curious

Wait...."we have grown those assets"? Haven't they spent most of them?

I can't see any possible case for new tracks or AWTs. Doesn't make sense to say that on one hand and close half the ones we have on the other. It's just not affordable. I agree that they need to get off the beneficiary queue and quickly. They've sat around for a decade waiting for the next hand-out, duty relief, pokies, sports betting revenue, overseas racing revenue, etc.etc. and now this proposal asks for more. Now needs at least $10m a year to fix tracks. 2-3 a year. Pick the ones that are closest to being viable and could be reconstructed for $2-4m. Can't think of one in the Waikato. Maybe Avondale/Ruakaka in the north. Foxton or Wanganui in the CD perhaps. Whatever. Yes, reduce races to sustain stakes if necessary, or reduce stakes. There will be fallout of course. More now than there would have been a decade ago. Get stakes back aligned with revenue, probably in a single tier structure. That might be enough to provide for the track fixing. Sort the handicapping system so racing is competitive and the integrity system so it is fair and seen to be so. Get the TAB providing a much more competitive (globally) betting product. Then your on the way and have to just cross your fingers.

7 or 8 years ago I thought it might be possible but certainly not guaranteed. A further decade of neglect and it now seems impossible. I know what I would try, it's the same thing, but far less sure that it can work.

Dream on. You can't increase stakes without increased net revenue and they are already about double that. If any of these changes can bring that back into line it would be a miracle. Adding $100m is a pipe dream.

How would that be affordable? About half the current wagering revenue on racing is on Oz racing. I don't see how you could make a business case to install Strathayrs or synthetics for that matter in NZ.

That is consistent with my own earlier estimates based on the AUT research and I think somewhere in line with Mardigras' as well.

From the DIA regulatory impact statement. Estimated net revenue from racefield legislation: 1. However, in the most active scenario for which DIA has prepared estimates, the break-even point rises to a 68.4 per cent compliance rate for racing bets (57.4 per cent for racing and sports combined). Full compliance would deliver $1.8 million after costs for racing bets ($2.9 million for racing and sports combined).

And also because they own the TAB so need to oversee it and its governance.

Might be a few reasons. Because I have a day job so I can afford the slow horses, I have to have them worked fed and watered either before 7.30 or after 6 p.m. Also a small problem that most tracks close mid morning so they can get the various maintenance tasks done and it's also pitch black on the beach early with daylight saving. Might also be a conditioning benefit in summer to work them before it gets too hot from a hydration standpoint.

True but a better question might be what has racing done for racing in the last decade? I don't really think it's the government's job is it?

Nah....we're in bed by the time you're doing that barryb. Trying to get to sleep in broad daylight so we can get up at 3 am and go find the horses with a flashlight.

....and we'll get to work 3 or 4 more horses each morning in the pitch dark.

Yes and if you propose those sort of social welfare strategies as this report does, then there should be some sort of risk analysis which in my view is high. As you said, some of these things don't seem to have been thought through. On this particular distribution strategy, why would JM recommend it for here when he didn't put a similar arrangement in place for NSW? Makes me wonder if there's a conflict of interest thing in play here or that someone else wrote the report and he just signed it.

I think if you extended that model to clubs as well, you'd have a pretty good system. Then if individual clubs decided it made better business sense to race at another venue and potentially contribute capital to that venue's infrastructure, they could proceed to negotiate that.

Add Ashhurst to that and we have remaining in the CD two completely stuffed operating tracks at Otaki and Awapuni.

And I could see that happening but the other way round also. Given the RB's expressed interest in offering more and more events and more bet types, it is quite plausible that they might decide to reduce offshore gallops events offerings and increase the much more quickfire greyhound events. If that happened, under the Messara distribution proposal, gallops would get a lesser distribution through no fault of their own. The idea simply does not make sense. Why would TR support such a proposal that could make their funding vulnerable to decisions beyond their control? I totally don't understand why JM has recommended this.

Hmmm...makes me wonder why they wouldn't have tried to do that given the existing model. Instead they seem to want and be hanging out for the money from other's efforts?

Really? I don't think promoting their own self interest as they seem to be doing with no sound rationale does them a bit of good at all. Probably the converse.

Ok. Just had a quick look. Seems to me that the fastest horse over the distance is winning every race as usual. If you sit back 5-10 lengths off the lead and can't run the last bit a second or two faster than the leaders, you surely can't win? That seems to me more normal than any kind of bias?

Possibly should? And the pokie revenue to the communities from which it was garnered?

It is based on that now Dark Beau but I'm not sure that is what is not working. My suggestion in this brief summary is based on the fact that we need to incentivise codes to develop and promote their own domestic product from their respective codes, not incentivise them to develop and promote foreign product by paying them for that, which is akin to paying them to promote the competition. That seems like a dumb idea to me.

I'm wondering if BOAY could request those results from the NZRB and publish them here. If that has to be via an OIA request they may end up being a month behind but at least they'd be available to stakeholders.

That's a bloody good question von. I'm no longer a member of the TA but if I were, and I were also a trainer at a potentially affected track and didn't support the Messara report in it's entirety, I think I'd at least be filing a grievance complaint against the NZTA executive committee for making the decision to support that. That has to be considered on the following basis: The process followed by the Executive Committee must at all times adhere to the principles of natural justice. I think that it is at least challengeable that the issue of betting licences to clubs can be made contingent on the signing over of their assets in some form or that this can be legislated in compliance with the principles of natural justice. That the TA exec supported this email and the Messara report without either consultation with or the support of potentially affected trainers is atrocious. I'm sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, Pitty or someone on here will correct me but that's how I see it.

Sadly, you are probably right Hedley. I thought these two lines in the email were kinda funny, especially when a large number of members of some of the so called supporting organisations were never consulted and clearly don't give wholesale support to the recommendations in the report. " we need to show the Government we are a united industry." " We also encourage you to put forward your own submissions. These can be emailed to racingreview@dia.govt.nz. " Are they so naive that they think a range of submissions from stakeholders will demonstrate unity in the industry? All they've done by this is to further demonstrate their total incompetence to govern or manage anything.