the galah

Well your above comment is a total contradiction. Your saying the pools were big because the pools coverage was wordwide,but the tv coverage being world wide made no difference to the pools "per se". I will stand on my head when i read that next time to see if that makes more sense. The whole world pool thing is just an extension of the very argument i'm putting forward. I'm arguing the principle of Greater coverage leads to greater turnovers. That principle applies to a dog race at dubbo on a monday afternoon,a harness race at manawatu on a tuesday evening or a gallops race at ellerslie on a saturday afternoon. Maximise the timeslots that you get greatest pre race lead in coverage on any given day/night nz harness are held and you maximise the turnovers.I've previously suggested targeting the harness jackpots with the carry forward money into those timeslots and you get big pools.The proofs always there if you follow the data. I have given the data above as to why western australia recognise why its so important.

Anyone who has any doubts about what i say about timeslots and pre race coverage being the main factor in turnover,just has to look at saturdays ellerslie meeting for proof. Its such an obvious thing. On saturday, in australia ,they had really good sky channel one, pre race lead in coverage for races 5-10. So how did that impact turnover. Well races 1-4 the win pools on the commingled nz tab,were between 25,000-41,000 and race 10 was $56,000. So what difference did the pre race sky coverage make,well the win pools on races 5-9 were between $660,000 and near 1.1 million. Now if the group ones were the reason for the jump by between $600,000 to million more per race,then why was race 4's group one turnoover only $41,000. its obvious the answer is, because that group 1 didn't get the same sky coverage in australia. as i always say about tabcorp ,their win pools reflected the nz tab turnovers. Tabcorps win pools for races 1-4 were between $6,000-12,000 and race 10 was $25,000. Races 5-9 were between $610,000 and 1 million..

no,didn't see that race,but do remember seeing videos ofpreux chavaliar bowing his head as he ran around sometimes.There was one nz trainer who didn't put overchecks on his horses who trained a small team in nz not long after. Not sure,maybe tank ellis,although i may have the wrong name there. Emma stewarts horses are so well mannered,especially for young horses and most seem to have no overcheck like you say. personally, i've always thought the less gear the better.My thoughts may not be the norm,but they are what i think. i believe most don't need overchecks,although they seem to need them when they are learning.Just depends on the horse.I don't believe poles should be needed,but having said that i know the all stars loved putting them. I don't believe in hopple shorteners either. I've found the first 20m you may be a 1m slower,but your horse will accelerate quicker after 30-40m and that will be more of an advantage.Definetly don't believe in prickers.I do believe in using ear plugs. Hoods i know work,but you should be able to get a change in mindset through alternative training. boots i believe every time.anyways,thats my thoughts about gear.

i think we've all read forburys posts before and know hes just sounding off,ofteh based on just one or two drives hes observed on any specific punting day. Where forbury possibly goes wrong, is he indicates that those drives are the overall norm for the people hes moaning about. We all know the people hes refered to are viewed as successful and capable. No denying he may be a bit extreme in his comments,but i think newmarket has the right approach,just realise that its something forbury does every now and again and anyone responding by calling him names is an indication your taking him too seriously and not understanding him. actually,sometimes i wonder where he gets to. Reading his latest post ,is actually nice to see he's still out there somewhere. Also,the people he commented on today in his post, if you watch their drives,both had days they would rather forget with some tactically average drives ,which punters would have been disappointed in. But thats racing,today things not so good,tomorrow another day and maybe back on top. Hopefully forbury has better luck on the punt on the second day.

