Freda

Just another example of how badly wrong executives across the board have got all this. But, in the end, irrelevant now. Regardless of who did or didn't do this or that, or what could have been, should have been, or wasn't done...the result is the same. Bankruptcy. The days we fondly remember of how it was, are gone. We either accept that there will be racing [ if at all ] on two or three tracks, and we have to look forward and make the best of things. The biggest kick of all, will be if there are no structural changes, and, once [ if ] things start to tick along again, the staff numbers creep up again because of the 'increased business ' . We might as well pull the sign down then.

Even the socks tone in with the outfit, Chief! Colour co-ordinated.

Stakes are bulk funded by NZTR. The club doesn't [ these days ] have to find the money. If a club chooses - or is forced - to give away racing at its own track and use another deemed more suitable, the stakes funding and meeting payment also goes with it to the alternative track. So no savings there. Anyway, under current straitened circumstances, the existence or otherwise of clubs other than the few designated under the 'new' calendar, will be an historical fact. Consign it all to fond memories. Without radical restructuring, there will not be funding for anything much at all.

My views are probably a bit simplistic...but, I've always thought, we reduce exposure to racing in the regions at our peril. HK , Singapore totally different, there are no regions to consider. No point looking at them as a model. The experience at a country club for many young people is what has sparked interest and the love of the racehorse, without doubt. The city experience can't compare for kids. I'm not sure , now, what percentage of turnover is received by clubs, on or off course, but there was a time when smaller clubs ( Chittick's graded A, B,C,D clubs) got significantly less, and those clubs deemed 'strategic' received more. Reefton reminded me of that fact in an earlier post, about the facilities at Greymouth compared to the rest of the Coast which didn't get preferential treatment. Obviously, many of those country clubs have battled on for years with few resources , hardly surprising their structures are rustic, to say the least. Dead flies aside, nothing wrong with getting a beer from the tractor shed though, as long as it is cold! Mardi's model has retention of ( say) 30% of funds for upgrades of facilities and tracks on a rotational basis. If we accept that there can't be enough funding to upgrade 56 tracks ( which is reasonable IMO ) then, give tracks the choice. No forced closures, but these are the standards you must comply with for H & S reasons. If you can, from your own resources, fine. If not, then become a tenant club at a suitable venue . But in the interests of fairness, all clubs must receive the same percentage of turnover funding. As it stands now many clubs have been starved of rightful share for years. Bulk funding of stakes has ameliorated that but leaves nothing for amenity upgrades that have been neglected for years. I know off the top of my head of two clubs who have - or had - the resources to significantly do upgrades. Riverton, a very wealthy club, earns 200k per annually from sale of grass seed alone, not to mention other income from hay baleage, and grazing/ sale of cattle. Insane not to retain Riverton. Also, Hokitika, with land assets and half a mill in the bank, could also have done significant improvements but probably left that option too late. With enlightened management from both ends ( club and Nztr) that venue could also still be with us. There will be others without doubt. The big stick approach just isn't right. A bit of discussion and thought and solutions can be found, if there's a will.

Keith Haub was the only contribution I could come up with!

It has occurred to me, that by replacing Rita/Nzrb by Racing NZ and Wagering NZ ( as planned ) we actually get an extra layer of management....that'll be an efficient move.

Beats me. However, they are not as profligate as the other outfit. Their policies and practices need sorting, but I think they are trying - although most of us would think, try harder..!

Yes. Fits with the notion that they cost money, but those costs not listed anywhere that I can see. I've mentioned elsewhere, that modern H & S requirements must be paramount. If industry money is needed to adhere to those, fair enough, that club should realistically face the firing squad. But, if, through prudent mangement there is funding for necessary infrastructure upgrades, then, why? And, don't forget, those smaller, oft-criticised clubs/tracks have for years been deprived of the level of turnover funds that the 'strategic' club receive. But as well, as Barry mentions above, if the 'low interest dumps' aren't getting good patronage, what is the benefit of keeping them at all? Common sense, again...a commodity in short supply.

