curious

....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.

'Roo Ted is undoubtedly Australian! I'd be curious to hear from club reps on here , but I assumed that NZTR's member clubs would have all been canvassed before their national body published an unequivocal endorsement of this report and that if some clubs held dissenting views, that would have been indicated in the publication. I'm hearing that some member clubs may not have even been consulted? Surely that can't be right.

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.

Just discovered that's why I didn't get that mail directly. Arrived in my Junk Mail folder at 1.30 p.m. And there it shall rest.

I'd say there's a fair bit more than that seriously in question.

Yes, that's about as robust as the rest of their analysis and confirms how desperate and devoid of ideas they are.

Correct. Reserves are buggered. Initiatives have failed to cover the advanced sums. There are no promising initiatives in place at code or RB level. So, looks like they are down to beg, steal or borrow which is pretty much what the Messara report amounts to.

"Hung up on one matter"? Seriously, can they not read, analyse or understand? How desperate are they?

Haven't heard of a soul that doesn't support racefield's legislation but a game changer? They have to be joking. The DIA already knows that and has clearly stated it. Are they in a dreamworld? You'd buy the report's recommendation based on one good idea that will have minimal impact along with 10 shockers? Yeahh right.

I'm sure it's there somewhere but maybe in invisible ink ?

Anyone else get one of these? Subject: STAKEHOLDER MESSAGE: Messara Report - please show your support No Images? Click here Dear Stakeholders, The Messara Report is a very important once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure thoroughbred racing’s future. Changes to industry governance, potential outsourcing, and racefields legislation are game-changers offering real improvements in our financial returns. We are working through Mr Messara’s proposals about venue location and ownership to find a solution that is fair for all, but we cannot afford to get hung up on one matter when we need to show the Government we are a united industry. NZTR, together with our Recognised Industry Organisations, strongly support and endorse the need for a circuit breaker. This is our only chance for change. We must show the Government that it’s time for change, and we seek you support to make it happen. Click here to show your support for the Messara Report's goals & principles Minister's media release (13.09.2018) We also encourage you to put forward your own submissions. These can be emailed to racingreview@dia.govt.nz. Yours sincerely, Dr Alan Jackson Chairman New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc. Bernard Saundry Chief Executive New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc. New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Unsubscribe

I don't have the data that Mardi has, but I do have a few years of 21st century data and as far as I can see, generally speaking, horses at Riccarton on Saturday ran times consistent with their expected times on a Good 3 as I previously suggested. If you have contrary data Reefton, please post it.

According to a subsequent safety report the Pro-ride at Geelong only came into use in the 09-10 season. "Since the change to the Pro-Ride racing surface during the 2009-10 racing season, the risk of fatality at Geelong Synthetic has decreased by 57% and is now comparable to our turf tracks." So yes, they need full replacement every 7 or 8 years depending on useage. From memory, that is about thirty meetings a year there, so maybe 250 racemeetings. On the other hand, I'd say regular turf tracks have about a similar life without being at least ploughed up and resown. Strathayr tracks would double or triple that lifetime I'd say for about $2m extra initial installation cost.