Doomed Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 This from NZTR today about the upcoming Otago meeting. "NZTR in conjunction with the club MAY look to divide the R65 1600m provided there are sufficient entries at withdrawal time." 35 noms for the race. They must be expecting a high attrition rate if they don't think they will end up with enough horses to split it. They should really be splitting it into three races. And they should be asking themselves if perhaps they have a programming problem if they get 35 noms for a $17,000 race, especially since they have just had a meeting at Riccarton with much higher stakes a few days ago. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Doomed said: And they should be asking themselves if perhaps they have a programming problem if they get 35 noms for a $17,000 race, especially since they have just had a meeting at Riccarton with much higher stakes a few days ago. Where they also had 32 acceptances for a 1600 R65, which they did split. 4 horses still eliminated. I wonder if there is an issue with the programming here? Edited May 21 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 16 minutes ago, curious said: Where they also had 32 acceptances for a 1600 R65, which they did split. 4 horses still eliminated. I wonder if there is an issue with the programming here? Ya think ? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted May 21 Author Share Posted May 21 2 hours ago, curious said: I wonder if there is an issue with the programming here? Surely not. Next you will be suggesting that with only one horse trained south of ChCh in the rating 75 1,200m perhaps they need more grass track meetings in Canty at this time of year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 8 hours ago, Doomed said: This from NZTR today about the upcoming Otago meeting. "NZTR in conjunction with the club MAY look to divide the R65 1600m provided there are sufficient entries at withdrawal time." 35 noms for the race. They must be expecting a high attrition rate if they don't think they will end up with enough horses to split it. They should really be splitting it into three races. And they should be asking themselves if perhaps they have a programming problem if they get 35 noms for a $17,000 race, especially since they have just had a meeting at Riccarton with much higher stakes a few days ago. That statement is very much a standard one...use of the word MAY when noms are far in excess of field size. Of course there will be an extra race but it will need an increase in stakes funding for day before confirmed. Plus who knows...the Kilmog could get snowed in overnight or a bridge /road could be closed etc. As always an excess of maiden and R65 horses yet folk still keen to shift horses from North ,even when the slow ones often don't enjoy any more success in the South . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 19 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: As always an excess of maiden and R65 horses yet folk still keen to shift horses from North ,even when the slow ones often don't enjoy any more success in the South . You don't know that when you take them on. That's the gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 It's interesting that they programmed a race with 5 acceptors when a week ago the CJC deleted one with 7 nominations. All seems a bit arbitrary to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 10 minutes ago, curious said: It's interesting that they programmed a race with 5 acceptors when a week ago the CJC deleted one with 7 nominations. All seems a bit arbitrary to me. Yep. No standard pattern. Therefore open to integrity questions. Geez earlier in the season I saw a race at Tauherenikau that had four acceptances. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 42 minutes ago, curious said: It's interesting that they programmed a race with 5 acceptors when a week ago the CJC deleted one with 7 nominations. All seems a bit arbitrary to me. With a $45,000 6 horse field in Auck this week and a $40,000 6 horse go at Trentham they probably thought they would get a bit of flak deleting a $17,000 race at Wingatui. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Yep. No standard pattern. Therefore open to integrity questions. Geez earlier in the season I saw a race at Tauherenikau that had four acceptances. Kinda right Chief.....the very popular New Years Tauherenikau meeting ran a couple of 5 horse fields and one 4 horse field which had 5 x acceptors before one scratched. .That day ,shared with Harness ,has one of the best attendances of any meeting in NZ . Less horses means more room for sack races and 3-legged races for families. Goes to show it not always the horses that gets folks to the track. Many maiden races on the day and the 4 horse field was a 2 yr old race . Surprised you not highlighting the recently released report which puts a value on each Areas contribution to the NZ economy thru racing activities. It also gives stats about the number of participants incl Owners in each code etc. No doubt that Harness is by far the dominant code in the South Island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 Would you point us to that report please TAB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 1 hour ago, curious said: Would you point us to that report please TAB? Answering my own question. https://nztr.co.nz/sites/nztrindustry/files/2024-05/Size and Scope of NZ Racing 22-23_Draft Report 2024 (HR)_0.