Levin Surplus to Requirements

[Chief Stipe]

13 hours ago, curious said:

I disagree too. The allocation of bulk funding to clubs has been entirely their responsibility.

The total quantum was never enough regardless of who got what.  That's what you and @Dark Beau seem to not grasp.  

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, Huey said:

You'd expect that though, Adminstration should be balanced and fair ... not the case

What's "balanced and fair" is subjective and differs from person to person.  You make these generalisations but never ever provide examples.  I can only conclude that you base your opinion not on facts but for subjective reasons.  Perhaps you are desperate for "likes"!!!

[Huey]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What's "balanced and fair" is subjective and differs from person to person.  You make these generalisations but never ever provide examples.  I can only conclude that you base your opinion not on facts but for subjective reasons.  Perhaps you are desperate for "likes"!!!

I'm desperate for the "Good News" you speak of ... do share???

[Huey]

17 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Pray tell who is my "idol"?  I gather they are not part of the "Waikato Mafia" if you are quoting them.

Have you not read your TA update this week @Chief Stipe , naughty naughty you'll lose your Top Fanboy status if your not careful!

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

The total quantum was never enough regardless of who got what.  That's what you and @Dark Beau seem to not grasp.  

The quantum was what the industry or meeting earned and that had to be divided between stakes, operating costs, and infrastructure. If you don't do that and live within your means, you don't have a sustainable business.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Huey said:

Have you not read your TA update this week @Chief Stipe , naughty naughty you'll lose your Top Fanboy status if your not careful!

Well there you go all your assumptions are incorrect.  Seems you contradict yourself often.  I gather you must still be on the TA email list or is it part of your weekly reading list?

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, Huey said:

I'm desperate for the "Good News" you speak of ... do share???

Some facts please.

[Chief Stipe]

3 hours ago, curious said:

The quantum was what the industry or meeting earned and that had to be divided between stakes, operating costs, and infrastructure. If you don't do that and live within your means, you don't have a sustainable business.

Correct.  Which means there are too many racecourses for the amount of revenue generated.  

[Chief Stipe]

5 hours ago, Huey said:

Even @Chief Stipe idol thinks Levin should stay :

"The weather conditions still are playing havoc with some tracks - which makes me reflect on the fact that there is a lot of discussion, both in public and behind closed doors, at present in New Zealand racing about closing tracks. Personally, I am not in favour of closing any more tracks at all. We have already shut down a good number over the years, and I firmly believe we need every track that remains to sustain the future well-being of racing in this country."

Yes the country needs Kumara.

[Freda]

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Correct.  Which means are too many racecourses for the amount of revenue generated.  

Technically,  probably correct.  But the threat of arbitrary closure has produced enormous ill feeling.

As said by a former very astute poster, the only reason to close a track is an economic one. If people dont want to come and horses dont get nominated,  then we'll put up the white flag. 

The much maligned Purcell said,  in my hearing, I'm not in favour of forced closure of tracks, but we will offer support and work with any club which chooses to race at another venue.

That was the way to go about the issue IMO.   

[Chief Stipe]

59 minutes ago, Freda said:

Technically,  probably correct.  But the threat of arbitrary closure has produced enormous ill feeling.

No doubt the threat of closure has produced ill feeling.  However I think to call the proposed closure decisions arbitray is not correct.  There was some rationale behind the proposals.  Whether or not you agreed or disagreed is another matter that probably hasn't been handled that well.  

59 minutes ago, Freda said:

As said by a former very astute poster, the only reason to close a track is an economic one. If people dont want to come and horses dont get nominated,  then we'll put up the white flag. 

When the majority of tracks are not profitable enough to maintain their core infrastructure then the selection criteria must consider closing those that have no opportunity to be profitable.  

59 minutes ago, Freda said:

The much maligned Purcell said,  in my hearing, I'm not in favour of forced closure of tracks, but we will offer support and work with any club which chooses to race at another venue.

That is the key or rather it was.  Clubs needed to see the writing on the wall and work together to make racing profitable either by other forms of revenue of cutting and sharing costs.  Unfortunately what could have been a planned transition is now a crisis and may involve scorched earth.

About 2 to 4 years ago my opinion was that we needed all the tracks to ensure a smooth transition and or the ability to rotate racedays to allow periodic track rehabilitation.  However that approach doesn't fit with the Club mentality.