Slippery Slope

You are probably right! But if HRNZ are transparent and report regularly how much this exercise (especially Auckland / Cambridge) is costing the industry, especally compared to what we were already overspending before the change this month, then there is at least hope that they are up for a debate and change of course if proves to be financially as bad as we all think it is. Should be blindingly obvious even with the FNL results. It's nobody's absolute "fault" that in a racing sense Alexandra Park is a poor betting product and Addington is one of the best, it's just history, economics and community interest all melded together. Why can't HRNZ just accept that most Australasian punters have already made their choice, and the young Auckland market are already betting and gaming elsewhere? No amount of heavily subsidised second rate racing is going to change that very much at all, in fact over time it may even be detrimental to harness racing's share of betting revenue overall. Only the numbers will tell us.

Just to be clear, whilst I agree with the observation about 16 vs 12 in general, as a one off what Gammalite's forgetting is the higher class of the race and the familarity of so many horses to punters will give a really large offset to uplift betting (just like a Country Cups full field) vs an everyday R50 race where 12 is as he observes to be preferred to 16. HRNZ and Entain have all the historical data and modelling to work this out- rest assured the upcoming Friday night feature will be a way more profitable race for harness racing vs the alternative of 2 fields of 8,and the latter would have been twice exposed to scratching risk thus dragging return the field size down still further. Another recent thread references correctly to the good work the brains trust in the Utilisation Reference Group have just released. Two key quotes: "maximising wagering turnover will be the principle consideration" and "we should be aiming to achieve annual annual and increasing minimum average of 10 to 11 starters". Sorry but splitting 12 acceptances of R50 or lower classified horses into two fields of 6 has proven over the long term based on HRNZ's own data analysis to give a lesser return (betting revenue less stakes subsidy) to the industry and thus its owners. Given HRNZ is already overspending its available stakes subsidy funds relative to where we be in 4 more years I'd hope it should listen to its brains trust. Alternatively explain why it thinks (knows) based on the actual financial results that 2x6 horse fields with the scratching risk that follows is a lesser and/or sustainable cost to the industry vs one field of 12, which they have already proven to be in the band of the optimum field size for maximising net revenue for the industry.

Friday 23rd will mark 3 weeks of the new Tuesday Cambridge/ Friday Alexandra Park setup. By end of tomorrow night we will have had 44 races across the 6 meetings at the two venues. Only 6 of those races will have achieved the minimum optimal fields size for betting revenue, 10 or more. But sadly the generally least optimal (highest cost) field sizes 6 or less will have occurred in at best 15 of those 44 races, assuming no more scratchings for Alexandra Park tomorrow night. I mention this because next Tuesday Cambridge have a few more nominations than the last two weeks- 66. If HRNZ are still on top of the data and equations of betting revenue earned relative to stakes subsidies paid as they were for the last couple of years they will already know how much dividing nominations of 12 to 14 before scratchings into fields of 5/6/7 is costing the industry immediately more money in terms of excess stakes subsidy to betting revenue. So watch out if they still keep doing field splitting next week as they have for the last two meetings. At the moment this is just a narrow and more short term question of trying to understand why HRNZ are apparently consciously splitting fields at a greater cost. No commentary has been made to date, and maybe they are still just experimenting, which may be fair enough if they are properly monitoring the outcomes from this experimentation. We just don't know. In making this observation there's also the bigger picture and longer term question of what the relatively poorer quality of product simply due to field size that we are now offering in the north vs the south will do to relative Australasian punter interest on meetings in the North? If R60 and below class racing is our core product offer for c.80%+ of all races but then in the North its predominatly dished up in fields of 7 or less vs 10 or more (plus on grass tracks) in the South, that seems a tough place to grow overall punter interest in Auckland and Waikato harness racing. Lots of questions still to be answered, hopefully HRNZ are monitoring and analysing outcomes as they go.

May be so, 81 started there last year, and the first meeting of the year earlier in the month at Ascot Park was 10% down on numbers vs 2023. Hope it's not a sign of things to come in Southland otherwise our overall share of turnover could be hanging by a (Canterbury) thread even more than it is already.

