curious Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago So in the last decade NZTR operating costs have gone from $2200 per race to $5400 per race. How could this happen? It is not producing any positive outcomes is it? It's surely not sustainable? https://www.theoptimist.site/author/thepessimist/ 1 Quote
Chief Stipe Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago Administrative decline is sending racing down a rabbit hole by Brian de Lore Published 17th October 2025 Anyone in racing long enough will be aware of the wonderful history the NZ thoroughbred has carved out over the past 150 years, but they will also know that the headwinds facing the horse business today come only minimally from climate change, and mostly from a sharp decline in the quality of its administration. The incumbents will argue that it’s a global thing, and a modicum of truth exists in that belief, but for NZ, the thoroughbred business has declined in tandem with a series of unsuitable director and executive appointments over the past 20 or so years. From the days of good governance, when the ‘Captains of Industry’ and the leading names of racing and breeding had a lifetime of experience when they went onto boards, the degradation of the decision-makers is matched only by the depletion of clubs, members, racegoers, race meetings, races run, foals born and every other stat that applies to horse racing. A major difference between the people who once made it work and those who now can’t is that they used to be on the inside looking out into the clear blue; now they’re on the outside looking in through a hazy fog that won’t lift. The former typically had extensive experience and a vested interest in the business, remaining in it after serving their time. Institute of Directors a curse for racing Today, decision-makers from outside the industry, often introduced through the Institute of Directors, typically arrive with limited or no knowledge of racing and depart for another sector before the allocated time of their tenure. Their departure leaves the industry with another lemon to suck on. The paradigm shift towards this recurring theme happened around 2005, when it was decided that paid professionals would replace the horse-passionate honorary directors who had industry knowledge. Suddenly, all you needed was a degree in something, completion of a five-and-a-half-day course at the Institute of Directors, and you qualified to sit around the NZTR board table knowing little more than what end bit and what end kicked – enough to collect your directors’ fees. Worst of all, the appointment to the board is made by the ‘Members’ Council’, a hotchpotch of appointed people from around the country, including jockeys and trainers, none of whom would have the qualifications to recognise a good director if one bit them on the arm. Since regional representation was killed off in 2011 and replaced with the Member’s Council, of the 30 NZTR directors appointed that have come and gone, not one has stayed long enough to serve out their full term. Members’ Council also a curse I recently spent an hour talking to a prominent person on the Members’ Council and came away shocked by how little they knew about the problems facing the racing industry. The administrative structure of racing in NZ is broken; the stakeholders all know this, so why haven’t we seen a revolution to bring change? It’s a one-word answer – apathy. They sit on their hands, hoping someone else will do something. When NZTR called for applications for the board in 2021, they asked for “proven corporate governance experience and understanding of governance policies and processes, strategic insight, and guidance of change.” They then requested seven additional skills and attributes in bullet points, all of which were corporate world requirements. Notably, there was no mention of racing knowledge, and the word ‘horse’ did not appear anywhere in the document. You reap what you sow. In the latest ‘Position Description’, extended to four pages, the requirements are much more detailed and corporate-specific. On the last page, in the last paragraph, on the very last line under the heading of “Desirable but non-essential skills of applicants currently include’, it says, ‘An interest or involvement in thoroughbred racing.’ Racing hijacked by corporates If this document wasn’t written by the ‘Institute of Directors, then it was written for them, because it all but eliminates anyone with a deep knowledge of racing and racing experience. The Institute of Directors has gradually hijacked NZTR and now controls it for its own monetary gain. We know that when you have a board weak on racing knowledge, they will fail to deliver on racing’s core mission: to appoint a competent and experienced chief executive and have an educated overview of what to prioritise for the long-term value and sustainability of racing, to know where the problems lie, and provide strong oversight and strategic support to the management. Do we have that at NZTR? Not on any available evidence. But if you had watched the Guerin Report a week or two ago, when he interviewed the Institute of Directors graduate, NZTR CEO Matt Ballesty, you would have heard Ballesty say, “My board is an exceptional board, everyone has an opinion, and they are very knowledgeable about racing and are steering me along the way.” What else is he going to say about the people who employed him? He did, however, virtually admit he knows nothing about racing. “My skills are unique” – Ballesty He said, “My skills are unique; I’m unique in that I have a bit of grassroots mixed with the corporate