curious

Did you write both these posts? Is it harness or thoroughbred trainers you are saying are crooked now?

Wait...when I ask you "Do you think punters will be willing to lose more $s if they can access Levin jumpout videos on youtube?" you answer "no". When I try to clarify that by asking "So, you don't think that will generate more revenue for the industry?" you answer "of course it will". Perhaps you could decide which it is, and if it's the latter, let us know where the extra punter losses will come from in your view.

2% for each of the racefields charge and the PoC tax. Seemingly the working group 2015 report has disappeared off the website. This is from the DIA regulatory impact statement. Applying an information use charge of 2 per cent of turnover (as suggested by the Working Group) would result in revenue of $5.7 million per annum for racing bets and $1.1 million for sports (after 5 per cent withholding tax). Applying a consumption charge of 2 per cent of turnover to these figures would return $9.8 million to New Zealand (after 5 per cent withholding tax). The Working Group suggested (based on Infometrics’ projections) that annual growth of 11.5 per cent could be expected over the next few years, which would increase the return to around $16.9 million in 2020.

So, you don't think that will generate more revenue for the industry? Sounds helpful then.

Do you think punters will be willing to lose more $s if they can access Levin jumpout videos on youtube? Is that what you are saying?

Next he'll want video of all track work that he can watch at his leisure in the lounge at 10 am with his Latte. And if trainers take a few for a gallop on the beach, he'll expect a night vision camera to be there. I hear reports of the odd Derby at Ballydoyle but never saw a video of one.

The last time I tried to video a jumpout with my phone most of the vision seemed to be of clouds and grass so you probably should leave me out of assisting.

I thought "prospective" meant likely to happen?

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.