What is the idiot Winston doing now?

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, Freda said:

All the Mac's,  Rita's and synthetic tracks in the world won't do anything ,  on their own, to achieve that.

They all had cost.  I wonder what the MAC'S are being paid?

[hesi]

15 minutes ago, Freda said:

In a nutshell.

We have to realise that any change to RB structure requires legislative action...so I suppose the apparent lack of action here is understandable...but increasing revenue is the ONLY thing that can arrest the decline in NZ racing.

All the Mac's,  Rita's and synthetic tracks in the world won't do anything ,  on their own, to achieve that.

Most of the initiatives in the Messara report are ultimately aimed at doubling stake money to 100 million.

I guess the largest part of this, is devolving the RB into Wagering NZ, and outsourcing the TAB, I presume, so that a lot more money is returned to the industry.

As someone in the industry Freda, do you see a doubling of stakes, as a satisfactory end result.............I'm not saying it would happen, just asking 

[Freda]

5 minutes ago, hesi said:

Most of the initiatives in the Messara report are ultimately aimed at doubling stake money to 100 million.

I guess the largest part of this, is devolving the RB into Wagering NZ, and outsourcing the TAB, I presume, so that a lot more money is returned to the industry.

As someone in the industry Freda, do you see a doubling of stakes, as a satisfactory end result.............I'm not saying it would happen, just asking 

Yes, understand....doubling stakes would certainly help,and would signal some hope - but as an end result?   I would like to think that it would be a good starting point.

But without radical change to the funding model and putting the silly 'tiered' structure to rest, there will still be major inequity in stakes allocation...IMO of course....And unless costs, dates, programming, handicapping etc, etc, are addressed along with the stakes increase, we will still have a lumbering and inefficient model which, in itself, will still be an unattractive operation compared with our closest neighbours.

[hesi]

From the Messara Report, this is his stakes reco, based on 100 million.

Assume this is achieved, I think industry participants, should put forward what would be an efficient model for

(I have assumed costs will already have been addressed, as you can't double stakes without addressing costs)

1.  Stake money structure

2.  Dates

3.  Programming 

4.  Handicapping

5.  Anything else

 

[Freda]

The need for a tiered structure baffles me,  and given NZ's homogenous equine population, how can it be justified?

[hesi]

3 minutes ago, Freda said:

The need for a tiered structure baffles me,  and given NZ's homogenous equine population, how can it be justified?

Well let's assume you have a 100 mil to play with, what's your reco

[Freda]

I reckon a flat structure increasing with grade of race across the board,  but only in concert with affordability/revenue earned.   Mardigras indicated the same on a different thread, he and Curious have given excellent ideas for models over time and I agree completely with their thoughts.

Now,  the dogs and I are off to the beach -where I don't have to think at all.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Freda

[hesi]

I recall Mardigras, Curious and Chief Stipe posted on the stakes structure

I can only find Mardigras, as below

"What: Single tier. Similar to a HK model. Start from the bottom with sufficient level to provide owner enough to pay a months fees from a couple of 3rd or 4ths. Work up from there based on affordability. Focus on growing this business to increase that over time.

Why: NZ horses are not geographically separated. End result is that horses from within a single grade race when the scheduling allows. There isn't any delineation between what is a tier one horse and a tier two horse. They all just race each other.

It is totally different in that regard to Australia where the horses are geographically separated based on the tiers. And the associated costs are separated as well. You will pay more for a trainer predominantly racing o the metro tier than you will for one that races predominantly provincial or country.

It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit."

[Brando]

3 hours ago, hesi said:

Why: NZ horses are not geographically separated. End result is that horses from within a single grade race when the scheduling allows. There isn't any delineation between what is a tier one horse and a tier two horse. They all just race each other.

It is totally different in that regard to Australia where the horses are geographically separated based on the tiers. And the associated costs are separated as well. You will pay more for a trainer predominantly racing o the metro tier than you will for one that races predominantly provincial or country.

It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't fit."

I disagree. Auckland to Invercargill is a 1635km geographical separation. The Southland horse population is inferior on ability to the Northern horse population. The amount of "Ex northerners" who aren't competitive in the north but win once transferred to the south is evidence of this.

If Southland had the same Saturday Tier 1A prize money, the northern horses would be sent down to raid the prize money and leave nothng for the locals, as is evidenced with the success rate of northern horses that are sent down to get black type in the Southland region.

In Australia, D Weir travels his horses all over Victoria, racing in all tiers. Does he charge owners differently for the horses he starts in the city to those he starts in the lower tiers? He places his horses, based on ability not based on associated costs. I could list numerous trainers from VIC and NSW who race thier horses at all tier levels, based on the horses' ability and not geography or associated costs.

