Looking after CD owners .

[Huey]

46 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Who does benefit?  Going on the tenor of many of your posts on this Topic I guess you are saying Te Akau.  But do they have that much influence on Stake distribution?   The question is what is the process for deciding and who sits at the table.  Surely that is a transparent process?

Like everything in nzracing - absolute transparency for those that get a seat at the table.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Huey said:

Like everything in nzracing - absolute transparency for those that get a seat at the table.

But WHO sits at the Stakes carve up table?  I realise I could probably find out by diving into the wealth of documentation and information on the Luuurrve Racing website but I was hoping someone could save a few hours of my life....

Which I hope to use listening to the two+ hour racing review on SKY Sports Radio 2KY starting soon.  

[Huey]

38 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But WHO sits at the Stakes carve up table?  I realise I could probably find out by diving into the wealth of documentation and information on the Luuurrve Racing website but I was hoping someone could save a few hours of my life....

Which I hope to use listening to the two+ hour racing review on SKY Sports Radio 2KY starting soon.  

When you have people like BS who think top stakes need topping up before the lower end stakes it says everything about the industry.

Dont waste your time on a Saturday when there is great Aus racing on hand.

[Chief Stipe]

38 minutes ago, Huey said:

When you have people like BS who think top stakes need topping up before the lower end stakes it says everything about the industry.

So is Saundry making the decisions?  WHO makes the stakes distribution decision?  Saundry and George?

Why don't the rank and file trainers withdraw their horses until it changes?  Perhaps we are seeing that with all the midweek withdrawals.

[nomates]

14 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So is Saundry making the decisions?  WHO makes the stakes distribution decision?  Saundry and George?

 

I would think the board along with the executive at NZTR would decide distributions , Sherwin is on the board , would have thought he would have fought for better distribution , he has close ties with the Pike stable .

[Chief Stipe]

23 minutes ago, nomates said:

I would think the board along with the executive at NZTR would decide distributions , Sherwin is on the board , would have thought he would have fought for better distribution , he has close ties with the Pike stable .

NZTR Board

Cameron George
Bernard Saundry (ex-Officio)
Jason Fleming
Bruce Sharrock
Mike Clarke
Darryll Park
Andrew Fairgray
Bruce Sherwin

Will Sharrock be stepping down now that he is an employee?

Members Council

Paul Humphries
Geoff Vazey
Nigel Tiley
Eliott Cooper
John Thompson
Jeff McCaull
Howard Clarke
Karyn Fenton-Ellis
Bernard Hickey

CAVEAT:  Those details are from the Luurrve Racing website so might not have been changed since 1993.  

[Huey]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

NZTR Board

Cameron George
Bernard Saundry (ex-Officio)
Jason Fleming
Bruce Sharrock
Mike Clarke
Darryll Park
Andrew Fairgray
Bruce Sherwin

Will Sharrock be stepping down now that he is an employee?

Members Council

Paul Humphries
Geoff Vazey
Nigel Tiley
Eliott Cooper
John Thompson
Jeff McCaull
Howard Clarke
Karyn Fenton-Ellis
Bernard Hickey

CAVEAT:  Those details are from the Luurrve Racing website so might not have been changed since 1993.  

I don't know who they all are , but from those lists I can see why they didn't want to increase the base stakes, hey just a smaller example of the Peters money from years ago - all the same and nothing changes!

[Doomed]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

That has been said for a long time but it doesn't make sense.

The Pokie money goes straight to the RIB (what an unfortunate acronym!) and sports betting revenue goes to each sport that has a national association.

That leaves export and import of racing.  Is there that much profit from these revenue streams?

 

I thought I should mention something that a lot of people don't seem to realise, apart from Freda (not picking on you at all Chief, but you just encouraged me to post).

Everyone goes on about how stakes need to increase. Stakes are not the problem in NZ racing, in fact they are unbelievably high at present all things considered.

I thought I would look at this weekend's three meetings and compare them to 1987.

Foxbridge Plate day 1987. On course t/o $366,950; off/c $2,622,793. And that's with Jumps races. In fact, all three of these meetings had jumps races. 10 races, total stakes $103,000. Foxbridge $35,000.

This weekend, total stakes $385,000. Foxbridge $110,000. No on course t/o this year and turnovers not readily available anyhow, but I would guess in normal times this meeting would do about $60,000 on and $1.2m off. One of the things that struck me this winter whenever I watched Te Rapa races and they showed the grandstands, there was no one in them. You would have thought we were locked down then.

Wanganui 1987. On course t/o $347,388; off/c $1,803,791. 10 races. Total stakes $75,300. This weekend $305,000 for only 8 races.

