NZTR Consultation Document: Favours "Elite" Trainers!

[Joe Bloggs]

FWIW, why not a licensing dept with maybe 3, [neg] and 1 boss, each and every licence application to be treated on it's merits? Criteria in general; Experience, financial standing, Police check.........like it is here in most states, not rocket science is it? NSW used to have an edict, first timers had to begin their career in the Province's, Like Hawkesbury, Gosford, Wyong, Kembla etc......most accepted that, we had exceptions like Mark Newnham, he had done 20 odd years as a jockey and right hand man for Gai Waterhouse, however even Mark who lived at Mascot had to begin at W Farm, a hard slog of a drive across town back and forth 4 times a day, 3 in peak traffic........he did that gladly.

It needs a licensing person who knows their stuff, I'm not saying an ex-trainer, but someone who is close enough yet divorced from making biased decisions......racing needs a massive overhaul, but self preservation is a precious thing, if I was a bookmaker framing a market on voluntary redundancies Petone would be 100-1.......sadly.

[Doomed]

35 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

None of this will address the key issues - race programming, track quality and safety, race handicapping....those things that help produce a quality product that the punter wants to invest on that then generates stakes.

I might add that the amateur hobbyist enthusiast trainer doesn't have a sausage roll warmer.

Those things are all too hard, and you need racing knowledge, and not as much fun as adding another level of bureaucracy.

[Doomed]

40 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

"....full-time professional trainers...produce the majority of our starters..."  then they say "High performing professional trainers will not have to compete against those who have a lower cost operating model".  

 

I thought the whole point of horse racing was the competitive aspect?

The high performing professional trainers have access to the big owners and syndicates and the $500,000 horses while the smaller trainers have to rely on $2,000 gavel house horses, so they need a lower cost operating model. Increase the compliance costs for the smaller, up and coming trainers and they won't survive.

The one thing that often impresses me about NZ racing is the young trainers you see interviewed after they have won a race and you hear they only have 3 or 4 horses and they have only been training for a year or two. I often think this person speaks well and sounds intelligent, and this is the future of racing in NZ.

[Chief Stipe]

15 minutes ago, Doomed said:

I thought the whole point of horse racing was the competitive aspect?

The high performing professional trainers have access to the big owners and syndicates and the $500,000 horses while the smaller trainers have to rely on $2,000 gavel house horses, so they need a lower cost operating model. Increase the compliance costs for the smaller, up and coming trainers and they won't survive.

The one thing that often impresses me about NZ racing is the young trainers you see interviewed after they have won a race and you hear they only have 3 or 4 horses and they have only been training for a year or two. I often think this person speaks well and sounds intelligent, and this is the future of racing in NZ.

They should be lowering the barriers to entry and lowering compliance costs not raising the bar higher.  If there are issues with compliance currently then that is the administrators and an RIB issue not the rules.  If they can't manage what they currently do making more rules isn't going to fix that.

[Huey]

6 hours ago, Kihikihi Kid said:

All the proposals sound fine -be funny if all the 'elite trainers' broke away and started their own renegade operation.

NZTR may have sown the seed on their own demise 

Airy fairy stuff  I know but we live in hope ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They wouldn't care, they aren't racing people , thye don't really give a hoot but the industry and they'd just move on to the next show in town.

[Huey]

Like most people I'd like to know what this lower cost model some trainers are supposed to be benefiting from is?

Does it mean someone who owns their own land , has their kids ride work for them or owns their own stallion has lower costs ? What exactly is this model?

 

[Huey]

6 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

None of this will address the key issues - race programming, track quality and safety, race handicapping....those things that help produce a quality product that the punter wants to invest on that then generates stakes.

I might add that the amateur hobbyist enthusiast trainer doesn't have a sausage roll warmer.

It's quintessential NZTR isn't it, focus on something that may need addressing ahead of tackling the industry real problems. 

 

[Doomed]

7 minutes ago, Huey said:

Like most people I'd like to know what this lower cost model some trainers are supposed to be benefiting from is?

Does it mean someone who owns their own land , has their kids ride work for them or owns their own stallion has lower costs ? What exactly is this model?

 

NZTR should be asking these lower cost trainers how they do it, and why. There might be lessons there for the big players.

[Huey]

Just now, Doomed said:

NZTR should be asking these lower cost trainers how they do it, and why. There might be lessons there for the big players.

They don't ask questions , they only listen and by the looks of it only to the elite trainers.

 

[Huey]

6 hours ago, Doomed said:

 

The one thing that often impresses me about NZ racing is the young trainers you see interviewed after they have won a race and you hear they only have 3 or 4 horses and they have only been training for a year or two. I often think this person speaks well and sounds intelligent, and this is the future of racing in NZ.

NZTR probably expect the young trainers to come through partnerships like Wellwood, Mckay and a number of others have or to fall into the TA model.

This of course will kill off a lot the interest many people have in racing in this country i.e. following local horses of a smaller trainer etc the more one looks at it the more of a disaster it looks to be.

