NZ Jumping Consultation

[All The Aces]

NZTR will harm the thoroughbred industry by banning jump racing - (theoptimist.site)

 

 

 

[curious]

Gosh, Has BdeL forgotten to take his meds again?

[Huey]

12 hours ago, curious said:

Gosh, Has BdeL forgotten to take his meds again?

Some interesting points made for mine. particualrly the submission from Mary Burgess.

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Huey said:

Some interesting points made for mine. particualrly the submission from Mary Burgess.

Yes. Agree about Mary's facebook comments which I'd already read with interest. It's his own contribution that I refer to. Seems to be a rather irrational tirade to me. Not the way to get a point across if he has one.

[Freda]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Yes. Agree about Mary's facebook comments which I'd already read with interest. It's his own contribution that I refer to. Seems to be a rather irrational tirade to me. Not the way to get a point across if he has one.

I know you aren't a fan of BdL, but I couldn't find anything to take issue with here.  Mary's comments very good too.

[curious]

Well I suppose I could be more specific but as an example, he ends with this:

What are the chances of all the board at NZTR reading all the submissions and taking all the arguments into account, or is this process simply an exercise of going through the motions?

Of course the board is not going to read all the submissions. He clearly doesn't understand the difference between governance and management. To use that as an argument to suggest the process is just "going through the motions" is simply evocative, uninformed, stupidity.

[Huey]

9 hours ago, curious said:

Well I suppose I could be more specific but as an example, he ends with this:

What are the chances of all the board at NZTR reading all the submissions and taking all the arguments into account, or is this process simply an exercise of going through the motions?

Of course the board is not going to read all the submissions. He clearly doesn't understand the difference between governance and management. To use that as an argument to suggest the process is just "going through the motions" is simply evocative, uninformed, stupidity.

I think he is more referencing the fact that they will take any of the arguments into account than someone reading all the submissions, many will have experienced their lack of listening skills in the past.

This time could be different with a few heavy hitters getting involved and they won't be keen to square up with them , so there is every chance there will be a back down on the cards.

[barryb]

12 hours ago, curious said:

Yes. Agree about Mary's facebook comments which I'd already read with interest. It's his own contribution that I refer to. Seems to be a rather irrational tirade to me. Not the way to get a point across if he has one.

Agree entirely, average piece.

The point he is missing is jumps racing is of no interest to the punter, it’s putting the rest of the industry as risk with horror events like race 2 today.

Its turning off its loyal supporters like me who still bet & until recent times owned jumpers, even I am sick of seeing those dirty old shagged jumps like todays.

Its such a shame but it needs to be confined too the past, no one has the skill or interest to revive it to former glory.

[curious]

1 hour ago, barryb said:

The point he is missing is jumps racing is of no interest to the punter, it’s putting the rest of the industry as risk with horror events like race 2 today.

Exactly, but he dismisses the turnover data saying, "All Sharrock has done with his paper is inappropriately depict a series of graph statistics to give jumping racing a punch below the belt."  Unfortunately, the facts are the facts. I asked them to update the data to include the just completed FY 24 season, something that any journalist worth their salt would have done and which they willingly provided. Here is that updated data. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[barryb]

The updated data is conclusive, there would not be another industry that would carry a sector for so long grossly under performing without trying to rectify it or confine it to history.

It’s survived 5 yrs longer than it should have, I wonder if they have stats on amateur races as well?, would be very interesting to compare against that.

Edited September 8 by barryb

[curious]

3 hours ago, barryb said:

The updated data is conclusive, there would not be another industry that would carry a sector for so long grossly under performing without trying to rectify it or confine it to history.

It’s survived 5 yrs longer than it should have, I wonder if they have stats on amateur races as well?, would be very interesting to compare against that.

Agree. I don't have data for amateur races. The claim that "this past winter’s exciting racing has come in hurdle and steeplechase events" that BdL makes has clearly not translated to turnover on those events. It was because of that, I asked for the updated data thinking there might be signs of an uptick at least. I love jumps racing, still bet on it and have just retired what will no doubt be the last jumper that I race. 50 years ago, I held an amateur licence myself.

