Freda

Which shouldn't, in itself, allow slipping on a well-manicured track with suitable drainage....vis. Flemington.

Tiered racing is suitable for Australia, it works well for them....it is here that it isn't applicable ...IMO of course..! That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be better stakemoney to reward the better horses - but the distribution has to be workable for the whole equine population. At the moment, it isn't. Ratings should provide a guide to the correct placement of a horse in a particular race...and Auckland horses should have their superiority reflected in higher ratings.

Again, we agree..up to a point. The rating of the horse should reflect its relative ability / perceived class. You are right that the Auckland form is perceived to be stronger, but if the ratings of the horses were done accurately there wouldn't be this anomaly. As I said, a R65 is an R 65...there shouldn't be a regional difference. If the ratings were done on the horse population as a whole, then the class difference would be reflected in the ratings given. When ratings are done on a race -by -race basis, then the whole system becomes skewed. The ratings system gets a lot of flak, it isn't hard to follow at all IMO - but its application is flawed here.

Yes, that's true enough...and so they should....but 'tiering' is not necessarily relevant inasmuch as the class of race, surely? A R65 horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland....and if it is smart enough, will get itself out of that grade wherever it is. There are plenty of 'imports' south which DON'T measure up, never worry about that.

I reckon a flat structure increasing with grade of race across the board, but only in concert with affordability/revenue earned. Mardigras indicated the same on a different thread, he and Curious have given excellent ideas for models over time and I agree completely with their thoughts. Now, the dogs and I are off to the beach -where I don't have to think at all.

The need for a tiered structure baffles me, and given NZ's homogenous equine population, how can it be justified?

Yes, understand....doubling stakes would certainly help,and would signal some hope - but as an end result? I would like to think that it would be a good starting point. But without radical change to the funding model and putting the silly 'tiered' structure to rest, there will still be major inequity in stakes allocation...IMO of course....And unless costs, dates, programming, handicapping etc, etc, are addressed along with the stakes increase, we will still have a lumbering and inefficient model which, in itself, will still be an unattractive operation compared with our closest neighbours.

In a nutshell. We have to realise that any change to RB structure requires legislative action...so I suppose the apparent lack of action here is understandable...but increasing revenue is the ONLY thing that can arrest the decline in NZ racing. All the Mac's, Rita's and synthetic tracks in the world won't do anything , on their own, to achieve that.

Those who are trying to make a decent living kinda do take it seriously....fools they/we may be, for not moving on and/or doing something else.

I don't. It would have more benefit if it applied to the third year of study, not the first...many first years will only ever be that..so money wasted.

You may well be right...so...as WELL as the three codes, we have Racing NZ too...instead of a slimmed down and efficient body, we instead have an extra one? Presumably the RB will be slim and efficient..? No? Dear oh dear.

If Rita - as per her advertised function - oversees the formation of Racing NZ and Wagering NZ from the NZRB and NZTR, then, by definition, it is defunct, surely?

Winnie is busy making Christmas puddings, and has a very important job making sure the brandy is up to scratch. Now, surely you must recall that under the umbrella of 'Rita' , NZTR and NZRB will become defunct. Clearly then, NZTR is busy dishing out as much dosh as it can for Christmas presents before it no longer exists... which is why you have been given money to repair the roof. Winnie has also created ' Mac ' so Rita has a sparring buddy. Selling off racecourses is now in the too-hard basket...so synthetic tracks are the latest talking point. The Cambridge one is underway we are led to believe.... but the amount of 30m originally set aside for three - apparently - seems to have reduced to 13m with funding from the RB to be included...presumably from yet more borrowing. Wonder what J.M is thinking about now?

