Doomed

It is interesting. If this was a war zone and the racing industry was on retreat they would try and consolidate their position where they were safest. If it was an industry under real pressure (wait a minute, it is) they would consolidate around their most profitable segments. From the figures above it does sound like the answer each time would be the SI. Strangely enough, in this instance the answer seem to be to spend most the resources on top end management rather than workers, and to spend the last few million dollars on the worst performing assets. Anyway you think about it, we do seem to be doing exactly the opposite to what any normal industry would do in similar circumstances.

You probably know more than us Joe. No one in NZ watches NZ racing. I would doubt very much that there would ever be a problem with an NZ track.

Lots of amazing finishes in the Telegraph and Thorndon in those days, even a dead heat. I recall Bonecrusher racing in the mile, Tricavaboy flashed down the outside to beat him. The SI used to win it regularly: Grey Way, Polly Porter,, Powley, Jonny Alone, Just Tommy. Seemed to be much better races when they were handicaps, but sadly not the way of the world these days. Apparently having 8 mares racing around is considered more exciting.

It is really the ARC and NZTR that have stuffed Trentham, not that WRC really needs any help in that direction. So the big boys can't even play properly amongst themselves.

And has he factored in that Ellerslie can start 18 horses over most distances whereas the Coast tracks can only start 12. As we all know the bigger the fields the bigger the turnover. So with everything else being equal Ellerslie's t/o should be much higher. And we are also told that people want to bet on the "flash" horses running around for the big stakes. Apparently there is no interest in low grade horses running around for $12,000, that is what so much of NZTR's policies are based on. This example seems to indicate that that isn't really correct, so their policies are possibly based on very false assumptions.

It was Manawatu horses that got to 'zip down". The Matamata horses got to head home and then race in the same races for the same stakes the following week, plus their stablemates also had the option of racing in those races without any travel at all. The Southern horses got to head home and race for $12,000. Between that abandoned meeting and this coming weekend there have been two feature meetings in the SI; one in Southland and one in Otago. During the same time the NI has had 11 feature meetings. There have been no feature meetings in Canterbury. From the time of the abandoned Trentham meeting until the next feature meeting in Canterbury 8 weeks will have passed. Long time to keep paying training bills. So, a bit disingenuous to suggest the consequences were much the same for horses from Matamata and Riccarton.

Those are actually quite fascinating figures. I know some argue that turnovers don't matter, not sure why not, but I think they are very valuable information. It is also worth noting that Reefton's total stakes were approx $105,000 whereas Ellerslie's were around $400,000. Most of that stake money is centrally funded, so you can see why some think there is gross inequality. When Reefton on a non holiday Wednesday can do a higher on course turnover than Ellerslie on a weekend, that really does indicate once again that perhaps NZ Racing's problems do not centre around the small country clubs. Perhaps a few less high staked northern meetings and a few more southern meetings might be a good idea. Wingatui this weekend will be interesting. They get an allocation of feature meetings way beyond what logic might suggest. I have no idea what their turnovers are like these days, but they did used to under perform in that respect. Of course their drain on the industry will be nothing like Trentham this weekend. Wouldn't it be great if these turnover figures were more readily available to interested parties?

Interestingly, I watched the race in question and did mean to check the stipes report afterwards. I thought watching the race, from my very amateurship perspective, that when he took the lead he thought he had the race in safekeeping and tried to give his horse as easy a run as possible, then he got a surprise when the other horse fought back and he had to try and get his mount going again. I was half expecting him to be in trouble for not giving his month every chance to win the race. So it is somewhat ironic that he eventually got in trouble for trying too hard over the last few strides.

I just happened to look at the programme for next week's Trentham meeting. I was interested to see what sort of programme they would run with a lower key meeting between two group meetings. I note they are planning to run $40,000 open class races over 1,600m and 1,400m. Not very often you see a club with two open races and only 200m difference in distances. I note that this week the Anniversary has only 9 acceptors and in a couple of weeks we have the group 1 Thorndon mile. Obviously this has all been worked out by some of the greatest minds from NZTR and the Central Districts experts with local knowledge. It's times like this I am pleased the industry is in the hands of experts rather than simple souls like myself who would never have come up with such an innovative idea.

I read this to mean people are incensed that he chose to forgo his ride in a group 1 race in order to ride in a couple of non group race sweepstake races. Is that what it is supposed to mean or am I misinterpreting it?

There should be a lot more interest in this. If the money is all taken in some socialist heist to help fund Addington and Alex Park it will set a nasty precedent for all other clubs in both horse codes. If the Forbury Park club get to keep the money and run a $100,000 Dunedin Cup at Wingatui or Waikouaiti each year other clubs might think the centralisation concept could work after-all.

NZTR actually puts $620,000 into the two sweepstakes. Which is more than their total contribution to the coast circuit. As you say, the sweepstakes should be self funding. NZ has a particularly unique approach to sweepstake races.

