mardigras

Seems you can't even read either. Since I didn't say I touched any silks. Ignorance must be bliss in your little world, since you have so much of it. Stick to watching NZ races on the TV and commenting on when riders break the whip rule. That's about your limit.

I laugh at most of your posts. Not because of any intended humour from you though.

It's good - used by all the Australian trainers when questioned about supposed change of tactics. That gives them the out by stating that therefore the jockey changed the tactics - and was free to do so. Gold.

I think you'll find that the TAB came up empty headed. Enjoy it. Thankfully, their ineptitude (much like yours) has no impact on me. As for the chance to change history - yeah sure. The person who offered had about as much clout with the TAB as you do on here.

Not the class clown again. But just to correct your mis-information. I couldn't make a date they suggested, they couldn't make a date I suggested. Didn't bother me - but look at where we are.

Pretty much agree with that Joe Bloggs. There is no doubt NZRB and the codes have tried to implement ill thought out strategies. And maybe the minister should have done something to stop the rot. I'm surprised that 25 years after Victoria privatised the TAB, NZ is still trying to run a state controlled betting operator. They should have left that to real experts. If you look at the areas where state still control the TAB (or have recently relinquished control) and where they don't in Australia, you will quickly see which jurisdictions are going ahead compared to the others. Here we just have a bunch of bumbling buffoons - and the issue I see is that replacing the current lot by a state appointed new lot - will just end up with a further bunch of bumbling buffoons.

Sure. Care to quantify it.

I think you are confusing giving with the act of buying or selling something. But it won't make a difference what I say. As I also said, I'm not sure what NSW has to do with the discussion since I have always been in favour of the government not being in the business of operating TABs or bookies. NSW and I are in agreement there. The facts are very simple in the way the industries are run as of right now. They are completely different. The NSW government generates revenue directly from racing (as does Victoria). They earn from it, and then they may have areas they then give some of that back to (but not all of it). NZ government does not earn directly from NZ racing. NZRB derives revenue and then pays out more than it gets from NZ racing out to the industry (like a claw back of the GST & betting levies they would have otherwise received from NZ Racing.). The ones that will then go on about indirect revenue are dreamers. There is very little GDP from NZ racing. I'd like them to show otherwise. I've thought about it many times. I suspect more often than most. And I am lost as to why they haven't done it. But it is likely too late now. Yes, the place is rooted. And was rooted by the NZRB management with the full support of the codes. if the government had sold it before it was rooted, NZ racing had a chance. now, next to none. Even worse, if a new government really decides they don't like racing, then it will be ribbons for sure. One brush of the pen to change some very favourable legislation, and the industry will pretty much die. All because the governments have retained state control of something they are not in the business of.

That's a board issue. If NZRB was incapable of functioning, divest it. Piece of cake - and stop the bleeding.

Yep, spot on. That's about the only effective thing the minister should have done. I haven't seen that suggested by any of them. So none are any better or worse than each other.

And if they didn't meet it? What then? Boot them out? That's great. So over the last 10 years, that's 10 new boards and a new CEO appointed is it? That would have changed everything. The business should be accountable to the industry. And the minister accountable for the business delivering to the reasons the crown entity was established. FFS, they're running a damn business. They're not in kindergarten.

I'm not sure what NSW has to do with this. They don't control the racing operators in that state. And they don't prop up the industry either. They are a receiver of money from the industry, not a payer like the NZ government. They divested their control of betting operators. Something NZ should have done years ago. As I said, why is the NZ government still babysitting an industry?

Funny but I think you've got that around the wrong way. Expecting governments to subsidise/prop up an industry that delivers nothing is fossil thinking. That's the problem. No one here wants to 'get real', and thinks the government should come to the party. Which they already do.

I'd prefer zero ministerial involvement. Actually a complete sell off of all racing related entities. Set the laws in place as to operation, like they do for s casino. And tell them to sort their own shit out. Why the government needs to continue babysitting them is anyone's guess. Made worse by not just babysitting them, but gifting them millions each year along the way. Crazy.

