Chief Stipe

There is no excuse for this action however South African Thoroughbred racing is in deep shyte. When I was researching other Jurisdictions economic viability for comparison with NZ I found huge similarities between the TAB monopoly in SA and NZ. Phumelela is effectively bankrupt which has flowed through the industry. The rioting workers have some justification for their grievances.

The Cambridge Jockey Club have done really well and outsmarted everyone! They were financial enough to fund their own AWT yet managed to twist Winnie's arm and get a taxpayer benefit handout! What's more they suddenly went from being just a training facility to now being a racing venue!!!!! I thought the goal of the Mesara report was to reduce the number of racecourses NOT increase them!

Look where that has got us! Isn't that the sort of arrogance displayed by NZTR/NZRB management that got us where we are now? RITA et al was supposed to change that but what has happened? Any form of transparency has gone! FFS we don't even get turnover figures now! Why would anyone wanting to invest in the industry do so if there is no information about its sustainability? I should put a Topic up that lists the backtracks we have seen so far this new post-Covid season! With all the money spent and the knowledge and experience the powers that be supposedly have they should have got it right the FIRST time! In saying that well done for back tracking but I guess when reality hits you don't really have much choice!

If Trials and Training are the issue why not put in a smaller AWT? How many trials in the South Island have more than 6 horses in them? Put in a smaller AWT for training and jumpouts and spend the money that's left over to fix the turf track!

A third of Godsen's starts over the last 5 years have been on AW tracks - note that includes ALL AWT's not just Polytracks. Interesting though the AW tracks only contributed 9% of the stakes that he has won i.e. 91% of the stakes won were on Turf tracks! England has 6 AWT's! 3 are Polytrack. Newmarket's the Jockey Club has only ONE out of 14 racecourses.

But he doesn't actually walk the walk does he? Have you actually looked at his stats? He still races predominantly on Turf. Also it isn't exactly comparing apples with apples is it? I doubt there would be any trainer in New Zealand that wouldn't want to train at Newmarket. As I pointed out in another thread in response to your Godsen comment the turf training facilities available at Newmarket far out weigh the artificial surfaces. Even Newmarket doesn't have a 16m wide 2000m AWT training track. Also what are the economics of training at Newmarket? There are 2,000 horses trained there and over 70 trainers stabled there! The Newmarket Training Grounds include an array of facilities for training Thoroughbred racehorses, on turf and artificial surfaces, unequalled anywhere in the world. Comprising of 2,500 acres, the Training Grounds include 50 miles of turf gallops and over 14 miles of artificial tracks. They are used on a daily basis by over 3,000 horses in the care of over 70 trainers. The Training Grounds are owned and managed by Jockey Club Estates.

When ever I have had the opportunity to attend NZTR/NZRB "roadshows" I have. Getting to Riccarton or Awapuni at the moment just isn't feasible at the moment for a number of reasons. However what I will say that all information events that I have attended have been very disappointing. The level of analysis and sound tactical/strategic planning was substandard to say the least. Sadly and frustratingly I haven't seen any changes following the Messara report nor the Working Group nor from McKenzie's RITA. Isn't that a warning sign Pitty? Cambridge's is nearly finished! Bit late now to do some rigorous analysis. Does training on an AWT fit a horse for racing on Turf? If a training surface is a big issue why has this not been addressed by CJC before now? Why not put in a smaller AWT like they have at major tracks in Victoria? E.g. Flemington. Those centres with a Strathayr track still run trials and even jumpouts on them. In my opinion I don’t think an AWT will suit your style of training Pitty. I also think you are being misled when you think that the surface will be consistent. The consistency is heavily reliant on day to day maintenance. That is one of the benefits of a well maintained turf track - it offers a natural buffer to the what the elements throw at it. The irony is Pitty that will end up with an expensive high maintenance AWT and STILL HAVE your main race track requiring attention and investment. I doubt the AWT will generate sufficient extra revenue to facilitate that. It may actually suck up more resources than it generates. So where the hell is the financial plan? If it is so damn good then why hasn't it been published? You can't argue commercial sensitivity! PS: I admire the Pitman passion and commitment to the industry. I love it whenever you cross the Strait and serve it up at Trentham. BUT if anyone can get the answers that the rest of us want then it is you. You have that respect and weight. "The financials haven't been finalised" just does not cut it.

Perhaps they have realised that the week in week out twice a week Addington racing doesn't return as much as a lower cost meeting from a venue such as Methven, Motukarara or Orari? I note that there was a bit of joy expressed over the recent turnover figures however they were TURNOVER figures not REVENUE figures less costs. I imagine the profit from Methven far surpassed that of Addington the previous Friday night.

