curious

Not at all. It's more of the same. Perhaps a positive along with other things you have mentioned. I note that you make no mention of the wagering revenue geerated amongst those things. Yes, there's a plan but it's more of the same with no strategy to significantly address the things that have seen TR go from being essentially self-sufficient two decades ago to where it is today.

Just the one.

10,000 people don't hurt either!

I don't think doing more of what's already not working at an elevated level is likely to solve that problem, do you?

I wonder which will perform best business wise. Turnover to stakes ratio?

Do the TA reps not circulate these programming committee minutes to all regional trainers? Otherwise, how do the TA get representative trainer feedback?

Looked like about 20 people in the open stands at Trentham before Race 2 on a big G1 day. Probably close to 10 thousand at Kumara. Does a BYO licence make a difference?

Timaru has to appeal as a training base given the above mentioned programming issues in that it's equidistant from both Riccarton and Mosgiel, so mitigates the overnight travel requirement from one centre to the other.

That's not what the programming committee is supposed to be doing and have agreed to adhere to. For programming purposes, the pattern is supposed to divide the SI in half with the Waitaki river as the divider. This is from their minutes: PROGRAMMING PRINCIPLES: It was agreed that the following principles which were established in May 2012, then updated in August, December 2017, August 2020, and May 2024 be adhered to. ... A pattern was prepared for each ‘half of the island’ – north of and south of the Waitaki River. Programmes were determined and confirmed in date order. Certain types of races must be programmed as ‘one island’ (Open Handicap Races, and age group) and others as ‘half Island’ races. This creates some clashes when the two ‘half island’ charts are merged.

Agree, though I don't see much sign of any decline in numbers just yet.

“Attached to the monopoly proposal (geo-blocking), but not part of the agreement, in exchange for expanding the monopoly from onshore to online I negotiated with the TAB and they agreed they would relinquish their class 4 gaming licence and stick just to wagering, and so that would be a 500 poker machine drop to our country’s total – there would not be machines in TAB outlets anymore, and that means the TAB can focus just on wagering as it was intended to do right from the start."

TABNZ said they would relinquish the licences if they got the satisfactory geonet legislation through. It was nothing to do with the original Entain deal but a voluntary undertaking by TABNZ.

I'm sure it will be a Good 4 by Wednesday morning. Did they eventually get the new grass growing?

There's no irrigation reported in the track posting.

Nomination Morning Weather: Fine Track: Heavy 8 Moisture Meter: 49.6% Rail: TBC Rain: No Rain Last 24 Hours | 14mm Rain Last 7 Days Irrigation: Weather and Track updated at 8.55am Friday 10 January

Never was to my knowledge but the class 4 gaming operations were not part of the Entain deal. That stayed with NZTAB. Entain operate racing and sports betting and trackside.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Any club can do that but Ellerslie is obviously in a better financial situation than most to do so. The NZTR contribution from their stakes distribution is the same. This however seems to be an additional race, not part of the original programme committee approval, with funding beyond what is standard for such a race. It would be unseemly if that extra funding is coming from the NZTR stakes funding pool in preference to other uses.

So they can find 100k for another race at Ellerslie but not enough to upgrade a couple of summer meetings in the SI from industry to feature? Or, where is the 100 grand coming from. If you really want to piss off owners this is a good way to do it.

EXCLUSIVE: Cup-winning trainers dudded in $464,000 prizemoney payment bungle By Trenton Akers 02:18pm • 10 January 2025 An administrative bungle has soured Knight's Choice's fairytale victory in the $8.5m Melbourne Cup, with trainers John Symons and Sheila Laxon still chasing their share of prizemoney from the famous victory. Racenet can exclusively reveal racing officials, along with Symons and Laxon, are desperately scrambling to rectify the situation after their $464,000 cut for the race that stops the nation was paid into an old bank account that they no longer use. It is understood the bank account is held in the name of a former associate.

Unfortunately it's not up to Pitty and Mills. They (the programming committee) have tried to get additional Canterbury feature meetings during the 10 week hiatus. NZTR won't fund them. They clearly prefer to fund 4 horse 65k races at Ellerslie. Not many trainers down here have an Orchestral either to sway anybody to do so. If they leave noms open, trainers will toss in a few extra to make it a goer even if most of them are then scratched. However, often the races are deleted at nom time if only 4.

Yes. It's their race and their decision given NZTR funding approval.

A few have had jumpouts at Rangiora too and maybe the same further south.

By NZTR and the club concerned. I said acceptors, not starters. There were 8 for the Reefton Cup.

Don't know that I can either but I guess the apparent difference is that any race in the SI with only 4 acceptors or less has been deleted.

Why would you trial them, if there's no races for them?