the galah

Do you actually believe what P4P writes on the other site? I personally think he is an idiot with all his comments. P4P is all about the them and us approach. And sadly it seems so are many others. You say "the RIU looking like idiots." Where do you get this stuff from? They have only heard the one high profile case so far related to evidence gathered from the police operation INCA, as far as i have read. The trainer you support was found guilty was he not. So what are you on about?How did his mates help him? What did they do that helped mitigate and negate the possible consequences of his indiscretions? Nothing is the answer to that. I feel sorry for him because he had his circle of supporters embolden his mindset,totally out of touch with the possible consequences of following that path. If you want to know whether i am right. Just ask yourself where is he now?

When i looked up the tab takeout figure a couple of months ago,i found in 2018 for every $ spent it was... 15% win and place 21% quinella 25% trifecta,first 4,double,treble 26% quaddie 27% pick 6 and place 6 when i rung the tab recently they told me you got rebates if you spent over $98,000 per year. I know the rebates on their website says 1% win ,place and quinella and 2% exotic bets for a spend of $10,000-25,000 per month 1.5% ....... and 2.5%... $25,000-49,999 per month 2% and 3% $50,000-99,999 per month 3% and 4% $100,000-250,000 per month 4% and 5% $250,000+ per month. I agree. Its even worse if your putting on a place bet on the nz tote. I think the big changes in the prices on our tote is because of the small pools and as the chief and i have referred to ,the website being so slow to update. I think the australian bookmakers do lay some money off on their trots and dogs on their totes. They only have to put a small amount on to influence their tote dividends.They get way more $1.00 place dividends. Given some bookies pay out on the 2nd best of the 3 totes over there its simply a way for manipulate the potential payouts. They can't lose really if they take for example $500 a place on a dog,and they put $150 a place on 2 of the totes that would be enough to make the dog only pay $1.00 a place.

There is more to it than what you say. I'm convinced there is a deliberate attempt to undermine betting on the tote,and instead promote betting on fixed odds. Why else would trackside tv hardly ever show the tote dividends in the last few minutes.They only show fixed odds. There can be no other explanation for it. Once again this is a decision made my morons. There is absolutely no reason why they can't show both,yet they don't. Its unbelievable really. If your betting on the tote you have to sit in front of your computer and look at the tab website and watch the tote dividends,and that can be a time consuming process as the website is so slow in updating the dividends.

I went to the local tab today and deposited some money in a couple of accounts. I decided to use their self service terminal to see how long it took. Well to put 17 notes in,it took 7 minutes. Incredibly slow,just lucky no one was behind me. About 1 minute of the 7 minutes was used up when it refused to take one of the notes i put in 4 times. It was one i had got straight from the bank,couldn't understand why it was not accepted. I confirmed the time from the 2 tickets i got back. And this is the way of the future. Does the person who has made the decision to transition to self service machines in the next 5 years at racetracks, have any idea of how it will slow down betting. There is only two logical explanations.Either it is a strategy to discourage people going to the races or the people making the decisions are morons. Or perhaps its both.

To be fair,Dunn is driving well. I'm tipping the $1.35 shot in the next to get beaten I'm not a fan of N Purdon as a driver ,and think he should never be paying anything so short. I'll go for crackerbrie.

I guess we will just have to wait and see. Anyone associated with the "cole " greyhound kennel surely is tainted with the live baiting scandel,how can they not be. That must include those that worked for him and said nothing and the owners who continue to support someone who is charged with serious animal cruelty.. Ineffective administration has kept him as their glamour trainer. Given Cole is still dominating the greyhound sport, previous administrators of that sport can hardly come with glowing references. Trackside keep interviewing cole before each race at wanganui tonight. I just can't work out why they do that. It just is a reminder to not back on the CD dogs.

Who would buy one off the all stars? Your never going to improve it. Did it look sore? They have an awful lot of their better horsesend up going sore. Thats happened to about a dozen of their best ones this season. Mind you another dozen replacements just come in. One i have been watching in aussie is smoken bye. The former kerr trained horse has been a flop for its new connections. If i was an aussie i would look at buying southland horses.

So very accurate nomates.

I agree with the comment about making the last fence further from the finish. They don't have to reduce the number of jumps,just don't put the last one within 400m of the finish. You mention your not sure whether the harness industry have a re homing programme . They do promote life after racing. They call it Harness Education and Rehoming Opportunists.(HERO). I have seen the Markham family from methven promoting it and have read about Jackie law in canterbury rehoming over 600 and brenda middleton in the waikato re homing over 500. There are several others who do a marvelous job.

