EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS OF CLUBS

[Laurie Sutherland]

A couple of months ago I decided to make a comparison on how many $$$ of NZ On-course, Off-curse + Fixed Odds betting the various thoroughbred Clubs generated with each One Dollar of funding they received from the NZRB/NZTR administrators.

I think of the result as a form of CLUB EFFICIENCY RATING.

Dargaville, Foxton, Kumara and Westland did not race in 2017/18, and Waikouaiti had only one race, and Thames only two, so have left them out.

The upper part of the list reads as follows:-

Taupo                 $11.602

Avondale              11.306   *

Kurow                   10.588   *

Banks Penin          9,875   *

Sth Waikato           9.695

Stratford                9.315   *     (was Second Top the previous year)

Poverty Bay           8.997

Matamata              8.922

Wairoa                   8.831   *

Waverley               8.701

Waipa                    8.437

Waipukurau          8.121   *

Woodville-Pah     8.035   *

Reefton                7.898   *

South Canty        7.664   *

Tapanui (at Gore) 7.461  *

Feilding                7.359

Tauranga            7.358

Egmont                7.328

Whakatane          7.324

Taranaki              7.197

Rotorua               6.856   *

Wanganui           6.785

Greymouth          6.751

Marlborough      6.751

Gore                     6.744   *

Cambridge          6.714

Waimate              6.639   *

Winton                 6.527   *

Ashburton           6.389

Wairarapa           6.353

Counties             6.336

Central Otago    6.237   *

Waipa                 6.228

Beaumont          6.227

    CODE AVERAGE   6.141

A further 19 Clubs below the Code Average, including Waikaro RC at 3 below av, Hawkes Bay at 4 below av, CJC at  10 below av

Auckland RC at 16 below av, Manawatu RC at 17 below, and Wellington RC at 18 below.

 

 

10 of the top 16 clubs have been recommended for closure by the Messara Review or by NZTR and the Minister for Racing.

All clubs so recommended are marked with an *.

 

Does anyone know of any other major activity that has had 10 of its top 16 performers recommended for the chop?

Or is it yet another sign of woolly-headed thinking by those at the top of our administration?

Cambridge          6.714

[curious]

Nice work Laurie. That's why the industry is headed for extinction. Where are Ellerslie, Trentham, Waikato, Awapuni etc?

[Reefton]

54 minutes ago, curious said:

Nice work Laurie. That's why the industry is headed for extinction. Where are Ellerslie, Trentham, Waikato, Awapuni etc?

Laurie(nice work Laurie - long time since I have heard from you) has done the research that verifies exactly what I have been saying all along - the big clubs suck this industry dry.  For the value of their assets they should be the first ones wound up and the money invested in the places people want to go to the races(and where in general the tracks are decent)

I might add we would have been a lot higher but we took on about four extra races that year to compensate the stakeholders who missed out at Kumara 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Reefton

[curious]

1 hour ago, Reefton said:

Laurie(nice work Laurie - long time since I have heard from you) has done the research that verifies exactly what I have been saying all along - the big clubs suck this industry dry.  For the value of their assets they should be the first ones wound up and the money invested in the places people want to go to the races(and where in general the tracks are decent)

I might add we would have been a lot higher but we took on about four extra races that year to compensate the stakeholders who missed out at Kumara 

You mean you think they've got it arse backwards which was the intention of the 2003 Act to allow? Kind of reverse Robinhood maybe?

[Freda]

Of course it is arse backwards....whether that was the actual intention or whether it just kinda happened would be anyone's guess.

[Weasel]

why not post the complete list?

 

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Weasel said:

why not post the complete list?

 

Editorial space limitations?

[Weasel]

come on Laurie, post the rest

[Reefton]

1 hour ago, curious said:

You mean you think they've got it arse backwards which was the intention of the 2003 Act to allow? Kind of reverse Robinhood maybe?

Yes well Garry Chittick talked all that crap in the late 1990's(the last time they tried this 'shut down all the courses' trick - and when Laurie and I  had plenty of interaction) about how the big Clubs subsidised the small.

Surprising for a man who was as successful as he was that he had no idea what a subsidy was because in those days the situation was just as bad as now - I had a heap  of spreadsheets on the reality of the situation back then similar to what Laurie is talking about now/.

