revenue? TAB NZ or NZTR/HRNZ/GRNZ (alone or as a group) or all of them working together?

But they can't keep costs under control can they? They have important business functions to fund that were once the responsibility of NZRB/RITA/TAB NZ.

I guess we all should be happy that the NZRB/RITA/TAB NZ have traded their way out of insolvency - for the time being. That said many that have been in the industry for a very long time aren't that happy. I doubt the announcements in the last couple of weeks are going to change that. Since you are full of possitividdy can you explain how TAB NZ aims to increase racing wagering revenue given that they haven't been able to do that in the last 10 years let alone the last 3 years?

Nasty nasty! Obviously as an owner at the coal face you aren't too happy with the NZRB/RITA/TAB NZ results. I guess you are easily fooled by the rebranding exercises and can't see that nothing has changed.

I've offered many solutions and options over many years. If you and Thomarse are measures of respect then I'm quite comfortable having none of it.

Yes and the likes of @JJ Flash typify the group that buy into the propaganda. I've seen 30 years of this and I was hoping for something different but it seems to be more of the same.

We don't know enough detail and if TAB NZ and NZTR's efforts in transparency in the last 3 years is anything to go by we aren't going to get any detail.

Perhaps because they can't guarantee the BIUC fees or aren't confident about maintaining wagering revenue? Or if you are @JJ Flash you expect to be so much in the clover that you can increase stakes for the last third of the season during winter racing on the AWT's?

Key prizemoney increases between 28 August – 2 April are: Industry meeting minimum stakes will increase from $10,000 to $12,000. Iconic meeting minimum prizemoney increases from $40,000 to $50,000. Premier meeting minimum prizemoney increases from $30,000 to $40,000 per race, excluding maiden races. Feature meeting minimum prizemoney increases will apply across various levels including Maiden minimums moving from $10,000 to $15,000, and Open minimums from $32,500 to $40,000. Group and Listed minimum stakes will see the following changes – Listed Races move from $50,000 to $60,000, Group 3 from $70,000 to $80,000, Group 2 races from $100,000 to $110,000 and the Group 1 minimum from $200,000 to $220,000. The increase in Group and Listed flat races will apply to the full season. Over $15,000 1st 57.5% 2nd 18.5% 3rd 9% 4th 5% 5th 2.5% 6 -10th 1.5% $15,000 and under 1st 56% 2nd 18% 3rd 9% 4th 5% 5-10th 2%

I'm at a loss to understand what the staff at NZTR actually do. Since Saundry started the communication to the industry has been non existent.

The really concerning factor is that NZ wagering on racing revenue hasn't really increased in a decade and that's in nominal terms. In real terms the $140m from 2011 should be $170m today. The fact is it hasn't really changed for over a decade. Which would indicate that is about all the market will deliver. Now the only ways left to increase revenue are to reduce costs further and increase the amount of and return on the product. That means more races that attract more betting dollars from the internal market or from overseas. It is a competitive environment. The BIUC isn't likely to increase unless you increase the amount of product to sell. Increasing the product means racing more horses and with the drop in foal crop plus the increase in overseas buyers for overseas racing jurisdictions that isn't going to happen any time soon. I can't see how they can reduce costs further unless they bail out of the expensive broadcasting and wagering systems. It will be interesting to see what the marketing budgets will be for each of the codes. So reality might be that what we see is all we are going to get for a long time.

I'll prefer to be a nobody if you are deemed a somebody.

Cambridge will get a handout to build spectator facilities because "their AWT race meetings have been so successful".

Good luck with your ill conceived plan to pillage from the other codes. You can't take what isn't yours.

Ok so you are an owner. Good luck with getting a return! But you aren't at the coal face - you aren't anywhere near it.

How? There was ZERO increase from racing wagering revenue this year where is the increased revenue coming from? Can't come from another reduction in the levy as that is set in stone. The BIUC is also highly speculative and dependent on overseas bookies paying. I can't see any increase there. So it can only come from wagering on racing revenue. Good luck with that increase.

If you are at the coal face then you are obviously part of the problem. Which coal face? NZTR? Where is their budget for the coming season?

We haven't seen NZTR's full budget yet. How much are they getting from the increased pie? How many races are they putting on next year? What is their marketing budget? They've spent $2m already on a new computer system - is their more money to be spent? AWT operational cost increases are being paid from what? Plus they aren't distributing money they have - they are forecasting money they expect to earn in the coming year. Two key points - firstly the BIUC (as that a new acronym?) of $20m is an estimate based on what? Second point - the earnings from the core business wagering has not changed i.e. the increases are purely reliant on a tax change and the BIUC. If revenue from racing declines which is possible given the quality of our betting product and a possible reduction in the number of races then where does the money come from?

That's not correct. Where is the evidence of a source of EPO? Where is the evidence it is being used? With today's testing sensitivity you would pick up EPO particularly if the source was non equine. All you and the so called experts are doing is speculating on the basis of no evidence. Not only that you, as you admit knows little about the subject, selectively chooses which experts to quote ignoring those that don't support your hypothesis.

Where’s the evidence? Quite frankly the "leading expert" label means absolutely nothing. The Covid pandemic is proof of that.

Could have kept his wrist straighter.

So are you saying Iron, Folic Acid and B12 should be banned?

An early season Charles Sturt University fertility analysis has given a glowing report of Lazarus' semen, for its quality and longevity. And now that's being backed up in the barn, with perfect early service results for the superstar. https://harnesslink.com/new-zealand/the-lazarus-phenomenon-lives-on-in-the-breeding-barn/

Shows you how good Reon Murtha was as a commentator - he picked up No Response flying from a long way back.