Who decides what's best for Racing? Punters, Owners, Trainers, NZTR or the IT Dept at RITA?

[the galah]

Just now, Freda said:

Stakes are bulk funded by NZTR.  The club doesn't [ these days ] have to find the money.  If a club chooses - or is forced - to give away racing at its own track and use another deemed more suitable,  the funding and meeting payment also goes with it to the alternative track.  So no savings there.

Anyway, under current straitened circumstances, the existence or otherwise of clubs other than the few designated under the 'new' calendar, will be an historical fact.

Consign it all to fond memories.    Without radical restructuring, there will not be funding for anything much at all.

Well doesn't that mean the bulk funding methodoligy is flawed?  Are you saying a club gets funding irrespective of whether it can run a meeting at a profit/loss.?

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, the galah said:

The chance to survive given on the acceptance by the smaller clubs that there are to be changes and the bulk of industry funding will be given to the clubs the industry has deemed  strategically necessary

But what criteria have they used to determine what is "strategically necessary"?  The criteria must be flawed when we view which tracks are the first to be raced on after the relaxation of the Covid-19 rules.  We've been given an insight into their strategic thinking.  For example Ascot Park gets a meeting but not Wingatui nor Riverton.  They can't have made that decision based on what is best for the horse, the trainers, the owners or even on-course attendance.  Certainly not based on the horse population.  From what my investigations have discovered it is solely based on the fact that Ascot Park has the new rolls royce fibre and network connection.  Also I guess because it is a tri-code venue.  But is that really strategic thinking or dubious operational decisions wagging the strategic tail?

For the life of me I can't understand how tri-code venues are good for the industry.  Certainly from an on-course viewer perspective they are a dog.  Excuse the pun.  It is a bit like having a Rugby test match at a cricketing venue like Eden Park. the Cake TIn or the MCG (I've watched Rugby test "on-course" at all three) it isn't the same spectacle as a ground that is a dedicated Rugby/League venue.  If I ever attended a Greyhound meeting it wouldn't be at Ascot Park.

21 minutes ago, the galah said:

should they fail all assets to be transferred to their governing bodies.

NO I disagree with that.  Many of the clubs designated for closure have built their assets up through support and financial assistance from their local communities.  These assets AREN'T the Racing Industry's.  In fact most of these clubs have been subsidising the so called "strategic clubs" with inequitable support from the NZRB/RITA for years.  I applaud the Westland Racing Club for gifting their assets and cash in the bank back to the community of Hokitika.

[the galah]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But what criteria have they used to determine what is "strategically necessary"?  The criteria must be flawed when we view which tracks are the first to be raced on after the relaxation of the Covid-19 rules.  We've been given an insight into their strategic thinking.  For example Ascot Park gets a meeting but not Wingatui nor Riverton.  They can't have made that decision based on what is best for the horse, the trainers, the owners or even on-course attendance.  Certainly not based on the horse population.  From what my investigations have discovered it is solely based on the fact that Ascot Park has the new rolls royce fibre and network connection.  Also I guess because it is a tri-code venue.  But is that really strategic thinking or dubious operational decisions wagging the strategic tail?

For the life of me I can't understand how tri-code venues are good for the industry.  Certainly from an on-course viewer perspective they are a dog.  Excuse the pun.  It is a bit like having a Rugby test match at a cricketing venue like Eden Park. the Cake TIn or the MCG (I've watched Rugby test "on-course" at all three) it isn't the same spectacle as a ground that is a dedicated Rugby/League venue.  If I ever attended a Greyhound meeting it wouldn't be at Ascot Park.

NO I disagree with that.  Many of the clubs designated for closure have built their assets up through support and financial assistance from their local communities.  These assets AREN'T the Racing Industry's.  In fact most of these clubs have been subsidising the so called "strategic clubs" with inequitable support from the NZRB/RITA for years.  I applaud the Westland Racing Club for gifting their assets and cash in the bank back to the community of Hokitika.