[holy ravioli]

Start with the punters...whats in it for them?

 

I rarely bet on NZ racing..Melbourne/Sydney gets my $ these days.

[Reefton]

2 minutes ago, holy ravioli said:

Start with the punters...whats in it for them?

Well if these wankers don't sort out the NZ racing industry then there will be nothing there(in terms of the NZ industry) for the punters ti bet on so you might as well get schooled up on Aussie form because there will be no NZ form to bet on.

[Chief Stipe]

I'm assuming the figures are turnover not revenue.  Therefore any course with a score of 6 or less is not breaking even.  That is earning enough to fund their stakes.

[Reefton]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

I'm assuming the figures are turnover not revenue.  Therefore any course with a score of 6 or less is not breaking even.  That is earning enough to fund their stakes.

Those big Clubs have NEVER earned enough to fund their stakes(mainly because their average stake is of course much much bigger).  The difference now of course is that the overall revenue has dropped so much that, despite the lesser amount the industry is paying government via duty, probably no club is generating enough betting to support itself(ie it is all being done on borrowed money or reserves). 

So desperate measures are required to either increase revenue or to decrease costs.  I contend/suggest slashing the takeout rates on betting to lure offshore punting and returning the on course operations to the Clubs(as a start to reduce the cost of running the TAB) 

[Hedley]

Cutting costs is a viable option...get rid of the 'city of suits' and we're part way to where we want to be and need to be!

I can't believe how many suits that've been hired along the way..and nothing has been said about them and their salaries accrueing to levels of obeseity and strain to the annual budget.

[Laurie Sutherland]

2 hours ago, Reefton said:

Those big Clubs have NEVER earned enough to fund their stakes(mainly because their average stake is of course much much bigger).  The difference now of course is that the overall revenue has dropped so much that, despite the lesser amount the industry is paying government via duty, probably no club is generating enough betting to support itself(ie it is all being done on borrowed money or reserves). 

So desperate measures are required to either increase revenue or to decrease costs.  I contend/suggest slashing the takeout rates on betting to lure offshore punting and returning the on course operations to the Clubs(as a start to reduce the cost of running the TAB) 

You are well on target Reefton, in that the big clubs have never (this century anyway) generated enough turnover to fund the high level of stakes money they pay out.    Hence the Racing Board and NZTR between them screw the shortfall from the smaller clubs.

By far the heaviest drawoff is to fund the high-stakes Group Races.

The one sector of racing that gets by far the most financial benefit from the Group Race system is the commercial breeders who breed for the top end of the market at the Karaka Yearling Sales.

I think most readers will know there are several extremely wealthy people in the commercial breeding fraternity, and it seems only logical and reasonable that they should shoulder the lion's share of the stakes money for the Group Races, instead of the NZRB and NZTR between them rifling the pockets of the lesser clubs every year to fund those races.

I made a submission to the Messara Review (I believe these can now be looked at via the Dept of Internal Affairs) in which I said I thought about $60 millions had been swindled from the lesser clubs since 2003 for this purpose.  And that figure did not include the $6 million so generously given by Racing Minister W Peters to further subsidise a small number of top-end thoroughbred races following the gaming duty reduction of 2006.   EVERY club paid the same higher level of gaming duty up to 2006, so Mr Peters was  totally unfair.

As a suggestion, clubs that don't stage any Group or Listed Stakes Races should be fully exempted from contributing to Group Race stakesmoney.   That would leave any such club that, for any reason, wants to make a contribution, free to do so.

 

Finally, a correction to the note beside Stratford in the Table of Club Efficiency at the start of this thread.   Stratford was in fact second highest received of Export Turnover in 2016/17, per NZRB official statistics (available on NZRB website).

 

[curious]

As far as I am aware, the reportedly some 1700 submissions on the Messara report have not been made public. If I'm missing them somewhere, would someone please point me to them.

[Reefton]

49 minutes ago, Laurie Sutherland said:

You are well on target Reefton, in that the big clubs have never (this century anyway) generated enough turnover to fund the high level of stakes money they pay out.    Hence the Racing Board and NZTR between them screw the shortfall from the smaller clubs.

By far the heaviest drawoff is to fund the high-stakes Group Races.