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 I see they have again managed to conflate breeding industry activity with racing industry activity, while still calling the report "Size and Scope of NZ Racing". 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 8 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: Kinda right Chief.....the very popular New Years Tauherenikau meeting ran a couple of 5 horse fields and one 4 horse field which had 5 x acceptors before one scratched. .That day ,shared with Harness ,has one of the best attendances of any meeting in NZ . What do you mean "kinda right"?! A four horse field went round 12 November 2023. Make that 100% correct. Don't get me wrong I don't see a problem with a 4 horse field as under the rules it is allowed. Profit wise it probably isn't much less profitable than any number of races. The issue I have which @curious raised is why can a 7 horse field? What criteria was used? Where is the consistency? It seems much like the time when NZTR needed abandonments because they budgeted for them. If every race scheduled had gone ahead they wouldn't have had enough funds for the stakes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 7 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: Surprised you not highlighting the recently released report which puts a value on each Areas contribution to the NZ economy thru racing activities If it uses the same assumptions as previous reports then the contribution is inflated. Without reading it I'm guessing it doesn't provide a Net Contribution I.e. Gross contribution less subsidies, tax relief, handouts, etc. It's the Emperors Clothes Kool-aid. We think we are doing well because ENTAIN is spending shareholder's money on stakes! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 You'd need time to digest 90 pages of this report. NZTR love reports!! At an initial scan two points strike me:- - Economic Contributions show Waikato $466.2million, Auckland $333.6mill, West Coast & Canterbury $137.3mill, Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui $121.2mill. Therefore does the amount of money spent on the Ellerslie track look like a poor investment for the region, taking population into consideration? - Participants in each region are recorded Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui 5,132, Waikato 4,897, West Coast & Canterbury 4,329, Auckland 3,002. This looks like a shift in focus by NZTR is required. Waikato may very well be considered racing's Holy Grail but, the true interest in racing from those in Taranaki/Manawatu-Wanganui and West Coast & Canterbury should be embraced and encouraged (and invested in) by head office. The contributions at grass root level cannot be ignored. The figures from our most populated region is a stark reality that racing is moving away from the main centres. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others. If I was looking at investing in the future of thoroughbred racing I think it is clear where the growth areas are. You can't run an industry on dwindling numbers of people. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Fish Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 47 minutes ago, Special Agent said: You'd need time to digest 90 pages of this report. NZTR love reports!! sigh, up to page 38, and as usual with these reports I am continually wanting delve deeper with in the numbers, as into, what are the wages being paid to the coal front workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAB For Ever Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 13 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: If it uses the same assumptions as previous reports then the contribution is inflated. Without reading it I'm guessing it doesn't provide a Net Contribution I.e. Gross contribution less subsidies, tax relief, handouts, etc. It's the Emperors Clothes Kool-aid. We think we are doing well because ENTAIN is spending shareholder's money on stakes! I doubt few people think NZ Racing is doing well....but the participants who have felt down trodden for years especially owners,trainers and jockeys have been given a huge boost to the immediate returns and prospects by Entains initiatives. It has given them and others in Industry new hope. It remains to be seen whether it can be sustained. We all know that. Other comments....Ellerslie's huge investment on what they thought was a decent track for future was 'their decision with their money'. Something that would allow them to continue their position as NZ's number 1 track...and only International rated venue in NZ ,which hosts many of NZ's Group races, and within 2 horse of NZ's biggest horse population . Sure Breeding is considered a big part of NZ Racing Industry...the employees , the associated businesses and the Export earnings etc. That and the tax take has always given the Industry the thumbs up from the Government. Embrace it ! Haha...who hasn't noticed the close collaboration between the breeders ,the sale houses and the HYPE in general.....a normal week of racing here hardly gets a mention on here for example but throw in a Karaka , NZB ,Limited entry sweepstake race or promotion and all hell breaks loose ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 On 21/05/2024 at 2:32 PM, curious said: Where they also had 32 acceptances for a 1600 R65, which they did split. 