Ashburton 1987. On course t/o $149,496; off/course $583,745. 10 races. Total stakes $53,000. This was only the warm up day of course to John Grigg day on the Tues. On Course t/o on Tues $227,557; off course $1,723,659. Total stakes $82,000. That included the new fangled $7,000 minimum stakes for certain meetings. This year's stakes $290,000.

So in total, stakes of $231,000 in 1987; $980,000 in 2021.

On course turnovers totalled $863,834 in 1987; off course $5,010,329. 

In normal times, this year on course would probably have been about $200,000 - $250,000 across all three meetings, and off course about $3.5m.

And remember, in 1987 these were mostly August winter meetings and people were there to watch the races not for a piss up.

I could go on and on about no RIU in 1987 with its exorbitant costs, and only a small staff at the Racing Board and NZTR running the whole show, but this would get very long and boring for most.

What I am getting at is that the outgoings for the industry continue to increase while incomings continue to decline. Current stakes levels are extraordinary given the lack of interest in local racing. I am sure those who keep saying increased stakes will save the industry haven't thought through were this money is going to come from.

Back in the 80s and 90s clubs that did an exceptionally low on course t/o for a meeting were asked to explain why it was so low. These days, I doubt anyone cares.

[Chief Stipe]

29 minutes ago, Doomed said:

What I am getting at is that the outgoings for the industry continue to increase while incomings continue to decline. Current stakes levels are extraordinary given the lack of interest in local racing. I am sure those who keep saying increased stakes will save the industry haven't thought through were this money is going to come from.

I don't believe the current stakes levels are extraordinary.  In real terms they are no more than 1987 if not less when looking across the complete range of race stakes.  The issue is that the distribution has been skewed more and more to the Grp and listed racing.

My beef with stakes (oh the pun!) is that they keep topping up the top end for no financial gain nor increase in field quality.  In fact the latter is declining no matter how much money they throw at them.  The problem is the stake levels at the feeder levels - the lower grades.  There is just no incentive to keep a decent gelding in racing.  If you get an offer from Hong Kong, Singapore and increasingly Australia you sell. 

[Chief Stipe]

32 minutes ago, Doomed said:

Back in the 80s and 90s clubs that did an exceptionally low on course t/o for a meeting were asked to explain why it was so low. These days, I doubt anyone cares.

On course turnover doesn't matter as a financial measure any more other than an indication of how many people were on course but in saying that a better measure would be counting the people not the money wagered.

It is very difficult to measure on-course turnover without some sophistication in the recording of where bets are coming from.  Many people now use their smart phone and the TAB app to bet rather than going to a tote window.  Why queue and walk some distance for a bet when you don't have to?

[Huey]

35 minutes ago, Doomed said:

I thought I should mention something that a lot of people don't seem to realise, apart from Freda (not picking on you at all Chief, but you just encouraged me to post).

Everyone goes on about how stakes need to increase. Stakes are not the problem in NZ racing, in fact they are unbelievably high at present all things considered.

I thought I would look at this weekend's three meetings and compare them to 1987.

Foxbridge Plate day 1987. On course t/o $366,950; off/c $2,622,793. And that's with Jumps races. In fact, all three of these meetings had jumps races. 10 races, total stakes $103,000. Foxbridge $35,000.

This weekend, total stakes $385,000. Foxbridge $110,000. No on course t/o this year and turnovers not readily available anyhow, but I would guess in normal times this meeting would do about $60,000 on and $1.2m off. One of the things that struck me this winter whenever I watched Te Rapa races and they showed the grandstands, there was no one in them. You would have thought we were locked down then.

Wanganui 1987. On course t/o $347,388; off/c $1,803,791. 10 races. Total stakes $75,300. This weekend $305,000 for only 8 races.

Ashburton 1987. On course t/o $149,496; off/course $583,745. 10 races. Total stakes $53,000. This was only the warm up day of course to John Grigg day on the Tues. On Course t/o on Tues $227,557; off course $1,723,659. Total stakes $82,000. That included the new fangled $7,000 minimum stakes for certain meetings. This year's stakes $290,000.

So in total, stakes of $231,000 in 1987; $980,000 in 2021.

On course turnovers totalled $863,834 in 1987; off course $5,010,329. 

In normal times, this year on course would probably have been about $200,000 - $250,000 across all three meetings, and off course about $3.5m.

And remember, in 1987 these were mostly August winter meetings and people were there to watch the races not for a piss up.

I could go on and on about no RIU in 1987 with its exorbitant costs, and only a small staff at the Racing Board and NZTR running the whole show, but this would get very long and boring for most.

What I am getting at is that the outgoings for the industry continue to increase while incomings continue to decline. Current stakes levels are extraordinary given the lack of interest in local racing. I am sure those who keep saying increased stakes will save the industry haven't thought through were this money is going to come from.

Back in the 80s and 90s clubs that did an exceptionally low on course t/o for a meeting were asked to explain why it was so low. These days, I doubt anyone cares.

