Messara Report link plus 17 key recommendations

[curious]

28 minutes ago, Mark D said:

Further in some cases (Foxton and Waipukarau are examples I know of) the land that the racecourses are on are not owned by the Clubs so the legislation would be taking proceeds from some other body.

 

Foxton is not on the close list but so far as what you are saying they would be taking money from the Crown!

And require legislative action concerning the Manawatu Racecourse Act.

[hesi]

Proposed racecourse closure divides Rotorua city

8 Sep, 2018 11:00am

 4 minutes to read

The answer to whether or not the Rotorua Racecourse should close has divided the city. Photo / File

By: Katee Shankskatee.shanks@dailypost.co.nzthedailypost

Should it stay or should it go?

The answer to whether or not the Rotorua Racecourse should close alongside 19 other race tracks around the country has divided the city with many Rotorua residents vocal in their wish to maintain the status quo and others just as vocal in their belief the nation's racing industry is in dire straits.

In a report titled Review of the New Zealand Racing Industry, overseen by top racing administrator and breeder John Messara and commissioned by Racing Minister Winston Peters, 17 recommendations have been made.

Among them is one to reduce the number of race tracks from 48 to 18 within the next six years. If the recommendations are followed, Rotorua's Arawa Park track will be closed from the 2023/24 season.

 

Tamati Coffey, Waiariki MP, believes the review needed to happen to "give Aotearoa's racing industry the best future possible".

"There is much korero ahead," Coffey said.

"This is an early recommendation from industry, not a decision from the office of the Honourable Winston Peters.

"I will now be engaging and consulting with Rotorua's racing industry to hear their thoughts on how we can best champion investment in our city through the process ahead, utilising the fact nowhere else offers families such a complete package in terms of accommodation and post racing-entertainment, and grow our local economy."

In contrast, Rotorua MP Todd McClay said the Government should not close the Rotorua Racecourse.

"It is a very popular and well respected course around the region.

"I've received calls from local voters concerned about the Labour-NZ First plan to close down racing in our city.

"We host races on behalf other clubs in Rotorua because we are more centrally located and our facilities are better. Rather than a government death sentence, Arawa Park should become a first rate regional racing facility for the Bay of Plenty."

He said he had spoken to club members on Monday and would be meeting to support their campaign to keep racing in Rotorua.

New Zealand First list MP Fletcher Tabuteau said it was too early to discuss the matter.

"What we have seen at this stage is simply a report with recommendations from a racing expert.

"This will now start an important conversation across all three codes within the racing industry. Until this in-depth discussion takes place there is nothing really to discuss, that is, we are not in a position to even comment on anything yet because nothing has actually been decided."

Meanwhile Rotorua District councillor Charles Sturt has made his opinion loud and clear on social media.

"Like I said on Facebook, people need to read the report from start to finish," Sturt said.

"Only then can they make an informed decision."

Sturt compared the amount of New Zealand galloping tracks (58 for 4.5 million people) with racetracks in Sydney (three for 6 million people).

"Many of the recommendations made in this last report were suggested [and ignored] 10 years ago because of parochialism. The industry is in financial trouble and if we want to maintain it, we need change.

"People need to think of the industry as a whole, and not be self-serving within the communities where the tracks are."

If the Rotorua Racecourse were to close, discussions would then have to begin about what to do with the land originally gifted by Ngāti Whakaue for the purpose of leisure activities.

Pukeroa Oruawhata chairman Malcolm Short confirmed the land was "gifted reserve".

"It's still very early days," Short said.

"I have no doubt that further down the track we will have conversations with the Racing Club, but that will be in due course.

"I understand the recommendations need to go through consultation with the powers that be so it's a bit premature for me to say anything just now."

[hesi]

What are the chances Curious, of NZ Racing getting there hands on money from the sale of Rotorua

[Hedley]

Don't you dare sell Rotorua!

[curious]

3 hours ago, hesi said:

What are the chances Curious, of NZ Racing getting there hands on money from the sale of Rotorua

They could if the members agree. Rotorua has in their rules that s 27 of the Racing Act applies and that NZTR has the approval rights on distribution of assets in the event of dissolution. If the club continues but sells up it would presumably be at the discretion of their board or members what happens to that money. NZ Racing as far as I can see could only grab it by using that as a condition of the club continuing to race at another venue. If they walk away, giving up their dates and licence it seems to me that there would be no power to second their assets.