In my opinion the breeders bonuses actually contributed to the reduction in small breeder numbers. The breeders bonuses were targeted at the high profile and commercial breeding operations and showed the small time breeders,that they weren't valued. Small time breeders may individually be insignificant,but collectively they are very significant. and who provides the horses in the grades that generate the most turnover ,mostly the small time breeders. Once people get rid of their mares,they aren't coming back. the industry has prioritised the commercail breeders who place far more emphasis on profit/loss. So when the industry starts cutting stakes,which is inevitable in 5 years or so,the commercial breeders will assess their investment and make decisions accordingly. And the hobby breers who were the back bone of breeders,who did it more for enjoyment than profit/loss,well they won't be there in enough numbers. so once hrnz face reality and realise entain aren't able to provide the current amount for stakes,they will dip into their reserves from the likes of the forbury sale. That will temporarily placate those left,then we will see people in administration moving on to greener pastures before the s... hits the fan. Of course we also have the ongoing fiscally unsustainable hrnz policy of trying to prop up racing at alexandra park. Everyone can see racing at alexandra park ,with their preferential stakes,will come to a point when reality kicks in. i was watching mr wonderful,kevin o'leary commenting on businesses that need restructuring and overhauling. He said he had been involved in large numbers of this type of thing. He said the worst thing those running a business can do is make small insignificant cuts and changes to right the ship. He said you should do it once and hard. well HRNZ seem to be taking the approach kevin o'leary said is the worst thing to do.

as i and many others predicted some time ago,the latest breeding figures for the season just gone,showed a significant drop in mares being bred. Down 12% to 1552. The HRNZ press release indicates hrnz isn't too good at maths either. They say the total number of mares bred was 1552,then say "trotting mares stable at around 500 and pacing mares down 200 from 135". well 500 + 1151 =1651. not 1552. . "It is evident the smaller breeders are especially reducing their numbers." No kidding mr steele! Then he says"our surveys show that there is confidence in the future of our sport,and that is crucial". Well your surveys may show confidence ,but the breeding figures obviously don't. Like i have said many times before,Industry leaders obviously are out of touch and in reality have been selective in who they talk to. Oh,and those bonuses that they told us would encourage breeders to breed their mares,that gets a f for fail from that perspective.

Not ripped off by betcha. Treated generously by the tab policy. Sounds like many happy bit of a yarn posters after delightful peg won.

thats what i thought,but someone told me they got paid out.surprised them as well.Perhaps thats a benefit of being an elite customer.

last week there was a decision in the case involving a trainer mistakenly getting the identity of a couple of his horses mixed up, which most likely would have been avoided had the trainer had the option of freeze branding his horse,instead of micro chipping. the hearing accepted david mccormick had no intention whatsoever to deceive anyone but fined him $600 .When the horse was first presented at the trials the stipes pointed out the micro chip reader was saying the number was 1 out . Mccormick believed the error would have been made as a result of some sort of clerical error and elected to start his horse,seemingly sure in his belief that he had not confused two fillies he had, some time prior to working them. It was suggested the most reliable way for trainers to avoid such a mix up,is for trainers to purchase a micro chip reader These seem to cost somewhere between $100 and close to $500,depending on how good a scanner you want. previously i have started a topic,asking why NZ horse owners/breeders don't have the option of freeze branding their horses. After all,you can freeze brand in the USA and canada.costs about another $50 , about 1/4 of harness horses in the usa are still freeze branded.Some like jeff gural both freeze brands and micro chips each horse,due to caring about where they may end up atfter their racing career. Amish owned horses make up a large portion of the freeze branded horses each year.Their religious beliefs around chips is the main reason they choose to freeze brand instead of chip.Amish have a lot of ex harness horse,using them to transport them around . animal welfare issues are a reason rescue organisations who advocate for harness horses after racing, have been particularly vocal around retainhg freeze branding. They say ex racehorses who could be saved or rehomed if they were identifiable at the sales where many are sent to be slaughtered,but due to how they are often housed pre sale,can not be easily scanned and identified as harness horese. The amish apparently don't like buying them at sales if no brand. It does make you wonder ,is part of the reason their is no longer a freeze brand option,to avoid the attention the industry may get from animal welfare groups,if they were to find out exactly what happens to so many racehorses when they are no longer viable racing propositions.you would think that should have been in the back of the minds as a consequence of those who made the decision not to continue with an option of freeze branding. Personally i've always thought theres something not quite right,in implanting a chip in an animal,when there is another option that does the same thing.