Racing is a sport afterall; so the better horses should race for better prize money and the inferior horses should be be allowed opportunities to win at their level.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Brando

[Freda]

23 minutes ago, Brando said:

 

Racing is a sport afterall; so the better horses should race for better prize money and the inferior horses should be be allowed opportunities to win at their level.

Yes,  that's true enough...and so they should....but 'tiering' is not necessarily relevant inasmuch as the class of race,  surely?

A R65 horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland....and if it is smart enough,  will get itself out of that grade wherever it is.

There are plenty of 'imports' south which DON'T measure up,  never worry about that.

[Reefton]

56 minutes ago, Freda said:

Yes,  that's true enough...and so they should....but 'tiering' is not necessarily relevant inasmuch as the class of race,  surely?

A R65 horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland....and if it is smart enough,  will get itself out of that grade wherever it is.

There are plenty of 'imports' south which DON'T measure up,  never worry about that.

And Pitty, in particular, is bloody good at taking North Island rejects up there to kick butt at times like the Wellington Cup Meeting.  Patrick Erin came out of the South to win the Metropolitan. I am not noticing too many of these 'high class' Northerners being too competitive in Aussie these days

[Brando]

50 minutes ago, Freda said:

Yes,  that's true enough...and so they should....but 'tiering' is not necessarily relevant inasmuch as the class of race,  surely?

A R65 horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland....and if it is smart enough,  will get itself out of that grade wherever it is.

There are plenty of 'imports' south which DON'T measure up,  never worry about that.

Agreed that the horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland. But the ability of the pool of horses it's racing against in Southland is inferior to the ability of the pool of horses it was racing against in Auckland which would affect it's chances of moving up in grade. 

How many Southland horses are exported to Auckland for the better tiered prize money?

[Freda]

35 minutes ago, Brando said:

cAgreed that the horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland. But the ability of the pool of horses it's racing against in Southland is inferior to the ability of the pool of horses it was racing against in Auckland which would affect it's chances of moving up in grade. 

How many Southland horses are exported to Auckland for the better tiered prize money?

Again,  we agree..up to a point.   

The rating of the horse should reflect its relative ability / perceived class.

You are right that the Auckland form is perceived to be stronger,  but if the ratings of the horses were done accurately there wouldn't be this anomaly.

As I said,  a R65 is an R 65...there shouldn't be a regional difference.  If the ratings were done on the horse population as a whole,  then the class difference would be reflected in the ratings given.

When ratings are done on a race -by -race basis,  then the whole system becomes skewed.  The ratings system gets a lot of flak,  it isn't hard to follow at all IMO - but its application is flawed here.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Freda

[Brando]

24 minutes ago, Reefton said:

And Pitty, in particular, is bloody good at taking North Island rejects up there to kick butt at times like the Wellington Cup Meeting.  Patrick Erin came out of the South to win the Metropolitan. I am not noticing too many of these 'high class' Northerners being too competitive in Aussie these days

Patrick Erin is a great example of a horse with ability been sent to Sydney to race for higher Tiered Prize money!

Why would many of the "high class" Northerners be competitive in Aussie? Northern pool of horses is inferior to Aussie pool hence they race in their Tier of prize money in Auckland. And when any NZ trained horse shows it has the ability to race and be competitive in AUssie, they are sent over to compete for the better prize money.

Can you list the northern rejects Piity has taken back north to kick butt?

[Freda]

7 minutes ago, Brando said:

Patrick Erin is a great example of a horse with ability been sent to Sydney to race for higher Tiered Prize money!

 

Tiered racing is suitable for Australia, it works well for them....it is here that it isn't applicable ...IMO of course..!

That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be better stakemoney to reward the better horses - but the distribution has to be workable for the whole equine population.  At the moment,  it isn't.

  Ratings should provide a guide to the correct placement of a horse in a particular race...and Auckland horses should have their superiority reflected in higher ratings.

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by Freda

[curious]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the winning performance in an average R65 at Ellerslie is better than the winning performance in an R65 at Marlborough or Ascot Park? Mardi may have some relative time data on that but I suspect there is no significant difference and I agree with Freda that tiered stakes funding in NZ should have gone a long time ago, so funding is closely related to wagering revenue generated.

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

Agreed that the horse is the same creature whether it be trained in Southland or Auckland. But the ability of the pool of horses it's racing against in Southland is inferior to the ability of the pool of horses it was racing against in Auckland which would affect it's chances of moving up in grade. 

How many Southland horses are exported to Auckland for the better tiered prize money?