I agree with the viewing perspective of the tri code clubs. No atmosphere whatsoever for trots and dogs just terrible.

The interaction /closeness of the spectator to the equine/dog/people  participants is the reason people go to the races.Thats the main reason you get more people at harness grass tracks for example.

As far as clubs assets. They just have to have a change in mindset and  be realistic and unselfish,which they may be willing to do if they were to be thrown a lifeline,albeit a difficult one. Really they have no choice. Do they want their sport to survive or not?

[Chief Stipe]

10 minutes ago, Freda said:

Even the socks tone in with the outfit,  Chief!     Colour co-ordinated.

If you look closely you will see the sunglasses do too!  To think there are people out there who think men can't look after children!

The following photos are from when I took her to Derby Day at Ellerslie so I upped the glam a bit.  Again I bought the entire outfit.

I was lucky to have a horse racing that day.  We had Owner's tickets and so were up in the members stand and were allowed into the birdcage before our race.  I must say I felt awkward if not uneasy.  Some of the looks we got in the members stand weren't good.  It was like we were out of place and shouldn't have been there.

 

 

 

[All The Aces]

3 hours ago, Freda said:

Stakes are bulk funded by NZTR.  The club doesn't [ these days ] have to find the money.  If a club chooses - or is forced - to give away racing at its own track and use another deemed more suitable,  the stakes funding and meeting payment also goes with it to the alternative track.  So no savings there.

.

Are you sure or am I reading this incorrectly.

Marton race at Awapuni for example. It is Marton's meeting not Manawatu RC meeting therefore stakes funding and meeting payment would go to Marton JC not Manawatu I would have thought.  

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

Are you sure or am I reading this incorrectly.

Marton race at Awapuni for example. It is Marton's meeting not Manawatu RC meeting therefore stakes funding and meeting payment would go to Marton JC not Manawatu I would have thought.  

RACE Inc take everything.

[Huey]

43 minutes ago, All The Aces said:

Are you sure or am I reading this incorrectly.

Marton race at Awapuni for example. It is Marton's meeting not Manawatu RC meeting therefore stakes funding and meeting payment would go to Marton JC not Manawatu I would have thought.  

No as Freda has put thats absolutely correct, though probably what happens is Marton get invoiced by Manawatu for the stakes etc. perhaps and certainly for the use of the course. Just another way to prop up a club in the club imo.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

No as Freda has put thats absolutely correct, though probably what happens is Marton get invoiced by Manawatu for the stakes etc. perhaps and certainly for the use of the course. Just another way to prop up a club in the club imo.

None of this happens.  The clubs that race at Awapuni ALL race under the umbrella of RACE Inc.  As does Trentham.  Effectively all Marton has is its name in lights when their race days are held at Awapuni.

RACE Inc has been maintaining solvency by hocking off bits of land.  They are in hock to NZRB and NZTR to the tune of $5m as of the 2018 financial report.  I can't give you an update on that because the 2019 report doesn't download from their website.

If you were looking for an actual example in New Zealand of how the Mesara report would work once implemented then look no further than RACE Inc.  It doesn't seem to work very well when you look at their financial statements and factor in the disproportionate benefits they get from NZRB/RITA/NZTR.  Note that their Executive pull close to $1m in salary a year.

They claimed for 33 employees for Covid-19.

[Freda]

Just another example of how badly wrong executives across the board have got all this.

But, in the end, irrelevant now.

Regardless of who did or didn't do this or that,  or what could have been, should have been, or wasn't done...the result is the same.

Bankruptcy.     The days we fondly remember of how it was,  are gone.    We either accept that there will be racing [ if at all ] on two or three tracks, and we have to look forward and make the best of things.

The biggest kick of all, will be if there are no structural changes, and, once [ if ] things start to tick along again,  the staff numbers creep up again because of the 'increased business '  .

We might as well pull the sign down then.

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

We either accept that there will be racing [ if at all ] on two or three tracks, and we have to look forward and make the best of things.