Both of you have valid points; I like all of Barry's ideas, can't see why implementing some or all of them can't be done. Practically, the 20-25 minutes might take a bit of a re-think, but negative attitudes need to be kicked to touch. Huey does have a point too, about the traditional following...but implementing change isn't synonymous with cutting them out. Again, a bit of thought needed. But proactive thinking isn't widely done I'm afraid, and therein lies the crux of it all.

Health and safety must be considered however. But, if a club has the means to bring itself into the modern arena, then it shouldn't be arbitrarily closed.

A little bird told me that a large number of positions are to be lost at Rita/NZRB. If that is correct, that's great news, and an indication that things might be trending in the right direction. But, not confirmed, and even if so, just a drop in the bucket to what is needed overall. But - it shouldn't have taken a pandemic, a horrid balance sheet, and agitation [ at last ] from sector groups. I understand Reefton's comment elsewhere about not 'biting the hand that feeds you' in a reference to the continued silence/stonewalling from both Rita and Saundry....but that shouldn't have precluded succinct information. Their collective performance to date IMO has been disgraceful.

I tried to read that discourse between you and Bill about fibre, satellite, etc..but lost comprehension fairly quickly. Can you explain briefly and simply just why the 'fibre' option is a red herring?

Seems the slide from favour isn't confined to here then. No idea how well or otherwise this company is managed, however. Was reminded very recently that racing, in its infancy, was a rich man's hobby. The Sport of Kings - and the seriously wealthy. Still is ; the Arabs have stepped up and racing would be the poorer without them. Bottom line, you should never play with money you can't afford to lose.

Absolutely. Obvious. Big fish, small pond perhaps?

Quite. You have answered your own query, another ruse to get the Guineas - and keep them - that has been fomenting for years. I'm afraid I don't share Pitty's faith here, but of course, would be happy to be wrong. Was conversing with a very experienced, former member of the industry recently, he said that breeders have stuffed the industry and have done so wherever they have been allowed to get their own way. That's a view I've held for a good while also.

All this endless debate is going nowhere...apart from getting two posters' teeth on edge. The 2000m+ fresh up issue has to be variable and contingent upon the horse's state of fitness/lack of at the time of entering a training programme proper. As Bid has stated, possibly 4 months for an educated horse, but presumably, said horse has been spelling out at grass. If, as is wont to be done in the UK, the horse is kept up and walked or trotted daily while resting, then of course, the situation is very different. If the horse has been injured, with a very long rest, then a slow rehab, then, the time frame varies again. But the marker as to when that horse enters a regime of cantering/fast work could be considered to be the 'start' of the prep. I have seven returned to training late last week. Three were race/trial fit when summarily forced out, another one as fit but not seen out. Two of the three had race placings in that last week, one over a sprint distance, the other over 2200m. The third horse was a 1600m trial winner. I have every confidence that those four will be ready to do themselves justice - given suitable track conditions for one in particular - but if there is no option for 2000 plus, then two of those four will be disadvantaged. Of the other three, one had been out spelling already, the other two had had a month's work and then out again. They will, of course, take longer to catch up with their stablemates.

The lab ?

If you think that response said anything bar meaningless waffle that has been heard before, you need to go to specsavers - or brush up your comprehension.

Looking at Winston's latest utterance, there are more than we two pissed off !

It is just possible - and I am not a Saundry apologist - that McKenzie has kept NZTR as much in the dark as the rest of us. Which begs the question, why hasn't he or Mary, or someone, bothered to tell us? \

Amazing that such a wordy document can say so little.

Yep. And, Kim Lange, now married to Damien Browne.

Andre was my apprentice as well. He went to Australia when he came out of his time, rode a few third-stringers for Gai, ended up with a cafe/bar on Chevron Island.

Ah. Yes, he did. He'd ridden 9 winners in 3 years when he arrived down... and he and Andre Gillett tied for leading S.I apprentice the next year. Dave McCarthy wrote an article headed ' the win twins '.

Gawd....enlighten me?