curious

Worse than turnover ... profit. Down $37m on wagering as I understand it.

Sorry, I missed that one. Classic!

Interesting way to assess the validity of something though. Probably many of the best, well thought out and well-argued posts I've read on these sites were made by anonymous posters. Do you have any other criteria for assessing the value of posts PJ? Gender, skin colour, type of employment, wealth etc.?

Wait PJ. Are you suggesting that the posts and opinions of identified posters are somehow more valuable than those of anonymous ones?

That's the trouble with free speech. Just because something's free doesn't necessarily mean it is of any value.

I note in that now year old summary that I did suggest that some ideas in there might be worth further work and/or the development of a clear business case. That said, a year on and there doesn't yet seem that any such things have emerged although it is possible some advances might be included in the MAC final report but as far as I can see that has still not been publicly released. You have to remember that Messara is a big breeder and the report reads more like a collection of ideas from the local big breeders than a robust analysis of what might optimise wagering revenue in NZ and grow the industry. The government has bought it though so we'll have to live with the implementation and outcomes. I'm not very hopeful about those and I think that the supposed savior of racing (Peters) and the Messiah may go down in history as managing to preside over the final demise of NZ racing as we know it, all in one brief political term.

curious Posted September 25, 2018 (edited) Here's a brief crack at that Hesi. Recommendations 1. Change the governance structure, so the NZRB becomes Wagering NZ with racing responsibilities devolving to the individual Codes. This will sharpen the commercial focus of TAB operations and improve the decision-making and accountability of the Codes. Something along these lines possibly a good idea. Worth more detailed development. 2. Establish Racing NZ as a consultative forum for the three Codes to agree on issues such as entering into commercial agreements with Wagering NZ, approving betting rules and budgets for the integrity bodies, equine health & research, etc. Same as 1. 3. Change the composition and qualifications for directors of regulatory bodies. Yes, definitely needs sorting. Again, the devil is in the detail. 4. Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB. Absolutely. Required under current legislation anyway and overdue. The right reviewer and terms of reference to address some of the matters in this report is critical. 5. Amend the Section 16 distribution formula of the Racing Act 2003 to a more equitable basis for fixed 10-year terms. Don’t think the report makes a sensible case for this. Should remain proportionally based on domestic revenue generated. 6. Initiate a special review of the structure and efficacy of the RIU and allied integrity bodies, to be conducted by an independent qualified person. Yep. Probably should be devolved back to the codes. Has been a disaster as currently structured. Critical ingredient for increasing wagering revenue that integrity system is much more robust and reliable and seen to be so by punters. 7. Begin negotiations for the outsourcing of the TAB’s commercial activities to an international wagering operator, to gain the significant advantages of scale. Worth considering but detailed business case needs to be made alongside alternatives. In particular, retaining the tote business and making it globally competitive and licensing fixed odds operators in NZ (with a restriction on tote derivative products) should be considered. 8. Seek approval for a suite of new wagering products to increase funding for the industry. OK. But not likely to improve revenue. Adds to costs and unlikely to increase overall punter spend. 9. Confirm the assignment of Intellectual Property (IP) by the Clubs to the Codes. Don’t see the point in this. Clubs may be better to retain and control this themselves. Needs work and a better case made. Can club and community assets be co-opted legislatively or lawfully? 10. Introduce Race Field and Point Of Consumption Tax legislation expeditiously. These two measures will bring New Zealand’s racing industry into line with its Australian counterparts and provide much needed additional revenue. Race fields, yes of course. But legislation not required for arrangements with corporate bookmakers to be put in place as already demonstrated. RB estimates wildly out of kilter with the reliable research. DIA estimates more robust. I’d say might get to $3-5m net across all codes. PoC tax, nope. See DIA estimates that administrative costs may exceed revenue. Providers already paying a consumption tax in the form of GST. If implemented any net revenue should go to taxpayer not racing anyway. 11. Repeal the existing betting levy of approximately $13 million per annum paid by the NZRB, given that the thoroughbred Code is a loss maker overall, with the net owners’ losses outweighing the NZRB’s net profit. Nice if you can get it. Note that some $50m of duty relief previously granted has been wasted on stakes and operating costs. Industry didn’t do what they said they would with that so why should the taxpayer gift more to a declining industry, or any industry for that matter. Also, an equity matter with casinos betting duty. Probably politically unpalatable. 12. Clarify legislation to vest Race Club property and assets to the Code regulatory bodies for the benefit of the industry as a whole. Big NO. Can’t legislate to colonise community and club assets. Needs to occur voluntarily at the discretion of club members where clubs will no longer have raceday licences. They should decide whether assets are put to other uses in the community. Any reinvestment in racing will also mostly have to be in the same region. 13. Reduce the number of thoroughbred race tracks from 48 to 28 tracks under a scheduled program. This does not require the closure of any Club Yep. No brainer but the redevelopment of remaining tracks needs to occur first in order to have an infrastructure in place that can cope with the racing required. 14. Upgrade the facilities and tracks of the remaining racecourses with funds generated from the sale of surplus property resulting from track closures to provide a streamlined, modern and competitive thoroughbred racing sector capable of marketing itself globally. Yep to the upgrades but the business case for that needs to be funded from current and future revenue and be sustainable. 15. Construct three synthetic all-weather tracks at Cambridge, Awapuni & Riccarton with assistance from the New Zealand Government’s Provincial Growth Fund. Support the development of the Waikato Greenfields Project. Yep in principle. Again, the initial cost and ongoing maintenance needs to be funded from current and future revenue increases. The business case is not made in the report. Needs more detailed work. That should include comparison of synthetics with Strathayr for these AWTs. 16. Introduce robust processes to establish traceability from birth and the re-homing of the entire thoroughbred herd, as the foundation stone of the industry’s ongoing animal welfare program. Fine. 17. Increase thoroughbred prizemoney gradually to over $100 million per annum through a simplified three-tier racing model, with payments extended to tenth place in all races. Great but it is not clear where the revenue or cost savings to do that will come from other than some from the restructuring perhaps. Recommended changes as above will not on their own make the NZ racing product competitive or attract more wagering spend. That also requires, among other things, aligning the prizemoney structure more closely to revenue generated and having a fair and competitive handicapping system for starters. Edited September 25, 2018 by curious