I strongly disagree.  Never surrender!  Don't give away the Guineas.  Don't shaft small tracks because they don't have a fibre network.  

This march towards 2 or 3 tracks has been going on for years - 20 even.  If it is the great redeemer of the industry why are things getting worse?  The powers that be wearing their suits in their nice offices in Parnell and Petone will say it hasn't happened fast enough that's why.  I say bollocks.  It is the very act of closing small tracks and centralising racing that is killing it. 

If you applied a sensible logical list of criteria (strategic, tactical and operational) Ellerslie and Trentham would be the first tracks that you close.

[Freda]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

I strongly disagree.  Never surrender!  Don't give away the Guineas.  Don't shaft small tracks because they don't have a fibre network.  

This march towards 2 or 3 tracks has been going on for years - 20 even.  If it is the great redeemer of the industry why are things getting worse?  The powers that be wearing their suits in their nice offices in Parnell and Petone will say it hasn't happened fast enough that's why.  I say bollocks.  It is the very act of closing small tracks and centralising racing that is killing it. 

If you applied a sensible logical list of criteria (strategic, tactical and operational) Ellerslie and Trentham would be the first tracks that you close.

Of course I agree.   That should be obvious from my posts over period of time.    Clearly now, travel won't be a valid reason for the Guineas moving.    Horses can travel again and by November,  staff should be ok to travel with them.  It will remain to be seen how much the CJC will fight, or whether they just assume that the northerners will drop their pressure, and allow the Guineas to return.

As for shutting tracks, again, that argument has been going on for years.  I think discussion here and elsewhere has highlighted how flawed that thinking is,  and that with consultation, many clubs could manage to bring their facilities up to safety levels using their own resources.      NSW Racing recognises how vital many country clubs are to the overall tourist experience of rural Australia, and provides significant support to that end.

You have missed my point, though.  Because appalling mismanagement, we have now been brought to this point,  where there is no choice.   THERE IS NO MONEY left.

[Freda]

19 hours ago, the galah said:

I agree with the viewing perspective of the tri code clubs. No atmosphere whatsoever for trots and dogs just terrible.

The interaction /closeness of the spectator to the equine/dog/people  participants is the reason people go to the races.Thats the main reason you get more people at harness grass tracks for example.

As far as clubs assets. They just have to have a change in mindset and  be realistic and unselfish,which they may be willing to do if they were to be thrown a lifeline,albeit a difficult one. Really they have no choice. Do they want their sport to survive or not?

Don't agree, sorry.     Clubs' assets have been property donated by early citizens, or developed by councils and/or local sporting bodies for community use.   They should be returned to the community if not to be used for racing purposes.   I can't think of one example where NZTR - or its predecessor, the NZRC,  gifted land to a racing club.

 But, if you think that grandstands etc. have been funded by the industry, I'm sure any club would willingly give them back.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Freda

[Huey]

22 minutes ago, Freda said:

Don't agree, sorry.     Clubs' assets have been property donated by early citizens, or developed by councils and/or local sporting bodies for community use.   They should be returned to the community if not to be used for racing purposes.   I can't think of one example where NZTR - or its predecessor, the NZRC,  gifted land to a racing club.

 But, if you think that grandstands etc. have been funded by the industry, I'm sure any club would willingly give them back.

Not to mention not every club has had the same opportunities as other clubs, when people suggest clubs are being selfish by not just handing their assets over to the industry they aren't comparing apples with apples. Some clubs are in the position they are in because of the policymakers in this industry. What if those assets are still being utilised ?

Its also been said before , but who in their right mind would want significant sums of money going to the guys running the industry at the moment? 

I watched an interview last night with a prominent stud in Aus. and the proprietor made the most sense I've heard in saying "it all starts in the country and then heads to the city, thats why you need the country tracks". In NZ our leadership thinks it begins and end in the City. 

[curious]

Do you have a link to that interview Huey?