Edited September 8, 2018 by curious

[curious]

Most of you have probably seen all this, but does BOAY want to make a submission?

Review of the New Zealand racing industry (PDF, 3MB)

Stakeholder feedback sought on John Messara’s Review of the New Zealand Racing Industry

We are seeking public feedback on the report and its recommendations.

We are particularly interested in feedback relating to the 17 main recommendations summarised on pages 9 and 10 of the report.

If your feedback relates to a specific recommendation, please let us know which recommendation it relates to.

Please submit feedback by 19 October 2018 by email to racingreview@dia.govt.nz or by post to:

Racing Review
Department of Internal Affairs
45 Pipitea Street
Wellington 6011
PO Box 805
Wellington 6140

Rt Hon Winston Peters' speech to the racing industry - 30 August 2018 (Beehive website)

 

[Justamugpunter]

13 hours ago, curious said:

Most of you have probably seen all this, but does BOAY want to make a submission?

 

On a personal level I was pondering whether too...  am still undecided!  

Still thinking through a couple of different approaches??

One being to challenge the 'facts and figures' quoted??

The other, something from a 'punters point of view'.

[hesi]

I think we should put in a shortish response, on issues that appear not to be thought out eg

The report states"Requires reconstruction of course proper, a synthetic track", for Awapuni and Riccarton.  This is ambiguous  It then says further in the venue plan

 20/21Race at 34 existing venues (Awapuni course proper still out but race on synthetic

So it would appear the plan at Awapuni and Riccarton anyway, but not other courses like Hastings, New Plymouth, Auckland, is to put in 2 tracks at the above 2 venues

From info disseminated by someone who should know. on the Strathayr thread, we are being told a properly constructed Strathayr track will handle extra wear, so why spend extra money on synthetic tracks, at Riccarton, Awapuni and Cambridge

I would say a lot of the stuff in the report is non-negotiable, and all you can really do is agree in principle, so might as well say nothing

Thoughts

[Mk2_Zephyr]

fairly sure that messy is likely to be terminated and winnie is gonna get an old fashioned wake up call  ...  

[curious]

On 19/09/2018 at 7:02 PM, hesi said:

I think we should put in a shortish response, on issues that appear not to be thought out

 

Which is most of them. Thought about this. 5 or 6 years ago I had the energy to have some input which went unlistened to. Frankly, I think they should be left to the outcomes of there own devices at this stage which are pretty obvious but they still can't see. If they want to further fuck the industry and accelerate the decline as proposed, then I'm now inclined to leave them to it. I will consider responding to anything that suggests a benefit to racing at the expense of the taxpayer though. I am one of the latter.

[Mark D]

Watched Bernie on Weigh In for about 30 seconds - firstly starts to refer to the Racing Victoria board then to "noise" about land grab - what an eejit - but we all knew that

Edited September 22, 2018 by Mark D

[hesi]

On 21/09/2018 at 7:32 PM, curious said:

Which is most of them. Thought about this. 5 or 6 years ago I had the energy to have some input which went unlistened to. Frankly, I think they should be left to the outcomes of there own devices at this stage which are pretty obvious but they still can't see. If they want to further fuck the industry and accelerate the decline as proposed, then I'm now inclined to leave them to it. I will consider responding to anything that suggests a benefit to racing at the expense of the taxpayer though. I am one of the latter.

Would you be prepared to put up a precis then, just on BOAY, about your main concerns about the report and why.

Just summaries really, no urgency, and we'll keep it to one side and use it as a reference back to what actually happens.

I note the Geelong synthetic, which is not going to be persevered with, was put in 2007, and would have had to be replaced at the end of 2018 due to wear and tear, that's 11 years

And yet NZ is going down the route of synthetics?

 

[curious]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

I note the Geelong synthetic, which is not going to be persevered with, was put in 2007, and would have had to be replaced at the end of 2018 due to wear and tear, that's 11 years

And yet NZ is going down the route of synthetics?

According to a subsequent safety report the Pro-ride at Geelong only came into use in the 09-10 season.

"Since the change to the Pro-Ride racing surface during the 2009-10 racing season, the risk of fatality at Geelong Synthetic has decreased by 57% and is now comparable to our turf tracks."

So yes, they need full replacement every 7 or 8 years depending on useage. From memory, that is about thirty meetings a year there, so maybe 250 racemeetings. On the other hand, I'd say regular turf tracks have about a similar life without being at least ploughed up and resown. Strathayr tracks would double or triple that lifetime I'd say for about $2m extra initial installation cost.

