Track Closures

[curious]

All probably a bit late from what I hear they have taken another option to preserve the assets for the community. Anyone confirm?

[Reefton]

5 hours ago, Weasel said:

Because Ellerslie doesnt need to pull its Grandstand(s) down ans has invested in upgrading facilities. If Avondale had done the prudent thing 20-30 years ago - built decent facilities for its members and racegoers - it' would've had a stronger case for retention as a venue going forward. But its heed is now above the parapet as an obvious target for rationalisation.

 

I will bloody well bet those flash Ellerslie facilities you are talking about were paid for by the Amenities fund.  They may have invested wisely in recent times but the industry paid for those 'shop front' buildings not the frigging ARC.

Same applies to the WRC (both of them) CJC HBJC MRC ORC and for that matter the Greymouth Jockey Club.  If you were the major club in the District Committee you got an open cheque book of industry funds to build your palaces.  Most of those palaces of course have been neglected hence the whinging now when  the financial  tap has been turned off

[Newmarket]

Fill me in, all of tracks that are closing, who owns them & what is expected to happen to them. 

[Reefton]

5 hours ago, All The Aces said:

Of course it their right not to engage at all but it shows a distinct lack of business acumen to not even look at or consider any options.

A group discussion may well have provided them with ideas/options to discuss that their singular committee may not have thought of. Surely it wouldn't have hurt to sit and down and discuss with all involved instead of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Look where they are now.  

How do you know they did not "engage' and how do you know they did not have a 'group discussion'?

To suggest they did not is probably guessing.  If I were the AJC committee and had seen Ellerslie rip off their two main features and doing their level best to keep their foot right on Avondale's throat the last thing I would want to do is 'merge' with them.  Because everyone (with any sense that is so there would be a couple of exceptions on here) knows that an ARC/AJC merger would in fact be an ARC takeover(just like the CJC/NCRC situation ended up int he CJC owning everything  and the NCRC having nothing).

The naivety of some posters on here as to the reality of NZ racing's administration and the way certain factions within the industry behave is astonishing. 

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Reefton

[Delta Bro]

Running industry days at the new all weather tracks such as the one at Cambridge makes grass racecourses such as Avondale surplus to requirements.

Ten million dollars of government money goes into the all weather tracks and the clubs concerned or NZTR  have to find the other six million.

In California all racetracks were mandated to convert to all weather surfaces such as polytrack in 2007. By 2014 there was only one left. So what went wrong?

All weather tracks have a limited lifetime. If used for training and racing they wear out fast. That's primarily what went wrong in California. Cambridge is the largest training centre in the southern hemisphere.

What happens when the all weather needs replacing and Winston Peters is no longer Racing Minister?

And has anyone looked into where the worn out all weather surface is dumped and at what cost? It is toxic waste not household garbage.

[Weasel]

When was the AJC grandstand built?

When did it last get any R&M done to it?

Why did it fall into a state of disrepair (eyesore material)?

It strikes me that the current situation is a bit like the 'white man' arriving in droves to overwhelm the native American Indians in the 19th century. Fight and die, or come in to the reservation

AJC - get the best deal you can for your members in perpetuity, protect and promote the rich AJC heritage from a new base etc ... cos you are not going to be racing at Avondale any time soon - whether or not the 'land grab' is successful. Better to use the value of the asset(s) to play a significant role in horse racing (via merger) than be irrelevant forevermore and your hard-earned asset(s) handed over to 'charity'.

You cant beat em so you may as well join em.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Weasel

[Weasel]

11 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But Avondale going isn't going to make any difference to racing in Auckland.  Unless a law is passed that acquires their assets or the club decides to sell and hands over the proceeds.

If either of those happen then that money will go into the RITA black hole.

AJC can CHOOSE to merge, can't they? Negotiate a deal for a merger that guarantees them recognition of their proud heritage/contribution in the past and INVEST in the industry's future by applying the proceeds from voluntarily selling their land for the survival/growth of racing in Auckland. They need to stop thinking tribally/parochially and create a workable solution with ARC (and/or Counties). 

eg ...Australian Clubs own hotels, clubs etc where pokies revenue yields a fortune every year for them ...eg Melbourne Racing Club (Sandown/Caulfield tracks) got about $20M in the 2018/19 Fin Yr. 

[Freda]

7 hours ago, Delta Bro said:

Running industry days at the new all weather tracks such as the one at Cambridge makes grass racecourses such as Avondale surplus to requirements.