 

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Freda said:

Don't agree, sorry.     Clubs' assets have been property donated by early citizens, or developed by councils and/or local sporting bodies for community use.   They should be returned to the community if not to be used for racing purposes.   I can't think of one example where NZTR - or its predecessor, the NZRC,  gifted land to a racing club.

 But, if you think that grandstands etc. have been funded by the industry, I'm sure any club would willingly give them back.

Would be interesting to know what $ value was involved for those suggested for closure that owned their own assets.

The community use thing would just mean the local sporting clubs/ or whoever it is that use it  will not be able to afford their upkeep anyway.  So i guess you mean you want them gifted back to the local councils,but then they become a drain on  ratepayers,or sold by the the councils and turned into farms or whatever.

Your approach may be very community minded but not sure how that helps maintain the racing  industry that you say you want to see survive and don't know how that helps retain the jobs of those in that industry...

Maybe you should have a look at the old greymouth trotting club ground next time you are over that way..How did that work out when they transferred it back to the local iwi.

[Huey]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Do you have a link to that interview Huey?

 

Bred to win

[Freda]

52 minutes ago, the galah said:

Would be interesting to know what $ value was involved for those suggested for closure that owned their own assets.

The community use thing would just mean the local sporting clubs/ or whoever it is that use it  will not be able to afford their upkeep anyway.  So i guess you mean you want them gifted back to the local councils,but then they become a drain on  ratepayers,or sold by the the councils and turned into farms or whatever.

Your approach may be very community minded but not sure how that helps maintain the racing  industry that you say you want to see survive and don't know how that helps retain the jobs of those in that industry...

Maybe you should have a look at the old greymouth trotting club ground next time you are over that way..How did that work out when they transferred it back to the local iwi.

That was just stupid bloody greed from that iwi.

Trots would still be there if not for unreasonable demands....now it's just rusting tin and weeds.

The prize would be Avondale, surely....has to be worth more than some plots of rural land , you'd think.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Freda

[curious]

8 minutes ago, Freda said:

That was just stupid bloody greed from that iwi.

Trots would still be there if not for unreasonable demands....now it's just rusting tin and weeds.

The prize would be Avondale, surely....has to be worth more than some plots of rural land , you'd think.

Wouldn't Ellerslie be more valuable?

[Freda]

Well,  yeah...but can't see that happening!

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

The community use thing would just mean the local sporting clubs/ or whoever it is that use it  will not be able to afford their upkeep anyway.  So i guess you mean you want them gifted back to the local councils,but then they become a drain on  ratepayers,or sold by the the councils and turned into farms or whatever.

 

You'll find that many of the smaller tracks have community activities and other clubs hosted there.  For example pony clubs.  Reefton had a rugby ground in the centre of the track in the winter and an Athletic track in the summer when I went to school on the Coast.  I won the West Coast Secondary Schools 800m and 1500m races in the centre of track.  I remember it especially not just for that but the reason that the home bend curve abruptly turned into a straight.  If you had followed where the curve should have been you would have ended up 4 lanes wide in the straight.  Actually come to think about it that's how many of the horses raced around that bend on the course proper!!

Sure some will be sold off for housing but many will continue their other community activities and yes the cost will be borne by those clubs or the ratepayer instead of the racing club.  Which I assure you won't leave a favourable impression with the locals.

1 hour ago, Freda said:

Your approach may be very community minded but not sure how that helps maintain the racing  industry that you say you want to see survive and don't know how that helps retain the jobs of those in that industry...

 

If you use the Westland Racing Club as an example.  They gifted the land, buildings and their cash back to the community.  Why would they gift it to other West Coast clubs?  Never in a thousand years would they gift it to Riccarton and they have too many brains to gift it the dead end that is Kumara.  Did you know Kumara has a permanent population of 300 and Hokitika's is 3,000?

2 hours ago, the galah said:

Maybe you should have a look at the old greymouth trotting club ground next time you are over that way..How did that work out when they transferred it back to the local iwi.

