Three Tier Racing Club Strucuture. Proposed by NZTR?

[Wandering Eyes]

Three-tier racing shake-up looms as NZTR awaits funding clarity for next season

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing’s proposed three-tier racing structure and delayed funding model have intensified concerns over prize money, infrastructure and the possible divide between metropolitan and regional racing in New Zealand.

By Tim Rowe 

● 

Racing Industry 

● 

May 15, 2026

 

 

Three tiers of racing are likely to be classified under a New Zealand Thoroughbred restructure, with Ellerslie a focal point of the plan. (Photo by Dean Purcell/New Zealand Herald via Getty Images)

New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing is expected to implement three tiers of racing in a strategy which is likely to reprioritise the distribution of prize money across a widened classification of the horse population.

The potentially polarising move threatens to heighten tensions and further fracture the industry as the governing body awaits confirmation from TAB NZ of its funding for next season. 

NZTR intends to classify the country’s racecourses in three categories, metropolitan provincial and community, in a similar manner to Australia’s larger racing states’ three-tiered system.

Further details of which clubs fall into which categories is set to be confirmed next week.

 

A circular was sent by NZTR to recognised industry organisations this week indicating that an outline of next season’s race dates, stakes and club funding had been pushed back due to the uncertainty surrounding distributions from TAB NZ.

It also comes as NZTR informed participants it would delay the release of an important infrastructure strategy, Project Stamina, which promises to shape the future management of assets owned by the New Zealand industry.

NZTR chief executive Matt Ballesty said the governing body had “made no secret to the fact that we do want to review the racing” structure by “considering a recategorisation of some of our racing”.

“We’ve loosely got it at the moment but what it does do is provide future planning where we can provide certainty and a runway for people in the industry,” Ballesty told The Straight while in the South Island, meeting with industry stakeholders. 

“The current circular that we have talked about our inability at this point in time to provide clubs with their funding and what the stakes look like. 

“The simple reason for that is that we haven’t yet received any guidance from the TAB on what funding might look like so It’s typically a case of we can’t present what we don’t know.

“So, we’re hoping that we work through that with the TAB and our board to understand what it’s going to be like for next year. There’s nothing more to it (than that).”

The delay and lack of information has caused friction with the race clubs who are concerned about the likely significant changes to their own funding models.

But Ballesty defended the correspondence provided to the industry.

“We just felt that instead of not saying anything at all. It’s important to let them know that information will be coming,” he said.

It’s understood the Members’ Council met earlier this week to discuss some of the issues pertaining to NZTR and plans are being made to meet with its board, chaired by Russell Warwick.

An attempt was made to contact Warwick on Friday.

There’s also been change at the helm of the Members’ Council with former chair Geoff Vazey stepping down in April after six years, with his former deputy Bernard Hickey stepping into the role.

As NZTR liaises with TAB NZ to ensure a distribution of funding for next season, concerns will be raised by participants about whether prize money levels will be maintained in 2026/27.https://bitofayarn.com

Ballesty acknowledged the uncertainty overshadowing the New Zealand industry.

“Our preference has always been to maintain or grow (stake money) and that’s where we’ve really focused and think that’s shared by the TAB and Entain, of course,” he said. 

“It’d be a welcome outcome for all participants and I don’t have any reason to believe it won’t be, but we just don’t know until we’ve got a clearer idea of what funding we’ve got to work with.

“Our focus is making sure we’re running NZTR in the best way possible, working on our costs and our outputs. 

“The funding is something we’re the beneficiaries of from our product but I don’t have that (final) answer right now.”

NZ infrastructure report delayed amid a strategic rethink

Under the three-tier system, it is likely that the redeveloped Ellerslie is the linchpin of the plan, with the Auckland track consolidated as New Zealand’s premier wagering-generating racecourse.https://bitofayarn.com

There is an undercurrent of discontent in some circles that, although turnover points to Ellerslie’s importance to financing the industry, it can’t be wholly and solely relied upon.https://bitofayarn.com

“We have one metro track with a huge population around it (in Ellerslie) and you could argue that Riccarton’s probably not too far from that either,” Ballesty said. 

“We’re focused on Ellerslie and these decisions are always going to be backed by data, and working closely with other stakeholders because we are underpinned by wagering returns, so that’s important. 

“But our future can’t just be on one venue or two (tier one) venues across the country.”

Ballesty’s statement on infrastructure and how NZTR intends to develop those much-needed projects, including greenfield sites in the Waikato and Hawke’s Bay, may become clearer when Project Stamina is made public.

