Chief Stipe

Well you don't know that they aren't. If the total Tote revenue plus Fixed Odds revenue plus Export fees didn't earn $10,000 in total revenue then things are much much worse than it appears. Adding one extra race to a programme costs zip in marginal cost.

All well in good and what you are discussing now is a fundamental problems. However don't deflect away from the fact that what Bernie wrote is absolute bullshit.

You don't "think" so? Or you "know" so? The point you and Mardigras are making is that NO race in NZ generates enough revenue to cover Stakes. Therefore it follows that the minimum Stakes that are paid should drop.

I know where you are heading with this Mardigras. However if a $10,000 race in NZ ISN'T self-funding from the revenue it generates then the BS that Bernie wrote is even worse! OR does he want MORE 8 or less horse fields because the amount he pays out in Stakes reflects more the amount of revenue that the race generates? Of course those EXTRA $10,000 races cost the industry nothing more because the variable costs associated with adding an extra race to a 10 race card is minimal. Now I'm sure Mardigras you have the statistics at your fingertips.

Oh forgot to add. Bernie spent $1m on a new computer system on "in arrears" funding - which isn't finished yet so I expect the final figure to be 3 or 4 times that. Now $1m equals 100 $10,000 races.......twice that which was funded by the below 14 starters! What should happen is that if a field has less then 14 starters then the Stake that each horse "wins" should increase i.e. the $10,000 stake should still be distributed to those that participated. Now I don't agree with paying out for mediocrity but if I ran last in an 8 horse field and got a windfall I'd be happy.

I agree with the sentiment but aren't we being a little bit fooled by the manipulation of the statistics? BS is using the endemic NZRB/NZTR BS spin machine. Before I discuss that I do have an issue with paying every starter. Isn't it just another factor that will reduce the quality of our fields? Mugs will race longer and the good ones that can win will earn less and therefore more pressure will go onto selling the younger winners. End result our Group racing continues to decline in quality and the overall quality of our fields will decline. Now to Bernies BS letter! This simplifies the process for NZTR. Basically - "we'll rob the winners to pay the jockey's fees so we don't have to do any administration like send an invoice out, follow up late payers and wait 30 days to get the cash when you pay on time...." Will we actually see any savings at NZTR? I can almost guarantee that we won't. Mmmmm isn't this NZTR's role now with the devolution of some TAB NZ (NZRB) functions to the codes? So basically TAB NZ has said, and presumably NZTR agreed, that they will fund NZTR the same but NZTR will have to do more with it. Basically a cross company piece of creative accounting. The thing is NZTR have no means or statutory enshrined way of generating extra revenue other than charging their customers more or paying them less! I've posted my thoughts on this in other topics which surprisingly hasn't got more of a response. However this statement of Bernie's is absolute bollocks. A few reasons for saying that. RITA/NZRB was bailed out by the Government. One of the conditions of that bail out was to "enable the industry codes to continue to be funded." What's happened? RITA/NZRB as of 1 August was still sitting with that money in the bank. There was no reason not to fund the industry stakes as previously. Unless of course as some of us suspect RITA/NZRB/TAB NZ is still in real financial shyte and creditors have covenants on that lump of funds. Most of which goes to OpenBet via Paddypower and the Broadcasting/Production contracts. Further there is no need to pay in arrears - the overall turnover in the Covid-19 affected year was only down 5%. The TAB NZ continued to earn revenue BUT they weren't paying out stakes to the industry so NZTR should have said we don't agree with this change in policy as you are sitting on the money we earnt. Add to that with today's accounting systems and the flash new betting system why doesn't NZTR get the revenue they earnt within 7 days of the event that earnt it? Given the obvious shaky financial position of TAB NZ they have rather sneakily shifted a month's liability fully onto NZTR! Now Bernie is either one of two things (or both) - thick or complicit. What happens if TAB NZ starts to default on payments again and the Government refuses to hand out another $50m? The bank calls in the $45m revolving credit loan due to be repaid in full 1 August next year and the $40m dodgy contracts are not paid? Meanwhile Bernie has run a month's worth of races and the money isn't forthcoming from TAB NZ so he can't pay Owners, Trainers and Jockey's. Now this is the worst bit of spin in the whole letter! Unfortunately we don't get the same amount of detailed information that we used to under the Purcell era so it is hard to get too definitive about what is happening. But the extra races were added to accommodate the number of horses that were ready to race - advertised races were over nominated earlier in the season. Many of those extra races were SELF-FUNDING (we didn't put on any extra Group races did we?) as they were at the low end of the Stake tree. Even worse they were funded at the minimum on many occasions and not at the advertised minimum for the raceday. They FUNDED THEMSELVES! Albeit in "arrears"! So Bernie - cut the BULLSHIT!

You can't say the Captain Cook was a true $200k Grp1 either.

Just watched the Captain Cook Stakes at Trentham on my phone. Got an excellent internet connection and all I got was stop start buffering. Won't be watching another race today.