Ten million dollars of government money goes into the all weather tracks and the clubs concerned or NZTR  have to find the other six million.

In California all racetracks were mandated to convert to all weather surfaces such as polytrack in 2007. By 2014 there was only one left. So what went wrong?

All weather tracks have a limited lifetime. If used for training and racing they wear out fast. That's primarily what went wrong in California. Cambridge is the largest training centre in the southern hemisphere.

What happens when the all weather needs replacing and Winston Peters is no longer Racing Minister?

And has anyone looked into where the worn out all weather surface is dumped and at what cost? It is toxic waste not household garbage.

Interesting post.   I've tried to point out the obvious replacement costs - and the folly of leaving too long before so doing to save money [ which would UNDOUBTEDLY happen here ]  but the waste disposal I hadn't considered.   That may well be an issue going forward with resource consents, etc.

[Freda]

On 16/05/2020 at 8:57 PM, curious said:

No problem with the clubs merging or conducting their events at one venue if that makes economic sense but the assets of the other clubs are not required for that are they? They can mostly go back to their respective communities. Hokitika is a good example. Returned their primary asset to the community but retained enough funds to conduct meetings at another venue if they want to.

Exactly.  Good move I thought.  But they haven't got a date this time round.

[Chief Stipe]

28 minutes ago, Freda said:

Interesting post.   I've tried to point out the obvious replacement costs - and the folly of leaving too long before so doing to save money [ which would UNDOUBTEDLY happen here ]  but the waste disposal I hadn't considered.   That may well be an issue going forward with resource consents, etc.

They've created three more cash sink holes.

There seems to be no plan for the synthetic tracks to generate extra revenue for the industry.

[theshu]

No one in Australia bets on synthetic tracks,  so i would like to know how NZ thinks it will generate more betting turnover.They are a joke to watch and what about the poor guys that have  genuine wet trackers. For me  it is easy,synthetic tracks,no betting.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, theshu said:

No one in Australia bets on synthetic tracks,  so i would like to know how NZ thinks it will generate more betting turnover.They are a joke to watch and what about the poor guys that have  genuine wet trackers. For me  it is easy,synthetic tracks,no betting.

There are no plans to race on them.  It's been stated that "they may be used as back up for Industry Day's."

[nomates]

Unfortunately it's not the persons making these decisions that are going to have deal with the consequences when this goes tits up , there is enough evidence to suggest that A/W's are not the panacea that racing requires . When these tracks need the major maintenance and the funds aren't there , they then become redundant even for training . The red flags are there .

[Huey]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

There are no plans to race on them.  It's been stated that "they may be used as back up for Industry Day's."

Ok thats new,  not what I heard.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Huey said:

Ok thats new,  not what I heard.

Well Cambridge the first track to be up and running doesn't have any public facilities - does it?  Do they have the "must have" HD High-speed fibre connection?

I've heard that the one at Riccarton all that is happening is it is replacing the plough track.

Awapuni - who knows?  But given RACE Inc.'s financial situation how are they going to maintain the track?

[Chief Stipe]

15 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Cambridge Jockey Club I assume will acquire the asset of the new synthetic track.  I've attached their annual report below. 

From my reading of that report the Cambridge Jockey Club could have financed their own Synthetic track.  However they have been funded out of the Provincial Growth Fund (Peter's and Jones's lolly bag) - how does the building of the Synthetic Track add to Provincial Growth?  Over 1,000 horses a month are trained on the track - how could they fit anymore in?

 

 

BC10065250658.PDF 1.13 MB · 0 downloads

Correct accounts now attached for Cambridge Jockey Club.

 

BC10065250658.PDF

[Chief Stipe]

Mike Dillon: Expensive synthetic surface has poor track record worldwide

9 Jul, 2012 9:30am

 3 minutes to read

 

NZ Herald

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to wonder if a consensus will ever eventuate on synthetic racetrack surfaces.

They've been mucking around with them in a multimillion-dollar playground for more than two decades.

New Zealand racing is looking at developing one, two or three of them to supposedly assist with winter racing, to allow a meeting to be transferred if the original venue becomes unraceable.

But a word of warning - there has barely been one long-term successful synthetic track worldwide.

 

 

And it's not for the want of trying - or development money.

Several Californian racetracks introduced one of the many synthetics available a few years ago at a cost of around US$20 million each.

Almost exclusively those tracks have gone back to racing on dirt - one dispatching a boat to Argentina to obtain the "right" dirt. Don't ask.