Basil,i have been thinking you appear to believe that having a monopoly has been the major factor which has lead to the poor performance. That's where we differ. If they had no monopoly/had a competitor they would still have performed just as bad . Its the people who have been running it in recent years,making the stupid decisions who have been the problem. That is whats needed changed. That has been the problem. Monopoly or no monopoly ,the cause is still the same. We don't need a monopoly to recognize previous poor leadership and decision making. You also seem to work on the assumption another competitor would be better. That's not a given either.

We will have to agree to disagree. No own goal at all. The point i was making in the example i gave was that both businesses suffered big time for a couple of years as far as income went because there were not enough customers for 2 companies. One went broke in the end. IF you think seeing the tab go broke is good for the industry then we will have to disagree. I still don't understand why you can't see having the already small betting pools cut in half will only discourage betting.

About 15 years ago i worked for a company that had about 40 in the workforce,and about 30 of them bet on the horses . Most of them have now retired or passed away. Now days,,the same company still has about has about 40 with a lot younger average age,but only 3 would bet regularly on the horses,and 3 occasionally. Thats why i always say the focus on attracting punters should be on the people over 40 as that is where the customers come from. The first workplace i was in was a govt department of about 12 and they ran a betting syndicate and everyone participated and took an interest. I even remember the boss lady used to let me finish early if there was a local twilight meeting. mind you that was over 30 years ago. There is no doubt interest is waning. I think the lack of free to air tv and no exposure in the local paper has speed that up. and now they have taken away the radio. Reading the previous posts and everyone seems to be looking at the negatives. If people within the industry can't start talking in a positive way,then why would anyone not currently involved want to take an interest.

Just as a footnote to that. It was the incumbent business that won out. How did they do it. They simply got rid of the people who had got them in mire with their poor decision making /leadership,and replaced them with people who made smart decisions. The core product never changed, just the new people who made the decisions were smarter.

What i am saying is you are describing our tab/rita as a lazy fat monopoly. I don't agree that is the reason for their failing. I believe they have tried to remain relevant. They are not doing things over and over. The reason they have failed is simple. They have made incredibly dumb decisions. The people who made the changes had the best intentions but weren't up to the job. In an attempt to stay relevant they made changes that destroyed their customer base and drove their customers away. Taking away their monopoly or not,either way they will fail unless they make the smart decisions,and not the dumb ones. Now rita has new leadership. They have to look to the future.The government with the bailout simply put a band aid on the problem,as evidenced by the cuts announced that are sure to hurt the racing industries income in the future. I think they need a cash injection from government greater than they received. Without it they will limp to a slow death. The government is far better off getting revenue and tax from the betting and employment with such an investment. Unfortunately the idiots who ran the tab in recent years undermined the merit of such an investment,nevertheless it is needed.. You give the farming subsidy in the 1980's as an example. Fair enough.I will give you an example of a small business i am familiar with. That business ,in a large part because of their own poor decision making,got a competitor in a market that could only sustain enough income for 1. So they fought it out,eventually 1 succeeded,the other failed. But while that scrap went on for customers the income of the 2 competitors was significantly impacted. So really its a no win situation in a lot of ways if you are the racing industry.

O.k. i stand corrected there in respect of overseas bookmakers. Obviously things have changed in the last 12 months. I'm a bit sceptical of the 80% australian on line claim. And besides 80% of what? It may be next to nothing if they are getting say 3 c in every dollar invested whereas they could make at least 12c if the betting was done on the nz tab. RITA always talk about the racing industry in press releases like that. My point there is there PR often seems to be trying to placate the racing industry by making out it is the sole focus of such deals,yet we know the sports betting side of that would be a major part,and what % percentage actually goes to racing and not sport. And the other thing about that is. Why are we still being told that it is the leakage to overseas operators that is hurting the returns to the racing industry. Is that a fabrication if they have these deals in place,or are the deals not what they are made out to be.

I know nz was only a little fish as you put it. Still effected the 800 punters that bet here regularly. I agree the turnover does'nt seem much. John allens figures in a news article,mind you we know he exaggerates a bit or in this case probably underestimate.. Really the point is about generating income for nz racing ,and how much profit is lost to overseas bookmakers.

