Doomed Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 (edited) 47 minutes ago, curious said: The good old Racecourse Hotel is still there! You do wonder whether they actually put money up each meeting (they very well may do) or whether Tim just gets a free Speights each time he pops in. Edited May 30 by Doomed 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra Dollars Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 On 5/24/2024 at 8:25 PM, curious said: Not sure that trainers are necessarily necessary in a track safety review? Conduct of a Track Safety Review The steward conducting the review must: • Inspect the track and in particular any areas which gave rise to the notification to the steward; and • Make any other inquiries the steward considers necessary to understand any issues with the track and whether they can be remedied; • Meet with representatives of the Club and consider their views on whether the track is safe. • Meet with the jockeys engaged to ride at the meeting about the state of the track and take into account their views on whether the track is safe. The steward may, but is not required to, meet with any other party and consider their views on whether the track is safe. Subject to these requirements, the steward may determine the process to be followed in conducting the review. Easier for a Steward to abandon the day,than deal with any H&S stuff, bet they get paid the same dollars for a short day as what they would for a full days racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Meeting News Riccarton Trials Cancelled Due To Insufficient Nominations Meeting News Cambridge Trials Cancelled Due To Insufficient Nominations - 45 Total Nominations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 hours ago, curious said: Meeting News Riccarton Trials Cancelled Due To Insufficient Nominations Meeting News Cambridge Trials Cancelled Due To Insufficient Nominations - 45 Total Nominations Use whatever term you like. Thick skinned or head in the sand. Just too stupid for words really. Unfortunately we have a racing minister who pushed for the AWTs, otherwise you might suggest the racing minister should step in and tell NZTR to get their act together. What i don't understand is why the trainers seem happy to vote with their feet but seem unwilling to say a single word publicly about why they won't support AWT trials. Meanwhile Waverly have heaps of trials for their meeting. It will be interesting to see how many they get for the 2yo trial tacked onto the Timaru meeting this week. I actually feel a bit sorry for the 45 horses who were willing to give it a go at Cambridge. They never say how many were keen at Riccarton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 32 minutes ago, Doomed said: What i don't understand is why the trainers seem happy to vote with their feet but seem unwilling to say a single word publicly about why they won't support AWT trials. Same reason they were loathe to criticise Ellerslie after the KM. They perceive it creates negativity and affects their ability to attract and retain owners. The industry needs a strong Owners and Trainers Association. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 14 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Same reason they were loathe to criticise Ellerslie after the KM. They perceive it creates negativity and affects their ability to attract and retain owners. The industry needs a strong Owners and Trainers Association. Yes. Also, the idea that adverse comment ' brings racing into disrepute ' can be dealt with severely. Ralph Manning was castigated for being critical in an a raceday interview - although, knowing Ralph, he wouldn't have minced words. The latest two T.A national presidents are both trained accountants I believe. So, given a [presumed] numerical skillset that should make it possible to comprehend the fiscal reality that is our industry and the reasons for that, neither have seemed to be able to comprehend that reality and keep pushing the same line as everybody else. If leadership can't/won't, where does the drive to make change come from? A young trainer locally is about to lose an owner because of his perception that training facilities aren't to his liking, and another one potentially in the same boat with a different client. A third trainer was facing the loss of one because of the need to travel some considerable distance to get a suitable track/grade/trip for his horse. Given that he had several horses in the stable, that was a significant hit. I notice the colours are still going around, but trainer/partner are in the ownership along with him. So, an educated guess is that concessions have been made to keep that particular horse anyway. So criticism can be self-defeating. Clients are the lifeblood of an operation, any loss for whatever reason can make the difference between not just success/failure, but very survival. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 The other significant problem with the TA is it is funded by NZTR, so any critical comment from there would in essence be biting the hand that feeds it. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 10 hours ago, curious said: The other significant problem with the TA is it is funded by NZTR, so any critical comment from there would in essence be biting the hand that feeds it. Funded to the tune of how much, over and above the Secretary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 On 6/3/2024 at 3:45 PM, Chief Stipe said: The industry needs a strong Owners and Trainers Association. I'm not sure about these two groups being lumped together. At some meetings owners can be on a totally different page to the trainers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 55 minutes ago, Special Agent said: Funded to the tune of how much, over and above the Secretary? 85,760 Salaries 59,517 of that FY23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Why do these groups cost so much to run? And then have very little say? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 32 minutes ago, Special Agent said: Why do these groups cost so much to run? And then have very little say? Hush money. Plus free tickets to the big days out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I wonder how many of the likes of Te Akau's owners are members of the Owners' Federation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 53 minutes ago, Special Agent said: Why do these groups cost so much to run? And then have very little say? In the TA case, because not enough trainers were willing to pay a membership fee to support it, so now they have little say at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 49 minutes ago, Special Agent said: Why do these groups cost so much to run? And then have very little say? Just as one example of the sort of thing you might expect the trainers to want to have a say about. This weekend at Timaru, only one rating 65 programmed for all comers, over 1,600m, plus a fillies and mare 1,200m. So nothing for 65 stayers or sprinters and 5 milers will miss out as there are 33 noms and they are going to split it into two races. The maiden 1,200m, 23 noms so 9 will miss out. These are $17,000 races, surely they could at least try and make sure everyone gets an opportunity. The next opportunity coming up for these horses is on the AWT. Probably get massive noms and NZTR will say "look, trainers love the AWT." I can understand Pam's comments about trainers losing owners because of the lack of opportunities. In the North Island you can usually pick and choose where you want to race. