curious

The thing is the Derby is already struggling to maintain its G1 status as it is. Though its race rating of 111 last year just met the tolerance threshold and the Pattern committee generously removed the warning, it was still well below the expected G1 minimum of 113. If this race takes away even 2 or 3 of the top contenders, it seems a very odd decision to me to run them on the same day.

And fillies like Quintessa would seem to be attractive to slot holders.

That's the 9 auction slots. NZTR and the clubs don't pay anything, just the annual fees, total 375k over the 3 years. Guaranteed return if you run last every year 400k. And the 450k includes the 375k annual fees doesn't it? Will there be a BOAY syndicate lining up at the auction?

Same as the Karaka millions. It is Restricted Listed.

They get their slot for free don't they, just pay the annual fees for a guaranteed profit. Likewise ATR, Waikato, RACE and the CJC.

Also in harness, the Nullabor and Eureka and Ladbrokes Protostar.

I think you'll find that Anniversary day is celebrated in the Manawatu as well and is a public holiday.

TABAU are involved?

TABNZ have bought SENZ Digital and Audio and invited Entain to operate it alongside Trackside, so I think you'll find there will be improvements in radio coverage in due course.

I certainly don't recall Dean saying anything about increasing the number of races or meetings. How did he say they expected to do that and why?

Of course. That's what they are supposed to be doing isn't it? They are also trying to do the same with sports which at the moment benefits racing too. The TAB strategy in recent years of adding more and more betting events has not increased revenue beyond inflation. Punter losses remain steady regardless of the number of events and more events add costs just as more meetings do. Less meetings reduce costs. For self funding of stakes, the ratio of turnover to stakes needs to be doubled. The only realistic way of doing that is to halve the number of events and maintain the gross punter spend.

On Gavelhouse for $2750.

Growth in turnover, yes, if Entain can do what they have proposed. Growth in quantity of events,I don't think so and that the opposite is a better idea.

Obviously, when we have no product, we generate no revenue but reduced number of racedays has not caused overall turnover to drop so far. Struggling to fill fields would be less likely with less events. Huey thinks cutting the number of events will kill racing but that's a sign that it is dying anyway. We either cut it back or it will die at least back to that level of its own accord.

Don't think quantity of product has much to do with punter spend. It just dilutes it. Otherwise, days with 10 races would do higher turnover than those with 8.

I don't think I said anything about leakage. In my view that has bugger all to do with it. It is that the wagering spend is only sufficient to fund about half as many events at current stakes levels to make the industry self-sufficient and that has been the case for some years. Currently, the balance of funding is sponged from other sources such as revenue from wagering on overseas and non-racing events, pokies etc. Entain's job is to increase the wagering spend so there is additional money available to increase stakes, infrastructure development etc.

I hadn't noticed that. Is it in the strategic or business plan or something? I'm not very good at reading those these days.

Back on topic, didn't Lady Telena come through this race as well? 2nd in a G1

No. I mean punters and punter spend.

Obviously, yes. A substantial oversupply for the available customer base.

I think the turnover figures you posted in another thread show we need less meetings to have a viable industry, possibly about half what we now have.

Good stuff by Wanganui. Trentham a financial disaster. Can't afford too many of those meetings.

Indeed. Where do you find those reports? Interesting info similar to the harness ones.

Probably too soon to say. Railway met the pattern race minimum but the Telegraph is well shy and on alert for downgrade. I doubt that betting would generally be enhanced by a shift to wfa which is designed to favour the best horses rather than create competitive races for wagering. The purpose is to enhance quality which it may do on average but won't likely make the best horses any better.

Yes. But that's what non-handicap racing, set weight and wfa are there for, to determine the best horses for breeding purposes which is why they are graded and featured in sales catalogues.