pete cook

I'm becoming a bit bored with this, but just got back from walking the dog and would like to point out two things. First, the Industry was told, when Slot races were introduced, that the main advantage was that they would "cost the Industry nothing". Who, or what changed that? (and to be fair to Mr. Steele, it was before his time). Second, in his speech at a "future is Now" presentation just after he started, Mr. Steele suggested that slots could be bought by groups of say, 30 young people, who could put in $10k each. At the time, I remember laughing out loud at the naivety of that idea. Sadly I have been proven right. Oh, and just a last thought regarding having good horses. Using Mr. Boots as an example, how many horses has he bought that have been developed by excellent NZ trainers and gone on to be his stars? The problem is that your average owner has little alternative than to sell to rich owners like him.

Fine, let the big spending owners have their fun with slot races. Just don't understand or support why the other industry participants who haven't the same resources, or horses, should be disadvantaged financially to subsidize them.

Gama, I suspect we are talking at cross purposes. There are the odd horse trainers who have served at HRNZ and the ATC, however I am talking about their skills as trainers, not administrators. How many winners have Brad Steele or Matt Peden trained? There are now no license holders on the HRNZ Board.

I am at a loss to understand where you are coming from. As far as I can see, neither Brodie or myself have been critical of our horse people, yet you keep suggesting we are. I have always believed they are some of the best in the World, and have been privileged to know many of them personally. Obviously, your idea of 'tiny' and mine are different, and my issue is that the 'tiny' amount would be much better spent elsewhere, instead of subsidising races for people who have horses that are capable of winning far more than that.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the number of mares being bred by the big studs, compared to the so-called hobby breeders

Gamma, it's obvious a discussion (I was going to say argument but refrained) with you about this is futile. Only the future will tell who was right or wrong. My understanding is that when the Entain deal was signed, it was conditional on NZ introducing Geo-blocking (which Australia have had for years).The idea/thinking was that that would create a large boost in wagering (I seem to recall a figure of $40m being talked about) to replace for the money that Entain is putting in now. Given that HRNZ have just announced that turnovers are actually down on a reduced turnover of last year, and the year before that etc., that seems to have been proven to be pie in the sky. As I've said before, we don't have generous State Governments of billionaires to help...ALL, I repeat, ALL our money comes from wagering, hence my comments on Slot Racing, which, as does Cup Week almost every year, run at a substantial loss.

Gamma, I really do admire you rose-tinted glasses. Yes, the 7 slot holders put in $30k each, but although I was never much good at maths, that only comes to $210K.So to say HRNZ only puts in a small amount to a $500k stake is simply wrong. Nobody likes watching super horses race more than me, as I've been doing for around 60 years, but I'm a realist and, as it stands, the race will be boring and very expensive for a game that can't afford either. I could send the rest of the day outlining the better ways that the Entain money could be spent, but others on here have already done it on here.

HRNZ putting large amounts of Industry money into a seven horse Trot Slot race, that will undoubtedly be a wagering disaster, is a disgrace. Just another example of recklessness with Entain money.

All the programmer/handicapper has to do, for example, is put in a condition that, for example, in a rating race, any horse that has won more than 10 races, or a certain amount of money cannot start. Seems it's too hard.

There is no perfect handicapping system, never has been, never will be. If you set it up to advantage one group of horses, you disadvantage another group. The answer is in innovative programming, which can be done under any system, including the current one.

There is no perfect handicapping system, never has been, never will be. If you set it up to advantage one group of horses, you disadvantage another group. The answer is in innovative programming, which can be done under any system, including the current one.

When you are a small stable, it can be challenging to get the best drivers, who naturally want to drive the horse they think are the best chance of earning them money, that's their job. There is also a loyalty factor. I know one leading trainer who has a list of preferred drivers. When a driver turns him down, that driver goes to the bottom of the list. As for Paul and Tu Tangata, he owns it so he can do what he wishes, don't forget he gets $100 for doing so.

Galah, I don't know if you are aware, but John Mooney was appointed, prior to Mr. Steele's appearance, to chair a kind of think tank to sort out the problems. From what I hear he has pursued is own agendas and Steele has followed. Mr. Peden is simply a PR specialist.

Thanks for the compliment (I think), but I've been involved in too many controversies and shit fights in the past to want to get into it again. Sadly that is probably the case with most of the 'tragics' like me

Strong suspicion that most questions were actually answered by Mooney and Peden. That is likely to be true. In Mr. Steele's defence, he inherited a mess and, like the Board, has been poorly advised since.