Midweek in Sydney, racing's New South Wales boss Peter V'landys gave a resounding "no" to the introduction of synthetic racetracks in his state like those in use in Victoria and Queensland.

Bart Cummings is firmly on the side of V'landys. "I agree entirely," he says. "Follow American racing and you'll end up like Wall Street - broke. US tracks were bought by accountants, they introduced dirt, could only run on grass 30 times a year but they wanted to race 90 times a year."

"They couldn't give a toss about the horse. In America they race on bute, anabolics, all types of drugs, synthetic tracks aren't worth two bob, they break horses down."

Cummings is no fan of synthetic training tracks either and believes the Strathayr grass surface, which is in place at Moonee Valley, has stood the test of time "Coarse river sand is the best training surface," Cummings said. "When it rains it expands, other sand doesn't, it turns into slop, washes away and won't expand."

V'landys said there wasn't a synthetic track that "ticks all the boxes" and it wasn't worth risking an investment of tens of millions of dollars.

 

"We won't invest in synthetic tracks until they are proven and punters like them.

"Studies in international jurisdictions show horses suffer more injuries and we want to look at all the data. We have had submissions from jockeys that have said they do not want to ride on synthetic tracks in races"

Geelong's Pro-Ride synthetic track was ripped up a couple of years back because pebbles and small rocks were continually surfacing. The replacement seems an improvement, but now there are complaints about horses being unable to handle the kick-back.

The problem with transferring a meeting from a track that is too heavy is that you put winter horses looking for rain-affected footing onto a synthetic surface that is close enough to very firm. The form doesn't stand up and punters won't bet.

Caloundra's "inside" synthetic track has its followers, but punters overall are shy about betting in the same denominations as on the grass.

Even if there is no proof the synthetic form is not as good as the grass, if punters refuse to totally embrace synthetic then perception becomes reality.

Watch this space.

Quote of the week has to go to 82-year-old motor racing legend Sir Stirling Moss. Speaking to the Guardian, Sir Stirling opined: "Formula one's not a sport, it's a business now. If Lewis Hamilton wins a race he has to go speak to Vodafone. If I won I'd try and chase a bit of crumpet."

[Chief Stipe]

I hope they have their Environmental Consents sorted BEFORE they begin installation.

Pro-Ride Synthetic track composition:

6 inches of footing (sand, nylon fibres, Spandex fibres coated in a polymeric binder) on top of a 4-inch IMC layer (sand & nylon fibres) on top of a drainage system.

 

Interesting Pro-ride Australia's website doesn't seem to be operating!  prorideracing.com

[Chief Stipe]

Mmmmm not sure what type of track they are putting in at Cambridge.  The Annual Report says Pro-Ride yet news reports say Polytrack.

https://www.polytrack.com.au/surfaces/polytrack/

[Chief Stipe]

The Martin Collins Australia team had a tremendous 2019 with their final installation a 26,000sqm training track at Warwick Farm Race Course, Sydney opening just prior to Christmas. This was the 9^th track that the team completed in Australia and they are delighted to announce work has started on New Zealand's first synthetic race track at Cambridge.

The construction of a new Polytrack training surface will then develop into it being used for a trial track and then eventually a race track.

Construction began in first week of January 2020 with the track being open for training, after some testing, by July or August.

The construction will see the main Cambridge grass trial track dug up and over 10,000 square metres of Polytrack surface laid. 

It is a pivotal step in the restructuring of New Zealand racing, providing a consistent winter racing surface with the ultimate aim of ending unsuitable and dangerous waterlogged track meetings in the region, or worse, those meetings which have to be cancelled because of the extreme wet. 

Randwick (Australia) has a Polytrack surface inside its racetracks and champion NZ jockey James McDonald is a huge fan. "A lot of winners are starting to come off that Randwick Polytrack now because it is a consistent surface for them to train on," says McDonald. "And they are good to ride on."

[Chief Stipe]

Polytrack composition:

A mixture of silica sand, recycled synthetic fibers (carpet & spandex) and recycled rubber/pvc. In cold climates, the mixture may also include jelly cable (plastic insulation from copper phone wire). The entire mixture is coated with wax.    

[curious]

The other issue is sourcing the grade of silica sand required isn't it? They were thinking they may have to ship it from Oz but eventually sourced some in Northland I think. What about the South Island? That will be expensive if there is none closer.

Especially, given it needs to be topped up every 3 years and fully replaced every 7 or so as I understand it. As some have noted, disposal is also a problem. Seems to create a significant ongoing expense at a time when there is already way insufficient sustainable revenue.