The tab would have paid you the full amount on delightful peg,even though it dead heated. $21 to win seemed amazing ff dividend considering it had run 2nd at its previous start in a 1.54.9 mile rate,beating home kourtney kardash,classie linc and shakira. That appeared the strongest form reference of any runner in yesterdays a 0-1 win,3yo filly race.She seemed to get a bit lost when she hit the front easily at the top of the straight and then fought hard when the other horse closed near the finish. actually the tab also seem to pay out ff bets even when a horse gets disqualified/relegated for galloping. they are a couple of things the tab do that treat their punters well.

The latest press release says "hrnz is urging a change of mindset around racing young horses." from 1 october 2025,yearlings can go to the trials,although they won't race until they are at least 2"...."so it isn't a major change" now when alan clark was fined $200 18 months ago, for starting his yearling at a workout in september,the decision on the riu website said clark started his horse,massive merc "prior to the permitted time being 1 october 2023". later that decision said this "rule 402 provides:no horse under the age of two years shall compete in any race(except that nothing in this rule precludes a horse being entered and started in a workout or trial after 1 october in the year before it becomes a 2 year old under rule 401). so,ive read this lastest HRNZ press release and it appears Mr peden is saying that its new for yearlings to be able to trial after 1 october,when in fact they can do that already. Wouldn't it be a basic thing,that the fella coming up with the strategy to create bonuses and encourage 2 year old racing, actually fully understood the topic and the rules hes talking about first?. I've read the full press release and things he said later in the press release, seem to ignore other obvious factors which he doesn't seem to factor into his thinking.

I think your nit picking. I'm just stating facts. if your interpreting those facts as bad news,then you must think its bad news i suppose. I previously posted the expected global profit for 2024 a few months back. you seem to be suggesting the stock price from 5 years ago and 6 monhs ago that you posted is more relevant than the 3 year,1 month and 1 week figures i posted? You can focus on whatever figures you want to,either way,its up to you. i think the key resignations at entain and the fact entain may be in for some huge fines in australia ,was relevant to the topic discussed in earlier posts on this thread. Thats what we do isn't it?

the entain australia resignations reportedly had something to do with the australian authorities investigating entain over non compliance/money laundering. its been reported Entains australian board of senior management did not keep appropriate oversight of its anti money laundering programme,which interfered with its ability to identify money laundering exploitation of their betting sites". Apparantly the people who resigned are both going to get jobs in the nz thoroughbred racing industry. .a couple of months ago austrac(the australian money laudering investigative agency) issued a press release about their investigation into entain. In it they referenced crown being ordered by the federal court to pay $450 million in penalties over 2 years in 2023 and skycity being ordered to pay $63 million in penalties last year. crown was sold by packer to USA private equity giant blackstone. Not to be confused with blackrock,and has nothing to do with jason bournes blackbriar. I did like the bourne legacy movies. so entain may be in a bit of trouble if that press realease is anything to go by. I'm going to be doing my bit to help entain avoid prosecution in nz.. I've told the wife to wear sunglasses and a balaclava when deposting money into my account at the local tab,from now on. But seriously,does not sound too good for entain if they are putting those details in a press release about entain. Entain globally did report a net loss in 2023 of 936 million pounds after having to pay 585 million pounds to relating to some bribery in turkey. they did make 19 million the year before.... apparantly over the last 3 years entain shares have dropped 56%,but they went up 9% last month,based on the expectation 2024 went well,but was down 3 % this week. They are actually reporting there 2024 financial report in a couple of days.