 

Author

Tim Rowe

[mikeynz]

Ellerslie race for 50000, Riverton 5, that sounds about right, Winstons deciples would think that's OK, as long as their all right Jack,  as most of Winston's deciples live from the Waikato up.

Edited May 16 by mikeynz

[mikeynz]

Ellerslie is full of worms, in the soil and also many of the human kind who attend there.

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, mikeynz said:

Ellerslie race for 50000, Riverton 5, that sounds about right, Winstons deciples would think that's OK, as long as their all right Jack,  as most of Winston's deciples live from the Waikato up.

Ellerslie are pumping up the stakes they offer from their own funds.  That is their choice but it isn't sustainable.  Nothing stopping other Clubs from boosting their own stakes.

[curious]

7 hours ago, Wandering Eyes said:

 “The current circular that we have talked about our inability at this point in time to provide clubs with their funding and what the stakes look like. 

......

  

Ballesty acknowledged the uncertainty overshadowing the New Zealand industry.

“Our preference has always been to maintain or grow (stake money) and that’s where we’ve really focused and think that’s shared by the TAB and Entain, of course,” he said. 

“It’d be a welcome outcome for all participants and I don’t have any reason to believe it won’t be, but we just don’t know until we’ve got a clearer idea of what funding we’ve got to work with.

  

 

 

 

So, given that King's Birthday is usually the rough marker to bring horses back into work for spring racing, what do owners and trainers do? Has to be tempting to leave them in the paddock with the prospect of lower stakes and uncertain programming, perhaps permanently if the announcements when they do comeare not that favorable.

Edited May 16 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

The key question is why is TAB NZ holding back on declaring the funding amount?  It can't be ENTAIN dragging the chain surely as the funding from them was guaranteed.

There are signs that some Clubs that raced this year won't be racing next season.

[Shab]

9 hours ago, mikeynz said:

Ellerslie is full of worms, in the soil and also many of the human kind who attend there.

How often do you go? I've not seen many bad humans there. None actually

[Huey]

12 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

The key question is why is TAB NZ holding back on declaring the funding amount?  It can't be ENTAIN dragging the chain surely as the funding from them was guaranteed.

There are signs that some Clubs that raced this year won't be racing next season.

Incompetence,  self interest ,timing and a rigged game . I cant believe you are still this naive and you've supposedly been involved in the sport for years...mind you Tangerine glasses will do that to you.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

Incompetence,  self interest ,timing and a rigged game .

Yet another wide sweeping statement dripping of emotion of the hard done by.  Tell us your story where "incompetence, self interest, timing and a rigged game" has affected you.

Yes I've seen incompetence - years of poorly managed Clubs (large and small - mostly small) driven by self-interested individuals who often didn't have the nous to run their Clubs as businesses.  Yes well intentioned people who gave up extraordinary amounts of their volunteer time for which they should be applauded.  But they only deferred the inevitable as they deferred the maintainance of their assets.

So share with us something of substance.

[Chief Stipe]

It is easy to see why the Racing Industry self-eviscertating itself.

Self-interested Clubs holding onto the past and the fixation on the wrong metrics.

The simple metric to focus on is:  How do I make my Club profitable WITHOUT any asset maintenance funding from NZTR?

The amount of stakes one Club receives over another is a red herring.  Does anyone really expect even a reduced stake Derby being run at Waipukurau?  What benefit does any Club get from hosting a race worth over $250k?  The Club doesn't pay for the Stake.

Would $50k stakes for every race at Tauherenikau for its holiday race meetings make ANY difference to attendance?  As it is the turnover barely covers they stakes they already offer.  Increasing the stakes would offer no increase in revenue to the industry.  That said Tauherenikau are one of the few Clubs that have looked to fund the maintenance of their assets from other revenue streams i.e. they haven't relied on handouts.

Should Levin and Foxton receive ANY funding from NZTR?  They are effectively training establishments 19km apart from each other i.e. a 20 min drive.  If they barely earn enough revenue from Training, Jumpouts and Trials to cover their annual cost let alone future maintenance why are they not profitable?  Perhaps it is because those that use the track are not paying enough for the services they consume.

If Clubs have to subsidise the Training of horses on their courses then they need to either charge more and recover costs including enough to fund future maintenance or find other revenue streams.

The alternative is to slash stakes and fund those tracks that run at an operational loss and or have not other revenue streams.  

That's why the number of tracks currently in use are not sustainable.  Clubs from Riverton to Ruakaka and Trentham in between have suddenly woken up to the fact that they never saved enough to maintin their tracks and core racing assets.  The modern demands for safe and reliable tracks (Trainers, Owners and Punters) and the wants of those seeking a nice day out at the races (Punters and Owners) are not aligned with degraded facilities on offer.