The one sector of racing that gets by far the most financial benefit from the Group Race system is the commercial breeders who breed for the top end of the market at the Karaka Yearling Sales.

I think most readers will know there are several extremely wealthy people in the commercial breeding fraternity, and it seems only logical and reasonable that they should shoulder the lion's share of the stakes money for the Group Races, instead of the NZRB and NZTR between them rifling the pockets of the lesser clubs every year to fund those races.

I made a submission to the Messara Review (I believe these can now be looked at via the Dept of Internal Affairs) in which I said I thought about $60 millions had been swindled from the lesser clubs since 2003 for this purpose.  And that figure did not include the $6 million so generously given by Racing Minister W Peters to further subsidise a small number of top-end thoroughbred races following the gaming duty reduction of 2006.   EVERY club paid the same higher level of gaming duty up to 2006, so Mr Peters was  totally unfair.

As a suggestion, clubs that don't stage any Group or Listed Stakes Races should be fully exempted from contributing to Group Race stakesmoney.   That would leave any such club that, for any reason, wants to make a contribution, free to do so.

 

Finally, a correction to the note beside Stratford in the Table of Club Efficiency at the start of this thread.   Stratford was in fact second highest received of Export Turnover in 2016/17, per NZRB official statistics (available on NZRB website).

 

bloody hell - expecting the breeders to contribute to group and stakes race stakes - that will go down well with that mob!

[Weasel]

Laurie, would you mind posting the rest of the Clubs' results?

[Laurie Sutherland]

2 hours ago, Weasel said:

Laurie, would you mind posting the rest of the Clubs' results?

For the last nearly one hour I have been posting figures for the Code, plus Auckland, Wgton and Chch, also Waikato, Reefton and Kurow, but someone has just wiped it all off!

[Tiger Tiger]

Laurie

How did you work out what each club receives from NZTR ?  Just an FYI Clubs don't receive any money from the NZRB 

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Tiger Tiger said:

Laurie

How did you work out what each club receives from NZTR ?  Just an FYI Clubs don't receive any money from the NZRB 

He is using the stakes funding data I think. https://www.nzrb.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB_Club_Net_Stakes_2016.pdf

[Hedley]

16 hours ago, Laurie Sutherland said:

For the last nearly one hour I have been posting figures for the Code, plus Auckland, Wgton and Chch, also Waikato, Reefton and Kurow, but someone has just wiped it all off!

Try just one more time Laurie . . . .Chief Stipe can monitor i would hope

[Chief Stipe]

17 hours ago, Laurie Sutherland said:

For the last nearly one hour I have been posting figures for the Code, plus Auckland, Wgton and Chch, also Waikato, Reefton and Kurow, but someone has just wiped it all off!

Save your post frequently and then choose re-edit.

[Chief Stipe]

23 hours ago, Reefton said:

Those big Clubs have NEVER earned enough to fund their stakes(mainly because their average stake is of course much much bigger).  The difference now of course is that the overall revenue has dropped so much that, despite the lesser amount the industry is paying government via duty, probably no club is generating enough betting to support itself(ie it is all being done on borrowed money or reserves). 

So desperate measures are required to either increase revenue or to decrease costs.  I contend/suggest slashing the takeout rates on betting to lure offshore punting and returning the on course operations to the Clubs(as a start to reduce the cost of running the TAB) 

The point I was making if there are only 18 clubs contributing positively to revenue then there is more than 30 in the red.

Plus that breakeven point of 5.9 is climbing rapidly.  The gap being funded by reserves, sports and gaming (pokies).  None of those are sustainable.

We can't sustain the tier system of stakes  nor the level of stakes for Grp and Listed races.  You could halve those stakes and the quality of the fields would stay the same.

[Freda]

On ‎7‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 10:36 AM, Reefton said:

Those big Clubs have NEVER earned enough to fund their stakes(mainly because their average stake is of course much much bigger).  The difference now of course is that the overall revenue has dropped so much that, despite the lesser amount the industry is paying government via duty, probably no club is generating enough betting to support itself(ie it is all being done on borrowed money or reserves). 

So desperate measures are required to either increase revenue or to decrease costs.  I contend/suggest slashing the takeout rates on betting to lure offshore punting and returning the on course operations to the Clubs(as a start to reduce the cost of running the TAB) 

Something that Mardigras would probably be much in favour of.