Jump to content
Bit Of A Yarn

Debate of Funding Policy. O'Brien versus Holden. All welcome


Mikie

Recommended Posts

Open letter to Mr Phil Holden

Dear Mr Holden

I have been involved in Harness Racing for over 47 years. In that time HRNZ had serious issues under Max Bowden's chairmanship but they were nothing compared to the mess you and your Board are leading us into now

To be blunt your statement that you are keen to 'improve communication, transparency and accountability to everyone in the Industry" is absolute rubbish. My guess is there is a web page under Google somewhere that has a list of things to say to make yourself sound intelligent and you have worked your way through the top 100 phrases and have started at the top again

Under the present Board and yourself we have been subjected to outright lies, no transparency, a plethora of dribble from yourself, a flawed Funding Policy that I don't believe you even understand, reactionary responses to crisis's, incompetence, self-serving decisions, favouritism and a lack of consultation

The really scary thing is that unlike back in Max Bowden's day we now don't appear to have any Ralph Kermodes, Jim Wakefields or Pat O'Briens (yes, my Dad) to comein and rescue us. To be blunt, I think we are in deep doo doos

Let's start

Lack of transparency and Consultation: Your appointment, both temporary and now permanent. Never advertised. Where is the transparency in that? Where is any consultation?

Lies: Well, let's continue with your appointment shall we? Board member asked last Sunday a direct question, "has Phil Holden been appointed full-time without the job being advertised?" Response was "no, that's totally incorrect" Next day on a Zoom meeting Ken Spicer advises that you have been appointed full-time (I use those words with great reluctance)/ Mr Spicer had already told all the HRNZ staff last week that you had been appointed permanently

We can also add your comments on Changes to the Voting Model in the Industry update dated 17 August 2020 wher you said that "work on the model started as soon as the 2020/21 meeting dates were finalised as HRNZ recognised that a review was needed to protect the voting position of some Clubs....'. Do you really think anyone believes that? Seriously? My take is that you or the Board hadn't even given it a thought until John Rogers from the Westport Club started firing off emails about it. My guess is that the special Board meeting called for last Sunday at 4pm, before the Zoom meeting on Monday, was to get your ducks in order

Incompetence: Sorry Mr Holden, but you are the one conducting staged interviews so you have to weather any incompetence that occurs. Let's start with your interview on 07.08.20 with Dave Di Somma. You stated that HRNZ Funding was down by 7%. This is crap. Your funding is up by over $800,000 and that's after having to give $900,000 to the Greyhounds to make up for last season's poor performance betting wise. How can we have any confidence in you if you don't know the difference between a decrease and an increase.

You also touched on the TAB funding in arrears. You gave the impression that you were the Great White Knight battling the evil forces. Again this is crap. The reason that HRNZ has cashflow issues is because of your flawed Funding Policy. You are giving ATC (and NZMTC) $15,000 per race funding when they don't earn that much. Put simply, you are waiting for country Clubs to start racing so that you can pay them $9000 a race and divert the layers above that that they earn to your pet Clubs. It's quite simple

Self-Serving Decisions:  Your new Training Track Policy. Is it just a crazy coincidence that every Club represented at HRNZ Board level gets a Training Track grant (including Banks Peninsula) Perhaps I'm being too harsh here .... but wait, aren't you giving over $100,000 to Addington as recognition of the many horses trained at the Track? Yeah, right. Tell me, why don't Mark Purdon or Robert Dunn get a payment? They train more horses on their property's than Banks Peninsula. If the rationale is to compensate for the costs of providing product then i can see no reasoning why trainers shouldn't get the same treatment

Favouritism: I have nothing against NZMTC but bloody hell, who is tupping who here?  You give them $15,000 a race Funding as compared to every other Club (bar ATC) at $9000, then you give them more $ for Group and Listed races, then you chuck in the $100,000 plus Training Track Grant, and then you give them another $1,000,000 for Cup Week? This isn't being generous, this is being absolutely nuts

Your Dribble:  It's hard to know where to star. I have already mentioned your incompetence in the interview on 07.08.20

What else? Oh I know, the Code and Funding Policy document dated 17.08.20. Congratulations, you have produced a 13 page document that's managed to kill off a few trees. Page #1 has 5 words on it other than the date and the logo, Page #2 has just the 4 words. Page #3 you spread your wings a bit, 47 words (bit worried about this page's adding, you seem to be able to say you paid out $41m when you only received $37.9m, but there may be an answer and I don't have the time to look into it further. It's also hard without any Spreadsheets, but that's just more of a lack of transparency isn't it?). Page #10 is a ripper, 2 words, yes 2 words only. The whole document could have fitted on 2 A4 pages Mr Holden. Why do you feel the need to make it into a novel? Oh oh, found the answer on that Google page, item #9 "in order to fool 95% of the people work on the following ratios, 5 pages for every 100 words, and when speaking 20 words instead of 2'. With this mantra you'll be right the guide says

Why did you feel the need to write to a number of Clubs so that you could "better understand their cost base, their meeting profitability, their operating costs"?  Bloody hell, HRNZ has had every Club's Annual Accounts for years and they were all standardised so that you could access this information.. Can't you analyse a set of Annual Accounts?