[curious]

36 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

The simple metric to focus on is:  How do I make my Club profitable WITHOUT any asset maintenance funding from NZTR?

 

Why? Shouldn't asset maintenance be funded from the core business revenue which in racing's case is wagering earnings? 

It wouldn't be usual for a business to  start a second business to fund their core business and keep it operating would it?

Edited May 17 by curious

[curious]

38 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Should Levin and Foxton receive ANY funding from NZTR?  

Other than the same incentive that all other training facilities in NZ receive based on number of starters trained there, they don't do they?

[Chief Stipe]

14 minutes ago, curious said:

Other than the same incentive that all other training facilities in NZ receive based on number of starters trained there, they don't do they?

Why should any Training facility receive an "incentive"?

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why should any Training facility receive an "incentive"?

I'm not saying they should. The alternative is to raise track fees accordingly which would no doubt lose more owners and horses and NZTR is supposed to be trying to increase starter numbers accordingly to increase wagering revenue.. Foxton for example, would be a more viable business without offering training facilities.

Edited May 17 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

20 minutes ago, curious said:

Why? Shouldn't asset maintenance be funded from the core business revenue which in racing's case is wagering earnings? 

Do the sums - it is impossible to maintain EVERY existing racecourse from wagering earnings AND pay stakes.  Therefore you need to have other revenue streams.  Just do the sums of maintaining core racing assets including a single use Grandstand.

25 minutes ago, curious said:

It wouldn't be usual for a business to  start a second business to fund their core business and keep it operating would it?

It isn't unusual.  Some Racing Clubs do it already.  In the past Clubs relied on donations, volunteers, Calcutta's, raffles and cake stalls.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

Foxton for example, would be a more viable business without offering training facilities.

For what core business activity?

[curious]

15 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

For what core business activity?

Running trial meetings

 

[curious]

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Do the sums - it is impossible to maintain EVERY existing racecourse from wagering earnings AND pay stakes. 

It seems to me that you have it backwards. The solution surely is to increase wagering revenue and/or reduce stakes.

[Chief Stipe]

9 minutes ago, curious said:

Running trial meetings

 

Of the $170k in core trading expenses how much would be saved by Foxton not being a Training venue?

The Gross Deficit from Trading was -$120k.

This was offset by Revenue from "other activities" - an MSD subsidy of $33k and Rent from dwelling, buildings course and grounds of $75k.  

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, curious said:

It seems to me that you have it backwards. The solution surely is to increase wagering revenue and/or reduce stakes.

Not at all.  You have to do it from both sides of the ledger.  Reduce cost (better cost recovery less subsidisation) and increased revenue from wagering AND other revenue streams.  

Wagering alone will not sustain all the existing racecourses and maintain/renovate the core racing assets.

[curious]

35 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Of the $170k in core trading expenses how much would be saved by Foxton not being a Training venue?.  

Hard to be precise from the accounts but about half that at least, I would say.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

Hard to be precise from the accounts but about half that at least, I would say.

Based on what?  Finger in the air?  You still need a Track Manager to run Trials.

Here is the Trading accounts from the core business:

[curious]

57 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Based on what?  Finger in the air?  You still need a Track Manager to run Trials.

Not a full time one if you've only got one track to maintain for 12 days a year. Probably casual staff could handle it under the control of one of the committee. The centre could all be resown for a hay crop too so no maintenance there, less machinery maintenance with no ploughs and sands to maintain. Tie-ups need washing ten times a year. Ezypzy.

Edited May 17 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

Not a full time one if you've only got one track to maintain for 12 days a year. Probably casual staff could handle it under the control of one of the committee. The centre could all be resown for a hay crop too so no maintenance there, less machinery maintenance with no ploughs and sands to maintain. Tie-ups need washing ten times a year. Ezypzy.

So the Track Manager is not living on course and or not paying rent?

If it was that easy to manage the track why not share costs between Otaki, Levin and Foxton?

Regardless Foxton is still not putting enough in the bank to fund any major maintenance or renovation of the track.  Most of the cash in the bank is from an insurance payout from the fire.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

So the Track Manager is not living on course and or not paying rent?

If it was that easy to manage the track why not share costs between Otaki, Levin and Foxton?

Regardless Foxton is still not putting enough in the bank to fund any major maintenance or renovation of the track.  Most of the cash in the bank is from an insurance payout from the fire.

I don't see whether the track manager is living on course, paying rent or as part of his remuneration package really matters. There is a recently refurbished house on course that has a value however it is used.

Hasn't this discussion got some distance away from the head post proposing a 3 tier track system?