side of things. Whilst I’m learning the racing industry, I’m learning very quickly – a product is a product – and I believe I can learn it very quickly.” The simple fact is, Matt Ballesty has come to NZTR from the casino business, and three of his new appointees to new key positions come from the same area of experience – one from OlyBet, Tabcorp, and William Hill, another from Tabcorp, Sportingbet, BlueBet and Bet365, and a third from Racing and Wagering Western Australia. You will likely think that these new individuals are better suited to Entain or TAB NZ, and doubt that wagering professionals possess the expertise to make a meaningful impact on NZ racing. Well, everyone knows that racing knowledge is a lifetime of learning, and you cannot absorb it quickly, and it raises more concern when you’re planning to make fast and dramatic changes. There was more arrogance displayed in that interview than has been witnessed by racing people for a very long time, and it should be ringing alarm bells. Quoted in ‘The Straight’, Ballesty talked in platitudes when he said, “These changes reflect feedback we have received from industry participants about the need to enhance our leadership capability and sharpen our focus on delivering better outcomes. Bold change is the theme of our strategic focus going forward, and this restructure is a key part of enabling that.” Relocation of group and listed races??? The numerous changes that Ballesty alludes to include an eight-page policy, currently in draft form, for the relocation of group and listed races. This policy outlines the clubs’ role only as custodians of these time-honoured races and threatens relocation if certain expectations are not met. That appears to be a veiled threat to the Canterbury Jockey Club about losing the 1000 and 2000 Guineas races at Cup time. In recent times, NZTR has markedly increased its operating costs in deference to the contracting industry it presides over. Not including special projects and other one-off expenses, but only the day-to-day running of the organisation, in the ten years between 2014-15 and 2023-24 seasons, the cost per race run has risen from $2200 to $3900. In other words, racing in NZ is now living well beyond its means, and although the 2024-25 Annual Report is yet to be released, it is known that the NZTR spend for the season has risen to over $13 million. The arrival of Ballesty, his new executive appointments, and the projects he intends to undertake, will balloon that figure outwards again for the current racing season; all against the tide of racing, and which costs that will have to be eventually borne by the most underrated and maligned group of people – the owners of racehorses. It’s about time the true stakeholders in racing got together and discussed a complete overhaul of the administrative structure of racing. It badly needs change, and if it doesn’t change, the corporate ‘comers and goers’, who are the takers and not givers, will surely condemn racing to obscurity. Quote
Administrative decline is sending racing down a rabbit hole by Brian de Lore Published 17th October 2025 Anyone in racing long enough will be aware of the wonderful history the NZ thoroughbred has carved out over the past 150 years, but they will also know that the headwinds facing the horse business today come only minimally from climate change, and mostly from a sharp decline in the quality of its administration. The incumbents will argue that it’s a global thing, and a modicum of truth exists in that belief, but for NZ, the thoroughbred business has declined in tandem with a series of unsuitable director and executive appointments over the past 20 or so years. From the days of good governance, when the ‘Captains of Industry’ and the leading names of racing and breeding had a lifetime of experience when they went onto boards, the degradation of the decision-makers is matched only by the depletion of clubs, members, racegoers, race meetings, races run, foals born and every other stat that applies to horse racing. A major difference between the people who once made it work and those who now can’t is that they used to be on the inside looking out into the clear blue; now they’re on the outside looking in through a hazy fog that won’t lift. The former typically had extensive experience and a vested interest in the business, remaining in it after serving their time. Institute of Directors a curse for racing Today, decision-makers from outside the industry, often introduced through the Institute of Directors, typically arrive with limited or no knowledge of racing and depart for another sector before the allocated time of their tenure. Their departure leaves the industry with another lemon to suck on. The paradigm shift towards this recurring theme happened around 2005, when it was decided that paid professionals would replace the horse-passionate honorary directors who had industry knowledge. Suddenly, all you needed was a degree in something, completion of a five-and-a-half-day course at the Institute of Directors, and you qualified to sit around the NZTR board table knowing little more than what end bit and what end kicked – enough to collect your directors’ fees. Worst of all, the appointment to the board is made by the ‘Members’ Council’, a hotchpotch of appointed people from around the country, including jockeys and trainers, none of whom would have the qualifications to recognise a good director if one bit them on the arm. Since regional representation was killed off in 2011 and replaced with the Member’s Council, of the 30 NZTR directors appointed that have come and gone, not one