About that. Last season first 2 Manawatu meetings - 23 Oct average field size 8.4, 5 races. 4 favourites won, $ 252k turnover, Gross betting revenue a loss of $51k because of favourites predominating, HRNZ stakes subsidy $51k, net difference ($102k). Not something we would want repeated very often! - 13 Nov better result. average field size 9, 6 races. 4 favourites won but other 2 were 6th favourites. $234k turnover (but good export), Gross betting revenue a surplus of $28k, HRNZ stakes subsidy $62k, net difference ($34k), so that was c. 3 races stakes subsidies covered. Cambridge on Tuesday had 3 favourites, 2 2nd favourites a 4th and 5th favourite win the seven races. Less turnover than Manawatu's 6 races last year and with much smaller fields this year. With that mix of favourites hard to see how total meeting GBR gets above $20k- that would be 3 races at best. For Cambridge its a sad watch and a sad financial outcome if we don't have the horses. As I've said already why HRNZ would split 12 horses in two fields of 6 to lose more money I don't understand. But unless we get transparency from HRNZ on financial outcomes by meeting further down the line like they've given us for the last couple of years we'll just be making an educated guess on how much this new approach comparitively performs over time.

One other big picture observation and question. Harness racing is already not New Zealand wide, and unfortunately amongst the numerous reasons that this has happened is that in the 2 main centres that now no longer have harness racing (Wellington and Dunedin) the product that was offered simply wasn't attractive enough for punters and owners (the venues weren't either). Cambridge is a top venue for harness racing on and off course. Unlike Wellington and Dunedin (and CBD Auckland) it is in the centre of the equine industry in this country. The explosion in choice for Australasian punters in 2025 with gaming and sports betting as well as wall to wall racing compared to just 10 years ago necessitates harness racing delivering a quality competitive product. Harness Racing New Zealand are consciously and deliberately putting a product offer at Cambridge that looks likely (apart from 1 month in the year) to be worse than the offer that was at Hutt Park and Forbury Park and they have gone forever. Regular selling of a poor product on the worst day of the week to sell it (apart maybe from Mondays) will do what to the reputation and attractiveness of that product at that venue over the long term, for both wagering and ownership?

Here's a novel idea. If you refer to my analysis of yesterday, you'll see that for a virtually equivalent number of races 224 vs 244, for the year ended 31 July Alexandra Park needed approximately $6,800 more in stakes subsidy per race from HRNZ than Cambridge to run each of those races, despite its better race dates (Friday nights). Of course part of that extra would have been group race subsidies, but I eliminated the 3 biggest / most costliest race days across both venues to be as like for like as possible in that analysis But for comparison purposes let's allow Alexandra Park to keep $1800 of that $6800 per race excess subsidy ($400k + p.a.) for the rest of the group races costs but then to even up the return for owners racing at both venues we rebalance the remaining $5000 50/50 and so Cambridge races for $2,500 more- $10,500 every race, and average Alexandra Park races for $2,500 less c.$14,500. Note that this distribution becomes very very similar to the Addington stakes vs the rest of Canterbury venues like Methven and Motukarara Friday/Sunday balance that has worked well there for years. Do this and then ask whether you have to do any of the other stuff on Cambridge R35 bottom up/ Auckland R40 minimum etc the Utilisation Working Group are coming up with to deal with the enforced Cambridge/ Alexandra Park stakes disparity HRNZ set up from 1 August. If Entain forces Cambridge to keep racing on Tuesdays and Alexandra Park won't let them have any Friday nights for their "Cambridge Rewards" events then so be it. But at least with the above you've: 1.Given Cambridge, relative to Alexandra Park at least, AND ALL THE WAIKATO OWNERS AND TRAINERS, a fair share of the stakes subsidy pool. Then HRNZ don't have to keep asking that group to "take one for the team" in terms of the reduction in their access locally to a fair stake level and having to now incur the cost (Going to Alexandra Park!) to anything more than $8k. 2.Required Alexandra Park to operate more closely to the betting revenue that their turnover generates. Thus they can be much more accurately and fairly judged on how attractive and financially sustainable they really are relative to the the bulk of owners at stake levels that are closer to those that we will have to live with in 4 years, rather than just the top 5 or 10% chasing Group status races. 3. Got a similar comparison of performance of Auckland / Cambridge to Addington/Canterbury country to work on over the long term. 4. Hopefully removed a key barrier to enabling Cambridge to get back on Fridays on a structured basis (just once a month please!), and maybe even for both venues to work to putting up a decent product to bet on relative to Addington at least on every Friday. Thoughts?

