Freda

Chris has certainly had his 'Chris' days, but you can guarantee that whatever he rides will be ok to go next time. I recall someone asking Peter Williams, back in the day, why he bothered with Chris, when he failed to turn up at the races. I'd have him booked any time, he said, whether he's here or not, because at least he won't be riding against me.

He does.

I agree. However the material I recently read did give me food for thought. There is no doubt [ and I'm not particularly adept at figures ] that the modern economies - not just here - are not performing particularly well, and Covid is only one drama we have put up with recently. If you can be bothered, try reading Davos Man, penned by Peter Goodman, twice winner of the Gerald Loeb award for Distinguished Business and Financial Journalism.

Interesting. Interesting also. I never got any info going forward about any Turf Club business.

Yes, the Turf Club definitely had a raceday, on-course only I think, as indicated by Doomed. As a member of the Turf Club I was granted 'Associate' membership to the CJC after the takeover, as were members of Amberley/North Canterbury. They may still have that membership but I haven't seen any reference to Turf Club members for years. I guess my 'association' got rubbed out. As trials are no longer at either Rangiora or Motukarara, any 'volunteers' have long been extinguished. Ashburton may have its own version of 'volunteers' but certainly, the Riccarton AWT trials won't.

With Marlborough now closed to gallops, Rangiora gone and Reefton hanging on by the skin of its teeth, there will be no galloping presence in the South Island north of Christchurch. And with the development in North Canterbury post-earthquake, a huge catchment there for the taking...but, no. The decline in TAB turnover from the area following eliminating Nelson/Westport gallops, clearly meant nothing to the bean-counters, and that decline will have increased exponentially since, I think.

Yes, of course it does. I first heard the concept aired by Chloe Swarbrick, and immediately the right-wing part of me jumped to the front, and filled my head with ' taking money off the hard-working to prop up the useless who won't work, stupid idea, silly bitch' ...etc, etc. But recently I read some interesting stuff from an economics buff and after consideration, decided that overall, there was some merit. There was a trial undertaken in Finland, which was, overall, inconclusive, but if you think of the raft of bureaucrats and bookkeepers employed to dish out benefits now- as well as the cost of those benefits which are then taxed- so MORE bureaucrats, and it does actually make some sense. Only, of course, if there is nearly full employment, so there is a taxation base to afford it, as well as ensuring that the likes of Bezos, Musk, Gates, Dimon, et al, actually pay their fair share which at present they sure as hell don't.

Unfortunately the millions invested in the Stathayr make that highly unlikely, ever.

None of these tracks you mentioned have been 'cashed up' as far as I am aware. So, no financial benefit whatsoever. Just more of the line being pushed that to retain these tracks 'costs us money'. How, given the voluntary input in them all, I have yet to understand. The 'I raced ninety' fella was in favour of rationalising, but let it be known that there would be no forced closures, rather that NZTR would work with those clubs that wished to race elsewhere on a supportive basis. The next incumbent just went ahead and did it anyway, without any specific financial evidence either for or against such a practice. And the Hokitika situation was a case in point. They didn't want the outfit to continue, but the reason ? if there was infrastructure upgrading required, or track re-alignment, the club had the money and the volunteer base to get it sorted. They didn't need to call on industry funds at all. As Reefton has alluded on several occasions, when folk don't go to your meeting, bother to bet, or turn up with their horses, that is the time to put up the white flag. But no. No raceday licence issued, and then started the rubbing of hands with glee with the prospect of dosh to be realised from the handing over of the asset. Nah, go the Hoki crew, and gave it back to the community. The club was allowed ONE raceday at Greymouth, and from then, no. Sour grapes as punishment the most likely reason, and very poor behaviour from [ supposedly ] professional administrators.

That's very true. And I don't have the technological know-how to even imagine how to operate such a system. But some dialogue is never a bad thing. I see it as being a modest, local, on-course offering., at least for starters. Entain - if it happens, which is by no means a certainty - can do the flash stuff.

If, as you indicated earlier, Entain do not 'do' tote betting, there might be an opportunity for clubs to run their own on-course tote . It's a bit pre-nineteen fifties, but there might be a way to make it work.

He hates the place, seemingly. He could have made himself unavailable, surely? and let someone else do the job? After all, a junior employee was set 'in charge' but didn't, in the end, make the call. And no question about giving another day. It doesn't fit with the NZTR grand plan. The line trotted out by Sharrock about 'rationalising' venues and putting the money realised into a managed fund to produce an income stream for the future, has absolutely no relevance or bearing on the Coast situation.

Pretty much.

I did see videos of work implemented at Flemington coming out of winter and getting ready for the spring racing, and leading up to the Cup carnival. It would appear that this type of renovation is done at LEAST annually and possibly more often with their major tracks. I know Te Rapa had sand applied a few years back but that wasn't considered to be appropriately applied according to the adverse comment after. But it seems to be racing ok now. So one would hope that Riccarton, at least, has an ongoing programme of maintenance and renovation, similar to that undertaken after the Cup meeting drama. But I don't have any information pertaining to that.

That review will be very interesting.

I'm not surprised the Minister wasn't more help. Apart from a minefield of petty rules for him to wade through, as Minister for Local Govt, and in election year, a racing matter would have to be a very low priority in his view.

Well done !

I thought that was all done and dusted...or at least, I'm not aware of any other plans afoot.

WTF does that have to do with a perfectly [ I thought ] sensible question?

I didn't personally see this, but was told there was reference on Trackside about the proposed work to be undertaken at Randwick immediately now the Championships are over. Anyone aware of this? And to Reefton - how goes the battle with the RIB ?

Absolutely, the status quo is not acceptable. But the detail is what we would all like to see, instead of fluffy statements about 'how great ' it is going to be. Given management decisions so far we can be forgiven for the scepticism.

Of course I do. Where did you get that notion ? The new road might be smoother, it might be full of potholes. We do need to have some info about this. But it seems to be hard to find.

Don't be silly. I'm sure that's not what I said. What is obvious is that to continue down the same road will take us to where it leads. If you can't work that out you need help.

I think [apologies to Doomed if I misunderstood] that he feels that those who do give a shit have become so tired and dispirited that they just can't be arsed any more. Anyone who knows me understands that figures and balance sheets confuse the hell out of me - but I've learned a lot from folk who do understand such matters. What astounds me however is that information is everywhere, it isn't actually that hard to find stuff out. It has never been so easy to learn something. But so few people - and that includes our administrators - have a clue how it all works. That is frightening. It shouldn't really be the job of the general populace to inform. Most are just too busy trying to earn a living. As far as the proposed Entain/TAB deal goes though - whatever its relative merits may or may not be - doing the same old thing, maintaining the status quo, isn't the answer.

I've been reading a great deal about this concept. Any thoughts ?