Edited September 23, 2018 by curious

[hesi]

52 minutes ago, curious said:

According to a subsequent safety report the Pro-ride at Geelong only came into use in the 09-10 season.

"Since the change to the Pro-Ride racing surface during the 2009-10 racing season, the risk of fatality at Geelong Synthetic has decreased by 57% and is now comparable to our turf tracks."

So yes, they need full replacement every 7 or 8 years depending on useage. From memory, that is about thirty meetings a year there, so maybe 250 racemeetings. On the other hand, I'd say regular turf tracks have about a similar life without being at least ploughed up and resown. Strathayr tracks would double or triple that lifetime I'd say for about $2m extra initial installation cost.

No brainer isn't it

I wonder if they'll twig

[curious]

On 23/09/2018 at 11:11 AM, hesi said:

Would you be prepared to put up a precis then, just on BOAY, about your main concerns about the report and why.

Just summaries really, no urgency, and we'll keep it to one side and use it as a reference back to what actually happens.

Here's a brief crack at that Hesi.

Recommendations

1.       Change the governance structure, so the NZRB becomes Wagering NZ with racing responsibilities devolving to the individual Codes. This will sharpen the commercial focus of TAB operations and improve the decision-making and accountability of the Codes.

Something along these lines possibly a good idea. Worth more detailed development.

2.       Establish Racing NZ as a consultative forum for the three Codes to agree on issues such as entering into commercial agreements with Wagering NZ, approving betting rules and budgets for the integrity bodies, equine health & research, etc.

Same as 1.

3.       Change the composition and qualifications for directors of regulatory bodies.

Yes, definitely needs sorting. Again, the devil is in the detail.

4.       Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB.

Absolutely. Required under current legislation anyway and overdue. The right reviewer and terms of reference to address some of the matters in this report is critical.

5.       Amend the Section 16 distribution formula of the Racing Act 2003 to a more equitable basis for fixed 10-year terms.

Don’t think the report makes a sensible case for this. Should remain proportionally based on domestic revenue generated.

6.       Initiate a special review of the structure and efficacy of the RIU and allied integrity bodies, to be conducted by an independent qualified person.

Yep. Probably should be devolved back to the codes. Has been a disaster as currently structured. Critical ingredient for increasing wagering revenue that integrity system is much more robust and reliable and seen to be so by punters.

7.       Begin negotiations for the outsourcing of the TAB’s commercial activities to an international wagering operator, to gain the significant advantages of scale.

Worth considering but detailed business case needs to be made alongside alternatives. In particular, retaining the tote business and making it globally competitive and licensing fixed odds operators in NZ (with a restriction on tote derivative products) should be considered.

8.       Seek approval for a suite of new wagering products to increase funding for the industry.

OK. But not likely to improve revenue. Adds to costs and unlikely to increase overall punter spend.

9.       Confirm the assignment of Intellectual Property (IP) by the Clubs to the Codes.

Don’t see the point in this. Clubs may be better to retain and control this themselves. Needs work and a better case made. Can club and community assets be co-opted legislatively or lawfully?

10.    Introduce Race Field and Point Of Consumption Tax legislation expeditiously. These two measures will bring New Zealand’s racing industry into line with its Australian counterparts and provide much needed additional revenue.

Race fields, yes of course. But legislation not required for arrangements with corporate bookmakers to be put in place as already demonstrated. RB estimates wildly out of kilter with the reliable research. DIA estimates more robust. I’d say might get to $3-5m net across all codes.

PoC tax, nope. See DIA estimates that administrative costs may exceed revenue. Providers already paying a consumption tax in the form of GST. If implemented any net revenue should go to taxpayer not racing anyway.

11.    Repeal the existing betting levy of approximately $13 million per annum paid by the NZRB, given that the thoroughbred Code is a loss maker overall, with the net owners’ losses outweighing the NZRB’s net profit.

Nice if you can get it. Note that some $50m of duty relief previously granted has been wasted on stakes and operating costs. Industry didn’t do what they said they would with that so why should the taxpayer gift more to a declining industry, or any industry for that matter. Also, an equity matter with casinos betting duty. Probably politically unpalatable.

12.    Clarify legislation to vest Race Club property and assets to the Code regulatory bodies for the benefit of the industry as a whole.