And in addition to Chief Stipe, linked to 1. measure progress and performance as we go, so we don't keep throwing $ millions of money to where it generates the least return for the spend.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if HRNZ explained why, given how we are depending on them to maximise turnover with their handicapping and field size policies, they chose to split fields and gave us 7 races with an average field size of 6.6. One less race would have given us 7 and 8 horse fields throughout, not great but the bare minimum surely.

Keeping Alexandra Park afloat at all costs, even if Cambridge goes under? If I was forced to choose which one reflects the right location and strategic positioning for where the harness racing industry will in reality be in the future it wouldn't be my choice, but that's going to be determined by the industry and where the money comes from. At the very least for now (the next 4 years) if I was HRNZ I'd make sure I had enough competitive tension in this project between the two venues, and key milestones to measure how it is going. Instead they seem to be simply hanging Cambridge out to dry at a time when Alexandra Park isn't even certain to be a going concern. As you say, it seems a strange idea, and for HRNZ somewhat divorced from reality during a period when they are spending excess $ vs turnover and betting revenue in the North which they have absolutely no guarantee will still be there 4 years from now.

Gammalite your preference is what HRNZ is delivering. But to try to explain the misguided approach to Alexandra Park vs Cambridge, here are key quotes from the just released HRNZ Utlisation Working Group 2nd report outlining what they want to do at these venues. It proposes: 1. Auckland should offer racing at R40 and above 2. Cambridge.. select fields bottom up R35 and above 3. Cambridge horses... regularly... race at Auckland in "Cambridge rewards" races for higher stakes. Why this is unfortunately misguided, putting aside all the other commentary about the huge $ cost to the whole industry of subsidising the Auckland venue: 1. Auckland meetings regularly only get off the ground in terms of this class of horse if Cambridge and South Island horse are in attendance- there are otherwise not enough horses trained anywhere near this venue. 2. The Waikato region, which Cambridge is in the heart of, is the biggest and wealthiest horse orientated part of New Zealand- it is not Tasmania! And up until now harness racing because of Cambridge was doing a good job of maintaining cross code interest in our sport, including ownership. Being shunted to Tuesdays and being forced to "select fields bottom up" will quite quickly kill this interest and ownership drop off will follow. 3. The Cambridge owners and trainers are going to be asked to race for "Cambridge Rewards" races every month, not at their own venue say 1 Friday a month (which could have addressed point 2 above) , but by trucking two hours each way to race at Alexandra Park, at more cost to everyone. I can't even begin to say how nuts it is to treat harness racing's 3rd biggest venue after Addington and Alexandra park this way. It is in the middle of horse racing's biggest and best area nationwide. It is not and never should be compared to Birnie, Devonport or Launceston, but if the above is the plan that is what is likely to happen over time. The harness racing industry has much more relative strength in Canterbury and Southland because it is local and interconnected week in week out. Auckland could have been required by HRNZ to ensure Cambridge had the opportunity to keep doing exactly the same, and keep racing those "Cambridge Rewards" events or whatever else it is termed locally at least 1 Friday night a month. It didn't, and that says a lot about how well connected they seem to be to where the bulk of the industry's owners and trainers come from.

"Deliberate distorting of the market can only lead to one thing- market failure". Just a reminder on the scale of market distortion in favour of Alexandra Park and to disavantage Cambridge that already existed before we saw the triple combo of FNL kick off, two meetings a week and Cambridge shunted to Tuesdays start in earnest this month. For the 11 months 3 Aug '23 to 5 July '24, the numbers of meetings and races between the two venues were similar. But the relative cost to the industry and return from betting definitely was not. Let's exclude the 3 big autumn race nights with the largest HRNZ subsidies/ stakes at Cambridge and Alexandra Park (12 Apr Cambridge Slots, 10 and 17 May Alexandra Pk Auckld & Rowe Cup and leadups) and thus focus on the bulk of races/ meetings/ betting revenue and subsidies being related mainly to "every day" racing. Excluding these 3 meetings in the 11 months here's the comparison: Cambridge, 26 meetings , 7 on Fridays. 224 races. Gross betting revenue, $2.310m $10,312 per race. HRNZ subsidies $3.454m, $15,420 per race. Shortfall $1.144m, $5,108 per race. Alexandra Pk, 27 meetings, 16 on Fridays, 244 races. Gross betting revenue, $3.057m $12,530 per race. HRNZ subsidies $5.979m, $24,505 per race. Shortfall $2.922m, $11,975 per race. Most in this forum are fully aware that it's really hard understanding the HRNZ justification for shifting so many $ millions of subsidy to the north vs the south year on year. And its even harder to understand on the comparison above, why HRNZ then further favour Alexandra Park so exclusively versus Cambridge, a situation that will only worsen under the new Tuesday/Friday structure. The ATC was already being favoured with both most of the Fridays and most of the group races and their associated subsidies, and they weren't performing better relative to Cambridge. Why does FNL always have to be Alexandra Park should remain a very live question for HRNZ. This is especially the case as it's likely the horse population shortage with the resulting lousy betting choices presented for both Alexandra Park and Cambridge will simply cause the $ they have to spend to subsidise Northern harness racing to grow still further. There's no such thing as a free lunch!