What we see here though is a year on year decline in turnover of 10% per event on jumps racing cf. an increase of 5% for flat races. The worst performance for jumps since 2019, however exciting it may have been.  A lot of the issues could be fixed but there is clearly a rapidly declining punter interest and absolutely no business case for it to continue, sad as I find that.

[Huey]

I agree that jumps racing has done itself no favours, but there are many reciprocal reasons to keep it going in some format as has been pointed out in the article.

Also if we are talking purely from a punting profit perspective that eliminates a lot of the racing in the local industry.

I think one of the problems with the wagering side is its very much dominated by a couple of stables and thus makes it difficult to punt on.

[TAB For Ever]

55 minutes ago, Huey said:

I agree that jumps racing has done itself no favours, but there are many reciprocal reasons to keep it going in some format as has been pointed out in the article.

Also if we are talking purely from a punting profit perspective that eliminates a lot of the racing in the local industry.

I think one of the problems with the wagering side is its very much dominated by a couple of stables and thus makes it difficult to punt on.

Plus numbers wise , in recent years ONE stable has dominated in numbers of horses......KMyers

If he had a spell from the jumpers the numbers would shrink , even allowing for fact that some of his horses would go to other trainers if they prepared to carry on !

Unsure why ,but former powerhouse JWheeler has had a quiet couple of years with jumpers .PLus a few others !

[curious]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

I think one of the problems with the wagering side is its very much dominated by a couple of stables and thus makes it difficult to punt on.

I don't get that. Wagering is dominated by the punters isn't it? I don't see what the stable or product provider has to do with it other than providing competitive wagering events. Not sure any stable dominance prevents that. To me as a punter it creates opportunity and has encouraged me to bet on NZ racing ahead of other jurisdictions in recent years.

[Huey]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I don't get that. Wagering is dominated by the punters isn't it? I don't see what the stable or product provider has to do with it other than providing competitive wagering events. Not sure any stable dominance prevents that. To me as a punter it creates opportunity and has encouraged me to bet on NZ racing ahead of other jurisdictions in recent years.

Well I think the opposite , I struggle to wager on events when a stable has 3 or more runners in it, particularly when that stable has the favourite and smaller fields.

It's probably why I am such a poor punter and dependent on CS Ruakaka tips !

[curious]

Another minor issue here is he has cut and pasted Mary Burgess' figures. She says "If you applied the average per horse turnover figure from the 2022-23 NZTR Annual Report (the 2023-24 one not yet being available online) then that's around $17.7m they contribute to the total NZ Turnover."  However, the actual figure in the consultation document was $5.6m for FY23. He either can't read or was too lazy to check before parroting her erroneous calculation.

[curious]

So, who is it that is publishing the lies and damned lies?

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Another minor issue here is he has cut and pasted Mary Burgess' figures. She says "If you applied the average per horse turnover figure from the 2022-23 NZTR Annual Report (the 2023-24 one not yet being available online) then that's around $17.7m they contribute to the total NZ Turnover."  However, the actual figure in the consultation document was $5.6m for FY23. He either can't read or was too lazy to check before parroting her erroneous calculation.

Just emailing re: the following from Curious: Another minor issue here is he has cut and pasted Mary Burgess' figures. She says "If you applied the average per horse turnover figure from the 2022-23 NZTR Annual Report (the 2023-24 one not yet being available online) then that's around $17.7m they contribute to the total NZ Turnover." However, the actual figure in the consultation document was $5.6m for FY23. He either can't read or was too lazy to check before parroting her erroneous calculation.

 

Yes, the numbers do differ from the consultation document, because the consultation document was based on JUMPS starts, my figures looked at every start the jumpers had last season, both over fences and on the flat. Probably best to read things properly before accusing people of publishing erroneous figures. I look forward to a gracious apology from Curious, whoever they might be!

Mary Burgess

[curious]

My apologies Mary if I've misunderstood you. Making a case for jumps racing though, surely requires comparison of jumps racing turnover to flat racing turnover as the consultation document did. I'm not clear how you arrived at the $17.7m figure anyway, unless you applied the average turnover for flat starts to the jumpers' jump starts, which is where the turnover data is ailing. That said, my point was not about your figures per se but that they were copied into the article without critique or explanation.