Unfortunately Galah you have chosen the worst example with the Greymouth Trotting Club.  Now Maori Lease Land on the West Coast is another issue in itself.  I remember asking my dad as a young fella "why are the shops in Greymouth so old compared to ours in Hokitika?"  I knew it wasn't because one town was older than the other because Hokitika held that title. Probably still today Greymouth looks like it is stuck in a 1950's time warp. He said "Son you know my mate Ronny Messenger the suit maker and seller in Greymouth that we pop in and see when we are up there?"  "Yeah - the President of the NZ Rugby Union who you get our Test tickets off" says I.  "Well son here is a lesson for you in business.  Ronny owns his business but doesn't own his shop or the land it is on." 

"Eh? How does that work?"

"Well the land on the south side of the West Coast rivers were given to the Maori.  The Maori lease the land and the buildings back to the business owners.  Bloody Mawhera Incorporation!  More like Mafia Corporation.  So there is no incentive for Ronnie or any of the other businesses to spend money on their buildings because they don't own them.  He also has to pay rent for the privilege.  As you know Hokitika's town is on the north side and the only thing on the south side is farm land.  That's why I built my business in Hokitika."

Getting back to the Greymouth Trotting Club.  You'll find that they didn't GIVE the land back they just walked AWAY from the lease.  I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure it was Maori Lease land as many of the residential properties surrounding the track were.  I also understand as Freda eludes that the Mawhera Corporation was gouging the club for market rents based on god knows what basis because Greymouth back then wasn't the growth centre of New Zealand. 

So Galah not a good example however I'm sure you find that there are similar situations throughout the country.  LOL I would have loved to have seen Winston, Jones and RITA try to grab the assets of the Mawhera Corporation!!!  That really would have been fun!

[Chief Stipe]

Also as Freda and Curious point out if you were really going to grab assets for the benefit of racing then Ellerslie, Te Rapa and Trentham would be the better choices to sell off in terms of realised assets.

Let's face it the saleable assets of any racecourse is the land it is on.  What do you do with a open air Grandstand?  Or a 100 yr old tote building?  That's right with the latter if you are Ellerslie you rebuild the 100 yr old tote building and turn it into state of the art stables and cafe.  Yep good investment that.

[Chief Stipe]

Mawhera's story goes back to 1860, when West Coast Maori sold seven million acres (2.83 million hectares) to the Crown for 300 but held back tracts of land for allotment to named owners.

One of the blocks was the 500-acre (202.3ha) Mawhera block on the south bank of the Grey River, which now holds much of central Greymouth.

The history of the Mawhera block over the next 100 years is marked by a litany of appeals, commissions and legislative efforts as lessees fought to freehold and the Maori owners battled to protect their interests.

In 1887, the leases were changed to perpetual leases, and until late last century, rents were controlled. It is widely agreed that Maori got a raw deal, and it is not difficult to see why a sense of grievance lingers.

After the Commission of Inquiry into Maori Reserved Land in 1973, the administration of the Mawhera block was handed back to the owners through the Mawhera Incorporation Order 1976. Its current shareholders have to be descendents of the owners in 1860.

[Roger Sugrue]

Fascinating, thank you. Albeit  a bit later in life I finally visited Greymouth twice in past 2 years and love the place. On tip toes I can just see over the large iron fence that surrounds Trotting Club and can't help but visualise the great days and very sorry to see it's dilapidated state.

By the way...... who / what is the ownership of Nelson Trotting / ex galloping track

[Chief Stipe]

25 minutes ago, Roger Sugrue said:

By the way...... who / what is the ownership of Nelson Trotting / ex galloping track

From memory the ownership is like many of the historical race track ownership in this country - the local A & P Society/Association founded in 1893.  The racecourse is the site of the Richmond showgrounds.  I recall when visiting years ago the stock yards on the right of the main driveway as you entered to go the races.

The 40 hectares belongs to the Association.  So that's another hunk of capital racing won't get their hands on.

[Freda]

The Hokitika Museum is a fascinating window on  history of the place.  I go in for a wander whenever I'm over there....sadly, won't be often now.