Why? Based on what? The minister shouldn't be required to know how many legs a horse has. He isn't responsible for day to day operations. That's why a separate crown entity was created. So that they could employ the experts to act as the vehicle for funding and promoting racing. The minister should only care about the reporting that body does as to its performance. But if they were to boot out the board/CEO on that basis, we'd have a new board and CEO every year. And still be no better off.

What would you have liked the minister to do - then or now?

I'm sure each and every minister has taken note of what was going on. I would say there should be little interest in doing anything after having taken note. Can you provide what the minister is actually accountable for? As in, what are the KPIs to which he is measured or something similar?

Ok. So you're blaming the ministers because they know very little about racing. Not sure how you're going to fix that, when there probably isn't a minister that knows more than 'very little' about racing. Winston knows less than 'very little' and look at the praise he gets. The chairs are one person. You use a board to ratify decisions. It's an arms length appointment. None of the governments are going to be any different since none of them would be expected to have a minister that knows much about the racing industry and what ails it. Some of those you've mentioned were CEOs. They should have been appointed based on knowledge pertinent to what the job was. They weren't. The CEO has strategic discussions with his staff. The CEO presents those ideas to the board. The board ratifies or discards the ideas. That is usually how it works. I don't see any part of that involving the minister.

I agree that there have been numerous bad decisions. But they have been ratified by people representing the codes. I don't think the minister has created the problems - no more than any minister would. The people employed that come up with the strategies are where the problem lies. The boards are merely more than likely just ratifying them based on the advice from supposed experts. Just like politicians do. And mostly with full support from the codes.

I disagree. The major issue that NZ racing now faces is that it generates no wagering revenue. All the revenue it now gets comes from offshore racing, sports betting and pokies. Nothing to do with NZ racing. So it has become an industry that could stand on its own feet, to one close to 100% sustained by revenue streams that have nothing to do with NZ racing. The reasons that has come about have been due to pivotal decisions made by NZRB that were fully supported by the codes - and indeed anecdotally, I would say the majority of industry people as well. And definitely fully supported by the breeding industry. Those decisions changed the landscape - a landscape which prior to those decisions, had NZ racing pretty well self sufficient from a gambling related funding perspective. You can't blame the ministers for those appointments - the codes had representation on the NZRB board. They ratified the strategy.

The entire plan (whether it can be achieved or not), is merely a bunch of short term prop ups. Take from x to fund y. Nothing sustainable. The land grab is just another option to get some funds. Should that even happen, when they've gone, what will they grab next? Knee jerk reactions to a situation the racing industry (not the government), manifest itself.

The spread of wealth may have caused issues, but they are across the board issues - not specifically local to the racing industry.

Why should any minister be required to do anything. The strife NZ racing is in is certainly unrelated to what politicians do. The damn politicians are already giving massively to racing on behalf of the country. And the new proposed laws are supposedly a way for more money to come the industry's way. Please sir, can I have some more?

With the way things are, sweepstake racing may be all that is left. What level of entry do you think NZ people will pay to hold a spot? These events are essentially racing for ribbons, with the ticket winner being paid by the ticket buyers. Sweepstake racing shouldn't be allowed to be black type either. They might be attractive to the odd owner, but they are unlikely to change anything from the perspective of returns via NZ TAB. How many of these at any level could be run per year?

You've tried doing this to death. You're simply not learning. Your blue print has no notion of anything except 'ALL'. There is no criteria in your blue print as to which will follow the 'rules' and which won't. Every single horse that races will be assessed by a punter somewhere as being a horse they want to back - and then they could look to apply your blueprint. Making every horse a potential candidate to be assessed in combination with that blueprint. That means 'ALL'. Tell us which '3yos after Christmas' the rule applies to? The ones that win I'm guessing. Just like all the other 'rules'.