mardigras

What part aren't you getting? All of it by the looks.I don't expect the Australian governments to subsidise those companies. I'm simply pinting out that those governements don't give to the industry sfa. Something you still don't seem to to be able to grasp. I'm the one stating the government doesn't give the industry there as much as here. Are you now agreeig with me. Well done, you've caught up. So in Oz, the betting operators pay income tax to the government (that's a take, not a give by the government) the betting operators pay license fees to the governments (that's a take, not a give by the government) the betting operators pay a portion of their net revenues to the industry (that's no longer much to do with the government) the governments give less than the first two items back to the industry (that's a give, not a take) in NZ the government (NZRB) pays all the income it makes from betting to the industry (that's a give, not a take) If you can't work out that the NZ government is giving massively more to the industry here than happens in Australia (relative to the industry size), then there isn't much point continuing the discussion.

They take more out. But they aren't run by a bunch of incompetents. But apart form that, NZ has a different profile from a betting perspective. Given that profile, there was always a need to maximise the level of net revenue against that. By extending what they operated on without considering the impact to their cost model, all they did was dilute what they had in net terms. And at the same time, they started a drive of shifting interest in NZ racing elsewhere. Which leaves us where we are now. Dependent on the revenues earned from jurisdictions outside NZ and no revenue coming from NZ racing. Good work.

Well, the NZ government gives ALL of the net revenue generated by the TAB. Don't you think that is more than what the likes of Tabcorp + the state handouts give the industry - given the states are only giving back a portion of what the operator gave them to begin with (which they have to earn). Which means the industry in Australia is getting less than the ALL. As for income tax. I'm talking income tax paid by the betting operators. I think the participants in Australia pay tax as well. FFS. GST and duties are paid by the betting operators. So I'm not sure of your point.

Furthermore, it's a model NZ should have moved to years ago given the relatively small population and limited nous in this field. A business driven by profit will aim to deliver because it has to. An organisation like NZRB has zero accountability and they all carry on regardless of outcomes. Along with the ability of NZ to receive a fee to maybe put towards infrastructure etc for the long term benefit of the industry. No doubt why WA has finally woken up - maybe they are as slow as us.

Totalisator operator license fees, income tax. Something all of NSW, VIC and QLD get from the operators to operate, that is not having to be provided by NZRB. In NZ, ALL the revenue is gifted to the NZ racing industry. That is nowhere near the case in Australia. The states do not give out more than what they receive from the license fees etc. I'll repeat the example from earlier. Tabcorp had to pay VIC State government $410m upfront for a 12 year license to operate as the sole totalisator business. Which easily equates to $40m per year the state government can pay back to the industry without touching any money it didn't actually get from Tabcorp to begin with.

What is one of the real basic issues is how massively misunderstood the difference is between the NZ racing model and the Australian one. The NZ government is easily giving more to NZ racing than any Australian one. I'm talking racing there. It is verifiable. It is obvious. Yet most in NZ don't understand it. Which is why pointless comparisons get made.

I took him at great odds - but for very little as that was all there was. 999-1 for $10. He isn't going to be my best result, but if he won, I wouldn't mind.

On the restructuring side of things. Change is needed but needs to be in consideration of what gives the best options longer term (there may not be a sustainable option left now). The issues have arisen due to very poor decision making many many years ago where they did things without consideration for local industry participants and long term sustainability. The resulting model is what their decisions brought about. So damaging is the model, it has shortened the lifespan.

You're not seriously thinking the NZ government should be stumping up with money for stakes? The state governments in Australia receive massive money from the industry the way it is structured there. What they give back is nowhere near what they get. You have to be able to differentiate money that is just a handout compared to money that is merely a reinvestment back into the industry the government received the money from. The same applies to both NSW and VIC. Eg. Tabcorp paid VIC state government $410m for a 12 year license fee to operate as the tote provider. That fee on a simple investment plan can easily deliver $40m per year handout back to racing for the same 12 years, without costing the state government any money from other avenues. Perhaps you can show me where VIC government has averaged $40m per year in 'handouts' back to the industry. These state governments receive a lot of industry related revenue. They just don't hand money out willy nilly they don't have. And we haven't even mentioned Federal government income from things like Income Tax.

The jockeys/trainers/farriers are catered for by a lot less racing on the basis the industry is the size it should be based on all the economic factors. And therefore the rewards associated with those 'occupations' are commensurate with where they should be. The breeders - that's breeding, not racing - and to continue breeding on the basis that the local racing industry should be catering for you is senseless. The owners - similar to the breeders. And they have choices. The industry should be at the size that relates to the economic metrics of it. I don't open up 10,000 bakeries in NZ based on wanting to provide my breads everywhere if there is no economic justification for doing so. And then expect the government to prop all my bakeries up. The racing industry shouldn't be looking for financial handouts simply based on the reality that there is insufficient interest in the industry to generate the revenue that allows an industry that size to be sustainable. My earlier assertion around a lot less races - is probably still too big as a racing industry. The economics of the industry simply don't stack up.

I'd disagree with racing everyday in NZ. I think about 200-220 meetings a year is ample. Or about 2/3rds of what they have now. If they have horses to race, proper scheduling would solve that.

Love it. You've just joined the 'majority clowns'. Well done.Your post fits perfectly with what you described. The hypocrisy.

Got such a fright with them on, sadly, he fractured his pelvis.

Yeah - the preferred method of backing them the next day works wonders.

For sure. I'm not in any way anti blinkers, but I can only see it benefiting a punter that believes they can see the relationship with the horse in question and how they see them helping that actual horse. And even then, it is going to be achieving something that even the best trainers can't work out since the vast majority don't achieve the trainer much at all. if someone has that skill, good on them. To arbitrarily state add 30% is just nuts.

Those blinkers first time - did they make Kings Will Dream run faster. Certainly not out of the gates they didn't. Maybe the horse didn't like them and hurt itself as a result??

Fair enough. So therefore the observation doesn't suggest anything to take away as having any real impact on the reader - but I don't think that was the intention of the post when you wrote it, even though you said, 'the only thing of note'.

What is that supposed to mean? Are horses supposed to/expected to run as per what punters generally think?.

The person that put $200k+ on her will hope the run continues! Savvy is available at 200s+

From Sky Sports Cox Plate runner Kings Will Dream has been doing his work this week at the Warrnambool Beach in a bid to freshen up after running in the Caulfield Cup. Owner Brad @SpicerTbreds says all reports have been good and hopefully blinkers going on will do the job.

Winkers. Thomass is sulking. I doubt he'll be back any time soon, if ever.

Weir's runners, Humidor has Blinkers again and watch out! Kings Will Dream has Blinkers on FIRST TIME! I'd be looking at Rostropovich top 3 or top 4 for odds compared to the likes of Winx myself. But fans of SC can get 5s to run top 3.

Sadly Withhold is out of the cup after bleeding from both nostrils.

Good luck to Savvy Coup. She will no doubt start the outsider of the field (imo), but if you fancy, you can get 75-80s. As per last year, whether Winx wins or not, I wouldn't touch her at the prices on offer (outside of promotional bets for those interested). I rather be on Benbatl or Rostropovich if I were to bet, which I won't be. Although I did offer a $100 promotional bet on Winx to run top 4. I gave odds of $1.17 which was snapped up - so good luck to that punter! At least it won't make me poor (or rich)!

He accepted but I think the plan is both.