the galah

I thought the Messara report had recommended specified club closures. If the avondale club hadn't seen this coming and not made some contingency strategies then you would have to say they are at fault,no one else. Maybe they have,maybe they have the wrong person making comments to the media.

You would assume a club like avondale would want to negotiate some sort of representation on any future auckland racing club, so as to ensure decisions made can have their input/influence. That is what i would expect from the effected clubs. I haven't read anything like that in the media. Just the spiteful comments. Why is that

That may well be the case. They have gone beyond saying just that though haven't they. Why say what she did?. Well the reason is, that is what they are thinking. Its goes beyond being parochial, it is spiteful. No doubt there is more to the story then meets the eye, but surely its better to put the assets of that club in the hands of people who actually support thoroughbred racing.

It doesn't matter where they are running. Punters don't like races where there are dominant favorites like we used to get when they had all those penalty free races. Those penalty free races so often had about 25 nominate and then end up with 7 acceptors with a hot favorite. Waimate's pre lockdown meeting turnover was huge and clearly illustrated betting is more about exposure and having even fields with a bit of form. It was a low grade meeting but that will never put punters off if the fields are attractive. Had an auckland premier meeting been run under the same circumstances people would not have bet on it anywhere near to the same extent. NZ cup day has all the ingredients that waimate had,except higher quality. Run waimate fields at addington on cup day with the same pre race coverage, and the turnover would not be too dissimilar. Its only the media that tell us otherwise. In your answer happy you said as much as well.

Reading an article where it quoted the Avondale vice president jan skinner as saying the club" would rather donate their assets to the local Plunket society" than let the racing industry get their hands on it. Seriously,if this is how a racing club views their own industry,the sooner the thoroughbred racing industry winds up the better. Why should an industry continue when it is full of people who hate the industry they are in? Must be a thoroughbred thing ?

If the quality of fields was a factor in turnover, then why did the latest Waimate meeting have such a huge off course turnover? The answer is its never been all about quality, thats just what they want you to believe.

I have just read that the thoroughbreds will still race at Timaru,just no trots. Not sure why they would keep a racecourse open for one code only,seems a bit of a strange decision. I guess that answers my own questions.

So they have announced which clubs will be closed as racing venues. I understand the need for centralisation. But does anyone know what happens to the venues as regards remaining open as training facilities? Where is the announcement about that. Should that not have been made at the same time? Take the likes of horses trained in South Canterbury. Orari, Waimate and Timaru gone as racing venues but you would think they must retain one of those as a training facility otherwise they would lose about 100 horses( thoroughbred or standardbred) who use those tracks . If those tracks close, trainers in that area would have no tracks to train from unless there was significant travel each day. A couple of the bigger trainers would have to make 2 round trips,totaling about 4 hours all up, thus incurring significant travel and extra wage costs. Given the time and cost involved you would expect none of those to continue if the tracks were closed. The owners would be gone as well. The Oamaru track is an interesting one. It appears to have remained open,yet there is not 1 thoroughbred trained there. And only a dozen or so harness horses,half of which have trainers in their seventies. Williamson may turn up now and again to give his horses a run but he has his own training track,unlike those in south canterbury. And of course 80% of the horses that race there from both codes drive past Timaru to get to Oamaru. So i hope they clarify quickly which tracks are to remain as training facilities. That way those training from there can pull the pin sooner rather than later. The other obvious question is if they do retain some courses as training tracks who pays for their upkeep given the funding they receive from their local racing clubs will no longer be there.

I think as a harness fan you have to be realistic and accept that the scales will tip in the gallops favor when it comes to the support the racing industry may get from government Comparing the 2 codes can be a divisive approach at this present time. I think each code needs to pick the right battles to fight,but i don't see synthetic tracks funding as being one worth complaining about. I don't see a contradiction as far as the closing tracks issue goes, as they are sticking with the centralisation theme. I do agree that if they are just to be training tracks only, then how does it help with the holding of actual race meetings on courses that will have more racing dates,and that already struggle with track surfaces. I don't know too much about those type of tracks and what it costs to maintain them so you would hope they prove to be an asset,and not a liability.

So they found it likely his details were leaked by someone from the ministry of social development. He tried to enforce the old motto, actions have consequences, but should have known some government department employees have their own agenda's and know how to not take responsibility.. National government was certainly no friend of racing., Winston has shown he has been the racing industries best supporter within government in the last couple of decades. I like his views on most things, but i guess those that support National really struggle to acknowledge anything he does.

So the north island trainers are advocating some changes to the handicapping system .. Some seem fair enough like the horses over R70 dropping back at a faster rate. But they are advocating for the return of more penalty free wins again. When will they ever learn that this is a policy that leads to less participation,smaller field sizes and more hot favorites resulting in less spending by punters. As i posted on another topic -last season the average starts per horse had gone up close to 3% and races with hot favorites dropped by 5% . Stats obviously don't mean much to those advocating for the penalty free wins.

I find this story a bit disturbing. They say they are going to transition to the self service machines because the ones they currently use that have operators are proving too costly to replace or service. Does that mean the self service machines will not require servicing or replacing in the future? It all seems so short sighted. Personally i never use a self service machine because i dislike them. I have tried on occasions to get used to them but just found them frustrating to use. I'm not one for filling in bet slips either because i think it ridiculous how small the writing is. Thats me,maybe others find them better. As has been pointed out by previous posters there are so many possible drawbacks to this proposal. Won't this proposal cost them more revenue than it will save while alienating many of their customers?