Big NO. Can’t legislate to colonise community and club assets. Needs to occur voluntarily at the discretion of club members where clubs will no longer have raceday licences. They should decide whether assets are put to other uses in the community. Any reinvestment in racing will also mostly have to be in the same region.

13.    Reduce the number of thoroughbred race tracks from 48 to 28 tracks under a scheduled program. This does not require the closure of any Club

Yep. No brainer but the redevelopment of remaining tracks needs to occur first in order to have an infrastructure in place that can cope with the racing required.

14.    Upgrade the facilities and tracks of the remaining racecourses with funds generated from the sale of surplus property resulting from track closures to provide a streamlined, modern and competitive thoroughbred racing sector capable of marketing itself globally.

Yep to the upgrades but the business case for that needs to be funded from current and future revenue and be sustainable.

15.    Construct three synthetic all-weather tracks at Cambridge, Awapuni & Riccarton with assistance from the New Zealand Government’s Provincial Growth Fund. Support the development of the Waikato Greenfields Project.

Yep in principle. Again, the initial cost and ongoing maintenance needs to be funded from current and future revenue increases. The business case is not made in the report. Needs more detailed work. That should include comparison of synthetics with Strathayr for these AWTs.

16.    Introduce robust processes to establish traceability from birth and the re-homing of the entire thoroughbred herd, as the foundation stone of the industry’s ongoing animal welfare program.

Fine.

17.    Increase thoroughbred prizemoney gradually to over $100 million per annum through a simplified three-tier racing model, with payments extended to tenth place in all races.

Great but it is not clear where the revenue or cost savings to do that will come from other than some from the restructuring perhaps. Recommended changes as above will not on their own make the NZ racing product competitive or attract more wagering spend. That also requires, among other things, aligning the prizemoney structure more closely to revenue generated and having a fair and competitive handicapping system for starters.

Edited September 24, 2018 by curious

[Dark Beau]

Curious, I am not 100% sure what you mean with your answer to: (5) Messara’s suggestion to amend Section 16 to a more equable distribution formula. 

You say it should be based on “domestic revenue generated”! Isn’t it based on that now? (Which is currently not working?)

I say that it should be based on the turnover bet by punters on the individual racing codes, irrespective of where the races are actually run! It is now global based on were the product (races) come from, but not where the betting comes from. Remember most overseas punters are now basically shut out of betting here, so it is only the NZ punter who is funding everything, unlike a few years ago.

Having said that, why is it that when I am overseas in Australia, Sweden, Turkey and so many other countries I can’t access my own TAB account here, yet if I want to bet with most of the corporate bookies in Australia (from NZ) I can. It doesn’t make sense to me. 

Correct me if I am wrong regarding my last comments about inter-country restrictions. 

[curious]

It is based on that now Dark Beau but I'm not sure that is what is not working. My suggestion in this brief summary is based on the fact that we need to incentivise codes to develop and promote their own domestic product from their respective codes, not incentivise them to develop and promote foreign product by paying them for that, which is akin to paying them to promote the competition. That seems like a dumb idea to me.

Edited September 25, 2018 by curious

[mardigras]

3 hours ago, Dark Beau said:

I say that it should be based on the turnover bet by punters on the individual racing codes, irrespective of where the races are actually run! It is now global based on were the product (races) come from, but not where the betting comes from. Remember most overseas punters are now basically shut out of betting here, so it is only the NZ punter who is funding everything, unlike a few years ago.

Many NZ gallops people say that. But why? What link are you claiming between a person punting on an Australian gallops race and NZ gallops?

[Chief Stipe]

Has Dark Beau never had a bet on Harness or the Dogs?

[Chief Stipe]

Changes to section 16 that favour one code over another has the potential to rip NZ racing apart at a time when the codes need to be united.  I know that might sound like a glib political slogan (hearing too much Ardenese) but that's my opinion.

In my opinion Dogs and Harness have done more to get their house in order than the Thoroughbred code.  Harness have rationalised their tracks over the years and seem to have done it with Club support.  The Thoroughbred code seems to have pissed their income away and are now seeking the biggest handout.  An All Weather Track in the Waikato isn't going to help Harness or Dog's is it?  I'm sure Pitty and Freda would agree.

It annoys the hell out of me when I see the Thoroughbred elite quoting the numbers involved in the racing industry as justification for yet another handout.  They conveniently lump in all the Harness and Dog stakeholders and employees.  Let's face it if it wasn't for Harness racing in Canterbury would there be the level of infrastructural support for the Thoroughbred in that region that there is?