Why is it so hard for the ATC president (or anyone else in harness racing leadership to be fair) to be honest about the total amount of cross subsidisation to Alexandra Park in particular that has been going on for years, and still is? To cherry pick a comparison of two racs the Derby and Oaks but totally ignore the extra $000's his venue gets for every other non-Group race every week of the year is depressing!

And when you put these two products side by side and give the punter a choice (versus having no need to make a choice 24 hours apart) the punter with limited money to spend in then evening will presumably usually choose the product which offers best value for a return on their form study and their $- that is the bigger field, the better dividends, the track with the better setup to give more horses a chance to win etc etc. BUT To be fair to Entain, the two products side by side virtually every Friday night may attract more regular punter support and thus more turnover overall, too early to know. But if the average Addington race has c.10 starters whilst Alexandra Park can only get an average of 8, as you say Brodie its likely to be Addington that pulls most of those extra $, and if so the subsidy from South to North to pay equivalent stakes at each venue will only grow. Addington could keep bringing in even more $ as share of turnover vs Alexandra Park, if FNL does bring in more punters and $. But if so just to keep Alexandra Park afloat and give stakeholders up there more than $4k per race of their stakemoney that extra $ would all be coming out of the increased profit from betting on Addington. This seems a truly weird way to run a business. It will be really bad if no transparency comes from HRNZ 6/ 12 months from now on what cross subsidy $ have been thrown into Alexandra Park and Cambirdge out of Canterbury, under new dates model vs old,and what the outcome from this change is overall especially between the two venues and North vs South with ref to share of betting revenue earned vs stakes subsidies paid out. Not holding my breath, but reporting on the FNL project should be both regular and transparent.

Some of the most depressing and concerning things about all this is that: 1. HRNZ will have or should have known all this when they supported both publicly and to the extent of $ millions of industry funds being taken out of Crusaders country betting revenue each and every year to fund Alexandra Park stakes. They are the controlling body for the industry and they surely have the right (and indeed obligation) to be all over the financial position of the ATC like a rash, and to thus explain why this doesn't seem to worry them. 2, HRNZ committed to all of this again publicly for the next 3 years (rather than 3 months!) BEFORE November's property settlement outcome is known. So no certainty as of today that they aren't putting all our industry money down the drain until that settlement outcome is known, whilst at the same time also prematurely relegating Cambridge who have challenges of their own to low class racing on Tuesday with very little hope of their turnover recovering the cost of stakes subsidies, and treating the arguably more strategically important Waikato harness racing community with disdain in terms of being able to maintain let alone grow owner support there. 3. The now publicly announced this week lobby from the ATC to unbelievably want even more of the $ millions of surplus revenue that Crusaders country harness racing generates , to fund a training venue they probably can't afford, to replace the one they sold off !! Sorry HRNZ, but this has the potential to be an incredibly embarassing few months for our code, and the treatment of owners and trainers in the South Island, and probably Cambridge as well, who are supporting this whole exercise with their money. Doesn't doing so in advance of the Auckland Trotting Club being able to prove to all of us that it is in fact a going concern disrespect us all? I'm looking forward to HRNZ recovering its commitment to being transparent on when / how you will report progress with "the Future starts now" within the next 3 to 6 months. Especially to tell us how we are doing on turnover/ betting revenue being earned with the new strategy vs stakes paid and the reality vs the spin of the situation in Auckland and the Waikato, and what that is costing the rest of the industry as an investment for the future. Please don't think keeping us in the dark for 3 years is in your and our interest.