has stayed long enough to serve out their full term. Members’ Council also a curse I recently spent an hour talking to a prominent person on the Members’ Council and came away shocked by how little they knew about the problems facing the racing industry. The administrative structure of racing in NZ is broken; the stakeholders all know this, so why haven’t we seen a revolution to bring change? It’s a one-word answer – apathy. They sit on their hands, hoping someone else will do something. When NZTR called for applications for the board in 2021, they asked for “proven corporate governance experience and understanding of governance policies and processes, strategic insight, and guidance of change.” They then requested seven additional skills and attributes in bullet points, all of which were corporate world requirements. Notably, there was no mention of racing knowledge, and the word ‘horse’ did not appear anywhere in the document. You reap what you sow. In the latest ‘Position Description’, extended to four pages, the requirements are much more detailed and corporate-specific. On the last page, in the last paragraph, on the very last line under the heading of “Desirable but non-essential skills of applicants currently include’, it says, ‘An interest or involvement in thoroughbred racing.’ Racing hijacked by corporates If this document wasn’t written by the ‘Institute of Directors, then it was written for them, because it all but eliminates anyone with a deep knowledge of racing and racing experience. The Institute of Directors has gradually hijacked NZTR and now controls it for its own monetary gain. We know that when you have a board weak on racing knowledge, they will fail to deliver on racing’s core mission: to appoint a competent and experienced chief executive and have an educated overview of what to prioritise for the long-term value and sustainability of racing, to know where the problems lie, and provide strong oversight and strategic support to the management. Do we have that at NZTR? Not on any available evidence. But if you had watched the Guerin Report a week or two ago, when he interviewed the Institute of Directors graduate, NZTR CEO Matt Ballesty, you would have heard Ballesty say, “My board is an exceptional board, everyone has an opinion, and they are very knowledgeable about racing and are steering me along the way.” What else is he going to say about the people who employed him? He did, however, virtually admit he knows nothing about racing. “My skills are unique” – Ballesty He said, “My skills are unique; I’m unique in that I have a bit of grassroots mixed with the corporate side of things. Whilst I’m learning the racing industry, I’m learning very quickly – a product is a product – and I believe I can learn it very quickly.” The simple fact is, Matt Ballesty has come to NZTR from the casino business, and three of his new appointees to new key positions come from the same area of experience – one from OlyBet, Tabcorp, and William Hill, another from Tabcorp, Sportingbet, BlueBet and Bet365, and a third from Racing and Wagering Western Australia. You will likely think that these new individuals are better suited to Entain or TAB NZ, and doubt that wagering professionals possess the expertise to make a meaningful impact on NZ racing. Well, everyone knows that racing knowledge is a lifetime of learning, and you cannot absorb it quickly, and it raises more concern when you’re planning to make fast and dramatic changes. There was more arrogance displayed in that interview than has been witnessed by racing people for a very long time, and it should be ringing alarm bells. Quoted in ‘The Straight’, Ballesty talked in platitudes when he said, “These changes reflect feedback we have received from industry participants about the need to enhance our leadership capability and sharpen our focus on delivering better outcomes. Bold change is the theme of our strategic focus going forward, and this restructure is a key part of enabling that.” Relocation of group and listed races??? The numerous changes that Ballesty alludes to include an eight-page policy, currently in draft form, for the relocation of group and listed races. This policy outlines the clubs’ role only as custodians of these time-honoured races and threatens relocation if certain expectations are not met. That appears to be a veiled threat to the Canterbury Jockey Club about losing the 1000 and 2000 Guineas races at Cup time. In recent times, NZTR has markedly increased its operating costs in deference to the contracting industry it presides over. Not including special projects and other one-off expenses, but only the day-to-day running of the organisation, in the ten years between 2014-15 and 2023-24 seasons, the cost per race run has risen from $2200 to $3900. In other words, racing in NZ is now living well beyond its means, and although the 2024-25 Annual Report is yet to be released, it is known that the NZTR spend for the season has risen to over $13 million. The arrival of Ballesty, his new executive appointments, and the projects he intends to undertake, will balloon that figure outwards again for the current racing season; all against the tide of racing, and which costs that will have to be eventually borne by the most underrated and maligned group of people – the owners of racehorses. It’s about time the true stakeholders in racing got together and discussed a complete overhaul of the administrative structure of racing. It badly needs change, and if it doesn’t change, the corporate ‘comers and goers’, who are the takers and not givers, will surely condemn racing to obscurity.