You start off your post by saying you dunno where mikeynz got his figures from,doubting there accuracy,then ended your post refering to mikeynz as the tote police,seemingly acknowledging you knew where mikeynz would have got his figures from. Interesting. Seems to infer you are saying " owners/trainers get paid" is higher priority than what you describe as mikeynz's "Shit" to say both races run at a loss. i had thought both would be important factors for the industry. You elevating one so far over the other. Again interesting. So currently having skin in the game,you believe is a neccessity to express an opinion that fiscal responsibilty is important in the industry?Interesting. you know what i find interesting about your post....its that in my reply i keep using the word interesting. Mikeynz wasn't quoting the fixed odds component of the betting. But now you've brought up the fixed odds portion of betting on harness racing,it would be nice if you could refer us to where we find specific fixed odds turnovers/profit/loss on each race ,because as you infer,that will be an important component in the industry generating income to provide stakes. for the sake of transparency,shouldn't the tab provide such information. I remember they used to have a news portion on the hrnz website where the tab gave highlights of bets won and loss,profit and loss on races at meetings. That only went for a few months then disappeared. As to the sports betting. i think you raise an important point. that is the contribution sports betting turnover makes to racings income. are you able to explain what % harness racing gets,or perhaps give us say the 2023,2024 and projected 2025 figures? Otherwise is all simply,someone saying something, but withholding the exact details from interested parties. Its something that could be used positive by the the tab,but they don't. Whay is that. as to the warriors big loss being profitable for the nz tab. Fiar enough,but like i say,specifics on how that helps the nz harness racing industry would be nice. also,just because there is sports betting,does not mean the bookies will make a profit each year.For example the latest nfl season in america saw many huge betting agencies worldwide suffer big losses due to the unusually high percentage of favorites that won their games.Impacted entains share price as well.

fair enough. I didn't see him that way. I always thought he was approachable and more in touch with the cross section of harness racing participants that make up the industry.. Far more so than what i see is happening currently,in my opinion. I had thought he had said whip use may be fazed out in time but supported the whip being used only 10 times in the last 400m. He gave the impression he fully supported efforts to stop anyone,no matter how high profile,using performance enhancers.He deserved much credit for wanting honesty.Shame the trainers all got tipped off before the police raids regarding the blue magic.Thats another story,but its pathetic when people criticised officials for keeping things close to their chest when the inca raids happended. I always found his move to head of greyhound racing was so ironic. Quite sensibly,while at hrnz he was consistent about animal welfare and the need for the industry to have an appreciation of the publics perceptions as regards that. Then ,there he was a couple of years ago,taking up the job as head at nz greyhound,leading an industry which i thought he should have recognised already appeared to have sealed their own fate through endless bad story after bad story around animal welfare. the irony is,the man who clearly cared about animal welfare,is now downplaying animal welfare concerns in the industry he leads.He must have known that all the really bad animal welfare stories from the greyhound industry originated from the people who still dominate the sport. And he must have known about the stats around other factors like injuriies. Anyways,theres an irony there. i wonder if he had thought about it. Just as theres an irony to point out that the racing indyustry he lead,has similar animal welfare issues,because he woould know,because he used to head up HRNZ. . Hes arguing he can clean up the greyhound industry.When he points to the harness industry as being proof they still have animal welfare issues,then doesn't he realise,it surely would be fair to ask,well if you didn't fix that when you were there,so why would anyone expect you to do any better at the greyhounds.