Splitting hairs. I said a law was passed in 2017 to stop people in australia betting on the nz tab. Yes they could set something up in australia to allow it,but they haven't so far. If the australians thought it worthwhile to pass such a law,you would think they believed they had reason to. According to the nz tab ,at the time there were around 800 customers in australia effected and they had a turnover of about 1 million.

In 2017 there was a law passed in australia that stopped betting on the nz tab. I assume that is still the case. No one is suggesting nz punters can't bet on overseas racing or sports,just that it should be done through the nz tab. Its only a suggestion at this stage. Nz racing currently gets nothing from the overseas operators even though they supply the product.

I fully understand how competition works. You say "grows customer demand by offering more attractive prices,better options and all round superior quality of service". Sounds like that came straight from a John Allen seminar. The point rutherford has made,and i endorse ,Is the business is failing because they have alienated customers,provided inferior product and still seem to lack understanding of what customer services/product are necessary to maintain turnover,let alone increase it. So instead of you saying rutherfords ideas are "half baked" you first need to acknowledge that the bulk of what he said related to why the tab/rita has come to be in its current financial trouble. The most pertinent point at this point in time is how can the most income be generated for the racing industry,and that is the approach rutherford was addressing. If we were to introduce the free market approach you advocate then obviously the nz tab would no longer be viable. Simply put,the timing is wrong for the approach you advocate. So using your approach would immediately inflict even more pain on the already strained nz racing income streams. Quite simply the racing industry may no longer be sustainable, and the free market approach would become irrelevant as nobody would have any product to sell. It really comes down to choosing between two unpalatable options. And the best of those is to stick with the one betting operator in the expectation that they will have increased revenue and therefor increased return to the industry. What other industry provides a product with no return like nz racing does to overseas operators. Of course the big if,and its a very big one,is will it make any difference to rita/tab when they keep making decisions that have a negative impact future revenue. Its certainly not good.

"The fields for the february meeting were great" ??? The field size in the first 5 races were hardly inspiring betting races?. 3 fields of 6 and two of 7.

That's a good question. Hopefully they have moved on. Otherwise why would we expect anything to change. There has been no transparency as to accountability. One thing that always bothered me when i watched them promoting the introduction of the $50 million website. Why were they promoting sports betting at the expense of their core product,the racing industry? Why undermine your main revenue earner? I always got the impression they liked the image of the tab to be based around sports,not racing. Who,when and why drove that focus?

Rutherfords solution doesn't seem half baked to me. The comparison to John Allen is a bit ridiculous. John Alllen had no understanding whatsoever of his customers,none whatsoever. Did you ever watch him give those talks on how the new website was going to create all the extra turnover. I saw a video of one and just shook my head. I thought either this man is very clever or he his is an absolute idiot.,because he appeared to have no idea about punting,yet was making out he was an expert. Rutherfords advice is simple. Put people in charge who know actually understand the business they are overseeing. How can anyone grow any business if they have no idea of their customers needs,as we have seen in the past.. you say to increase competition. I just don't know how that would work. Have you seen the size of some of the betting pools. How is diluting the pools size going to increase overall spending. And don't all those overseas bookies simply close a punters account if they win on the fixed odds.

"Allen was delusional and didn't understand the product." I like that quote. So accurate as are all his comments. One thing is clear from Rutherfords comments. He actually understands punters. The sad thing is he,along with the rest of us who are punters,can see the cutbacks they currently are making ,will only lead to reduced turnover and less customers. John Allen was delusional,but given some of the proposed changes currently being made by RITA,they don't seem much better. I wish they had someone like Rutherford having influence on their decision making.

Therein lies your problem. They appear to be your industries most recognizable figures media wise. So given the court cases,and given the details will no doubt get widespread media coverage, then how can your whole industry not be tainted in the view of the casual observer. And i just can't work out why this mass production of animals and the obvious disposal thereof of those that are not viable is being allowed. It all seems to be heading down the path that australia found themselves in. I'm not a greyhound expert and only follow the waikato/auckland region but i sure hope that they keep the c/d dogs out. Surely the northern region should introduce a preference to start policy now in favour of their regions dogs. Better to act now than turn off the punters they currently have.

Mr allen says re-energise nz's relationship with china. United states no longer a reliable leader. The only thing missing is sell our souls. Obviously looking to stand for national.