Congratulations Pitty. Presumably you do ALL of those things and dare I say are rewarded accordingly. Don't confuse criticism with valid questions. I've been around this industry long enough to have been suckered in more than once or twice by the glib sugar coated promises of those in charge. Asking for some transparency and some information on the economic drivers of the AWT's is NOT criticism. However the lack of transparency on a huge strategic decision that spends taxpayers money and will adversely affect a number of profitable racing clubs only serves to increase my level of cynicism. If your own position on this "investment" can't stand up to scrutiny then if I were you I would seriously question my support for this "strategic decision"! Because eventually you will have: No investment left in the industry of any value. No training property. No transporters (you won't need them anyway as in your words YOU won't need to travel); No staff. No racing stock. No syndicates. No stallions/mares. No committees to sit on except those selling off the confiscated assets. No young people to educate. By the way don't for a moment consider the people that helped YOU get to where you are today - the owners and the punters. The owners who paid for the use of your transporter, training facilities and training expertise. The owners that paid for all the slow horses as well as the small percentage of fast ones you trained. Or the punters who paid for your % of the stakes that your decent horses won and who directly contributed to the acquisition of the assets that are now up for confiscation. The same punters that would rather punt on a decent turf track rather than a sand based one from South Korea or North America or Riccarton. The fact is Pitty we are getting NO ANSWERS to the questions being posed by not just myself but by a number of people who have significant skin in the game.

Ring Tim.

Warranty for what? I doubt it covers fair wear and tear. The polyfill wears out! It has to be topped up regularly and eventually replaced. God knows where you dump it after its worn out as it's full of artificial fibre, rubber and petroleum waxes! Polytrack is made out of silica sand and fibers made of recycled carpet, spandex and rubber. The entire mixture is then covered with wax.

Then build it as a training track not a 16m wide race track! Why is the training surface suddenly an issue now?

They didn't have the "lost" stake money i.e. they budgeted for abandoned meetings! I assume that their assumption was that the "extra" meetings would pay for themselves.

The abandoned figures quoted by Winnie were always wrong. There has never been many galloping meetings abandoned in a season. Not only that those that were abandoned were never budgeted for. I did an analysis during the Purcell era and they would have been well short of stakes for the year.

Na. It was nowhere near 42.

I dont think that's correct.

Cambridge is a classic case of self-interest. They screwed to death their main turf training track and so needed to invest in something. They say they are "the largest Thoroughbred training centre in the Southern Hemisphere by horse numbers" yet can't afford to fund their AWT!

The TOR is available online. Most of the official documents can be found here: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Racing-review

I think it is sad that New Zealand racing has got to this level. It certainly isn't what got me passionate about the sport. We hear many reasons for why we need AWT's - lost race days, poor training surfaces, and so on. These reasons are largely BS. Take for instance the "lost race days" reason. There isn't a racing jurisdiction in the World that doesn't lose racedays. Storms in Hong Kong, excessive heat in Sydney or Melbourne, surface flooding anywhere! That is the risk of a sport held outdoors. That aside the reality in New Zealand is that many of the cancelled meetings in New Zealand (there aren't many!) have been due to mismanagement rather than climate. By that I mean poor turf culture, soil management and irrigation policies. The fact is these issues have got worse NOT because we have TOO many racecourses but because we have reduced the number that we have available. Effectively pushing the same number of races onto fewer surfaces. In my opinion a horse was designed (evolved) to gallop on grass (turf) NOT sand or polyfiller. Aesthetically racing on turf looks better - it looks natural. The Punter likes it, the spectator likes it. New Zealands has batted above its weight in Thoroughbred racing for a long time. Nightmarch, Pharlap, Kindergarten, the Eight Carat clan, Bonecrusher and on and on. In my opinion we achieved that through good grass and good breeding and we raced on good turf. Why further diminish our key advantages by racing and training our horses on Polyfiller? Doing that in the numbers that are proposed will only negate the advantages we have. It will diminish the NZ breed. The fact is the reason why NZ Racing is in the shyte is because of the revenue arm - the monopolistic NZ TAB. That has and is holding us back. Three AWT's isnt going to change any of that.

That's my understanding to. I think Martin Collins are doing a great marketing job but the day-to-day management/maintenance can't be as easy as they proclaim. Pakenham would have a similar climate to Riccarton. Cold relatively dry winters and hot summers. My understanding is that you can manipulate the "firmness" and kick back by the use of water and grooming machinery. Which makes sense when the poly-fill has a wax component which the composition of changes relative to the prevailing climate. As we all know the weather variation in a day let alone a week can be considerable in Canterbury. Not uncommon to get a 15 degree change in temperature in an hour!

Another question - if the AWT's are so good surely the management of Awapuni and Riccarton have already done all the sums and feasibility studies? The only constraint to implementation has been supposedly $15m? Which when you consider the value of the land (82 hectares) and buildings at Riccarton the $15m should have been a snip to raise. So what we have now is a $10m "benefit gift" from Winnie that flies in the face of all the PGF rules, no feasibility study and a rush to get it done presumably before the money disappears! I imagine there is a time limit on drawing the $10m down. Unless the RMA and ECAN involvement are completely rehashed in record time I would imagine there are a few consent hurdles to jump as well. 17 months to go Pitty.

So you'll be picking up your own horse shit Pitty? Surely you'd have to admit that $50k a year in maintenance is far too low?

I think I read where Pakenham charge $60 a gallop on their Polytrack.