the galah

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.

The point i was trying to make is gifting land/or the lease of land back to the community does not mean the community always benefits. I used greymouth trotting club as an example of that. Obviously you know a bit more about it than i,but a relation who lives in greymouth has told me about what it looks like today.Not just the trotting club, House owners with houses on the leased land had their rents substantially increased,some left,some no longer do any improvements. Pretty much the same happened not far from where i live about 5 years ago. The Hokitika example you give is an interesting one. I wonder what that looks like now and if of any benefit to the locals? I guess what your pointing out is for most racing clubs,their priorities are with the local community,over and above the racing industry . Thus if they were to gift all assets/ or give up leases to local communities then racing will not benefit. So if the racing clubs in question don't want to help the racing industry then why the heck should the taxpayer or anyone else bother. And if the viability of racing's future depends on an injection of funds that they won't get,then why would anyone currently involved expect to make any sort of living out of it. So the answer is the racing industry doesn't have the desire to take the medicine that may save it.Everyone is interested in whats best for them,not the industry as a whole.

Would be interesting to know what $ value was involved for those suggested for closure that owned their own assets. The community use thing would just mean the local sporting clubs/ or whoever it is that use it will not be able to afford their upkeep anyway. So i guess you mean you want them gifted back to the local councils,but then they become a drain on ratepayers,or sold by the the councils and turned into farms or whatever. Your approach may be very community minded but not sure how that helps maintain the racing industry that you say you want to see survive and don't know how that helps retain the jobs of those in that industry... Maybe you should have a look at the old greymouth trotting club ground next time you are over that way..How did that work out when they transferred it back to the local iwi.

The Brodster is the Roberto Duran of Bit of a yarn posters. He just keeps coming. You may think you have him on the ropes sometimes,but he just keeps coming at you anyway. When he's knocked to the floor,and you think you have got him,he gets back up and keeps coming. The Brodster plays a fair game and doesn't resort to personal insults either.

Hit a nerve there. Someone pointing out they are not showing the lure pick ups seems reasonable. I never said i expected there to be social distancing at the lure. As happy has pointed out we all knew there would have been some pre approved rules to abide by.So given what happy has posted,why not show the lure pick ups? Same stupid reason they don't show the things i referred to earlier. Not just a greyhound thing. Why is it some of those replying about greyhounds reply like that.

They could have used the dogs to find the fire hydrants

A shed fire at manukau sportsbowl. Thats a new one

why was that?

Yes,its all a load of bullocks. Just as they don't show falls in the after race replays. Just as happy says they don't show jumpers falling. A one point they cut out the falls of jumpers in the replays shown a week later on trackside..They would cut out 200m of some jumping races,sometimes more depending on how many falls. Same as horses at harness or gallops that fall,not allowed to show that either in replays immediately after race.. We see it in real time,but because a replay is not shown it somehow didn't happen. Its pc gone totally mad. The point is if their is no transparency, you believe they must be hiding something they don't want you to see.

I agree with the viewing perspective of the tri code clubs. No atmosphere whatsoever for trots and dogs just terrible. The interaction /closeness of the spectator to the equine/dog/people participants is the reason people go to the races.Thats the main reason you get more people at harness grass tracks for example. As far as clubs assets. They just have to have a change in mindset and be realistic and unselfish,which they may be willing to do if they were to be thrown a lifeline,albeit a difficult one. Really they have no choice. Do they want their sport to survive or not?

Well doesn't that mean the bulk funding methodoligy is flawed? Are you saying a club gets funding irrespective of whether it can run a meeting at a profit/loss.?

The clubs under threat of closure simply need to be given set standards they have to meet. E.g minimum stakes,yearly profitability,local community participation levels,etc Sink or swim. The chance to survive given on the acceptance by the smaller clubs that there are to be changes and the bulk of industry funding will be given to the clubs the industry has deemed strategically necessary,that they(Clubs under threat) are to get reduced funding,and should they fail all assets to be transferred to their governing bodies. It has to be a compromise based on the realisation from the smaller clubs that they have been dealt a hand that puts there existence in question. If they don't accept that that they will be closed. Minimum stakes the smaller clubs have to offer need to be slightly reduced and if trainers/owners don't supply the numbers then thats just the way it goes. There needs to be tracks which are given funding on the grounds that they are strategically needed as training tracks. To me the problem in racing is not only the poor use of industry funds,but also it just pays out too much in stakes. Everyone moans about the stakes levels,but expects clubs to spend more than their income to maintain them. I'm with an earlier poster that said a cap on maximum stakes so as to maintain a minimum stake and bulk participation.

yes i was doing the form on that race but after reviewing its form realised that dog must and should have been scratched 2 days prior . Really seems a bit hopeless. In future when time becomes a factor in what punters invest on,if those running the dogs keep up that slackness then why would you bother?