So my view is that the distribution of revenue should be directly proportional to the net betting revenue generated domestically.  Any other option distorts market economics.  The other codes will further subsidise the high cost Thoroughbred model.  Let's face it Dark Beau subsidisation and market distortion has killed the Thoroughbred breeding industry in the rest of the country except the Waikato.  

It reminds me of the Monty Python line - "What have the Roman's ever done for us?"

 

[hesi]

10 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Changes to section 16 that favour one code over another has the potential to rip NZ racing apart at a time when the codes need to be united.  I know that might sound like a glib political slogan (hearing too much Ardenese) but that's my opinion.

In my opinion Dogs and Harness have done more to get their house in order than the Thoroughbred code.  Harness have rationalised their tracks over the years and seem to have done it with Club support.  The Thoroughbred code seems to have pissed their income away and are now seeking the biggest handout.  An All Weather Track in the Waikato isn't going to help Harness or Dog's is it?  I'm sure Pitty and Freda would agree.

It annoys the hell out of me when I see the Thoroughbred elite quoting the numbers involved in the racing industry as justification for yet another handout.  They conveniently lump in all the Harness and Dog stakeholders and employees.  Let's face it if it wasn't for Harness racing in Canterbury would there be the level of infrastructural support for the Thoroughbred in that region that there is?

So my view is that the distribution of revenue should be directly proportional to the betting turnover generated domestically.  Any other option distorts market economics.  The other codes will further subsidise the high cost Thoroughbred model.  Let's face it Dark Beau subsidisation and market distortion has killed the Thoroughbred breeding industry in the rest of the country except the Waikato.  

It reminds me of the Monty Python line - "What have the Roman's ever done for us?"

 

Can you list what that ratio would be based on 17/18 data, compared with current S16 and the Messara report recos.

I could probably find it, but you more than likely have the figs at hand somewhere

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, hesi said:

Can you list what that ratio would be based on 17/18 data, compared with current S16 and the Messara report recos.

I could probably find it, but you more than likely have the figs at hand somewhere

The section you quoted from my post should be net revenue.  Can't cross subsidise the bookies.

[Freda]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Changes to section 16 that favour one code over another has the potential to rip NZ racing apart at a time when the codes need to be united.  I know that might sound like a glib political slogan (hearing too much Ardenese) but that's my opinion.

In my opinion Dogs and Harness have done more to get their house in order than the Thoroughbred code.  Harness have rationalised their tracks over the years and seem to have done it with Club support.  The Thoroughbred code seems to have pissed their income away and are now seeking the biggest handout.  An All Weather Track in the Waikato isn't going to help Harness or Dog's is it?  I'm sure Pitty and Freda would agree.

It annoys the hell out of me when I see the Thoroughbred elite quoting the numbers involved in the racing industry as justification for yet another handout.  They conveniently lump in all the Harness and Dog stakeholders and employees.  Let's face it if it wasn't for Harness racing in Canterbury would there be the level of infrastructural support for the Thoroughbred in that region that there is?

So my view is that the distribution of revenue should be directly proportional to the net betting revenue generated domestically.  Any other option distorts market economics.  The other codes will further subsidise the high cost Thoroughbred model.  Let's face it Dark Beau subsidisation and market distortion has killed the Thoroughbred breeding industry in the rest of the country except the Waikato.  

It reminds me of the Monty Python line - "What have the Roman's ever done for us?"

 

Freda agrees...not sure if Pitty does.

[Dark Beau]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Has Dark Beau never had a bet on Harness or the Dogs?

Dark Beau had a bet on the Harness last Friday night. I am happy that any profit from that goes directly to the Harness People. 

I haven’t had a bet on the Dogs for over 8 to 10 years and probably won’t. The last time would have been when that great little bitch was racing, the one who was the first to win over 100k. A wonderful dog but I can’t recall her name at the moment. 

[Dark Beau]

5 hours ago, mardigras said:

Many NZ gallops people say that. But why? What link are you claiming between a person punting on an Australian gallops race and NZ gallops?

My primary interest (95%] is in the gallops. Cup Week Christchurch is the exception for Harness and the odd other big meeting. 

If I am not betting in NZ on the Gallops it is in Australia especially on a Saturday. As far as I am concerned any profit from my betting should go directly to the code that I am betting on, pure and simple.

i actually believe that the codes are in competition with one another, just like Lotto, Sports Betting, Casinos, and all other leisure activities are competitors.