4 horses still eliminated. I wonder if there is an issue with the programming here? A 65 1600 added to the May 31st polytrack meeting. Maybe someone reads these websites after all? Well done anyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 8 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: Other comments....Ellerslie's huge investment on what they thought was a decent track for future was 'their decision with their money'. Except when the Administrators want to close a club down their assets including cash is considered "industry money" and not their own. You display the same hypocrisy as they do. 9 hours ago, TAB For Ever said: Something that would allow them to continue their position as NZ's number 1 track...and only International rated venue in NZ ,which hosts many of NZ's Group races, and within 2 horse of NZ's biggest horse population . But the new track isn't up to international standard is it? (How did you arrive at thw classification of the track as international?). You don't mention with the huge investment NOT ONE horse is trained on the course. Not a good industry investment is it? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, Freda said: A 65 1600 added to the May 31st polytrack meeting. Maybe someone reads these websites after all? Well done anyway. I'd like to think that they finally figured it out themselves based on 2 week old information. Not much help to the owners who were told sorry, you have to spend another couple of grand in training fees until we can maybe find a suitable race for your horse. The poor open class horses from the canned race at the said meeting are still going around waiting for a racing opportunity. I've said this on occasion before, but in the US, every club has someone charged with canvassing trainers every 2 to 4 weeks to ascertain what horses will be ready to race in different classes and the next month's programming is based on that (Pattern and other key races aside). I fail to see why NZTR can't appoint someone specifically to do that and make programming recommendations on that basis. Average starter numbers is a KPI and strongly driven by Entain as well. Something like the above seems a simple way of doing that and I'd bet would immediately increase field sizes by at least 1-2, thereby creating more attractive betting races and increasing wagering on those events as well as retaining owners. You can't simply programme 6 months ahead based on what was happening a year ago and add or delete the odd race later. It doesn't work. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomed Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 43 minutes ago, curious said: I'd like to think that they finally figured it out themselves based on 2 week old information. Not much help to the owners who were told sorry, you have to spend another couple of grand in training fees until we can maybe find a suitable race for your horse. The poor open class horses from the canned race at the said meeting are still going around waiting for a racing opportunity. I've said this on occasion before, but in the US, every club has someone charged with canvassing trainers every 2 to 4 weeks to ascertain what horses will be ready to race in different classes and the next month's programming is based on that (Pattern and other key races aside). I fail to see why NZTR can't appoint someone specifically to do that and make programming recommendations on that basis. Average starter numbers is a KPI and strongly driven by Entain as well. Something like the above seems a simple way of doing that and I'd bet would immediately increase field sizes by at least 1-2, thereby creating more attractive betting races and increasing wagering on those events as well as retaining owners. You can't simply programme 6 months ahead based on what was happening a year ago and add or delete the odd race later. It doesn't work. Much easier just to pull out the same programme as last year, even if that programme had major problems with it last year. They are also obsessed with running 8 race cards so don't really enjoy having to cater for an excess of horses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 6 hours ago, curious said: I've said this on occasion before, but in the US, every club has someone charged with canvassing trainers every 2 to 4 weeks to ascertain what horses will be ready to race in different classes and the next month's programming is based on that (Pattern and other key races aside). I fail to see why NZTR can't appoint someone specifically to do that and make programming recommendations on that basis. Please don't get another position created at NZTR. May I suggest the Trainers' Association be proactive in this regard and submit this information from it's members on a regular basis? It would only take a trainer to collate the numbers and send on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 1 hour ago, Special Agent said: Please don't get another position created at NZTR. May I suggest the Trainers' Association be proactive in this regard and submit this information from it's members on a regular basis? It would only take a trainer to collate the numbers and send on. I thought there might be someone already at NZTR with less and less to do at the moment who could be appointed to the task and help justify their salary. Certainly not a new appointment. They do have one quite efficient and effective unit there in the NRB which is in regular liaison with trainers anyway. Perhaps they could do it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Agent Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Now you are being just down right stupid. Don't be coming up with easy solutions. 3 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.