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 27 minutes ago, curious said: I wonder how many of the likes of Te Akau's owners are members of the Owners' Federation? An interesting question. You would think that if NZTR funds the Association that the Association would have access to the new owners data at the very least. I'm not sure any first time owners get any information about the Association. Woops I think you were talking about the Trainers Association... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 At one time- in my memory certainly- the Owners and Trainers Federation was one entity. They then split into the two bodies, presumably because it was felt the aims of each were not mutually inclusive. At that time the Trainers Assn did do some very good work, much of that taken for granted today. Not sure what the Owners Federation achieved, not that I had anything to do with it but certainly nothing revolutionary comes to mind. Apathy, older folk having 'done their bit' and younger ones too blase to bother, left the TA very underfunded. So NZTR added a levy on licence fees to support the TA. Needless to say, that concept went down like a lead parachute. Very unethical many felt. Certainly at the moment, despite secretary Wendy Cooper being both helpful and efficient, the overall use of the outfit seems questionable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Both organizations as pointless as the breeders association now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: An interesting question. You would think that if NZTR funds the Association that the Association would have access to the new owners data at the very least. I'm not sure any first time owners get any information about the Association. Woops I think you were talking about the Trainers Association... I was as far as funding is concerned, but you get my point. NZTROF is self funded. Their primary objective is: "We provide connectivity with the community of thoroughbred racehorse owners" but as an owner, I have never been contacted by them in the last decade. Nor have any of the thousands of small share owners in the likes of the Te Akau syndicates that I have spoken to. How they think they can be effective in any way with only a small percentage of owners as members, is beyond me. To be of any use, a proactive membership drive would be a good start. New owners are unlikely to have ever heard of them and a $60 membership fee for someone with a 100th share in one horse is unlikely to appeal if there is no benefit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 13 hours ago, curious said: 85,760 Salaries 59,517 of that FY23 I mention previously about how to me there were very little meat to been seen in that latest propaganda. report into 'the industry', especially around wages etc? (or did I miss it? I ask, how many hours would be put in to 'earn' that wage? how does that compare to the average or mean wage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 12 hours ago, Special Agent said: Why do these groups cost so much to run? And then have very little say? Another example of 'precordial politics', have a very hierarchical structure, Paid the head way above the norm! You then totally have their voice! and part of their role then becomes to say "please don't be negative'!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 14 hours ago, Special Agent said: I'm not sure about these two groups being lumped together. At some meetings owners can be on a totally different page to the trainers. Even the old blind man can see the Massive Contradictions that flow from them being lumped together! Very much like the reality of 'company unions'. Pat Lush (Father of Ken) set up the Trainers assoc, and ran it!! He was a rather steeled fella! Never afraid to 'speak up to power!' A spade was a spade! And a igit was a.... I know for 100% he would be shocked to see it today! Some rather amusing irony! to see it very much now appearing to have morphed in a 'patsy' organisation!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 13 hours ago, Doomed said: Just as one example of the sort of thing you might expect the trainers to want to have a say about. This weekend at Timaru, only one rating 65 programmed for all comers, over 1,600m, plus a fillies and mare 1,200m. So nothing for 65 stayers or sprinters and 5 milers will miss out as there are 33 noms and they are going to split it into two races. The maiden 1,200m, 23 noms so 9 will miss out. These are $17,000 races, surely they could at least try and make sure everyone gets an opportunity. The next opportunity coming up for these horses is on the AWT. Probably get massive noms and NZTR will say "look, trainers love the AWT." I can understand Pam's comments about trainers losing owners because of the lack of opportunities. In the North Island you can usually pick and choose where you want to race. They do seem to be more responsive to this lately. This today: Good morning, A R60 1400m ($17,000) has been added to the Riccarton Park meeting on Thursday 13 June. Edited June 4 by curious 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Murray Fish said: I mention previously about how to me there were very little meat to been seen in that latest propaganda. report into 'the industry', especially around wages etc? (or did I miss it? I ask, how many hours would be put in to 'earn' that wage? how does that compare to the average or mean wage? Average annual salaries are about 70k, so I don't see that as exorbitant by any stretch. It's the effectiveness of the organisation that is the issue imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 2 hours ago, curious said: Average annual salaries are about 70k, so I don't see that as exorbitant by any stretch. It's the effectiveness of the organisation that is the issue imo. ummm, what was that saying about 'Stats and lies" A few years back I was in discussion with a Prof of Economics (Paul Dalziel, Lincoln Uni) around the 'so called' average wage, He had worked in Stats Dept (or hand some relationship with them for years and had fought to get that stat being counting. I think I recall that then 70% of wage earners Didn't get the average! I'm sure that most that say do earn 70k put in a work week of 40 hours to be earning that wage? How many hours a week would be needed to run that organisation? Not counting time in the sponsor tent!!!! ps. https://researchers.lincoln.ac.nz/paul.dalziel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.