Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

Who would've thought the Chinese were woke! Macau gone!


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes and the premierships are decided on number of wins not the stakes won.

Wouldn't it be better for racing in NZ if we had bigger fields?  We have these AWT's which those Macau and Singapore horses are used to running on - surely we could have some extra meetings programmed?

I think the turnover figures you posted in another thread show we need less meetings to have a viable industry, possibly about half what we now have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, curious said:

I think the turnover figures you posted in another thread show we need less meetings to have a viable industry, possibly about half what we now have.

In my view that is the plan , but it would quite simply kill the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Huey said:

In my view that is the plan , but it would quite simply kill the industry.

I hadn't noticed that. Is it in the strategic or business plan or something? I'm not very good at reading those these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So how are Entain going to turn a profit and meet their obligations?

Are you saying the local market is saturated?  Is there no other way than legislation to stop leakage?

I don't think I said anything about leakage. In my view that has bugger all to do with it. It is that the wagering spend is only sufficient to fund about half as many events at current stakes levels to make the industry self-sufficient and that has been the case for some years. Currently, the balance of funding is sponged from other sources such as revenue from wagering on overseas and non-racing events, pokies etc.

Entain's job is to increase the wagering spend so there is additional money available to increase stakes, infrastructure development etc.

Edited by curious
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But how can you do that if you reduce the product levels?

Don't think quantity of product has much to do with punter spend. It just dilutes it. Otherwise, days with 10 races would do higher turnover than those with 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, curious said:

Don't think quantity of product has much to do with punter spend. It just dilutes it. Otherwise, days with 10 races would do higher turnover than those with 8.

But we have many days in NZ with zero local product.  As well as struggling to fill fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, when we have no product, we generate no revenue but reduced number of racedays has not caused overall turnover to drop so far. Struggling to fill fields would be less likely with less events. Huey thinks cutting the number of events will kill racing but that's a sign that it is dying anyway. We either cut it back or it will die at least back to that level of its own accord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, curious said:

Obviously, when we have no product, we generate no revenue but reduced number of racedays has not caused overall turnover to drop so far. Struggling to fill fields would be less likely with less events. Huey thinks cutting the number of events will kill racing but that's a sign that it is dying anyway. We either cut it back or it will die at least back to that level of its own accord.

So no hope of growth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. That's what they are supposed to be doing isn't it? They are also trying to do the same with sports which at the moment benefits racing too.

The TAB strategy in recent years of adding more and more betting events has not increased revenue beyond inflation. Punter losses remain steady regardless of the number of events and more events add costs just as more meetings do. Less meetings reduce costs. For self funding of stakes, the ratio of turnover to stakes needs to be doubled. The only realistic way of doing that is to halve the number of events and maintain the gross punter spend.

  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Special Agent said:

Dean from Entain clearly stated at the Roadshows that they want to drive turnover by having more meetings, more races, more participation.

Getting those horses back from Singapore and Macau may be a project Entain could spearhead.

I certainly don't recall Dean saying anything about increasing the number of races or meetings. How did he say they expected to do that and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He absolutely did, and was questioned for clarification on it at Awapuni.  He believed they had incentives for owners and trainers currently being used in South Australia (I think) that could also benefit the industry here in terms of more participation and revenue.  He was very keen to get more patrons (particularly younger ones) oncourse to experience racing first hand, and had ideas to implement to entice them to place more bets, then larger bets.

The presentations must have varied slightly between venues.  I suppose it depended on questions asked.

How they expect to do it seems to be to copy a tried and true method.  I think New Zealanders are different and have less disposable cash so, await the results with interest.

The why is past experience shows them that more races, racers and racing equals more revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

The why is past experience shows them that more races, racers and racing equals more revenue.

Which means more participation at all levels.  What NZTR need to do is facilitate a low cost model of operation.  Centralisation the way it's being done is changing things to a high cost model.

  • Like 1
  • Champ Post 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more!!  Costs and administration ideas (for want of a better word) are squeezing out the alternative to the mass production areas of the industry.  The literature dished out is mind boggling.  I am sure hardly anyone has read it all and have no idea what they are agreeing to.  There are errors, contradictions and all sorts of shit that will have ramifications that will bite someone in the arse down the track.  It is a potential trainwreck.

If you are truly going to centralise you need to ensure you have the infrastructure in place and excellent personnel to run it.  I am sorry to say that the New Zealand Racing Industry has neither.

Our industry is racing horses.  In order for the wheels to turn the most important parts of the industry are horses and the people who get them to perform, trainers, jockeys, trackwork riders and stable hands.  I am not ignoring owners and punters, both very important to the industry but without the horses and those who get them to the races, the owners and punters will not exist.  Before you start looking for new participants you actually need to look after the current ones but, most importantly all racecourse facilities must cater for the athlete expected to perform.

Chief, you talk of NZTR coming up with a low cost operation and entice new participation at every level.  I can't see the new licencing and accreditation system doing that on either count.  As for the RIU stable audits to ensure all trainers are professional, that is ironic when racecourses around the country are seriously not up to scratch.  Maybe the RIU should start in their own back yard first.

I wonder if the real meaning of centralisation is understood at NZTR.  I know the answer to that.  There are many race tracks and training facilities that are more central and cost effective than the currently favoured ones.  The top training centres and racecourses of the past sadly no longer deserve those titles, not now under new management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

without the horses and those who get them to the races, the owners and punters will not exist. 

Make no mistake,punters will just bet on alternatives.

Yes, granted.  They can go off and bet on tennis or something but, sure won't be betting throughbreds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...