Chief Stipe

Racing Victoria: Racing Victoria undertook an extensive 12-month review, conducted in consultation with industry stakeholders, which considered the number of synthetic racetracks required to service the industry’s current and future needs, along with the most appropriate locations. The decision to conduct the review was prompted by the scheduled need to replace the current Geelong synthetic track at the conclusion of 2018 due to wear and tear. The review ultimately established that it is not in Victoria’s best interests to build and maintain three synthetic racetracks due to prohibitive costs. It also noted that the current quantity of synthetic race meetings appropriately services the state’s racing schedule. Racing.com Park (Pakenham), which commenced synthetic racing in 2015 and conducts an average 22 synthetic meetings per year, remained a preferred location for RV given the large racehorse population in the state’s south east and the track’s relevant infancy. Ballarat was chosen due its central location, its proximity to a larger percentage of the state’s racehorse population, its strong local training numbers and the enhancements in track shape and size that it can afford over the incumbent track at Geelong.

There are only two synthetic tracks in Victoria. Pakenham and Ballarat. The reason there are not more is "they are too expensive to maintain." Pakenham has 11% of the total country meeting turnover in Victoria and does not return sufficient profit from racing activities to for annual maintenance and eventual renovation of the synthetic track. It has 40 race meetings a year with the meetings evenly split between Turf and Polytrack. However the Polytrack race meetings are confined to the winter months. Note: Pakenham has 65ha dedicated to training and stabling facilities. With training closed at Caulfield it is expected that those stables will relocate.

Nomates we DON'T know if that is the decision the committee made. What we DO know is that their race dates have been taken from them - I presume not of their choosing!

That's the Strategic Plan. The last Business Plan posted was 2015-17. I thought they had to present one every three years. So the 2017 is missing and we are due one for 2020. However since Saundry has taken over the transparency of the NZTR operation has gone.

Well if that were a criteria then there wouldn't be any clubs left in NZ.

Slightly off topic where is the latest NZTR Business Plan? The last one I can find is the 2015-17.

You can't assume that from what Freda posted.

From what I've seen from a recent inside look into the costs of racing media the biggest cost is personnel - largely journalists. The biggest revenue hurdle is simply generating revenue - the only way to do that is via subscription (i.e. paywall) and/or advertising. So a media channel such as radio can't provide a quality programme without being funded by the business that benefits most - wagering. That then gets back to the question of where does NZRB/RITA spend its marketing budget?

We often hear about the contribution that Racing makes to the NZ economy. Often that "contribution" is used to justify direct support from Government. Which may be fair in a society where those who yell loudest get the most regardless of contribution or need. Personally I believe the industry should be able to stand on its own two feet and the fact that it can't is testament to the Government support that it keeps getting. Sadly the code that arguably has the most wealth, thoroughbred racing, needs the most support. I'm surprised why the leaders of the other codes haven't protested why they are having to carry a disproportionate weight of the excesses of its big brother. Anyway - attached is an economic report of racing in the State of Victoria, Australia. If your Sunday is a wet one I suggest you have a read and compare it to New Zealand. A number of things stood out to me but two in particularly - the amount that racing directly pays to the state government and secondly the recognition of the value that volunteers in the industry add. In New Zealand we want to avoid the former and eliminate the latter. ier-vri-size--scope-report--sep-2018v2.pdf

They fixed it so not an issue. Any serious punter would have known and those that didn't well......

Both the Galloping and the Harness Clubs seem profitable and pay their way. Annual reports attached. Overall it seems the racecourse assets are owned by Motukarara Sports Centre Ltd. But not sure about that. However the two clubs own that company 50/50. BC10065253656.PDF BC10065296295.pdf

For those of you who didn't get Curious's subtlety Ballarat is racing on their Grass (Turf) track today, rail out 4m and the track is rated a Soft 6.

How does that increases revenue? What is the criteria for deciding the chosen "few others"?

1,200 horses a month train at Cambridge yet that isn't enough for them to fund an AWT without a Govenrment handout AND a promise of $750k from NZTR.

Actually how many JCA hearings did she adjudicate?

Then how are you going to get a return on investment? Plus pay for the increase in operational costs?

A better question is why did the Cambridge Jockey Club need $10m of taxpayers money if they are the "largest training centre in Australasia"?

Nor the ones I talk to. I'm picking if there was the choice between a race on AWT in NZ vs a Grass Track in OZ the latter would win.

Especially when you have underutilised tracks that cost next to nothing for the industry to run on. Instead we are going to essentially corporatise new assets with their inherent management and maintenance costs unless of course the trainers and club members turn up to help rake the new AWT's. Of course Harness nor the Greyhounds got any capital out of the PGF.

Which probably reflects that by far the majority of races in Australia are on Turf tracks. Only 10% of the race meeting in Victoria are on Synthetic Tracks. 41 out of 409. NZ's plan - although this is based on anecdotal evidence from hearing trainers who are "in the know" is 130 out of 300 or roughly 41%.

Now you can call me an ANTI All Weather Negative Bastard if you wish however I have seen these schemes from the NZRB/RITA for the last 25 years and I believe I can be excused for having some doubts. If anyone has the detailed Business Plan for the AWT's then please post it or even send it to me in confidence. Surely industry stakeholders deserve this transparency.

Well it took a bit of finding but I found the Annual Financial Report for the Chelmsford City Racecourse. Took an effort because there are three shell companies under the umbrella of The Great Leighs Estates Ltd which was the original company. Their LOSS for the year was 2.8million pounds or NZD$5.6m. Their retained losses are 10.2 million pounds or NZD$23 million. Even with more than 3,000 horses trained within 80km of the track. chelmsford-city-racecourse-annual-accounts-31-March-2019.pdf

Yep go back to your 77 meetings at Addington - 56 won by the All Stars team.

Is the spending of $48 million now and the closure of profitable tracks going to help? Note: $30 million from the PGF lolly box and $18 million from the three clubs ($6m each) = $48m.

I'll give you that one - I must have been reading an old British Racing Authority safety factor which said 10 which would also apply if they built their turf track. However given all the horses trained within 80km of the course why is their average field size worse than NZ's? They appear to have 8 or less races per meeting and at about a third of those of less than 7 horse fields. Why is that?