On course attendance and turnover has always been considered a relevant factor in NZ Racing. That may have changed in recent years: whether that is a good thing probably depends on your perspective. It would be interesting to know the Ellerslie turnovers. I suspect Kumara probably topped them on and off course. And remember the net benefit to the industry was probably greater at Kumara, and the other Coast meetings, than the net benefit from Karaka night. It takes a lot more turnover to fund a couple of $1m races that it does to fund mostly $12,000 races.

I notice there are $30,000 worth of trainers incentives for the 3 Trentham meetings, paid for out of a the NZTR Innovation fund. Do trainers really need incentives to attend meetings with multiple group races? And does it seem fair that NZTR is already funding Trentham to run multiple group races with industry funds and then they spend another $30,000 of industry funds to try and encourage trainers to attend? If the Pitmans aren't in attendance the $10,000 allocated for Southern trainers might go to someone who has a couple of starters over the 3 days.

The thing is, these days everyone wants to be out on the grass in front of the stand, so they can be seen, and it doesn't matter if they can't see the horses. The big in field screen is so those on the grass can see the horses if they want to. You will notice very few in the stands with a good view of the races these days.

Do you mean if Freda isn't considered an elite trainer she might be barred from the Coast?

I was interested to see comments about there being a very small crowd at Ellerslie compared to Kumara. I didn't watch Ellerslie myself, but did check the results. It made me wonder how successful all the extra money they are plowing into stakes has been. Don't get me wrong, I think its great they are topping up stakes, I just wish some other big and wealthy clubs would do it. But do the results justify it? I assume Ellerslie was a basic feature meeting with $30,000 minimums in which case they added about $15,000 to some stakes. I certainly hope NZTR didn't give them extra just because they are Ellerslie, while keeping the rest of the industry impoverished. Interesting to compare the feature stayers races at Ellerslie and Kumara. Kumara: $30,000, a capacity field of classy and evenly matched horses. A rating 89 beats an 85 and a 74. Ellerslie: $55,000, seven starters, a rating 69 beats a 70 and a 74. Everyone would agree the Kumara race was a vastly superior race in every respect. I would love to be able to compare on and off course turnovers for the two meetings, as we used to be able to do. I do realise some patrons use their phones to bet on course, but the total turnovers would still be interesting. A neutral observer comparing these two meetings would almost certainly compare the two results and think there is something wrong with the model. I do question whether the neutral observer would come to the conclusion that the problem rests with Kumara and the industry as a whole would be better off if Kumara and the other Coast clubs were shut down. I suspect they might even suggest that it seems a bit stingy to only fund most of the Coast races at $12,000, and perhaps the 74s and 80s could justify another $2,000 to $3,000 each.

His major owners with prospects probably all went to the abandoned meeting and probably spent thousands on accommodation and travel, and of course it was them who actually paid for all the horse costs as well, and also the expenses for the trainer to get to Trentham. So I imagine it was probably those connections who were most pissed off and said stuff that, we aren't going back. It probably cost them over $5,000 all up. And remember the Northern horses all got to race again the following week, on a track that they probably preferred. So it was very poor treatment for the Southerners, but a good result for Wingatui.

Come on Chief; you can bet on Korea, USA, Tibetan husky races. What more options do you need?

I was impressed to read the article about the Pitmans where Michael said he wouldn't be attending the Wgtn Cup meeting this year after the fiasco on Captain Cook day. Apparently he got $250 compensation for every horse he took to the meeting, the same as someone zipping down from the Manawatu. That is appalling treatment from the WRC and NZTR. When you consider the SI has won more half of the Telegraphs run over the last 5 years, you do wonder what the field will be like without them.

I am enjoying seeing Camino Rocoso ridden properly. He is going much better races ridden back these days. Obviously he has learned to settle in his old age. Great price yesterday. I backed him and boxed 3 in the quinella. Pity I didn't take the trifecta as they were the first 3 home. He certainly looked the winner the moment Jason angled him off the rails.

Is there any substance to that rumour? It just sounds too silly for words. Surely even NZTR aren't that stupid?

I always assumed it was the same Tim Barton who was the racing editor of the Timaru Herald and then the Dominion. Decent chap and one of the last proper racing journalists in NZ. I assume he is the one who writes the racing news items on their website. Whoever does write them, it is probably the most competent and intelligent stuff that comes out of NZTR.

The Waikouaiti feature day is a disgrace. It was purely a reward for giving up their track and day without complaint. Money no object when it comes to bribes like that. Meanwhile Timaru has no feature days. A much more logical pattern would have been for Timaru to race on New Years day with a feature meeting.

14 weeks without a feature meeting anywhere in Canterbury Curious. Non stop feature meetings in Otago Southland. Makes you think they might have no idea.