Waikato Greenfields Site Declared.

[hesi]

They are going to need substantial financing over upwards of 10 years.

Do you think any bank will look at them unless they have a sound and comprehensively detailed business plan.

Just looking at the article, it would appear the sale of Waipa would set the ball rolling and provide the initial money for land purchase and development of the site, but a truckload more financing will be needed and secured through the potential sales of Cambridge and Te Rapa, once the site is finished

Edited yesterday at 04:09 AM by hesi

[Chief Stipe]

Forget about the financing.  Look at it from a business perspective.  How will the business make enough profit to maintain core racing assets?

That's the measure and the only measure for the business case.

[hesi]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Forget about the financing.  Look at it from a business perspective.  How will the business make enough profit to maintain core racing assets?

That's the measure and the only measure for the business case.

In other words, make enough profit

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, hesi said:

In other words, make enough profit

Correct.  Otherwise you are relying on sucking up to politicians.  

What most Club Committees don't understand is that the 2000m circular paddock they race on needs considerable maintenance each year and periodic complete renovation.  

That cost has to come from retained profits.

[hesi]

Waikato Thoroughbred Racing (WTR), if it all goes to plan, should be a cash rich club, so they may fall into the same trap of subsidising from cash reserves

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, hesi said:

Waikato Thoroughbred Racing (WTR), if it all goes to plan, should be a cash rich club, so they may fall into the same trap of subsidising from cash reserves

Which is what Ellerslie is doing.  The last two years they have had $10m operating losses each year.

[curious]

45 minutes ago, hesi said:

Waikato Thoroughbred Racing (WTR), if it all goes to plan, should be a cash rich club, so they may fall into the same trap of subsidising from cash reserves

Is that the plan? Or is the plan for the current assets to essentially cover the cost of the land acquisition and new build?

[hesi]

3 hours ago, curious said:

Is that the plan? Or is the plan for the current assets to essentially cover the cost of the land acquisition and new build?

No idea, but it would seem the only way ahead.  A deal to purchase the site in question conditional on a sale of Waipa

[curious]

Well, if you go back to the Messara report, he proposed that the sale of all 3 Waikato tracks would cover the cost of the land acquisition and a Pakenham style development of that.

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, curious said:

Well, if you go back to the Messara report, he proposed that the sale of all 3 Waikato tracks would cover the cost of the land acquisition and a Pakenham style development of that.

That may well be the case but I hope they have done the sums in terms of producing enough revenue to fund ongoing maintenance.  We now know that the AWT's don't produce enough.

In many respects they need this Greenfields site to act as a counter to Ellerslie where at the moment all roads lead to.
 

What I don't get is Ellerslie are running at an operating loss on racing yet are bolstering stakes on every race.  That in my mind is pissing good money up against the wall for no good reason.  Do premium stakes when there aren't many options to race really achieve anything?  Mind you it is the mindset we have seen in racing for decades.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What I don't get is Ellerslie are running at an operating loss on racing yet are bolstering stakes on every race.  That in my mind is pissing good money up against the wall for no good reason.  Do premium stakes when there aren't many options to race really achieve anything?  Mind you it is the mindset we have seen in racing for decades.

Entain love and encourage it because those races sell more bets, even though they are our worst performers on a wagering revenue to stakes basis. All good for them though as long as clubs, NZTR and the wider industry are funding it.

[hesi]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Well, if you go back to the Messara report, he proposed that the sale of all 3 Waikato tracks would cover the cost of the land acquisition and a Pakenham style development of that.

Yes, but they will race at Cambridge and Te Rapa until the new site is ready, so that will require substantial financing until they can get the input of funds from the sale of those 2

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Entain love and encourage it because those races sell more bets, even though they are our worst performers on a wagering revenue to stakes basis. All good for them though as long as clubs, NZTR and the wider industry are funding it.

You miss my point.  The ATR are doing it for nearly all races.  A $40k R65 would make no difference to punting turnover if it was just the NZTR minimum.

It also appears that ATR are funding that top up from the realised capital they obtained throught the land sales.

[curious]

28 minutes ago, hesi said:

Yes, but they will race at Cambridge and Te Rapa until the new site is ready, so that will require substantial financing until they can get the input of funds from the sale of those 2

Correct.

[Chief Stipe]

55 minutes ago, hesi said:

Yes, but they will race at Cambridge and Te Rapa until the new site is ready, so that will require substantial financing until they can get the input of funds from the sale of those 2

That could be offset by the deal they do with any Developer that purchases the land.

[Special Agent]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What I don't get is Ellerslie are running at an operating loss on racing yet are bolstering stakes on every race.  That in my mind is pissing good money up against the wall for no good reason.  Do premium stakes when there aren't many options to race really achieve anything?  Mind you it is the mindset we have seen in racing for decades.

Our parents would tell us it's living beyond your means.

Very frustrating.  We've heard all the speeches about pooling the money and experts managing this fund.  I am not overly confident of this being the best idea ever.

I think the horns should be pulled in a tad and racing needs to look at the basics.

How on earth could nothing have been learned from the AWT's?  THERE MUST BE AN INVESTMENT INTO ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

Cambridge has no stand.  Does it stop trackwork, trials or racing there?

One thing I note from the article on the new facility is that there is going to be some sort of sales complex.  Would this mean an investment from New Zealand Bloodstock?  Maybe the sale of Karaka also goes into the fund.  Would you consider that non-core business that has been talked up as a necessity?