Your reactionary Policys:  6 weeks ago you didn't want to give the Marlborough HRC any dates before you changed your mind. Now they are a "Club with an Iconic date'? (Document as above17.08.20)   Along with the NZ Cup meeting, Kaikoura, Omakau, Westport and (of course) Banks Peninsula.  What hogwash. All those Clubs (bar BPTC) screamed the most so all you are going to do is cream a few % (5%) of the handouts you give to NZMTC and ATC to shut these smaller Clubs up.  Wonder what you'll do if every Club screams?

Your Contract: I don't know but I will bet that your Cotract is at a higher figure than the last 2 CEO's and you will have written your own severance package clause that will make Antony Siebold's possible 4 year payout at the NRL Brisbane Broncos look like  a kid's piggy bank account. Your comment that 2 days in HRNZ Offices is just dandy because on some other days you'll pop into TAB Petone is laughable. Your assertaion that that would be a benefit to HRNZ didn't really occur over dates did it?

The Funding Policy:  I do not believe that you understand your own Funding Policy one little bit. How much input did you have as compared to Ms Bishop?

I won't go into it chapter and verse here but I challenge you to an open debate as regards the 20/21 Funding Policy.

I was going to say you can have you/Spicer/Bishop on your team and I'll have me/Doug Gale/John Rogers but that would just be unfair on you

Tell you what, you/Bishop against just me

All I need to be provided with is Club Funding Spreadsheets for the last 3 years, plus the Spreadsheet proposed for 20/21 (assuming that you've done one that is), and 24 hours notice

I await your reply

Mike

 

  • Champ Post 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mikie said:

Mike

Good on you. Well done.

This stuff needs to be addressed. Not just a 6 minute chatting with the Chief propaganda message. You will most likely not get a reply but if you did it would be an 'all concerns need to be addressed through the proper channels' and a 'these are very difficult times and unity from all participants is needed to progress forward towards a sustainable model in the future' response.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy

You’ve found that Google page

What about” there are a myriad of issues to consider, with many wide ranging repercussions, that deserve more time to be traversed than the 10 minutes we have available. Rest assured, my primary focus is to ensure that we all band together, we move forward united in our endeavours, whist at the same time I ensure that there is great communication, transparency and a plan for the future”

Translation

”I’ve been appointed now you tossers, you can’t get rid of me unless you pay me out 3 years salary, I can’t be bothered with you, pass me the sausage rolls and fook off”

Mikie

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikie said:

Open letter to Mr Phil Holden

Dear Mr Holden

I have been involved in Harness Racing for over 47 years. In that time HRNZ had serious issues under Max Bowden's chairmanship but they were nothing compared to the mess you and your Board are leading us into now

To be blunt your statement that you are keen to 'improve communication, transparency and accountability to everyone in the Industry" is absolute rubbish. My guess is there is a web page under Google somewhere that has a list of things to say to make yourself sound intelligent and you have worked your way through the top 100 phrases and have started at the top again

Under the present Board and yourself we have been subjected to outright lies, no transparency, a plethora of dribble from yourself, a flawed Funding Policy that I don't believe you even understand, reactionary responses to crisis's, incompetence, self-serving decisions, favouritism and a lack of consultation

The really scary thing is that unlike back in Max Bowden's day we now don't appear to have any Ralph Kermodes, Jim Wakefields or Pat O'Briens (yes, my Dad) to comein and rescue us. To be blunt, I think we are in deep doo doos

Let's start

Lack of transparency and Consultation: Your appointment, both temporary and now permanent. Never advertised. Where is the transparency in that? Where is any consultation?