Having no radio coverage does seem to be a counter productive move. Can they produce the figures as to what % of their customers require that medium to maintain their current levels of spending. The answer would be no,otherwise they would have produced the data to justify such a decision. Its all a calculated guess by someone who appears out of touch with reality. In Australia they have gone back to free to air TV for some of the saturday meetings and some parts of the industry are pushing for free to air tv to be expanded. It seems decision makers within the industry and tv channels are pushing for the expanded coverage as they believe there is a demand for it. Why do nz decision makers have opposite views to the australians.

When you say"the government bailing out the industry is the last thing they need." Just trying to understand the way you think. So you are unhappy about todays announcement from Winston? Do you think RITA should make an announcement that they won't accept the governments help as a matter of principle?

Yes that is a good point. To be honest you hear so much negative comment about these different organisations that you lose track of who is being blamed for what and whether the criticism is justified or not. It seems everyone is looking to blame someone else,. It all just becomes blah,blah,blah nzrb, blah blah blah hrnz, blah blah blah the tab..

So your saying he is repeating a promise made some time ago about all weather tracks.. Fair enough. Didn't realise those plans were more than wishful thinking. Gee it takes a long time for the wheels to get in motion doesn't it if that is the case.Your memory is pretty good. On face value the bail out is very generous given it has been a self made hole that rita made. I think the racing industry should be very grateful.

I wasn't aware the galloping codes had the funding for 2 synthetic tracks. Maybe you can enlighten me when govt had approved spending on that. So you agree $72.5 million is new. maybe you can enlighten me as to another nz politician who would deliver that. No doubt his announcement has been timed to coincide with the recent news regarding the cuts currently being undertaken in other areas effecting racing. Some people will never be happy with what winston does simply because they don't agree with his politics. Instead of playing the man they should concentrate on how he helps the racing industry and acknowledge the industry is very fortunate to have his support.

So Winston has delivered, and again shown his support for the racing industry. The industry is lucky to have someone with his influence within government.

Your theory,and it seems nearly everyone else's ,is that we need to target younger people to ensure future participation at all levels in the sport. Well i've heard that for the last 40 years. And that strategy hasn't worked has it. Its so bleeding obvious.How many more years do you think it will take before people realise this. And why is it having 2 20 year old people is more important than attracting 2 50 year olds. I know who is going to spend the more money. Nowdays the younger generation spend so much time sitting on their phones playing games that need no IQ. Instant gratification. I really don't know how you connect an interest in racing with those people and why you would bother. I've always believed a pathway to a racing interest has been exposure through family members such as parents/grandparents/workmates/sporting clubs. Thats how 99% of those i know who follow horse racing became involved.. I also think when they took away free to air tv it was one of the dumbest decisions ever made. So many people watched the sport because they found it interesting. They killed that exposure. Finding a motel with trackside is a rarity.

Or maybe he has a more recent/better contract than the others.

I love my work so i will make the sacrifice to keep going,but some of my family won't.

But i would have a job,i just have to travel further to work . Am i worried that you would spend the money wisely,you betcha. Thats why i would want some sort of say in how the money i gave you was to be spent.

Not very happy,but if i knew the proceeds i gave you from the sale were to be used to keep me and my family in employment at a job that would not be there without the proceeds of the sale,then i would begrudgingly understand why i had too.

Disagree with that.That is where i think the nz industry has always gone wrong in my opinion.. I have always believed if you want to increase your customer base then you should look at who your current customer base is. Your more likely to attract similar type customers to those you already have and not attract customers similar to those that you have very few of. Its just common sense to me and is what works in the real world. Who's more likely to have a punt on the horses or own a horse. The bloke with a girlfriend saving for a house,the bloke with the young family,or the couple (or single)over 40 years old who's family has left home and are financially stable? There are stereotypes of employment that are better targeted than others. Just as people that bet on sports are more likely to bet on horses than those that don't.. Sure,the big days which are social occasions may be attractive to the young once a year racegoers and sell themselves,as are the family days on the grass tracks where they can get close to the action. But why use marketing to target the once a year racegoers to an event that sells itself.

I guess the obvious reason some of these country clubs have been doing ok is because they only have one or two meetings a year. Clubs that race many times a year obviously contribute more to the industry/stakeholders and are of greater importance. Had they only had one or two meetings then no doubt they would be better off financially. I understand the merit in arguing why dissolve clubs that have demonstrated they are financially sound. But if you are to argue that then surely you should be saying the bigger clubs with the majority of meetings must cut stakes,so as to remain financially sound, if that is the criteria you use.. I agree that it is not that wise if industry resources are invested in leased land in preference over industry owned land. The Hokitika club does seem interesting. From what has been said on here earlier it seems they chose to not to use their resources to help racing. Apparently it seems the local equestrian groups and the boys brigade have been the benefactors. To some that may seem to have been doing the right thing,to me its obvious they were run by people who put those interests ahead of the racing industry. I can tell you that i have seen first hand that those that run racecourses round the country will always put their own personal benefits above that of the industry. Ive come across too many clubs who will not allow horses to stable or train on their tracks,but are more than happy to lease their land to the brother of a committee member,or lease it to a committee man. Not all clubs are like that,but if you don't think there many that run these clubs that receive personal benefits then you would not be telling the full story.