Theres a story on the nz herald website where edward rennell is interviewed by michael morrah. The reporter specifically asks about mr rennells strategy of comparing,as much as he can, the number of greyhound racing injury stats,to other racing codes,specifically harness racing was mentioned. Mr Rennells answer was "theres a lot more transparency around our reporting. What i would say is the level of euthanasias in greyhound racing is lower than the racing euthanasia rates in the equine codes. Now i'm not saying their rates are unacceptable,but i dont believe ours is either." Then he was asked,"what about injuries,are more horses injured than greyhounds" mr rennell.....'i would argue a lot of them(horse) are not reported" My take on watchiing that interview is,i get what hes saying,but surely the question he should be asking himself is,will such consistent public comments advance in any way, his attempt to overturn the greyhound ban. In my opinion,very obviously not. When winston peters announced the reasons for the closure of the greyhound after 1 august 2026,winston peters specifically referred to the unacceptable level of greyhound injuries. Well someone needs to tell mr rennell,that saying the horse racing indusrrty is just as bad,if not worse,doesn't change whats been happening in the greyhound industry . and someone needs to tell mr rennell that whats been happening in the greyhound industry, is the basis for the closure decision. i think,mr rennell is adopting a lose/lose strategy. Lose,for the greyhound industry and lose for the horse racing industry as the likes of safe and some of the public will form opinions based on rennells comments about horse racing. Personally i find it bemusing that a former head of harness racing nz would think hes somehow helping his cause,by negatively impacting the public perception of the sport he used to be in charge of. I had thought it had been a bit disappointing to see limited support from the horse racing codes to the plight of the greyhound participants and their dogs,but really,given mr rennells comments,why would they support him i suppose. Actually ,i've previously started topics on the fate of many of the horses when they are no longer in training.I know if you drive around the countryside,if you gave it some thought,you would note ,not just racehorses,but all horse numbers seem to be on the decline. I have previously commented on just how hard and unrealistic it is for someone to even find suitable reasonably priced grazing,for their horses.Rehoming places say ,anything aged over 12 they don't take. And i have commented on the feedback i have encountered from people who you approach about grazing a horse.It really is a major issue,that sadly most people just ignore and give little thought to. As far as the greyounds go,i read last month New south wales had a bill proposing banning greyhound racing going through the government process. All depends on the politicians i suppose,they have just had a commission of inquiry into the sport,again. Actually,i read recently that a prominent nsw greyhound person wasn't happy about how much they were spending on rehoming the nsw greyhounds in the usa. NSW,like NZ can't find enough homes for them so send them to be rehomed in the usa. The person from NSW had commented that greyhound NSW was spending about $6 million a year rehoming their dogs in the USA.

Jackpots are defintely a factor that can boost turnover and engage punter participation.I believe your on the right track. The key,in my opinion,is combining jackpots with optimum timeslots and optimum pre race sky tv exposure. reality is ,nz harness struggle to get good timeslots and good pre race sky tv coverage and they always will. Thats why,jackpotting funds should be applied very strategically,when the factors i mention are in play. A very important factor in jackpotting pools,is having an understanding of exactly who and what country are the punters from,who invest. for example,someone at the tab/entain should have the data indicating exactly how much is from nz punters and how much comes from austalian punters. I believe the australian punter component, is a very important component , leading to big pools, in jackpots. Its a basic,that first you have to understand who and where the punters are,who are betting into these pools,as without that understanding you willnever maximise jackpots potential. and its a basic,that you have to understand what time of day is the timelsot that generates highest turnover. Any administrator who claims "high class racing content"is the driving force behind increasing turnover",simply is illustrating just how ignorant they are. Those in charge should be getting advice that enables them to come across as at least having some knowledge of the topics they are making decisions on. not that long ago i started a topic on how to increase turnover through strategic use of jackpotting funds on first 4 pools and when they should occur. Yesterday,on a low key thursday,provided yet another example of proof of what i said. Race 9 at winton. A 7 horse(including 2 first starters), 0-1 win 3 year old race. The first 4 jackpotting pool of $7,000 went to $35,000 and on the same race, the nsw tabcorp first 4 pool went from $800 to $4500.