[Guest Whyisit]

3 hours ago, Huey said:

NZTR probably expect the young trainers to come through partnerships like Wellwood, Mckay and a number of others have or to fall into the TA model.

This of course will kill off a lot the interest many people have in racing in this country i.e. following local horses of a smaller trainer etc the more one looks at it the more of a disaster it looks to be.

Mmm….what happens when everybody gets put into the Public Trainer category .I understand the class b trainers Were allowed to have job as their main source of income .Will that be enforced to them having the training to be their source of income or be relegated to the private trainer and only training for themselves. 
 

[Freda]

Notwithstanding all the other ramifications of these proposed changes, this particular idea merely returns classifications to yesteryear.

Public trainers and owner- trainers were the only categories then.

I well recall the resistance to the idea of the permit-holder, when it was brought in.

Objections from the Trainers ' Assn branch that I was involved with ( Canterbury/Westland ) included worries about undercutting fees, and dropping standards of service.   Also, the training of young folk, either potential trainers or apprentice jockeys,  was going to be compromised. 

Subsequently,  permit-holders were not allowed to have apprentices, but that has, like many rules/standards,  has been slowly eroded and now we find apprentices being indentured to trainers who are away at their main job for the day.

I wonder, however,  where the likes of say, Lance Noble fits?  Essentially now a private trainer for the Lindsays/Cambridge Stud, but certainly a professional of good repute for a long time. 

And where does Te Akau fit?  Multiple owners, yes, but the 'operation'  is all-encompassing,  so Jamie could, at a stretch,  be a 'private ' trainer himself. 

Typically,  little thought put into terminology and ramifications thereof.  

As J.B says, young trainers over the ditch were steered towards the more provincial tracks, with only A class trainers permitted stabling at the main city tracks.  I don't know whether that was a specific policy,  or whether the cost of such stabling meant that the provincial/country option is simply more suitable for one starting out.

 Clearly,  with country and provincial tracks in NZ getting squeezed out both by attrition and policy,  that option won't be available for new trainers here.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Freda

[curious]

Yes. It doesn't seem at all well thought out. Presumably, permit (currently Class B) trainers will have to apply for professional licences if they want to continue to take outside horses. That just means that they won't have the six horse limit anymore. If they are intending to revert to applying a rule that training must be your primary source of income in order to hold a professional licence, where would that leave someone like Lance O'Sullivan?

He goes to the track 5 mornings a week and spends the rest of his time tending to his other businesses. Dairy farming, wedding venue and tourism. That would be nuts if he couldn't hold a professional licence.

Edited January 3, 2022 by curious

[curious]

On another note, we were invited as follows:

NZTR MEETINGS - INVITE TO TRAINERS
Licence holders and participants are invited to attend a meeting to discuss:

• Proposed changes to Training and Licensing Structures - see the following link for details
• Handicapping and Ratings

 

There are the consultation papers posted above on the licensing changes.

I was curious whether there were any papers or proposals on the other matter and advised that there was "nothing that I'm aware of in circulation but will forward if something comes through in the meantime". Why would you bother going to a meeting which we had to RSVP to yesterday when the matters for discussion are not clarified in some detail beforehand?

Edited January 3, 2022 by curious

[Freda]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

On another note, we were invited as follows:

NZTR MEETINGS - INVITE TO TRAINERS
Licence holders and participants are invited to attend a meeting to discuss:

• Proposed changes to Training and Licensing Structures - see the following link for details
• Handicapping and Ratings

 

There are the consultation papers posted above on the licensing changes.

I was curious whether there were any papers or proposals on the other matter and advised that there was "nothing that I'm aware of in circulation but will forward if something comes through in the meantime". Why would you bother going to a meeting which we had to RSVP to yesterday when the matters for discussion are not clarified in some detail beforehand?

Precisely.

[curious]

On 2/01/2022 at 10:32 PM, Chimbu said:

As an aside, I also smiled when reading all the references to he/she throughout the documents. Most major organisations policy documents are now written to cater for those who don't wish to be gender-defined. Like it, or not, our policy/rule writers are still in the dark ages with regard to how to draft suitable policy on this matter.

 

Exactly Chimbu. And imo a bit more than aside. That made my stomach churn. How any organisation could put out documents with that kind of gender biased language included in this day and age is atrocious. Another mark of the unprofessional level of performance that we are getting from Petone, aside from the disorganised, seemingly rushed and ill thought out documents presented on the licensing matters.

[Chief Stipe]

But what is the objective/outcome they wish to achieve with these changes?

[Huey]

20 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

But what is the objective/outcome they wish to achieve with these changes?

Yes what is the "Real" Objective of it all ??

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, Huey said:

Yes what is the "Real" Objective of it all ??

What is the problem they are trying to address?  It isn't clearly stated so therefore how can success be accurately measured?

Are the changes going to help increase the number of trainers and horses in training?  I'd say the opposite as the barriers to entry are being raised.

Will trainer costs/overheads be reduced?  No, both directly and indirectly they will increase.  Indirectly by the diversion of potential stake money to fund more bureaucracy.