Lies: Well, let's continue with your appointment shall we? Board member asked last Sunday a direct question, "has Phil Holden been appointed full-time without the job being advertised?" Response was "no, that's totally incorrect" Next day on a Zoom meeting Ken Spicer advises that you have been appointed full-time (I use those words with great reluctance)/ Mr Spicer had already told all the HRNZ staff last week that you had been appointed permanently

We can also add your comments on Changes to the Voting Model in the Industry update dated 17 August 2020 wher you said that "work on the model started as soon as the 2020/21 meeting dates were finalised as HRNZ recognised that a review was needed to protect the voting position of some Clubs....'. Do you really think anyone believes that? Seriously? My take is that you or the Board hadn't even given it a thought until John Rogers from the Westport Club started firing off emails about it. My guess is that the special Board meeting called for last Sunday at 4pm, before the Zoom meeting on Monday, was to get your ducks in order

Incompetence: Sorry Mr Holden, but you are the one conducting staged interviews so you have to weather any incompetence that occurs. Let's start with your interview on 07.08.20 with Dave Di Somma. You stated that HRNZ Funding was down by 7%. This is crap. Your funding is up by over $800,000 and that's after having to give $900,000 to the Greyhounds to make up for last season's poor performance betting wise. How can we have any confidence in you if you don't know the difference between a decrease and an increase.

You also touched on the TAB funding in arrears. You gave the impression that you were the Great White Knight battling the evil forces. Again this is crap. The reason that HRNZ has cashflow issues is because of your flawed Funding Policy. You are giving ATC (and NZMTC) $15,000 per race funding when they don't earn that much. Put simply, you are waiting for country Clubs to start racing so that you can pay them $9000 a race and divert the layers above that that they earn to your pet Clubs. It's quite simple

Self-Serving Decisions:  Your new Training Track Policy. Is it just a crazy coincidence that every Club represented at HRNZ Board level gets a Training Track grant (including Banks Peninsula) Perhaps I'm being too harsh here .... but wait, aren't you giving over $100,000 to Addington as recognition of the many horses trained at the Track? Yeah, right. Tell me, why don't Mark Purdon or Robert Dunn get a payment? They train more horses on their property's than Banks Peninsula. If the rationale is to compensate for the costs of providing product then i can see no reasoning why trainers shouldn't get the same treatment

Favouritism: I have nothing against NZMTC but bloody hell, who is tupping who here?  You give them $15,000 a race Funding as compared to every other Club (bar ATC) at $9000, then you give them more $ for Group and Listed races, then you chuck in the $100,000 plus Training Track Grant, and then you give them another $1,000,000 for Cup Week? This isn't being generous, this is being absolutely nuts

Your Dribble:  It's hard to know where to star. I have already mentioned your incompetence in the interview on 07.08.20

What else? Oh I know, the Code and Funding Policy document dated 17.08.20. Congratulations, you have produced a 13 page document that's managed to kill off a few trees. Page #1 has 5 words on it other than the date and the logo, Page #2 has just the 4 words. Page #3 you spread your wings a bit, 47 words (bit worried about this page's adding, you seem to be able to say you paid out $41m when you only received $37.9m, but there may be an answer and I don't have the time to look into it further. It's also hard without any Spreadsheets, but that's just more of a lack of transparency isn't it?). Page #10 is a ripper, 2 words, yes 2 words only. The whole document could have fitted on 2 A4 pages Mr Holden. Why do you feel the need to make it into a novel? Oh oh, found the answer on that Google page, item #9 "in order to fool 95% of the people work on the following ratios, 5 pages for every 100 words, and when speaking 20 words instead of 2'. With this mantra you'll be right the guide says

Why did you feel the need to write to a number of Clubs so that you could "better understand their cost base, their meeting profitability, their operating costs"?  Bloody hell, HRNZ has had every Club's Annual Accounts for years and they were all standardised so that you could access this information.. Can't you analyse a set of Annual Accounts?

Your reactionary Policys:  6 weeks ago you didn't want to give the Marlborough HRC any dates before you changed your mind. Now they are a "Club with an Iconic date'? (Document as above17.08.20)   Along with the NZ Cup meeting, Kaikoura, Omakau, Westport and (of course) Banks Peninsula.  What hogwash. All those Clubs (bar BPTC) screamed the most so all you are going to do is cream a few % (5%) of the handouts you give to NZMTC and ATC to shut these smaller Clubs up.  Wonder what you'll do if every Club screams?

Your Contract: I don't know but I will bet that your Cotract is at a higher figure than the last 2 CEO's and you will have written your own severance package clause that will make Antony Siebold's possible 4 year payout at the NRL Brisbane Broncos look like  a kid's piggy bank account. Your comment that 2 days in HRNZ Offices is just dandy because on some other days you'll pop into TAB Petone is laughable. Your assertaion that that would be a benefit to HRNZ didn't really occur over dates did it?