I doubt it. Have you noticed the impact? The last I saw there were 34 (from memory) operators paying product fees to RITA on NZ racing. However, they (RITA) are paying out $27m more to the codes than their net earnings and compelling the codes to waste that on stake money. To make matters worse, RITA, which already scooped up a hospital pass, has been instructed by the Minister that they must continue to pay it. Short of some sort of divine intervention, where is the revenue going to come from to remedy that deficit let alone grow earnings? There remains some belief out there that the PoC tax will mitigate this but I don't see how. Despite the short term problem of implementation and collection costs (remember the DIA estimated these may exceed the collected revenue) there is the longer term issue that it will come directly from punters' pockets and we already know that punters en masse are not keen to suddenly start losing more nor do they like losing faster. Yes, there's $14m p.a. coming courtesy of the taxpayer over the next 3 years by way of the duty relief but that seems like a drop in the bucket to me.

NZ racing to boost wagering audience through Sportsbet deal 15 August 2019 The New Zealand Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA), the body established to oversee the development of a new governance structure for the country's horseracing industry, has struck a deal that will see Sportsbet launch live streaming of races in Australia. Through the agreement Flutter Entertainment-owned Sportsbet will feature live streams of thoroughbred and harness racing, as well as greyhound racing events, on its Australian site. Tabcorp, the long-term broadcast and wagering partner of the New Zealand TAB, will act as intermediary, facilitating delivery of the content. “The new deal involves Sportsbet taking live vision of all three codes of New Zealand racing, getting our racing in front of a big new audience in the Australian market that we’ve never been in, while bringing in a new revenue source for the industry,” TAB general manager for media and international Andy Kydd explained. “Sportsbet is the largest corporate bookmaker in Australia by a stretch and the second biggest operator in the market behind Tabcorp," Kydd continued. "We are very grateful to Tabcorp for delivering the vision to Sportsbet, their biggest competitor in Australia.” The agreement follows a deal between IITA and another Flutter-owned brand, Betfair, announced earlier this year. This saw Betfair agree to pay product fees to the TAB in return for offering odds on New Zealand racing. Similar agreements, as part of a wider drive to revitalise the country's racing industry, are being negotiated with other Australian operators. Announced in April this year, the New Zealand government aims to halt the industry's decline, with the existing horseracing levy to be phased out over the next three years. In 2018, the levy generated, NZ$13.9m (£7.4m/€8.0m/US$8.9m), representing 4% of overall betting profit in the country, with these funds to be reinvested in racing and sport going forward. This also saw the New Zealand Racing Board replaced with the RITA, to manage the transition to a new governance structure. While the government's plans specifically ruled out implementing a licensing model for betting operators, it will look to impose a point of consumption tax on offshore operators taking bets in the market. This may be complemented by an expansion of legal products - and potentially a licensing system for certain verticals - after a public consultation to gauge public support for regulating new forms of online gambling was launched earlier this month. With technology developing rapidly, and gambling legislation unchanged since 2003, the government aims to ensure customers are protected from the negative effects of gambling. At present, only Lotto NZ and the TAB are permitted to offer gambling products online, though the government acknowledged that an increasing number of New Zealanders were gambling via offshore providers, especially in minority communities.

