hesi

I can recall when the Racing Board was running the TAB. In the last year costs had ballooned out to 218 million, that was the real problem, as it meant less was returned to industry. I would have thought the bigger issues with NZTR, were allocation of stake money, programming and tracks

I would have thought that an increase from 6.3 to 9.6 million over 10 years, considering also what CS has said is going to have zero impact on determining whether racing is going down a rabbit hole de Lore being mischievous with how he presents figures

Hahaha For a site that is meant to be so wonderful (self-proclaimed ad nauseum), a lot of them seem to spend a lot of time reading your site. Anyway, the site is only a shadow of what it used to be when Dave and Ange started it, and it very quickly became an enjoyable forum for the industry. The FB site has become a lot more informative and the 'go to' place for people in the industry these days, notwithstanding the conspiracy rants from CW A point to consider, if it was so wonderful, this site and indirectly RP would never exist

I think a lot of people do not realise that your banter is just that, banter with a sharp edge. Huey does, Freda does and so does Curious I think many of them are afraid of having their intellect or lack thereof exposed if they engage you.

There is so much conjecture put around on the racing social media sites about the issues with tracks, the pros and cons of each type, it becomes very hard to know what fact is actually. What was actually wrong with Ellerslie in the early days Why did Awapuni go so badly What was actually wrong with Hastings, according to some it was easily fixed with a 'home job' and a tractor. Was there a problem on the Riccarton synthetic I suppose it is a bit like the media these days. If you want to get an accurate picture of what is going on, you are not going to get it in the media. You could always get your info from the many know it all dickheads on these social media sites, but I wouldn't put any credence in what they say.

It is in the Financial Times, but behind a paywall

One thing I note in particular is his reluctance to trial horses on the synthetic at Cambridge, a view I presume that is shared by other trainers in the area, or is it? This was one of the main reasons put forward for putting in this synthetic track. Good on him for supporting Hastings and Riccarton. I guess he doesn't subscribe to the conspiracy, led mainly by the shit stirrer Wightman, with no evidence, that they are trying to centralise racing in the Auck/Waikato area

I read some data somewhere years ago, admittedly it was for thoroughbreds, that 14 is the optimum number to maximise wagering. That was totalisator, so not sure if that applies to fixed odds

That is pretty much standard practice in the scientific world. It's called peer review, not just of your work, but what else you have written, who pays you, what your motives are, who your links are etc

It has always been around, just that the internet and social media provide a very convenient and easy vehicle. I've always been a great respecter of genuine talent, but it is a minefield these days. I have my areas of expertise as do many and can sus a person out very easily who is a wannabe. Like you Freda with horses. You probably know so much about them with the knowledge gained from years of experience and can easily pick a fraudster

I wonder what degree your mate did. I don't think they do degrees in verbal diarrhea

Exactly

Good points. Yet Leica Lucy drew widest, came around the field widest and ran on well for 3rd, over a distance you would have to say is not ideal.

The dumbing down of education, I presume for monetary reasons. NCE, you could get credits for all sorts of hairbrained numpty stuff

Especially with Autumn Glow in the field, possibly Aeliana. Rarified air we are getting into

To be fair when she was held up by Lazurra (7) she lost a bit of momentum and was coming back at Lazurra close to the line. Golden Eagle next on Nov 1, if she makes the field

I must be missing something here. I thought the first thing anyone putting on or attending such a course would check, is the validity of the credentials of the person running the course

Unlucky 6th, no room in the straight then line taken by Lazurra as she finally got space. Coming again at the line, so maybe she could have got 3rd, certainly not outclassed as has been suggested elswhere

Not just racing and an ageing population, it seems people these days are very quick to put a label on something, that absolves them from personal responsibility. Recall during Covid, the number of kids that just never went back to school.

I'm not in the industry but been an observer for a long time. I don't think working together is in the vocabulary in racing, parochialism is a word that sums up things better. Clubs, industry stakeholders and industry management have been locking horns for a long time, spurred on via social media. Never come across an industry with so many moaners.

Very innovative thinking. From what I have read from people posting who are linked to Avondale, they are too busy being bitter to ever be that clever

Considering she was just below the best level in Aus, she has done well with 3 G1 wins in Europe

I see your 'mate' Birdcage Bill having a bit of trouble grasping that. I see also the infamous in his own lunchtime, Michael Hawke, has moved on to giving CW a bit of stick for some of the garbage he posts on his FB site. He is deluded to think that many of those famous quotes from very deep-thinking people, actually refer to him and his codswallop............... baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Well above my pay grade here, but in answer to your question, if the 5 year quarantee became impossible and Entain reneged, the NZ Government would sue for damages??

What the public documents show about “breakability” The documents confirm a legally negotiated, underwritten minimum guarantee for the first five years (the MG). That means the parties intend those payments to be contractual, enforceable commitments. Regulation.govt.nz+1. None of the public summaries publish the full contract (the detailed Schedule of termination rights, force-majeure language, material adverse change definitions, breach/repudiation clauses, or step-in/variation rights are not public). That means you need the agreement (or specific contract clauses) to know exactly how breakable it is. Regulation.govt.nz+1. The public materials do flag two obvious legal levers that could enable renegotiation or termination: Legislative or regulatory change — because parts of the commercial model rely on law changes (the “legislative net”), a subsequent statutory change could make performance different or impossible and may trigger renegotiation or termination mechanics in the contract. NZTR. Force majeure / impossibility / material breach — standard commercial contracts include force majeure and breach/termination clauses; these can allow variation or termination in extreme cases, but how broad or narrow those clauses are is contract-specific. (I couldn’t find the contract wording publicly.