Brent Gardiner

Edited September 9 by curious

[Jim Green]

1 hour ago, curious said:

My apologies Mary if I've misunderstood you. Making a case for jumps racing though, surely requires comparison of jumps racing turnover to flat racing turnover as the consultation document did. I'm not clear how you arrived at the $17.7m figure anyway, unless you applied the average turnover for flat starts to the jumpers' jump starts, which is where the turnover data is ailing. That said, my point was not about your figures per se but that they were copied into the article without critique or explanation.

Brent Gardiner

Think Marys point is Jumps racing keeps horses in the sport,without it we would lose them which would lose turnover and make field sizes in general smaller.

I might be a uneducated punter but I fail to see how getting rid of jumping races would improve the overall product.  Riccarton Wednesday could do with a few jumping races. 6 races,small fields.

Deleting the jumps isn't going to increase the size of flat racing fields,according to Mary, the opposite.

So what would the gain from deleting jumping races be? They may not perform as well as flat races punting wise but still seem to benefit the industry in a slow part of the year. Are those flat racing figures for the whole season or just winter?

IF they are for the whole season and not just winter they are misleading. 

Jumping races provide great enertainment,reasonable turnover in the most boring part of the racing season,keeps horses racing when the field sizes are dropping and also quality staff apparently.

As far as I'm concerned,as a fan and punter,removing it would cause more harm than good

[Jim Green]

I have just been informed the Wednesday Riccarton races are on the poly track which would be "unsuitable" for jumps races so a few jumps races would be a bad idea. I loved the Grand National Carnival and am unfamiliar with the previous decisions but it's such a shame we don't see Riccarton Steeplechasing more often. What a course. I wish I was around to go to Ellerslie back when they had the hill steeplechase.

What a thrill that must have been for horse and rider. Something you would be proud to show the rest of the world because it's exciting and different. Bit like the Grand National in the UK. Everyone watches it because of the history and it's like no other race.

[curious]

17 minutes ago, Jim Green said:

I have just been informed the Wednesday Riccarton races are on the poly track which would be "unsuitable" for jumps races so a few jumps races would be a bad idea. I loved the Grand National Carnival and am unfamiliar with the previous decisions but it's such a shame we don't see Riccarton Steeplechasing more often. What a course. I wish I was around to go to Ellerslie back when they had the hill steeplechase.

What a thrill that must have been for horse and rider. Something you would be proud to show the rest of the world because it's exciting and different. Bit like the Grand National in the UK. Everyone watches it because of the history and it's like no other race.

You'd have to import the horses from the NI. None left in the SI. No racing for them, let alone training facilities.

[The Centaur]

Bringing up UK jump racing proves the opposite point to which Mary B was adamant on. It shows that jumps racing has to be done properly. NZ just can't do it the way UK does it. Therefore if you can't do it properly you shouldn't do it at all.

A formula which encourages racehorses to get some proficiency in jumping is still achievable. e,g, exhibition jumping prior to an actual flat race.

 

[curious]

16 minutes ago, The Centaur said:

Bringing up UK jump racing proves the opposite point to which Mary B was adamant on. It shows that jumps racing has to be done properly. NZ just can't do it the way UK does it. Therefore if you can't do it properly you shouldn't do it at all.

A formula which encourages racehorses to get some proficiency in jumping is still achievable. e,g, exhibition jumping prior to an actual flat race.

 

Which is what point to points used to do, though not prior to flat races. That structure is long gone.

[TAB For Ever]

3 hours ago, curious said:

Which is what point to points used to do, though not prior to flat races. That structure is long gone.

Agreed , Point to Points run by the numerous Hunt Clubs ,many of whom had their own race days were a big part of the Jumps scene.

Many still exist......Jumps rider of Year Portia Matthews got her intro to a racing stable at a Point to Point when she approached Mark Oughlahan for a job in his stable. He took her on.

In my experience Point to Points were often run thru local farms ...many of the riders were Amateur and the Amateur races up to about mid -70's were actually Steeplechases and then they reverted to flat.