I said the calibration was obviously way off in the previous debacle that arose from the October 5 hard track. Pitty slammed that discussion.

Overall he must be a loser otherwise he would be like Brodie and restricted. I disagree with Guerin's argument that you can just pitch up to a TAB window at your local agency to get round restrictions. For a start if you are punting with cash your limit will be $999 before the draconian process kicks in. If you are betting on Fixed Odds, which lets face it if you are punting large would be the only way to go, then the risk manager kicks in pretty quick on the system. Lastly if you are doing it consistently at the same location and are winning (you have to be registered I understand to collect big in cash over $999) then other alarms go off. Add to that you are on CCTV real time back to head office..... Well if Guerin gets away with it then he has some form of immunity!!

https://www.sgdigital.com/opensports/ Check out who one of SGDigitals partners are! SGDigital own OpenBet.

The more I look at the Annual Report the more apparent it becomes that they are neck deep in shyte and sinking. They have no option but to play hard ball and renegotiate the two millstone contracts - the betting system and the broadcast/production contracts. Unfortunately they don't have much of a negotiating position as they have no alternatives to walk away to. Plus I bet with the Fixed Odds system the provider has enough access to be abe to say "if you don't pay we'll just flick the switch off!" Glenn Saville has finally finished - the genius that recommended and set this up. Guess who he is going to go work for?

1:07 on a D4? Geez I'd hate to see a G2! Has the Track Manager been seen this week? Or are all the staff working with shovels on the AWT?

Rule Number(s): Rule 638(1)(d)Following the running of the VANDYKS 1215 an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles against Class A Jockey Mr B May alleging that Mr May as the Rider of NONAAME directed his mount inwards near the 1100 metres mark when not clear of IMAGE OF YOU (Rider Ms D Johnson) which was crowded ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): Rule 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of the BURTON 1215 an Information was lodged by Stipendiary Steward Mr A Coles against Apprentice Jockey Mr J Kamaruddin alleging that Mr Kamaruddin as the Rider of SPEED OF LIGHT used his whip excessively prior to the 100 metres mark. Rule 638(3)(b)(ii) provides: A Rider shall ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

According to the annual report the TAB still had $54 million in cash - i.e. they had yet to spend their gift from the Government by 1 August. That "gift" was to keep the codes going. So they are either not keeping to their commitment to the terms of the grant OR it's been spent. Either way something doesn't add up. Maybe another bit of spin to justify the asset grab. So if the terms of payment have changed why did NZTR commit to a new IT system spending $1m up to 1 August this year with a lot more to come? Is that another "screw you" finger to the industry? We'll delay payment to you but look after ourselves? I bet anything you want that NZTR staff numbers and costs have increased.

Starting gates in the wrong position AGAIN!?

We ALWAYS went passed the turnoff, stopped and went back. LOL had one horse an open class trotter that was incredible. "Today, do 35 mins jogging, left hand way round"... we'd alternate of course. I was always just along for the ride - the horse would know which way round and turn the right way each day - slowly warm up and get to jogging speed - dead on 35 mins would go past the turnoff slow down, stop and turn around. I sat there with the reins in my lap watching the scenery! Incredible animal. In races he would look ahead and keep an eye on which horses started to trot rough and would pull out half a cart just before they broke!

Just pulling ya leg Reef! Maybe you should promise Pitty you'll irrigate before race day?

One of Pitty's horses "likes a bit of give in the ground"?! Who would've thought! 😉

He had no option if the horse was choking down. However a bit of a weird drive from Mckendry. They way he drove the horse sort of added to the problem. He restrained the horse twice before the horse got into trouble so created a fight. For example the second time why didn't McKendry go forward and pass the $50/1 longshot rather than restrain Copy That and let the other horse off the rail to go forward to the lead. Odd.

Bigger cart?

No it is about having more control. You can still have "light hands" it's about where you place them. Take the video link of Alistair Lowe. He is trying to restrain the horse to get back and trail - the horse wasn't going good enough to get to the lead. You'll see he is leaning out of the back of the cart trying to pull the horse back. That is only making the situation worse because he has effectively lost control. With your hands in a better position you are able to respond quicker to anything untoward and send that message to the horse. If your elbows are already bent and damn near in your lap and you need to grab more rein quickly then you are in the shit and things escalate. You can still drive them as if on pieces of string but you have more options. Horses generally bolt for a reason unless they are absolute shitheads or badly trained. A good driver will feel it and react - placing your hands where the professionals trained me to put them helps heaps. I actually experienced the difference during the course when we had a couple of mock races with mobile starts. Try it sometimes. Bit hard if you are doing a 40 minute jogging session as your arms get tired. But when doing pacework go one hand loop forward than where you think you should and then try doing one more.

You watch - I don't really know if it is what they are taught or it is their inexperience but the number of times I've seen Jockey's bale when a horse starts acting up seems to be increasing. In the "olden days" it seemed to me that Jockey's seemed to be better horsemen and would hang in there until they got on top of the horse's behaviour.