The Funding Policy:  I do not believe that you understand your own Funding Policy one little bit. How much input did you have as compared to Ms Bishop?

I won't go into it chapter and verse here but I challenge you to an open debate as regards the 20/21 Funding Policy.

I was going to say you can have you/Spicer/Bishop on your team and I'll have me/Doug Gale/John Rogers but that would just be unfair on you

Tell you what, you/Bishop against just me

All I need to be provided with is Club Funding Spreadsheets for the last 3 years, plus the Spreadsheet proposed for 20/21 (assuming that you've done one that is), and 24 hours notice

I await your reply

 

Some of the decisions seen recently have been mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to know is how on earth are they able to be paying out $15k for each harness race?

That seems a helluva lot, when turnover is much reduced by TAB restrictions and shutting everything down!

This is a financially flawed budget, but I doubt they can see this!

Unfortunately Harness Racing is in a very precarious position currently, and appointing a CEO with no success is not going to help.

Unless someone who knows Mr Holden can come on and explain his success’s!

Silence will mean doom!,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brodie said:

What I want to know is how on earth are they able to be paying out $15k for each harness race?

That seems a helluva lot, when turnover is much reduced by TAB restrictions and shutting everything down!

This is a financially flawed budget, but I doubt they can see this!

Unfortunately Harness Racing is in a very precarious position currently, and appointing a CEO with no success is not going to help.

Unless someone who knows Mr Holden can come on and explain his success’s!

Silence will mean doom!,

“Brodie”

It is pretty simple, they can fund $15k to the 2 Clubs by funding other Clubs just $9k a race

It is Robin Hood in reverse

I have done an analysis of one 2 day Club (not Marlborough) and their funding, before screaming blue murder, was down 25%

Since they were already making a loss I have calculated that their reserves will be eaten up in 2 years unless they cut stakes

I am predicting that a country Club that pays, say, $10k maiden stakes will have to reduce their stakes over this season and the following 2 seasons to $6k for maidens

Where Holden and his mates are so thick is that if every Country Club was forced under they would have no avenue to redirect the income from such Clubs. Then what are they going to do

As a rough rule of thumb Westport on a Boxing Day produce 2.5 the income to the Harness Industry per race than the ATC do on a Friday night racing against the Met

You’re not restricted with me, I’ll bet you $200 Mr Holden does not agree to a live debate with an audience

Mikie

 

Edited by Mikie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikie, with your experience  of admin etc. for harness facing, you have analysed the funding pretty closely I would imagine!

However, even allowing for reduced payments to the non metropolitan clubs, i am struggling to see how $15k can be afforded to pay out, with a struggling TAB turnover?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brodie said:

Mikie, with your experience  of admin etc. for harness facing, you have analysed the funding pretty closely I would imagine!

However, even allowing for reduced payments to the non metropolitan clubs, i am struggling to see how $15k can be afforded to pay out, with a struggling TAB turnover?

I agree.  It is the same tiered stakes bullshit that the Thoroughbreds have been operating under.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brodie said:

Mikie, with your experience  of admin etc. for harness facing, you have analysed the funding pretty closely I would imagine!

However, even allowing for reduced payments to the non metropolitan clubs, i am struggling to see how $15k can be afforded to pay out, with a struggling TAB turnover?

It can, by stuffing every other every other Club but 2 (possibly 3, Cambridge)

It's possible, but it will just root our Industry

Mikie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

I'm willing to work 6 days a week as long as it is in my employment agreement that my attendance one day a week at a harness race meeting is considered a work day.

There you go I would triple output instantly.

Plus you would be a huge asset at any debate as Iv'e assumed you can count to 41

Mikie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mikie said:

Plus you would be a huge asset at any debate as Iv'e assumed you can count to 41

Mikie

41 hours a week?

I'm not sure what the 41 refers to.  But having worked in a harness stable - 5am starts in -7 degree frosts - and doing the final feed at 5pm I know that 41 hours a week is on the light side for any dedicated harness trainer.  Being a stable outside of the main centres the local race meetings were always looked forward to.  We'd put the young horses and those early in training out for a few days to accommodate a few trainers from down South.  Great friends, great times and in my opinion the heart of harness racing.

LOL the RIU would have loved to have heard our smoko conversations with the visiting crew!!  No skulduggery or illegal activity just realistic assessments of the upcoming races.  Who had a chance who didn't.  Oh boy do I miss those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mikie said:

You stated that HRNZ Funding was down by 7%. This is crap. Your funding is up by over $800,000 and that's after having to give $900,000 to the Greyhounds to make up for last season's poor performance betting wise. How can we have any confidence in you if you don't know the difference between a decrease and an increase.