Chief Stipe Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago Figures aren't De Lores expertise. The metric of overhead cost per race is spurious at best. I daresay he uses it to incite a reaction from those focussed entirely on stakes. As I and others repeatedly pointed out on BOAY the cost of running NZTR would rise after the decisions made by Mckenzie when he was CEO of TABNZ. He moved cost iems off that balance sheet and forced them into the codes e.g. marketing. (Thankfully ENTAIN has picked up some of that again and seem to be doing a good job). His 10 year comparison doesn't account for inflation and his swipe at Special Projects doesn't consider what those are. NZTR still have a stuffed and not fit for purpose IT system after a failed $2m+ project under Cameron Georges watch. Also from what I've read in the annual reports the majority of the special project expenditure is going on track upgrades and renovations which was well overdue. Where was De Lore 10 to 20 years ago when the capital investment needed to maintain core racing infrastructure wasn't done? The irony of course is the very people he says that should be running the show now with their "racing industry specific knowledge" were in fact running it then!!!! The model he suggests hasn't worked very well for Racing Clubs has it? Quote
curious Posted 8 hours ago Author Posted 8 hours ago 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: As I and others repeatedly pointed out on BOAY the cost of running NZTR would rise after the decisions made by Mckenzie when he was CEO of TABNZ. He moved cost iems off that balance sheet and forced them into the codes e.g. marketing. (Thankfully ENTAIN has picked up some of that again and seem to be doing a good job). On the other side of the ledger, one major cost at least, has been moved off the code financials and that is what is now the RIB. Quote
curious Posted 8 hours ago Author Posted 8 hours ago 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Also from what I've read in the annual reports the majority of the special project expenditure is going on track upgrades and renovations which was well overdue. I think his figures exclude special projects funding which is not really an operating expense. It's a transfer of funds to a contingency reserve and strategic capital pool. Quote
hesi Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago I would have thought that an increase from 6.3 to 9.6 million over 10 years, considering also what CS has said is going to have zero impact on determining whether racing is going down a rabbit hole de Lore being mischievous with how he presents figures Quote
curious Posted 7 hours ago Author Posted 7 hours ago (edited) 32 minutes ago, hesi said: I would have thought that an increase from 6.3 to 9.6 million over 10 years, considering also what CS has said is going to have zero impact on determining whether racing is going down a rabbit hole de Lore being mischievous with how he presents figures Except it's reportedly 6.3m to 13m over 10 years if I'm reading correctly. Meanwhile, cumulative inflation about 35% Edited 7 hours ago by curious Quote
Chief Stipe Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 1 hour ago, curious said: Except it's reportedly 6.3m to 13m over 10 years if I'm reading correctly. Meanwhile, cumulative inflation about 35% He is mixing up two sets of figures in his article. On the one hand as @hesi has stated one figure which De Lore calls Operating cost the increase is from $6.3m to $9.6m. The figure of $13m is alleged and it isn't clear . How "is it known"? Note the $1m snuck in there as IT Infrastructure and Network costs - according to De Lore an increase of $900k. That isn't correct as the expenditure in 2015 was $597k NOT $163k!! The leap in staff costs of about $1.4m occurred in the 2021-22 year. If I have time I'll find out what that was for eventually! 8 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: although the 2024-25 Annual Report is yet to be released, it is known that the NZTR spend for the season has risen to over $13 million Regardless of what this 2024-25 alleged figure is the total expenditure in 2015 (less Stakes transfers) was $7.8m. 2023-24 it was $19.6m. Substract Special Projects and Track Reconstruction ($5m for Awapuni) of around $6.3m and the Expenditure is already $13.3m. That is an increase of $5.5m over 10 years. The % increase is 50% however you have to account for the fact that during the 10 period NZTR were lumped with increased marketing costs and ageing IT infrastructure coupled with a failed IT upgrade project. Not the first organisation to get hit by the latter. $13m is still only 10% of revenue i.e. 90% of the income funds stakes. How many organisations have that ratio? The average opex costs to reveneu for most organisations is 60-80%. $13m doesn't go very far in today's economy! Quote