Will compliance to standards improve?  Not likely as if there is failure now then that is not due to rules being in place but through the current bureaucracy not doing their job.

Will the changes "level the playing field" and allow easy entry to the industry?  No.  The changes will distort market forces favouring those who are already in the "elite club" and who can readily pass costs on to owners.  Innovative, low cost models of operation will disadvantaged with the end result being fewer horses in training.

As I predicted when TAB NZ pushed some functions off their ledger to artificially improve their own performance, the small windfall increase delivered to the codes has resulted in an increase in their bureaucracy and more innovative ways to spend stakeholder funds.

I also suspect that these changes are being driven by the new $2m+ computer system purchased from Australia.  That is processes and procedures need to be changed to fit with the computer system NOT to align with the business requirements of the local environment.

One of NZ's key attributes for its historical success has been its flexibility, diversity, ability to innovate and adapt to changing environmental conditions.  All I see now are changes that negate those advantages from the closing of perfectly good training and racing tracks, to the building of high cost AWT's and now the squeezing out of the little guy.

Seems NZ Racing is set to focus on and revolve around the suited of Cambridge.  Part of the attraction of racing when I got involved was that I could be an active owner I.e. I could easily watch my horse train and race.  I could even dung out the stables, lead my horse and even give it a good head scratch.  Now it is getting harder and harder to do that because of the barriers being put in place.  If I can't have that close involvement anymore I wouldn't race a horse in NZ.  Better to have a share in one in OZ where the chances of a return are so much better.

[Huey]

18 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

Seems NZ Racing is set to focus on and revolve around the suited of Cambridge.  Part of the attraction of racing when I got involved was that I could be an active owner I.e. I could easily watch my horse train and race.  Now it is getting harder and harder to do that because of the barriers being put in place.  If I can't have that close involvement anymore I wouldn't race a horse in NZ.  Better to have a share in one in OZ where the chances of a return are so much better.

Very true, part of me thinks its an indirect way to close & sell off more race tracks, i.e. removing the barrier to put up a fight by getting rid of those who use them.

[Chief Stipe]

15 minutes ago, Huey said:

Very true, part of me thinks its an indirect way to close & sell off more race tracks, i.e. removing the barrier to put up a fight by getting rid of those who use them.

Would be a shame if some have to formally adopt their owners to become "close relatives"!  Although I guess you could claim shared tribal/iwi heritage.  Now that would be an interesting case!!!

[curious]

43 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What is the problem they are trying to address?  It isn't clearly stated so therefore how can success be accurately measured?

That would be a good start to clarify in the first instance. Presumably it would be to improve TR wagering revenue but it seems there may be some other agenda here. First clarify that. Produce some sort of paper that provides the data, analysis, recommendations/proposals and some sort of projections as to how any changes in the two noted areas might effect that. THEN have some meetings to discuss. That would be standard business practice wouldn't it?

Edited January 3, 2022 by curious

[nomates]

2 hours ago, Huey said:

Yes what is the "Real" Objective of it all ??

For me it just reeks of a Singy/HK model , set number of "A" class trainers and set number of "B" class trainers , the rest of NZ will be bush class of racing , maybe not even that .

 

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Are the changes going to help increase the number of trainers and horses in training? 

I believe they have accepted our situation regarding horse numbers , so will start with their elite limited model and hopefully build quality of racing and stakes which then will build the quality of horses staying and racing . They want to get more overseas betting , so a tighter more reliable circle of form will bring increased betting confidence .

 

1 hour ago, Huey said:

Very true, part of me thinks its an indirect way to close & sell off more race tracks,

If they move to an elitist model they will have a bigger fight than ever as clubs being squeezed out of any kind of quality racing will fight just on a point of fairness .

 

59 minutes ago, curious said:

THEN have some meetings to discuss.

Never going to happen , any meetings they have had , have been held and will continue to held under a shroud of secrecy and exclusivity .

Let me know if you get notice of an impending meeting , would love to gate crash . As William Wallace in Braveheart said before meeting the English , " i'm off to pick a fight ".

[curious]

17 minutes ago, nomates said:

Never going to happen , any meetings they have had , have been held and will continue to held under a shroud of secrecy and exclusivity .

Let me know if you get notice of an impending meeting , would love to gate crash . As William Wallace in Braveheart said before meeting the English , " i'm off to pick a fight ".

The meeting will be attended by Bruce Sharrock, James Dunne, Tim Aldridge, Neil Jennings and Tyler Tane.
Note Amy Johnson will be attending the Wingatui and Riccarton meetings also.
Monday, 17 January – Wingatui and Riccarton
Thursday, 20 January – Awapuni
Thursday, 27 January – Auckland (venue TBC), Cambridge

Those interested in attending can email Mary.Burgess@nztr.co.nz by Monday 3 January

 

This appears to only have gone to members of the NZTA.

[KickintheKods]

So Mary is doing the vetting of who can go and who can't or is she organizing the catering, or is she putting up all the black flags of possible "awkward" questions?

It's a farce.