bored,Married at first sight,that the wifes watching, just isn't doing it for me this year,so i had a look at the HRNZ website to fill in time. The lastest press release on the HRNZ website is from a grant jarrold,who is chair of the HRNZ board. its early days to form an opinion as yet on what level of competent decision making we can expect. The chair of the board,grant jarrold has a video clip with just a wee bit more deatail. I guess they are trying to be transparent,so thats a good thing i suppose,but we all know theres a difference between giving the impression your all about good governace and actually delivering good governance. So time will tell. I have to say,that in my opinion,the first vibe i get from the video is a positive one about the man,but still he said things that made me think,just wait and see. actually,while it has nothing to do with my thoughts,does anyone know what the first two words he used in the video were? i've played that bit over several times and my hearing says he using ,i guess maori words, that if you google, mean blood treatment or tatoo treatment. Now obviously i'm no expert on te reo,but somehow i don't think what i was hearing is the right interpetation of the words he used. Does anyone know what he said in maori? Anyways,there were some points which i think were areas of hope,but also many areas of concern. for example. 1)He sates in the video" we need to have high quality racing and content to ensure we can improve our wagering and increase the returns to all participants' Now,as i've pointed out so many times,anyone who says high quality racing will increase wagering ,does not have a real grip of the principle drivers of increased turnover. Yes,if you look at nz cup day,tyou would say that,but using a one off day as the barometer to gauge the yearly turnovers is in my opinion ignorant. As i've pointed out so many times,the main drivers of turnover are timeslots,pre race sky racing exposure and jackpotting pools.I have given endless figures to back up why i say that. 2)he staes HRNZ is on budget. Well anyone can say overall things are on budget,even if there are areas where things are terribly not on budget. So my point is,how about there be some transparency around the figures. For example ,lets have the breakdown of the profit /loss or budgeted for loss for specific regions and specific age group racing. How about being honest and telling participants exactly how much cross subsidising from profitable areas of the industry,is being poured into auckland racing and 2 year old racing. 3)he stated "wagering growth". now ,that comment may be true,but does he not realise anyone can work out that was always going to be the case when all the extra meetings were run. There needs to be precise data released if they are gping to be viewed as transparent. 4)He mentioned the on course success of the summer racing. Well yes,they have always been successful,as long as the weathers good. But,people aren't silly and they can see when they turn up at the races at every day meetings in the remaing 9 months of the year,on course attendance isn't good. Besides,i thought the clubs are always saying that their is no hrnz incentive for them to encourage people to attend on course. 5) next gen. he gave that a plug. And i agree ,it does seem to have had a positive effect on the sales. Of course i have also pointed out,that i believe its going to end up like one of those high flying stocks that list on the sharemarket,that its the hype that drives the share price up,not realsitic potential returns. And we all know,that if the hype doesn't match the reality,then i will sour people off future investment. My final thought would be,i hope this new board wakes up to HRNZ two biggest problems. That is decision making based on short sightedness and self interest.

your right. HRNZ are doing all they can financially to ensure they can run the races with the smallest turnovers, for the trainers who value their udr strike rates,which of course by definition means they don't line their horses up as much. While doing that,they do nothing to financially encourage those who provide the horses in the races that generate the most turnovers,who line their horses up far more times than the strike rate trainers. Then ,we have all these media articles on how great trainers think it is that HRNZ is funding the industry with bonuses for the 2 year olds. I mean,ask yourself,are these trainers that short sighted that they can't see,that to proritise the interests of 5% of the industries participants at the expense of the 95% of trainers/owners/breeders ,will undoubtedly undermine and contract the industry that they supposedly hope to make a living from in years to come. some of these trainers comments show no empathy whatsoever with 95% in the industry.. Personally i think its all incredibly short sighted,and all incredibly based on selfishness, which will long term cost them far more than they will ever gain in the short term.

surely not every trainer thinks their qualified to race 2 year old,will be a top 2 year old? i mean,they can go around in a 5 horse field at the races for good money,just like they have been going around in 5 horse fields at the trials. Trials for nothing or fridays $15,000 stake,with $8250 to the winner and an extra $12,000 in bonuses to the winner. The whole thing,does make you wonder about sometimes. We keep reading where hrnz tell us the bonuses are whats needed to get more 2 year old starters,then we read how they keep cancelling programmed 2 year old races or they run a 5 horse race with all starters from the same stable.Duh. Then there have been several media stories about trainers so enthusiastic about the next gen bonuses. I mean,seriously,these trainers must be expecting their owners to eventually pay another $4,000 in training fees so they keep them in training a bit longer and earn an extra $4,000 bonus.Do they not realise how stupid that sounds. Oh,thats right ,from what i've read,they all are targeting being the first next gen horse home in the 3 sales series races. From what i have read in the many media stories,read,it seems all these trainers think they are going to win. sort of reminds me,Donald trump keeps using the words,common sense thinking and realistic thinking. Somehow i think harness racing needs some of that.