We were all told earlier that funding had been 'set aside' from the Regional Development Fund for the construction of 3 allweather tracks. Now, the cynic in me said, yeah, right, pigs will fly. And, re the funding, I haven't changed my opinion....and how Riccarton, in Christchurch City qualifies, is anyone's guess..but apparently it has. But to rely on Winston's promises is in itself a stretch. Yesterday, the amount specified had reduced somewhat, the RB is supposed to come up with some [ from where, I wanted to know ? ] and clubs are supposed to find the rest. Again, from where, I have no idea. Cambridge has 4 mill already approved, from NZTR I think, don't ask me how that came to pass either. But that wasn't the thrust of the meeting, more to show us what might be expected in terms of performance from a synthetic track - Poly track was the medium discussed. When the meeting was first advertised, I was pissed off that it was on a trials day [ no one seemed to either know or care ] and what seemed to me, a waste of money flying people around from Aus and elsewhere to talk about something that may never get off the ground given Winston's proclivity for telling porkies. The trials situation didn't eventuate, and notwithstanding the above, I am now much more well informed than I was re. the tracks themselves....and being informed is never a bad thing, no? At whose cost is another story. Awapuni is on today.

And I didnt bother going to John Allen yesterday. If I wanted to listen to fairy tales I would dig out my Harry Potter dvds.

NZTR and the Cjc programmed a discussion and questions about the nature and installation of Winstons promised synthetic tracks....most of the trainers were wary, but after the excellent presentation from a team which really seems to know it's job, we were all much happier with the concept.

Wtf does 1/5 lame supposed to mean? I noticed the horse changed legs several times in the last 600m.

After my scathing comments about the waste of money, etc, from having this presentation, I have to give a tick to the men concerned for their professional discourse. My query about Winston's money being available - or not - produced a raised eyebrow at the end, but wrt the installation and care of the AWT's, I have come away with far less concern about who is doing the work. My temper was improved slightly by the cancellation of the trials...not an ideal situation but at least the avoidance of a clash meant that trainers were available to listen, and I think all were impressed. Funding matters and the M Report generally were not really on the agenda, so not much said about those. So, magic bullet they aren't, but equally, I can see no reason for not wanting anything to do with them, or at least the variety most discussed.

Haven' t seen stipe's report, but at first glance, it looked to me as if she took exception to the whip, went to duck away and realised too late that the rail was there.

Jason had an accident recently and has a broken jaw.

Iffraaj priced below O.P and S.F.....doesn't make sense at all.

Now THAT I will agree with....

just to throw my very small hat in the ring - and do a ThOmmo, tell everybody later - I backed Authentic Paddy for a place. Thought he was good value and so he was.

Actually, Pitty, it isn't all about you. Do you agree with the above points? ...and if so, what - apart from waiting for the M report to be implemented - do you think we should aim to achieve? ...because I heard a whisper that the funding from NZ First has been put on the backburner, not sure the time frame or the reason...but if that is the case, your pet wish [ all weather track here ] may not be the given you think it is. If the oil is right, and the funding is delayed for a significant time, we will then be getting towards an election and Winston's mandate for change will be looking a bit shaky.....and this means that, as an industry, we need to DO something other than wring our hands. If Saundry, Jackson. Hughes and Allen keep on keeping on, we're right up the creek.

It's all very well for you to wave a red flag...but bear in mind that there has to be a POINT to a strike. A specific rule or law that needs to be highlighted and challenged. In Queensland, stakeholders rallied together and presented a united front about the state government's application of their funding - POC tax I think it was. One issue that was been highlighted, reversed and extra money applied to ease their situation. There are SO MANY issues here, that striking [ IMO ] would just be a waste of time. The Fair Tax protests were well done and about a particular issue, and, with the help of a sympathetic Minister, sorted. But we promptly wasted the fruits of that gain to be back in the same position. What do we strike about? Funding is directly the function of the NZRB...so which - of the many - of their operations do we strike about? Get rid of them all, you may say. But that requires legislation and a complete re-hash of their function. Isn't that where we are now? ....and nothing has happened - yet -despite all the rhetoric from the same Minister.... and still the CEO tours around spinning the same B/S that we are supposed to swallow. NZTR - where to start ? date structure, handicapping, programming, 'tiered' racing/high top end stakes, track maintenance, integrity, apprentice training, horse welfare, allocation of turnover money on a club-by-club basis, lack of incentives, everywhere..the costs at office level, registrations/ownership changes, owners' privileges [ lack of ]......which bit would you like us to strike about again? And....just consider the position of a strong-minded trainer or trainers who decide to boycott a trials or racemeeting or in some other way disturb the heirarchy to make a point....round the corner will be a non-involved trainer who will leap upon the annoyed owners who have missed a race or races and there goes a client.