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

How on earth could nothing have been learned from the AWT's?  THERE MUST BE AN INVESTMENT INTO ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

I argued vociferously on BOAY for an AWT business case.  @Pitman was a strong supporter of the AWT at Riccarton and one of the reasons he and I fell out badly was my hammering of the need for a business case.  I forewarned (as did others on BOAY) that the operational costs and long term maintenance capital required could not be funded through track fees and racing alone.  Unless there was a substantial increase in the number of horses trained on it.

Anyhoo the rest is history...  Now NZTR is subsidising them.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

Cambridge has no stand.  Does it stop trackwork, trials or racing there?

Exactly.  However the new trend (e.g. Pakenham) is to put in a multipurpose event centre that can cater both as a stand for viewing and inbetween times act as a revenue earning centre.

[Delta Bro]

21 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why will there be fallout?  I have no idea what Budweiser Lite has to do with it.

Ken Browne did a survey of what trainers would do if their local racetrack was closed. Most said they would quit the industry. When trainers quit because tracks are closed, their longtime owners pull the plug as well. Budweiser’s ad misstep triggered customer backlash. Their sales have not bounced back.

[Murray Fish]

On 17/12/2025 at 1:57 PM, hesi said:

New state of the art facilities that meet world standards are being built all the time in NZ for various sports and activities.

And rather $adly the local rate payers have to foot the build and then pay for maintenance of said 'vanity projects!' All of those projects are won through Politics not rational economics!

 

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Delta Bro said:

Ken Browne did a survey of what trainers would do if their local racetrack was closed. Most said they would quit the industry. When trainers quit because tracks are closed, their longtime owners pull the plug as well. Budweiser’s ad misstep triggered customer backlash. Their sales have not bounced back.

Sorry I can't see the collary of Budweiser hiring a loud mouth transvestite to promote their light beer in a woke fashion with 3 racing clubs in the Waikato building a new track.

Kenny Browne isn't with us anymore so it wont worry him that the members of three clubs each voted inidividually to build the new track.

[Special Agent]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Exactly.  However the new trend (e.g. Pakenham) is to put in a multipurpose event centre that can cater both as a stand for viewing and inbetween times act as a revenue earning centre.

On a smaller scale even Kurow has squash courts that double as jockeys' room.

[Special Agent]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

I argued vociferously on BOAY for an AWT business case.  @Pitman was a strong supporter of the AWT at Riccarton and one of the reasons he and I fell out badly was my hammering of the need for a business case.  I forewarned (as did others on BOAY) that the operational costs and long term maintenance capital required could not be funded through track fees and racing alone.  Unless there was a substantial increase in the number of horses trained on it.

Anyhoo the rest is history...  Now NZTR is subsidising them.

Central trainers also forewarned the lack of a sustainable funding model for the Awapuni synthetic.  Most CD trainers did not want the track installed.  However, it looks a mandate for Awapuni trainers to support the polytrack now as they rent facilities from RACE.

As for a substantial increase of horses trained at Awapuni, despite the inflated numbers on the application to the Provincial Growth Fund, it was never going to happen.  There are no longer studs of any significance in Manawatu, and leading jockeys and trainers are domiciled elsewhere.  Growth must be close to zero making the use of government growth funding a failure.

We are continually told by NZTR that those in the industry must band together for the good of all.  I think there is an anomaly.  Breeders have representatives on most racing boards and advisories, plus there is a definite inclusion of a selling facility at Greenfields.  If it's good enough for all owners to contribute a percentage of stakes to horse welfare it may be time for breeders to do the same for an infrastructure fund.  The breeders need horses to race for their core business to thrive.  A tarif/tax/deduction of sales and service fees would help build up a fund, over and above any sweepstake races.  A percentage applied to all income would allow for those who receive the most to contribute the most, rather than a select few clubs giving up their asset.  The breeders could offer ongoing contributions, whereas the clubs can only sell their tracks once e.g. Feilding, Marton, Bulls, Paeroa etc.

[Chief Stipe]

8 hours ago, Special Agent said:

I think there is an anomaly.  Breeders have representatives on most racing boards and advisories, plus there is a definite inclusion of a selling facility at Greenfields.  If it's good enough for all owners to contribute a percentage of stakes to horse welfare it may be time for breeders to do the same for an infrastructure fund.  The breeders need horses to race for their core business to thrive.

Trainers and owners need breeders more than the latter needs them.  NZ Breeders have alternative markets.  Surely you are not suggesting that they contribute to an infrastructure fund in Australia or Hong Kong?  Essentially what you are proposing is a tax on breeders to sustain poorly managed and maintained racecourses.  Clubs don't need subsidies they need to generate revenue and not just from their core activity.

8 hours ago, Special Agent said:

A tarif/tax/deduction of sales and service fees would help build up a fund, over and above any sweepstake races.  A percentage applied to all income would allow for those who receive the most to contribute the most, rather than a select few clubs giving up their asset.  The breeders could offer ongoing contributions, whereas the clubs can only sell their tracks once e.g. Feilding, Marton, Bulls, Paeroa etc.

Why don't you tax Trainers and Owners who invariably don't pay enough for the assets THEY use?  Breeders don't directly use those assets.  Why doesn't Levin pay enough for the use of the Otaki track to race on?

[hesi]

You would hope that the business case includes income from more than just the usual sources, that as has been mentioned is not enough.

Things that attract and accommodate people outside of the usual racing activities, so all this investment is generating cash 365 days.

It is a beautiful part of the country, with a strong emphasis on racing