NZ Jumping Consultation

[curious]

10 hours 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

I make the figures an average turnover of $16,583 per starter for all races FY23.

For all jumps races it is an average of $10,441.

So, if our jumpers had 508 flat starts and 566 jumps starts, a more accurate estimate of their contribution to turnover would be $14.3m not $17.7m.

That's gross revenue of say, $2.6m, for similar prize money of $2.5m.

 

Edited September 9 by curious

[Freda]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I make the figures an average turnover of $16,583 per starter for all races FY23.

For all jumps races it is an average of $10,441.

So, if our jumpers had 508 flat starts and 566 jumps starts, a more accurate estimate of their contribution to turnover would be $14.3m not $17.7m.

That's gross revenue of say, $2.6m, for similar prize money of $2.5m.

 

So, while not startling, at least not a loss then?  Am I understanding that?

[Freda]

10 hours 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.

 

 

That's the crux, surely?   the shabby spectacle we now produce - no disrespect to the wonderful horses or their handlers - is just so far removed from how the best do it.   

UK/Ireland so far ahead there is little comparison, embarrassing.

[curious]

19 minutes ago, Freda said:

So, while not startling, at least not a loss then?  Am I understanding that?

It's a loss when you consider that net revenue is about 50% of gross revenue and that going forward, Entain will get half of that. However, the FY23 ratio of prize-money to gross revenue for all races is about the same. Not much better or worse for the jumper contribution.

Edited September 9 by curious

[Huey]

4 hours ago, curious said:

I make the figures an average turnover of $16,583 per starter for all races FY23.

For all jumps races it is an average of $10,441.

So, if our jumpers had 508 flat starts and 566 jumps starts, a more accurate estimate of their contribution to turnover would be $14.3m not $17.7m.

That's gross revenue of say, $2.6m, for similar prize money of $2.5m.

 

Surely the fact that a lot of jumping races are in the early part of the programme has an impact on wagering $ for those events?

[Freda]

5 hours ago, curious said:

It's a loss when you consider that net revenue is about 50% of gross revenue and that going forward, Entain will get half of that. However, the FY23 ratio of prize-money to gross revenue for all races is about the same. Not much better or worse for the jumper contribution.

Oh.  Yeah.  Didn't factor in the gross/ net thingy.  No wonder I can't do this stuff.   But jumpers  not the black hole purported- at least not significantly worse than anything else.