mardigras

I agree that each to their own is a fair comment. However, if someone comes in here claiming their methods are the keys to success, then they should be prepared for the backlash if they are simply flawed. If they don't try to continually spruik these methods, there would be no need to rebuke them. They should just keep 'each to their own' methods to themselves.

He doesn't use facts. For this year (excluding 3 weeks in late May/June when I was overseas), Saturday races with a stake of $30k+ averaged 10.17 starters. The rest of the races averaged 10.52. '...and in bigger fields... where anything that can go wrong...often does...and more often...' Yeah right. Everything he does is based on what he perceives as being expected. But he can't back it up - he doesn't understand or use times. he generalises everything, but he can't even get the generalisations right. And evidently he can't count either.

No it doesn't. It's laughable that the guy that openly claims to never use times can suddenly define the impact of weight in distance, yet can't even tell the difference between a horse running at Trentham and a horse running at Ellerslie - or the difference between a horse in a G1 and a horse running faster in a maiden. Your world is based on guesswork. But never anything factual. It's no doubt why you lose all the time.

Chief, luckily we're trying to have a serious discussion and we don't need to bring irrelevancies into it

I read talk of a tiered structure. Is this 'matrix' such a tier. There is no place for such a tier as there is no potential to delineate the quality of the horse as mentioned above. It makes no difference how much money is in the pot, the idea is flawed here.

If there is going to be a review of the state of the TAB and the option of privatising, then everything should come to the table. There is nothing owed to horse racing - the TAB is a government asset. Sports would be well advised to present their case for race field styles fees for betting on their events.

We don't run sufficient races to delineate the level of horse. So all that will happen is what happens now. Horses will run where they need to run and there will be no difference between any of the 'tiers'. And as it is, we already run too many races. Messara can't be this stupid given what has been claimed about him. Someone must have led him down the garden path and he got hoodwinked by the smell of the roses.

Exactly FTF. If I'm reading this right, this would suggest that it mirrors what is expected generally in Australasian handicap racing. If 31 winners in top group from only 231 starters, that is the best result - possibly showing that 'generally' they might also be the higher weight carrying group and would win more due to handicapping policy not having sufficient effect - due to 1kg not being equal to anywhere near 3/4L. That is certainly the 'norm' here and in Oz, not helped by absurd handicapping policy that isn't related to performance.

I agree 100% with Messara except it should be 'each entity' not each code. They are each a business entity on their own. Only people who deal in fluff think otherwise. Messara wants that because he is one eyed towards thoroughbreds, like you. Sadly, the view has nothing tangible to support it. I wonder why Australia doesn't work the way you state Messara thinks it should. Very strange since Vic thoroughbreds do not receive the funding generated from NZ thoroughbred betting.

I quite agree. None of the revenue should go to any of the codes. It's unrelated to them. It should go to the business owner, the government where they can put it to some use.

S16 worked that way (when followed) although not on earnings - on turnover. But clearly there is no relationship between NZ gallops and off-shore gallops from a revenue perspective. So their contention has no basis - they want it that way because they want all they can possibly get their hands on. They are getting a lot more than they should in my view. An approach that distributed earnings not earned by the codes themselves, based on net revenue - would be considered more standard. Problem with that is that NZ gallops likely doesn't have any net revenue.

I don't see any justification for an industry receiving funding based on such a metric - even if it were a reliable one. Surely, an industry should get what it earns. Seems gallops wants even more of a handout for some odd reason. What's with this entitlement view they seem to have. If there's no money, adjust to fit your means.

They may easily beat NZRB's efforts. But let's not forget, if the outsourced partner is say Tabcorp, then they are a commercial enterprise and they simply won't do it for nothing. And they also have income tax to pay. So you will still have costs (even if they are a reasonable amount less than NZRB costs). And they will want to actually make money. So they will have to be able to deliver costs savings AND profit for less than NZRB costs - for there to be any extra for the industry (based on equal betting revenues).

And a horse already someone has backed on the futures markets - not sure elsewhere but even if for a tiny amount on bf. But at $100-$150? Are they kidding?

Good price there Mooncoin!

You got the last one right Barry. My odds were a bit over the top

That would be a horrendous idea. To think, they bring in a so called expert, and the only way to increase revenue for NZ racing is to get the 'industry' to buy into ventures where there is money - they can't raise any themselves, so the suggestion is to get it from somewhere else. FFS, is this guy for real?

Here's my assessments Barry - above. Don't mind Hast R2 #8 Barcelo which I priced at $9.60. A few bigger variances Barry. But as I said last week, I wouldn't be changing anything. Hope you get a few winners - some nice prices there.

I heard that this 'paper' wasn't being paid for. As much as I doubt that, it isn't worth paying for so that would be appropriate. I hope they didn't print it out to distribute to attendees. That would be a waste of paper and ink. The good points are and always were obvious. The rest just hasn't been thought through. As for real sustainability, nothing.

I would be guessing that if it goes to an Oz operator, they will look to make TAB infrastructure obsolete over time. I think they should have done something similar 11 years ago instead of trying co-mingling. But they should ensure they do it with provisos around ensuring an 'NZ' aspect to what NZ gets. Broadcasting etc should be built into whatever is done. Betfair is unlikely to ever be a presence here - at least until such time as there are tracks that present as viable punting options. You need layers prepared to risk their money to get decent liquidity - and even traders who whilst are merely scalping off events, do also provide liquidity. I'd agree that their systems are better. But we must also remember that they are a commercial operation and they will want to make money for their shareholders. So where NZ TAB costs were high, Tabcorp or whoever, will be wanting to take their cut on top of costs. I don't imagine any fixed odds deal would progress under the current 'Messara' options. if they do this, they should seek a licence fee (like what Tabcorp pays in Oz). And also a grandfathered level of funding to the industry to give some certainty around the future.

Possibly because it is a sweepstake?

And I'd agree with a large part of that. Especially the part about the standard of racing on the tracks. It is something the Messara report hasn't covered in my view. It's all very well cutting costs, economies of scale etc. But what in the report is going to INCREASE revenue to make racing sustainable here. Not just change the income/expense ratio in the short term. To increase the revenues, you are going to have to attract punters and I don't see that happening from what I've read so far. On the computer models on NZ racing - they will also struggle as there simply is no money here. If you bet tote (such as what they must have been alluding to given mentioning rebates), you have to overcome the commission impact which is huge. If you don't bet tote, you'd have to manage accounts everywhere to try and avoid limitations or bet through betting organisations that won't limit you (such as an exchange), where there is near nil liquidity on NZ racing.

Not wanting to just focus on the negatives, but the Peters/Messara big bang looks remarkably like a Tom Thumb.

The guy should have realised, NZ is not Australia. Tiered racing works in Australia purely due to geography. 17. Increase thoroughbred prizemoney gradually to over $100 million per annum through a simplified three-tier racing model, with payments extended to tenth place in all races. This can only work if the cost models are changed to reflect the tiers. So trainers in the top tier charge more. Horse tend to stay within tier. etc etc. Racing as we know it cannot work that way without having all tiers run independently so that horses are able to get starts in their tier when ready. We can't even get horses sufficient opportunity to run under the current model without trying to introduce a proper tiered model.

And 8. Seek approval for a suite of new wagering products to increase funding for the industry. is just laughable - sadly.