Well now I'm confused.

After listening to Phil Holden I thought the following was true

a- Funding to the three codes will be the same in total  this financial year as last year

b- Harness will receive 7% less of that  funding  because of loss of turnover to Greyhounds

c- This would equate to Harness receiving $1million less in the current year. (stated by the CEO)

You seem to be saying Harness will actually receive $800k  more than last year. If that is true it certainly wasn't explained well by the CEO.

No disrespect to you Mikie, I think you are raising many critical points,   but I am finding it difficult to understand how, if funding to the 3 codes in total has remained the same as last year  and Harness is to get 7% less how to we end up getting $800k more.

I'm not having a "go" at anyone, just trying to make sense  of the contradictory information that seems to be out there.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

41 hours a week?

I'm not sure what the 41 refers to.  But having worked in a harness stable - 5am starts in -7 degree frosts - and doing the final feed at 5pm I know that 41 hours a week is on the light side for any dedicated harness trainer.  Being a stable outside of the main centres the local race meetings were always looked forward to.  We'd put the young horses and those early in training out for a few days to accommodate a few trainers from down South.  Great friends, great times and in my opinion the heart of harness racing.

LOL the RIU would have loved to have heard our smoko conversations with the visiting crew!!  No skulduggery or illegal activity just realistic assessments of the upcoming races.  Who had a chance who didn't.  Oh boy do I miss those days.

No Chief

41 refers to $41million on page #3 of the Club & Code Funding Document as attached

There may well be a simple answer, but to a lot of people it doesn't add up by $3.1million

I understand Clubs have actually emailed HRNZ asking for clarification

Mikie

BIT.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, With A Dream said:

Well now I'm confused.

After listening to Phil Holden I thought the following was true

a- Funding to the three codes will be the same in total  this financial year as last year

b- Harness will receive 7% less of that  funding  because of loss of turnover to Greyhounds

c- This would equate to Harness receiving $1million less in the current year. (stated by the CEO)

You seem to be saying Harness will actually receive $800k  more than last year. If that is true it certainly wasn't explained well by the CEO.

No disrespect to you Mikie, I think you are raising many critical points,   but I am finding it difficult to understand how, if funding to the 3 codes in total has remained the same as last year  and Harness is to get 7% less how to we end up getting $800k more.

I'm not having a "go" at anyone, just trying to make sense  of the contradictory information that seems to be out there.

 

It's quite simple With A Dream

Mr Holden made a complete cockup

Harness is getting $800,000 (think it's $823,000) more than last year

The only one confusing you is Mr Holden

Mikie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mikie said:

It's quite simple With A Dream

Mr Holden made a complete cockup

Harness is getting $800,000 (think it's $823,000) more than last year

The only one confusing you is Mr Holden

Mikie

Where did you find last season's funding figure?  I can't find it on the HRNZ and RITA gives us diddly squat under the new regime.

The #41 .....

image.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Where did you find last season's funding figure?  I can't find it on the HRNZ and RITA gives us diddly squat under the new regime.

The #41 .....

image.png

 

Chief

(1) In 19/20 Harness was to receive $44,800,000 less Trackside and Venue Service Recoveries of $4,800,000 resulting in a round $40,000,000

This season the figure that Harness is to receive is $40,823,000 and I'm sure that's after giving the Greyhounds a $900,000 payment

That's not a 7% decrease

That's a 2.1% Increase

(2) The page #3 above

As I've said I haven't delved into it too deeply but $41.6m less $4m plus $0.3m= $37.9million, not $41m

Did HRNZ have reserves they dug into? I don't think so and if they did then the 13 pages isn't very transparent is it?

What about the notion that HRNZ overspent last year by $3.1m?  Sounds like amateur hour and unbelievable but nothing is surprising me any more. We could tell if we had the current season's Club Spreadsheet of funding but (a) they are still altering it depending on the decibel of the screaming and (b) it's a secret (what happened to transparency again?)

Mikie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Add to that the Gambling Commission's decision on Wilsons Bar and TAB which would have resulted in a loss of stake money - would it not?

No, the loss of Wilson’s Bar would not have resulted in a loss of stake money as I don’t think any ever flowed from there. They would have lost plenty on the fire sale though, my guess is between 50%. and 75% of what they paid for the Bar will be written off

Other Bars will probably also be sold and they will lead to a lost funding avenue 

They got greedy and went to the well once to often but for that I’m not castigating them. Hindsight is a wonderful thing 

Mikie

 

 

Edited by Mikie
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...