Certainly take your point regarding the interest in the local product, however my beef is with the distribution of the stakes. Throwing money about for so called Premier or Feature meetings etc won't solve the industry woes, it needs a better spread for the very reason I've mentioned i.e. no interest in the local product.

It won't happen though as evidenced by the names mentioned and many many of the decisions being made amongst them the over reliance on the AWTs - just can't for the life of me see how they are good for the industry apart from as a preparation tool (but surely there were cheaper options available if that was the case) , I'm not hearing anyone saying they are loving punting on them either - thats a worry no matter what the powers that be say. - But I'm digressing!

[Chief Stipe]

35 minutes ago, Doomed said:

What I am getting at is that the outgoings for the industry continue to increase while incomings continue to decline. Current stakes levels are extraordinary given the lack of interest in local racing. I am sure those who keep saying increased stakes will save the industry haven't thought through were this money is going to come from.

 

I'll reiterate I'm not advocating that increasing stakes is the cure all but that a better distribution should happen.  You are correct the stakes on offer at Premier meetings are "extraordinary" but that is at the expense of all the other meetings which have lower stakes and whose revenue is used to subsidise the top end.  

[nomates]

27 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I'll reiterate I'm not advocating that increasing stakes is the cure all but that a better distribution should happen.  You are correct the stakes on offer at Premier meetings are "extraordinary" but that is at the expense of all the other meetings which have lower stakes and whose revenue is used to subsidise the top end.  

And it means a very small percentage of horses , hence owners are getting most of the pie , Australia has worked that one out , that is why most races most days are the same or similar stakes over there . The good ones get their opportunity in the better races .

[Chief Stipe]

15 minutes ago, nomates said:

And it means a very small percentage of horses , hence owners are getting most of the pie , Australia has worked that one out , that is why most races most days are the same or similar stakes over there . The good ones get their opportunity in the better races .

Exactly.  I've noticed that when doing my track by track analysis across Australia.  Each State is following the same policy.  So winning a maiden is the same as an R65.  When you consider how much money is sunk into a maiden before you get it to the races there is a good argument that the stakes for a maiden should be more than an R65!!

[nomates]

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Exactly.  I've noticed that when doing my track by track analysis across Australia.  Each State is following the same policy.  So winning a maiden is the same as an R65.  When you consider how much money is sunk into a maiden before you get it to the races there is a good argument that the stakes for a maiden should be more than an R65!!

They treat it like a disease if you own and race a lower grade horse in NZ , yet they are the meat and bones of the industry .

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, nomates said:

They treat it like a disease if you own and race a lower grade horse in NZ , yet they are the meat and bones of the industry .

They are actually the future as well.  The idiots haven't worked out that they should turn the stakes funnel up the other way and that you might find that the quality of the top gets wider and you have more revenue.

I just watched the Herbie Dyke.  Embarrassing the quality of that lot racing for $60k.   I bet there are a few in there that won't win a maiden.  Those that do will be on an export plane within a week.

[nomates]

Another hurdle race for 20k at Te Aroha today , 4 runners . 

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, nomates said:

Another hurdle race for 20k at Te Aroha today , 4 runners . 

You realise what some will say....."Just goes to show you it isn't all about stakes.  A $20k hurdle race at Te Aroha and only 4 can be bothered to turn up".

Is there a time limit on a hurdle race?  I mean if you were out of contention and running 4th with a 1000m to go you would canter as much as you could, try and nail every jump, finish and collect $750.  

It isn't really $20k is it though?  More like $18,200 as $1,800 won't be paid out.

If they don't all get round and finish it will be a big saver!  Not that a 4 horse hurdle field will attract much punting.  Then again $1:40 fixed odds on the favourite....could be a good multiple multiplier.

[nomates]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

You realise what some will say....."Just goes to show you it isn't all about stakes.  A $20k hurdle race at Te Aroha and only 4 can be bothered to turn up".

Is there a time limit on a hurdle race?  I mean if you were out of contention and running 4th with a 1000m to go you would canter as much as you could, try and nail every jump, finish and collect $750.  

It isn't really $20k is it though?  More like $18,200 as $1,800 won't be paid out.

There is a time limit on finishing , continuing on for a stake would come down to horse welfare issue if the horse was clearly not right .

$1800 saved for the industry , i didn't think it through , should never have raised it .

[Chief Stipe]

14 minutes ago, nomates said:

$1800 saved for the industry , i didn't think it through , should never have raised it .

I was taking the piss.  Just think though, the revenue margin on the race will improve if 4 horses start and only one finishes.  Mind you TAB NZ would be silly enough to offer odds on how many finish which is no different to two horse head to head options.

[Chief Stipe]

Speaking of taking the piss.....a bit of humour to start the day off....