curious

It also has a name with two words barryb, is over 3yo after Christmas and has sidewinkers on. Should bolt in. And I don't see why you have too much trouble deciphering Thommo's selections. If you can get your head around the primary criterion which is that they won the day before you'll master it.

Bugger, both ran 3rd at 20s no divvie...the winner must be closer as Thommo said!

The good thing is it's both before and after Christmas at the moment, so should be good to go.

Just to add to my losing streak... Gulfstream Race 8 #3 Hy Kodiak Warrior Race 9 #7 Go Gone Gone

Foxton is not on the close list but so far as what you are saying they would be taking money from the Crown! And require legislative action concerning the Manawatu Racecourse Act.

I'm agreeing with JM. I'm saying that Winnie should have initiated the review, so that the outcome was known by now, although it may have been decided to wait for the review before deciding the terms of reference and there's some argument for that.

Told ya!

Yes, an independent review, aimed at an orderly reduction in track numbers would make sense. A financial model that has worked OK in the past is where funds from sale of tracks are retained by the club but used to purchase a pro-rata share of the track they are going to race at, so their funds are protected. The idea of handing assets over say from Gore, to spend on say an all weather at Cambridge is reprehensible.

Sorry, it's what is more correctly called totalisator duty, payable under The Gaming Duties Act. It is what was reduced from 20% to 4% in 2003, to align it with the rate paid by casinos. A matter ignored by the Messara report is that presumably, if it is removed for Racing, the Casinos will make the same argument. Of course the now $50m a year savings from that duty reduction was supposed to go, similarly to your suggestions, to a mix of stakes, infrastructure and to cover the costs of reducing takeouts. We all know what has happened there.

oops...make that due to be implemented at least...the first one was July 2008, that second one should have been July 2013, and this one July 2018. I left that bit out. It's supposed to be "at least once every five years".

That makes sense and I don't know why Peters did not insist that be underway alongside the Messara review. They are supposed to be done every 5 years and the last one was dated April 2014, so it's already well overdue. I'm not clear why this has not yet been initiated. It ends up being one of JM's recommendations anyway and the the Minister determines the ToRs, so they could be as you say. 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 Would you include the betting levy removal in your above plan? Another $13m?

Thommo probably will in the morning!

I've raced a horse with Sheldon and I'd say he knows more about thoroughbred racing than most. He also knows what he doesn't know.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/106830745/seven-charged-in-harness-racing-probe

No amount of asset grabbing, tiered racing, outsourcing or increases in prize money can fix this in the short term, even if they do find a way to fix all the stuffed tracks. I can hear the rumble of stakeholders deserting by the minute.

You and I can't but Thommo can evidently even though it has nothing to do with this thread as far as I can make out.

Agree.....walk away. Take your club assets with you for your community and leave them to it. Not worth the fight anymore.

Really? Wanna put up some evidence?

The only thing I can say Hedley is that it's not yet a conquest.

c'mon Freda....wake up?

Are you saying this might not be an independent report as indicated Reefton? Perhaps even informed by 20 year old failed ideas?

Did I see someone mention cock-ups? This looks like potentially the biggest one and if they don't steal the assets to fix all those tracks and the revenue to sustain them the whole show will probably fall over. Soon I suspect. We are basing a strategy on recommendations from the 70s? Really?

I don't see how any of this can work. I think there's a fair chance that those clubs will simply walk away with their assets, so they won't have those and they'll be trying to run the same number of racedays on the remaining 28 tracks using a failed tiered stakes structure which will be even less sustainable than it is now. I dealt with John a bit in the late 80s and had a lot of respect for him and some degree of hope about this review but the more I consider it, he seems to have developed a level of perspicacity similar to Winnie's.

I get that but why have the tiers when the same horses will be going round in each tier as now? How can that possibly improve the product or revenue. Makes no sense to me and the report gives no explanation that I can see. It's another tired old idea that already hasn't worked. Sounds like another big breeder initiative to me, not anything that will help racing.

Can someone help me understand this aspect of the Messara recommendations? I can not see from the report how this will lead to increasing revenue? It seems to me more part of the problem than part of any useful solution and I can't see anything in the report that would persuade me otherwise. That's all assuming that the $110m for stakes actually materialises from the proposed strategies.