Isn't BF already paying on NZ Racing?

I wonder what would happen if an outfit like BGP took over running a club?

Might have been a problem in the first by the look of the video and stipes report. Two struggled to make the bend in the first at the same spot as the slip in the 4th. Probably shouldn't have run that one by the look of it but they keep sending the crash test dummies around until there is or threatens to be a serious accident. Race 1 MATAMATA VETERINARY SERVICES MDN 1300 O’PRISTINE (C Grylls) – Made the bend awkwardly near the 800 metres. Held up until near the 150 metres. DAMESEL (D Johnson) – Made the bend awkwardly near the 800 metres and shifted out hampering EQUATE.

Wouldn't sleep at night without all 3. Horses or no horses. Riders or not. I'd assume the TA would advise trainers on this annd provide discounted options. That's the norm in most other professions that I know of.

Yep hr. A number of times!

How many pros do you know well enough to know how they invest? I sometimes back 9 in a ten horse race.

Totally correct ATA, on an individual horse basis. Don't care if I get heaps way wrong. Or whether I back the winner. Only care that on average, the ones I rate at value return more than the market assessment.

Are you Thommo or his cuzzy ATA? Can't find anywhere where you've priced a single horse prior to a race. Happy to add you to next week's demo market. Just send me yours. The point that is lost on you and your like is I don't actually care if I get some prices badly wrong or whether my value bets win or not in a given event.

I think he may have Masterclass mixed up with Afterclass.

All good Thommo. You continue to believe the "EXPERTS with GRAVITAS" and encourage as many others to believe you as you can. I'll stick with what the data says thanks. I'm curious about your "research re weight...especially App allowances on H 11 tracks in NZ". Care to elaborate on that?

Yeah. So that evidence is gold in support of race day effects of 3/4l per kg.? Nah.

I'm quite familiar with that study Thommo. Take a closer look with your critical hat on. I've already told you that the BHA handicappers are dead wrong and it's crap like this that proves why. If any student of mine presented such rubbish and drew the conclusions that they have it's at best an instant D. That's D for DUMB. It looks like they got someone like you who failed to progress from primary school maths to do the study though I suspect it's politically and commercially motivated by those who want to see the better horses have an advantage in handicaps. To give you a starting point, they have used strike rate as a measure. Compared to what expected strike rate? They've failed to exclude horses out of the handicap or otherwise not carrying their rated weight. Etc., etc.... I've never seen any rigorous study or data analysis that even comes close to suggesting that 1kg might have an impact anywhere close to 3/4 length.

It's not obvious to me that he studied anything.

And this was for hurdle races and is likely heavily biased to the high side because the lengths beaten include the beaten lengths of runners eased or not persisted with.

Lbs less than topweight Runners total lengths beaten runners*lbs Average lths behind TW avg/lb 0 5839 1152.5 1 966 1270.7 966 1.315 1.315 2 1148 1352.3 2296 1.178 0.589 3 1141 -1006.85 3423 -0.882 -0.294 4 1183 46.7 4732 0.039 0.010 5 1345 345.25 6725 0.257 0.051 6 1348 -184.3 8088 -0.137 -0.023 7 1477 3295.2 10339 2.231 0.319 8 1488 3480.4 11904 2.339 0.292 9 1450 472.2 13050 0.326 0.036 10 1568 1280.9 15680 0.817 0.082 11 1429 2415.6 15719 1.690 0.154 12 1453 2789.75 17436 1.920 0.160 13 1488 2301.8 19344 1.547 0.119 14 1350 4209.7 18900 3.118 0.223 15 1455 3561.05 21825 2.447 0.163 (results for horses with greater weight differences have been left out) To explain what these numbers mean, let’s look at those horses that were carrying 5lbs less than the topweight. There were 1,345 of these horses, giving a total of 6,725lbs (1345*5lbs) difference. These 1,345 horses finished a total of 345.25 lengths behind the topweights, an average of 0.257 lengths per horse, or 0.051 (0.257/5lbs) per pound

Nice theories but both wrong if you look at results data.