If the class of the horses was the most relevant factor in encouraging punting ,then why do the lower grade meetings generate the most turnover in nz? punting profitably is all about assessing the current form of each runner. After you've done that then you factor in dividends,drivers/trainers/draws/courses. But to be successful,it all starts with comparing a horses recent form against its competitors,irrespective of the class or level of the horse .In other words,if a punter is blaming the level of the product for being unsuccessful,they are not giving a realistic assessment. One thing i know for certain,is if nz harness punters were to redirect their betting onto australian gallops ,and if they have less knowledge and therefore less ability to assess the australian form,then they are sure to be less successful than they already are. So,from a gambling perspective,logically the best advice for punters should be to Not diversify their focus to include australian gallops,it would be to do the opposite and place more focus on nz harness.

Normal transmission has resumed with both drivers driving well in the remaining races tonight.No ones perfect i suppose,even if punters may like the perfect drive each time.

you have to laugh sometimes. I gave h orange the big wrap because he drove jahi to his strengths,which anyone who has followed him knows,is he can stay ok but lacks any high speed. Well,what did he do tonight,just sat 3 back the outside on a race with no speed on and he just seemed to go around for a quiet run with no real intent. even the commentator referred pre race how jahi was best driven then kept saying no pace on during the race. That after the first race where wilson house elected to sit 5 back the fence on a $1.30 shot. Now i didn't lose any money on either race and i saw the funny side of those drives.sunday snooze maybe. i'm sure they both were trying and will bounce back later tonight,i suppose.

the whales tip, arizonawildcat in that race has now dropped into $4.20 from $10. Its amazing just how much the tab drop his tips prices. ok,he may win now i've said that,but to me,anyone who does their form, would not have it as a $4.20 shot. Even the $10 it opened at seemed rather short to me. The money tracker on the tab website has it the most supported runner by far.The whale sure must have some followers who don't think for themselves.

so the media and the hrnz website are saying there is a direct link between the next gen bonuses and the higher prices for the top end horses sold at the sales. Well,maybe they are right. Maybe all those trainers who paid over $100,000 for their purchasses,actually did so because the owners will get $4000 when they have their 2nd start as a 2 year old and the trainer will get $1000. hang on,are they saying lots of owners/trainers spent over $100,000 because they thought they may get a $5,000 bonus. thats right ,they are,no that can't be right,as if it was true,then the purchasers have more money than sense. There must be more to it than that. Of course,maybe all the purchasers are thinking they will own/train the first next gen horse home in the 3 sales series races,thus earning $35,000 for the owner and $10,000 for the trainer. Yes,heres a story about one such owner on the hrnz website.It was about kimberly butt having a big spending aussie owner who says he gave her instructions to spend double what he would have, because of the next gen bonuses. He apparently spent an extra $175,000,given he spent $350,000 on 3 purchases. I get it now,that fella spent an extra $175,000 because, if everything goes to plan and he flukes having the first next gen horse home in the two races hes eligible,(since he bought 2 colts),then he can earn an extra $82,000 to cover the extra $175,000 he just spent. you know reading about what that aussie sales buyer said,reminded me of a story from last month,where a queensland man was walking to his car,when he spotted 2 kangaroos nearby.One female and one male. A neighbour decribed what then happened...the female kangaroo fled "but the other bastard turned around and attacked him". The man was airlifted to rockhampton hospital where he was in a stable condition. Strange things can happen when aussies get involved.