curious

Oops. Sure does. And a rather big gap from Tim's 50k a year although that is not seemingly allowing for the 10 year relayment cost. “The question we need to address with the NZTR before anything is nailed down is how are we going to approach the situation in eight, ten or 12 years time when the material has to be relaid – that’s the question that still needs to be resolved." It seems peculiar that they are spending all this money on design and planning and holding meetings without first figuring out the actual costs and whether or not it might be affordable.

I'm hoping Tim's figure of 1.6m annual maintenance costs are $HKs. If so, his best estimate is somewhere between NZ50k and NZ300k per year for annual maintenance. You'd think they might want to narrow down that analysis a bit before they call any more pointless meetings spruiking the idea and then wonder why no-one bothers to show up.

http://www.theoptimist.site/riccartons-synthetic-track-debate-heats-up-as-roadshow-heads-south/ So Tim says " The annual cost of maintaining a Polytrack is dependent upon staff, equipment, the base, weather conditions and the amount of usage and the requirement of renovation, and is likely to be different for each track. I have seen documentation detailing annual costs of $1.56 million for maintenance of the Polytrack at the Singapore Jockey Club" And then he says"“If it’s costing $5,000 a week, which is $250,000 a year, there is no way we can run it. Our information is it will cost between $55,000 and $65,000 a year to maintain, and if you look at what we pay to maintain grass tracks, the plough and sand tracks, it’s not in excess of that figure." But they obviously have no idea. I'd say it can't be a goer and it seems that most SI trainers do not support it.

Do you think it's something catching?

Just give him the cattle and he gets the job done. Bourbon nightcap or not.

And that is probably why many of us who could or would have more skin in the game, don't.

What does the 15 year warranty cover? Just the base? Surely not the surface materials?

I'd probably add CJC members to that list.

I'd be interested to know how the 120 invitees were selected? Surely the invites should have gone to all owners, trainers and jockeys participating in Canterbury racing and the meeting should have been made accessible to those who are at a distance from Riccarton?

OK. No need to shout. I'll ring Tim since you who attended the meeting don't seem to have any answers.

If the costings haven't been done, why would Tim announce at the meeting that they were about 50k a year and you say the same thing here? Not much point me asking Tim for them if he doesn't have them.

Also, most trainers and owners who are not full time have other jobs and are unlikely to be able to attend a 1pm meeting in Christchurch. No video conferencing facility was provided which is the norm these days especially during Covid times. No copy of the presentations and Q&A session has been provided as far as I am aware even though the chief has offered to post it here. It's the 21st century. Not 1950.

Isn't it a matter for all Canterbury licensed trainers and owners to consider and comment on? And why should they only have the opportunity to do so by a staged meeting? Surely the detailed analysis and costings should be circulated to all for feedback. How hard can that be?

431 July 2018Minister for Racing Office of Rt. Hon. Winston Peters7.4 Executive WingParliament BuildingsWellington 6160New ZealandDear Minister,I refer to your letter of 10 April 2018 setting out the scope for the high levelReview you have commissioned me to conduct on the New Zealand RacingIndustry, with a focus on the thoroughbred racing sector. You have asked me to:•review the financial viability of the thoroughbred racing Code and howthe current industry model supports the long term sustainability of theracing industry in New Zealand•analyse the current situation, with particular emphasis on thethoroughbred racing Code•provide high-level recommendations, supported by research, forpotential reform, which may include legislative, operational, structuraland organisational changes to the New Zealand racing industrySpecifically, you have asked me to consider:•the Racing Act of 2003 •the Racing Amendment Bill of 2017 currently before parliament•the New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) and the racing industry’sgovernance structure •the future of the TAB I thank you for the opportunity to undertake this Review.

It's now free membership but pretty much still compulsory unless you go to some effort to opt out. Has the TA surveyed all trainers on the AWT thing or is it just a few squeaky wheels holding sway?

Where does the lost stake money go?

The TA will never have any power if they don't proactively, logically and informedly do something about these sort of things which is bloody hard when they are hanging on sucking the NZTR tit.

I want to be clear that I am not opposed to using, training or racing on AWTs if they are maintained and working as they are supposed to. However, the Trainers' Association or someone needs to hound NZTR and/or the clubs concerned for accurate costing analysis and the implications for owners those will have. They also need to ensure that adeqquate measures are in place to mitigate any other issues such as the kickback ones. I agree with Joe Bloggs that there is no better way to destroy a horse's confidence, perhaps permanently. The course proper at Riccarton with its cutting out nature is already bad enough.