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by curious

[Reefton]

59 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Correct accounts now attached for Cambridge Jockey Club.

 

BC10065250658.PDF 1.13 MB · 0 downloads

Interesting that

Haven't digested it thoroughly(no real time) but on a quick look their P&L(Profit and Loss) and notes to the financial statements(page 8) say they got an industry profit distribution of $526,555 whereas their cashflow statement( page 6 - supposed to state the actual funds received in cash) say they received industry profit distributions of $104,055.  The comparatives for the previous year show a similar variance.

Nit picking and those who live in glass houses ought to be careful about throwing stones but if I were a member I would be querying that immediately.

But regardless it shows that a quid can be made from operating a course as a training facility only.  So a lot of Bernard's bleating about how expensive it is to operate training venues.....? 

 

 

[Reefton]

Just now, Reefton said:

Interesting that

Haven't digested it thoroughly(no real time) but on a quick look their P&L(Profit and Loss) and notes to the financial statements(page 8) say they got an industry profit distribution of $526,555 whereas their cashflow statement( page 6 - supposed to state the actual funds received in cash) say they received industry profit distributions of $104,055.  The comparatives for the previous year show a similar variance.

Nit picking and those who live in glass houses ought to be careful about throwing stones but if I were a member I would be querying that immediately.

But regardless it shows that a quid can be made from operating a course as a training facility only.  So a lot of Bernard's bleating about how expensive it is to operate training venues.....? 

 

 

Actually twigged what the variance is.  The $422,500 stakes that don't go through the club's bank account(that is NZTR pay them direct)

So the Club never gets them in and never pays them out.

One wonders though what their turnover(on and off) was and what percentage of that turnover was paid out in stakes(ie what percentage was industry funded).  Say they had a $1.2m turnover(they did not mention what the turnover was)the amount funded via the Industry would be 35%.  Compare that to poor little Avondale that probably turns over $800k on a mid winter Wednesday and pays stakes of $90k - just over 11%.  Anyone spot where (some of) the inequity in NZ racing is happening? 

 

 

[All The Aces]

13 hours ago, Reefton said:

How do you know they did not "engage' and how do you know they did not have a 'group discussion'?

To suggest they did not is probably guessing.  If I were the AJC committee and had seen Ellerslie rip off their two main features and doing their level best to keep their foot right on Avondale's throat the last thing I would want to do is 'merge' with them.  Because everyone (with any sense that is so there would be a couple of exceptions on here) knows that an ARC/AJC merger would in fact be an ARC takeover(just like the CJC/NCRC situation ended up int he CJC owning everything  and the NCRC having nothing).

The naivety of some posters on here as to the reality of NZ racing's administration and the way certain factions within the industry behave is astonishing. 

 

Well if you had read what was posted earlier then you would realise that it is was not a guess. 

•  

• Report post
•  

Posted 19 hours ago

21 hours ago, curious said:

The Messara report did not recommend that they merge with ARC. It recommended they not be issued with a licence and that they should race either at Ellerslie or Pukekohe. It also recommended there assets be sold for the benefit of the industry which what they clearly are not keen on.

There is very little sign of the powers that be following the venue or for that matter many of the recommendations in the Messara report.

The point is Curious that the ARC flatly refused to engage in any discussions whatsoever of any merger etc. Merely have dug their toes in the stand and be in complete denial.  

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/113650896/the-punters-of-avondale-racecourse-are-gearing-up-for-a-fight-for-survival

 

This model is being recommended around the country, with tracks like Manawatu's Awapuni and Canterbury's Riccarton set to inherit the racedays of nearby condemned courses. The Waipa Racing Club, the Waikato Racing Club and the Cambridge Jockey Club are considering a merger that would make their respective three tracks – in Te Awamutu, Hamilton's Te Rapa, and Cambridge – obsolete.

Saundry encourages the collaboration: "Racing clubs are not competitors," he says.

"We've got enough competition for the disposable dollar from the casino, a golf club membership, or an overseas trip."

But the AJC has shunned invitations to meet with its Auckland brethren, Ellerslie's Auckland Racing Club (ARC) and Pukekohe's Counties Racing Club (CRC), to discuss their collective future, says ARC's president Paul Wilcox. He accuses the Westies of parochialism.

"We're saying 'let's get together and work as a group for the betterment of the industry as a whole', but it seems like Avondale's not wanting to come to the table."