the galah

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?

Just wondering when they do the scratchings for the dogs. Race 9 iron eyes apparently was stood down on thursday but still showing in field for tomorrow. Is that unusual or do they normally only update on the day?

I think Winston has always been the voice of reason. I think his parties name, new zealand first,is an accurate reflection of how they view each decision they make. The rudder that helps guide the current government when the waters get choppy. Under the National government we became a country driven solely by wealth,,they lost our social and environmental compass. The way each party has responded to the crisis just reflects their priorities. Personally i am glad we have our current government with the New Zealand First influence.

Thanks for posting that. It does put a different light on the extent of travel from the epicentre.. I had read multiple press reports quoting different sources about travel from wuhan after the 24th of january. The stories seemed to say defy logic,and well there you go ,they clearly were over stated. There is no doubt travel from the epicentre by the many foreign citizens that went home did take place after the 24th,but China understandably would not have stopped them going home. One interesting article i read was 5 million people from wuhan had left the city for travel within china and overseas in the preceding month due to the holidays they have with the chinese new year and many because of the rumours that a deadly virus was sweeping their city.

But what i stated is fact in relation to the chinese banning domestic travel from the virus epicentre ,while allowing international travel from the epicentre. It happened. By the way i don't buy into the Trump miss management at all. It certainly is what the Trump hating media,including nz media want to potray,and they pounced on a couple of his stupid off the cuff comments. The reality is Trump is not viewed by americans as the media portrays him. The next election there will again prove that.. Some of his media conferences about the virus may have not been his best work,but his new press secretary certainly is impressive so far and looks like she will sell the trump administrations virus response very effectively. As to the china bashing. I'm with Winston in that by putting all your eggs in one basket you set yourself up to be manipulated . Thats not china's fault. They have been masters at working there way to the top of the world with the usa.. That's also what Trump says. Whether you agree with the way they do things in China or not,you can't help but admire china. But you don't have to think that our countries voice on whats right or wrong should be silenced simply because it may impact on us economically.

Instead of thinking of the majority as sheep, you should just accept that the majority believed the government mostly made the right decisions based on all the data they had. Sure you can point to australia as being just as effective with less disruption to the economy,although the economic experts say not that much difference. And yes you can point to the figures of infections to death rates and the strain being different in some countries to others. But given the impact it has had in so many countries our government was always going to err on the side of caution. Have you followed some of the devastating reports coming out of so many countries.The likes of russia,,brazil,etc . The list is so long. What about the latest figures to come out of italy that said they had ,excluding the virus,something like 11,000 more deaths in the same 5 week period compared to the previous 5 year average. In other words way more deaths related to the virus than reported. So many countries under reporting. I know we have better health care,but why would any government take the risks you suggested we should have. So people aren't sheep,they just view the health of others as important enough to agree and trust the governments actions. Instead of directing your frustration at the nz government, shouldn't the real frustration be directed at the chinese government who stopped all domestic travel in and out of Wuhan and Hubei province to stop the spread of the virus, yet for about 10 days thereafter let international travel from that area continue.

What i do think a joke is how you could infer that.. I've read some strange things on here but your comment ranks up there.

I hope you or the Brodster weren't watching the Al Jazeera channel 5 minutes ago. You would have been reaching for the blood pressure pills as Ardern popped on there for a minute or so. CNN,BBC even on FOX i have seen small segments on ardern and nz recently. Can't get away from it. One of those was a funny one on fox where they had some medical expert in america saying New Zealand was made up of 60 islands, ardern at least made some sense in the clip in that segment. Best you keep away from those channels.

the colmar brunton poll on 8 april said 88% of new zealanders supported the governments response to the covid 19 outbreak. Obviously you and the brodster in the 12%. Having said that i was looking at a poll last week and it showed most leaders in developed countries showed their approval rating had gone up. Even donalds was up 3% at 49%,and that in a country where 47% support the democrats and are unlikely ever to approve anything he does. Scott Morrisons had gone up the most. Ardern i think was 2nd . No doubt labour support will fade a little as the economic pain kicks in and people judge their decisions based more on their own circumstances that that of the nation as a whole.