curious

There's nothing to read between the lines I don't think Ace.

It's probably a bit too logical for them, but if they want to reduce the number of 37k per meeting costs they are spending, would it not make sense to consider reducing the number of meetings (instead of clubs and venues)? Alongside that, fix the handicapping and programming issues so that starter numbers, competitive racing and wagering revenue (though that might be difficult given the way the NZRB is going) are sustained or improved over less meetings?

Yes, there is a club compliance funding amount of up to10k, part of which is a bribe which they will save from closing clubs, but they could have just removed it to the same effect. The rest of the funding for meeting type, venue category and meeting compliance is all per meeting. They will only save that 10k per club if clubs actually close and relinquish their licences, not if they change venues, so the 35k bs is just that. Governance/audit annual payment of $10,000 per club paid upon fulfilment of club governance and audit requirement as outlined in the Funding Policy, with additional addition, one-off payment of $2,000 available upon update of Club Rules. Name change to Club compliance. Annual funding of $10,000 now divided into three components: $5,000 for annual financial reporting by 31 December 2018 $2,500 for annual track management planning $2,500 for annual Health and Safety planning. One-off payment of $2,000 for Club Rules has been removed. Some conditions of the compliance funding have been amended, see Section 13 for full details.

Thanks Reefton. That matches my non-accounting understanding. I don't actually see how even reducing the number of clubs would have the slightest impact on that cost, though they clearly are determined to do that (reduce clubs as well as venues). This is a cost per raceday, not per venue or club. I'm not now sure if they are completely thick or they think we are. Doesn't make an iota of sense to me.

Good point Freda. That's absolute nonsense and why would clubs even mention it in a submission given the same amount will be paid to the same club regardless of where they race. I don't see why that would even be an issue that clubs would consider engaging with. Reefton may be able to enlighten me. Compared with this, there were submissions which, while they may have been passionate, simply failed to engage with the issues or provide a considered argument to support their case. A lack of understanding regarding how clubs are funded, and the level of investment required by NZTR to keep 48 venues fit for purpose was also apparent. The cost to the industry to stage an average midweek race day is $37,500 (excluding stakes and RIU costs and the costs to owners of racing such as transport etc) yet we constantly read of clubs claiming not to cost the industry anything.

https://www.nzrb.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB1845_HY_REPORT_2019_v3_0.pdf

Don't see what or who Mardi has to combat?

It's totally nuts.

"A reply"? Is that a euphemism for more spin? C'mon, it's now evidently an $80 million dollar disaster, pretty much in line with every other NZRB strategy in recent years though, so probably should not be unexpected.

They may be right but are NZTR now the experts on claiming races? Where do they say that?

There are variations such as optional claimers where there are weight penalties based on whether you opt out of allowing the horse to be claimed or not, but I'm not aware of regular claimers where horses carry different weights and run for different claiming prices in the same race. Do you have an example? Usually if you enter for a 10k claiming race, any licensed owner can place a claim for the horse pre-race depositing the funds. The current owner gets any stakes earned. All horses carry the same weight. The claiming owner owns the horse after the race. If you have a horse not quite able to win in 10k company you would drop it down to 7.5k company where it may be able to win.

Certainly are 100k claimers. Don't know about 500k ones.

No handicapping required. They run at set weights for the claiming price of the race.

I'd prefer to have claimed John Henry for 25k, or maybe Seabiscuit for 2.5k. Obviously just wasn't on the ball at the time!

Don't remember them being tried in TR either. Sounds like a vote of no confidence in the existing handicapping system?

Unfortunately, the combined intellectual capacity of the three of them is insufficient to grasp it.

Like you do in your punting theories, you apply an ideology or theory to a population instead of individuals. Certainly some individual females are equally or more competent than individual males. Many are not, but you want to penalise one population against the other to create equity of outcome as measured by the population average instead of working to create equity of opportunity? That's what the stupid female handicapping allowance tries to do here when it has completely stuffed up the whole handicapping system costing the industry megabucks in punter interest.

Obviously something you never had or you wouldn't post this kind of patronising, extremist, feminist crap as though it were a great idea. Take Dark Beau's advice and go watch a few Jordan Petersen talks or interviews on the topic.

Probably both. I'm thick and I come to the same conclusion. But I wouldn't go into business with them and I'm not even an accountant.

And against the same horses with the same handicapping conditions. Brainless but they do that well.

And I might add, get off your butts and do the necessary homework. You've been piloting one race per meeting programmed on this basis for years.

Maybe consider programming 2-6 weeks in advance like they do in the US when likely horse availability could be better assessed?

It's like your insane comment about a $50 all up. If it loses, the TAB and other punters earn $50. If it wins, neither get zippo.

I'm not sure what you are not understanding here. If I lose the 10k, the TAB and other punters get that. Neither get any of it if I win. This does not seem like rocket science to me. What are you missing?

And just fyi Newmarket, I know little about betfair and don't bet with them, nor do I bet with the NZTAB more than a handful of times a year, though I may do shortly but it won't be on racing.