Most horses race in the areas where they are trained and/or owned. There is nothing I have seen that suggests a Northern horse is superior to an Invercargill one (of like rating).  It's just as likely a perception thing. Some horses go from the north down south and win. Many don't. Those that do may have equally won if they stayed up north.

The rating system is the same - and given horses that race down south having achieved their rating often against south island horses, it's more logical to assume that the competition is somewhat level otherwise they couldn't compete when they then went north to race. Yet they do. Under what you suggest, an r90 horse from the south is inferior to an r90 horse in the north. I can't see it being the case.

[Brando]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

Is there any evidence to suggest that the winning performance in an average R65 at Ellerslie is better than the winning performance in an R65 at Marlborough or Ascot Park? Mardi may have some relative time data on that but I suspect there is no significant difference and I agree with Freda that tiered stakes funding in NZ should have gone a long time ago, so funding is closely related to wagering revenue generated.

Time as in race times and sectional times as a compariosn of perfomance? Can you share some of the relative time data? Can I ask why your data compares an "average R65" to a "standard R65"?

Is the NZ Tiered Stakes funding perfect? Far from it. But racing is a professional sport and Tiers should play a part as with all professional sports.

[mardigras]

5 minutes ago, Brando said:

Time as in race times and sectional times as a compariosn of perfomance? Can you share some of the relative time data? Can I ask why your data compares an "average R65" to a "standard R65"?

Is the NZ Tiered Stakes funding perfect? Far from it. But racing is a professional sport and Tiers should play a part as with all professional sports.

No one I've seen has suggested not having tiers. But having tiers within a single grade/quality of horse is stupid here since they all race each other. One  day a horse of x grade races for $30k, next time $10k - yet you claim it is a professional sport - but clearly in NZ there is no concept of one R65 horse being different to another. The tier can easily relate to the class/rating of the horse. More money as you rise up the ranks of quality - same as in boxing, darts, tennis, golf etc.

Edited December 16, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

Where did I say this? "Can I ask why your data compares an "average R65" to a "standard R65?"

I said Mardi "may" have that data, not that I did. At least what I have is quite old so probably not relevant whereas Mardi has current data which he may be willing to share.

[curious]

And yes, the prize money structure should be related to the class of race, not the day of the week or geographic location of the event. It happens like that at the top end with an odd exception. A Group or listed race at Riccarton or Wingatui is worth the same as a Group or listed race at Hastings or Ellerslie. Don't see why it should be different for mdns and rating races. If it is, as Freda has pointed out, the rating system needs fixing not tiering of the stakes structure for the same class of race. One of the key things that has stuffed NZ racing.

Edited December 16, 2018 by curious

[Brando]

5 minutes ago, mardigras said:

No one I've seen has suggested not having tiers. But having tiers within a single grade/quality of horse is stupid here since they all race each other. One  day a horse of x grade races for $30k, next time $10k - yet you claim it is a professional sport - but clearly in NZ there is no concept of one R65 horse being different to another. The tier can easily relate to the class/rating of the horse. More money as you rise up the ranks of quality - same as in boxing, darts, tennis, golf etc.

So in your opinion, why does Tiered racing work in Australia? One day a horse could be racing for $35, next time for $100k still in its grade?

[Brando]

31 minutes ago, curious said:

Is there any evidence to suggest that the winning performance in an average R65 at Ellerslie is better than the winning performance in an R65 at Marlborough or Ascot Park?

 I was just wondering why you said an "Average R65" to a R65 at Marlborough and Ascot Park.

[curious]

8 minutes ago, Brando said:

 I was just wondering why you said an "Average R65" to a R65 at Marlborough and Ascot Park.

OK. Fair question. What I was meaning was that obviously there will be a range of winning performances for say an R65. I'm proposing that the average winning performance (however you measure that), is or should be the same, regardless of the location or stake of the race within NZ. I'm also suggesting the stake for all R65s should be the same, partly so the lower stake ones are not subsidising the others. The same horses are going around in the 10k ones as the 30k ones as Mardi has pointed out.

[Brando]

2 hours ago, Freda said:

Tiered racing is suitable for Australia, it works well for them....it is here that it isn't applicable ...IMO of course..!

That still doesn't mean there shouldn't be better stakemoney to reward the better horses - but the distribution has to be workable for the whole equine population.  At the moment,  it isn't.

  Ratings should provide a guide to the correct placement of a horse in a particular race...and Auckland horses should have their superiority reflected in higher ratings.

 

Freda, seeing that you are a trainer and have contact with a lot of other trainers, can I ask:

Is it the opinion of trainers that: The Northern region horse pool is superior to the Southland region as you have stated above?