curious

I'm sorry folk, but this is just another example of the sorry state of the due diligence informing the research upon which this report was supposed to be based.

If I am not right Reefton, NZTR would be ignoring their own advice. This is from a Bell Gully report addressed to one of your favourite people, Mr. Campbell Moncur, dated April 2009. Campbell Moncur New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Incorporated campbell.moncur@nzracing.co.nz Mike Colson / Mark Freeman / Kate Radka ATTER N O. 01-336-1988 DATE 24 April 2009 ..... Withdrawal from registration Finally, there is a risk that a disgruntled racing club could refuse to exercise its right to conduct race meetings at another racing club’s racecourse as required under a betting licence, and in the face of being required to do so, cancel its registration as a racing club with NZTR. Although there is no explicit right for a racing club to withdraw or cancel its registration as a racing club with NZTR we consider it likely that there is an implicit right to do so on reasonable notice. The effect of such cancellation of registration would be that the racing club would no longer be bound by NZTR’s constitution nor the Racing Act, and arguably could act in any manner it wished, provided it continued to be consistent with its own constitution. It would, however, have no right to run race meetings at any racecourse, nor to receive any funding from NZTR or NZRB.

Probably right Hedley. The good thing is, I doubt it's going anywhere. The bad thing, nothing is going anywhere.

It might sound negative Hesi but I don't see the point. It's hard to see who was actually consulted or whether the report was reviewed by anyone. They have never accepted even well reasoned input before, even when it was invited. I thought the DIA was assisting with this and there are a number of smart cookies there so I would have thought they at least would have reviewed this before it was finalised. It doesn't look like it and appears to have been dictated by people who don't know what they are talking about. There are a number of sensible recommendations but most need a lot more work. A number are equally non-sensical. The terms of reference said the report was to be research based but mostly it seems to be hearsay based and is at best lacking any clear rationale in a number of areas. I can't be bothered commenting on all 17 recommendations, however as examples, while Racefields legislation seems like a no-brainer and probably should have been in place yonks ago, the PoC tax is very debatable, the DIA is not convinced it will even be revenue positive, the taxpayer must have a say whether that revenue should go to racing or government coffers etc. Much of the rationale in the report doesn't even make sense and is certainly not research based as it was supposed to be.. He uses Oz comparisons where convenient, e.g. the betting levy and PoC, but ignores income tax in making the tax comparisons. Then on the consolidation, he throws out comparisons with Oz because he says comparisons with Australia are not relevant as: .....Australia has too many racecourses but there has not been the economic raison d’etre to close many Australian tracks given the strong financial situation of the Australian thoroughbred racing industry, and particularly in NSW and Victoria, and there have been other priorities as well as political opposition. Hmmm... yet that same evidence correlates a high number of tracks in a similar environment with a strong financial situation. So he then decides to compare the NZ situation with Ireland, the UK and HK. This is gobbledygook. To make matters worse, even if all this was implemented and successful, no overall result can be achieved. Significant critical ingredients are ignored. To wit, the handicapping system. Doesn't even get a mention. As Mardi said, Shortland Street aside, the big bang looks like a fizzer. Frankly, I expected better, much better.

Same

The whole thing is poorly thought out and not well researched Hesi. That's just another stupid recommendation - #4. 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. That is already required by the Act and due. The Minister has oversight of the Terms of Reference under the Act. It can hardly be a recommendation when it's already a legislative requirement. Completely ridiculous and no help at all. Should already be done.

Not any longer but I guess we could put it back in, or clean out the river loop and barge them from Awapuni?

I think the asset grab issue is hopeless, but it will be interesting to hear the response of clubs racing on courses scheduled for close down. Obviously if a club is going to close down they can change the disbursement rule with a single Special General Meeting in most cases, so what it says in the constitution now is irrelevant. The only power NZTR has is issuing licences to clubs. I suspect that clubs required to race at other venues (where their own courses are to be closed) which have significant assets will probably just give up their race dates and no longer be under the control of the Racing Act or NZTR etc. so that the community assets can be retained in the community. I don't see anything in the Messara plan likely to increase revenue though the restructuring may reduce costs and duty relief will generate more money for the codes. However, as far as I can see, the aim is to continue to waste all that on stakes. I support the consolidation of tracks in principle, but if no money is allocated to maintaining them properly when the fact is that almost all the remaining tracks are long since stuffed. If they don't raise the capital they expect from the closed courses, where is the money coming from to fix them so they can conduct more racing and training than they already can't cope with? I'm also skeptical about the synthetic tracks even if the taxpayers agree to fund them. I still don't see any feasibility plan or rationale suggesting any economic benefit. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Probably not even a Tom Thumb Mardi, more like a damp sparkler.

True but the codes can do that now can't they and possibly should have a decade ago.

What a complete waste of time and money. Aside from stating the obvious and things that will never happen, the industry should get a review from someone that understands wagering and that makes recommendations that will enhance revenue. I doubt that things like synthetic tracks will do that. Probably the reverse. Improving prizemoney in recommendation 17 is a great idea, but no genuine suggestions where the money will come from for that except from the taxpayer. It's a joke.

anyone found it?

Yeahhh sure is a confidence thing that should be factored into your pricing. If you click on the runner, then gear and scroll to the right you should see the undie colour. Not sure how the stipes check the declaration is being complied with. They probably do it like they check for weight bags and just flip up the saddle cloth.

Probably certain that industry structural change will be called for and is essential. That's a no brainer. What form do you think that might or should take Peter?

I don't yet grasp how you can price one horse or a few horses without pricing the rest of the field. Surely you have to price to 100% market or similar. Something definitely doesn't add up and I'm still trying to figure out what that is.

The remaining stand is being remodeled to provide the necessary facilities for racedays including jockey room upgrades, JCA and stipes rooms, toilets, food and drink service etc.

It was the Manawatu Racing Act Trust Board that theoretically controlled the insurance proceeds. Long since sorted. Hence recent and current progress.

Unlike you, we both punt to win.

https://www.sportsradio.com.au/gai-on-chautauqua/

I heard Gai on the ladio about 6 weeks ago on this. Has she had more to say?

My pick too RM. I probably would have gone for Monty who I'm guessing would have taken more of a psychological approach whereas whomever Mr Q is, is obviously using a more behavioural one which appears to be working. A very good decision by stewards I think which takes the pressure off the horse and handlers. It was never going to be an overnight fix. No doubt from that trial, the horse is in fine fettle and still loves to race.

me too!

The committee HAS fallen into line with NZTR which designated the track be developed primarily as the best training and trial track it can be but at the same time can be brought up to standard for race meetings and that the club may then apply for 1 community race date and be available for other transferred meetings. There have been delays getting plans and consents for critical building work on the remaining stand but that will complete phase 1. I note that 28 heats went round yesterday on a H10 rated track with the open 1000s going in 1.03/4. The council has stuff all to do with it.

If I thought it weren't ok to make a similar comment here, I wouldn't be here.

I may be a bit thick but I don't see the connection Hesi. One is a critical comment about ongoing general issues, the other is a sensible attempt to get clear information about a specific incident.

Don't quite get your point there Hesi. I read that comment as being in reference to the Foxton track, not Otaki. I'm pretty confident the controlling body there won't stuff that up, but given what's happened to most other tracks in the country in the last couple of decades, I would have thought that was fair comment?