hesi Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago I can recall when the Racing Board was running the TAB. In the last year costs had ballooned out to 218 million, that was the real problem, as it meant less was returned to industry. I would have thought the bigger issues with NZTR, were allocation of stake money, programming and tracks Quote
Chief Stipe Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 hour ago, hesi said: I can recall when the Racing Board was running the TAB. In the last year costs had ballooned out to 218 million, that was the real problem, as it meant less was returned to industry. I would have thought the bigger issues with NZTR, were allocation of stake money, programming and tracks I think your 218 million is incorrect. Do you mean $21m? In my opinion they aren't spending enough on track infrastructure. They've relied on Clubs to do that and from what I can see most have avoided doing anything. The tracks haven't been NZTR's asset to manage but perhaps they should be. Quote
hesi Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago If I recall correctly it was total costs for the RB, 218 million Quote
curious Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 1 hour ago, hesi said: If I recall correctly it was total costs for the RB, 218 million The NZ Racing Board (now TABNZ), if that's what you mean, operated the TAB. I'm not clear what that has to do with NZTR operating costs? Edited 1 hour ago by curious Quote
Huey Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago Whether his figures are precise or not he is clearly right. We once again have another pretender in the leadership role of NZTR who has had to hire expertise that he should be bringing to the role at least in the bare minimum form. But no we have another leader who knows little to nothing about the industry but talks a load of platitudes and generalisations trying to please everyone and achieving nothing. Netball NZ a prime example of this at present. Anyone with half a brain will know these parasites will ride the industry into the ground until the very end, which isn't as far away as many think. Quote
Chief Stipe Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 13 minutes ago, Huey said: Whether his figures are precise or not he is clearly right. We once again have another pretender in the leadership role of NZTR who has had to hire expertise that he should be bringing to the role at least in the bare minimum form. Then De Lore shouldn't focus on figures at all and just justifying his opinion. If his and what is obviously your hypothesis is correct then why have so many Clubs been run into the ground by people who "understand racing"? Quote
Chief Stipe Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 15 minutes ago, Huey said: But no we have another leader who knows little to nothing about the industry but talks a load of platitudes and generalisations trying to please everyone and achieving nothing. We had someone who raced 90 horses - that didn't work either did it? At least there are people employed now that understand where the revenue comes from. Quote
curious Posted 3 minutes ago Author Posted 3 minutes ago 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Then De Lore shouldn't focus on figures at all and just justifying his opinion. If his and what is obviously your hypothesis is correct then why have so many Clubs been run into the ground by people who "understand racing"? I'll take a shot at that question and probably be shot down but I'd say it's because those clubs are no longer funded in proportion to what the product they produce generates and they have no funding provided for infrastructure maintenance and development because the NZTR leadership have wasted all that on stakes. Quote
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.