And they didn't fix it! This 2 years later.......... Trainers not happy with Pakenham polytrack Posted by: AAP+ at 2:28pm on 22/7/2019 Posted in: Horse Racing News Trainer Colin Little has been one of the biggest supporters of synthetic track racing in Victoria and does not want his scratching of a runner at Pakenham to be seen as a knock on the Polytrack. Little sought stewards permission to scratch Peko from a race at Pakenham on Sunday and will undertake an inspection of the track before deciding whether Vegas Knight takes his place on Tuesday. The trainer was concerned at the excessive amount of kickback at Sunday’s meeting and that a number of horses returned post-race coughing. Under those circumstances Little felt it was unsafe for Peko to race. Little has no doubts the problems can be rectified and spoke to Polytrack’s Australian managing director Reid Sanders who was heading to Pakenham on Monday. “We’ve got the same track at Caulfield. We’ve had it for six years and it’s saved our lives,” Little said. “Pakenham has spent the most money you can spend on an artificial track and it’s the best artificial track we’ve seen and everyone is putting them in because it’s the best track. “But like what happens to turf, sometimes grass is no good. Something has happened to Pakenham recently and in my opinion it was no good yesterday.” Little said he does not want to be seen as bagging Polytrack and walked the track after the last race on Sunday with Pakenham chief executive Michael Hodge. Hodge tweeted on Sunday night Polytrack was arriving to power harrow the track ahead of Tuesday’s nine race card. Little said the track was terribly loose and what the industry called “delaminated”. “I’m sure they’ll fix it,” he said. “It’s not Pakenham’s fault in the sense. They’ve gone out and spent the most amount of money that’s possible to get the best track in the world, but yesterday, and possibly Friday, it’s gone pear-shaped. “I feel sorry for Pakenham. I didn’t want to be giving them a kicking, but I had to stick up for my horse.”

Hodge: We'll fix Pakenham Polytrack issue 26 June 2017 by By Grace Ramage - racing.com CEO Michael Hodge is confident Pakenham Racing Club can remedy issues with the Racing.com Park Polytrack to allay concerns of leading trainers including David Hayes, who admitted he would reconsider sending his horses there 'if there is nothing done'. The degree of kickback was noticeably more than usual at Sunday's meeting and both Hayes and Troy Corstens called for the situation to be addressed. "If there is nothing done to fix the track I don't think I can send my horses there," Hayes said. "The kickback should be about the height of the rail, [on Sunday] it was meters over the jockeys' heads. "It's hard to run horses on a surface like that and to encourage betting. "From experience it doesn't take much to fix it, but something needs to be done." Corstens said: "The kickback was probably the worst that I've seen it, it's clear that something is not right. "My horses really resented it. [Dream First in Race 5] raced with her head on the side and didn't handle it at all. "You go into the races with good chances and there are expectations from your owners, and when they perform as badly as they did yesterday you have to start asking questions. "I love the synthetic tracks and I love racing at Pakenham and Geelong, but if there is an issue, and it might not be anyone's fault, it just needs to be addressed and see if we can fix it." Several jockeys who rode at the meeting also commented that the kickback was the worst they had experienced and subsequently made it hard for horses to make ground in the straight, and Hodge readily admitted there was an issue. "We put our hand up, yesterday the synthetic track did not race to the usual high standard," Hodge explained. "The surface did not perform to our expectation and we are disappointed about that. "The prominent issue is the lack of moisture in the Polytrack, which is a consequence of a lack of rain and we will be addressing that as soon as possible with a likely strategy being irrigation. "The club is confident it will remedy the situation in the lead up to our next synthetic meeting on July 9th."

That's certainly what Martin Collins claim. It may be that contemporary surface mixes do not require it but it has been reported elsewhere that it is required if you don't want the kick back flying over jockey's heads. See the Pakenham situation below for example.

Indeed it is but it needs to be removed before any grooming or conditioning takes place. They are either being totally naive, haven't done their homework, or are telling porkies. Roughly speaking if Saundry is correct, the replenishment cost alone amounts to 50-80k a year. You then have another 3.5 million full replacement cost say every 10 years. So that's another 350k a year. An employee is another 50k or so. You need to buy or lease and maintain specialised conditioning equipment. If there are 250 horses using it year round, those owners will need to cough up a couple of grand each per horse to cover the half a million in costs. I'd have thought the trainers' ssociation would be on the case here and making sure that the CJC provides accurate costings and analysis?

$10 now for the course proper or #1 grass at Foxton. they'll probably need to charge at least double that for the AWTs

I reckon Tim's costing estimate is about 10% of actual. Wouldn't want to be an owner or trainer there having to pay for that. Saundry's estimates are now probably on the low side especially if materials have to be sourced from Oz or Northland as they had to be at Cambridge.