Messara Report link plus 17 key recommendations

[Boxie]

2 hours ago, Dark Beau said:

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. 

 

 

The codes are in competition with each other but they have no control over what the NZRB decides to open a market on.  The NZRB must provide betting markets for the NZ product it doesn't have to for any other racing jurisdiction.

Theoretically if we follow your logic then ALL the net profit from betting on Australian races should go the relevant jurisdiction in Australia.

Also under your scenario if you bet on the rugby Wallabies vs South Africa then you want all the net proceeds to go to Rugby?  

[curious]

57 minutes ago, Boxie said:

Also under your scenario if you bet on the rugby Wallabies vs South Africa then your want all the net proceeds to go to Rugby?  

Possibly should? And the pokie revenue to the communities from which it was garnered?

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Dark Beau said:

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. 

 

 

The NZ codes are in competition. And part of that competition is other betting options (such as Australian gallops or harness). As far as you're concerned, you may want what you want. I'd like the money I spend at Australian bakeries to go back to my bakery in NZ. But why would it? It simply doesn't make any sense.

It's an idea that NZ galloping followers want because they have an affinity and want to try and justify getting their hands on the extra revenue. But there is no actual known link between the two. If the % on off-shore gallops was 20% of all off-shore, the topic would never have been raised by Messara. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't be being pushed for by gallops people.

Edited September 26, 2018 by mardigras

[Chief Stipe]

28 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The NZ codes are in competition. And part of that competition is other betting options (such as Australian gallops or harness). As far as you're concerned, you may want what you want. I'd like the money I spend at Australian bakeries to go back to my bakery in NZ. But why would it? It simply doesn't make any sense.

It's an idea that NZ galloping followers want because they have an affinity and want to try and justify getting their hands on the extra revenue. But there is no actual known link between the two. If the % on off-shore gallops was 20% of all off-shore, the topic would never have been raised by Messara. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't be being pushed for by gallops people.

Perhaps base the % distribution on On-Course turnover?

[Horseboy]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

The NZ codes are in competition. And part of that competition is other betting options (such as Australian gallops or harness). As far as you're concerned, you may want what you want. I'd like the money I spend at Australian bakeries to go back to my bakery in NZ. But why would it? It simply doesn't make any sense.

It's an idea that NZ galloping followers want because they have an affinity and want to try and justify getting their hands on the extra revenue. But there is no actual known link between the two. If the % on off-shore gallops was 20% of all off-shore, the topic would never have been raised by Messara. Simple as that. And it certainly wouldn't be being pushed for by gallops people.

Saying there is no connection from an industry sense is flawed. How many kiwi trainers, jockeys and horses will line up this saturday in Australia?
There is a direct effect, a good horse wins in NZ then jumps on the first flight to Aus. This diminishes the quality of NZ fields due to our close connection with Aus racing.
There is no official connection sure. But you can hardly blame a sporting code that is so closely connected from not lobbying in their own self interests.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Horseboy said:

Saying there is no connection from an industry sense is flawed. How many kiwi trainers, jockeys and horses will line up this saturday in Australia?
There is a direct effect, a good horse wins in NZ then jumps on the first flight to Aus. This diminishes the quality of NZ fields due to our close connection with Aus racing.
There is no official connection sure. But you can hardly blame a sporting code that is so closely connected from not lobbying in their own self interests.

Ok let's centralise all of NZ racing to the Waikato.

[hesi]

11 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ok let's centralise all of NZ racing to the Waikato.

Could be a prob at the mo Chief, I don't think they have a track

[curious]

30 minutes ago, Horseboy said:

There is no official connection sure. But you can hardly blame a sporting code that is so closely connected from not lobbying in their own self interests.

Really? I don't think promoting their own self interest as they seem to be doing with no sound rationale does them a bit  of good at all. Probably the converse.

[hesi]

Distributions on average the last 5 years(Messara in brackets)

Thorougbred 54%(67.2)

Harness 30%(27.1)

Dogs 16%(5.7)

Why would anyone involved with greyhounds or harness support this

[mardigras]

39 minutes ago, Horseboy said:

Saying there is no connection from an industry sense is flawed. How many kiwi trainers, jockeys and horses will line up this saturday in Australia?
There is a direct effect, a good horse wins in NZ then jumps on the first flight to Aus. This diminishes the quality of NZ fields due to our close connection with Aus racing.
There is no official connection sure. But you can hardly blame a sporting code that is so closely connected from not lobbying in their own self interests.

It's a business. Not an emotion.

I don't blame the NZ industry from lobbying in that way, although I would have thought putting as much effort into actually getting the NZ racing in shape would be more fruitful.

A model such as that has some major issues.

It removes the incentive to actually front up with anything in our own backyard. They wouldn't need to address anything here since they would be propped up by racing that in reality is unrelated to it.

And worse than that, it is open to easy manipulation. The betting agency can simply take more off-shore gallops races and less of the others. Driving the resulting ratios up in favour of one over the another. Simply shifting the revenue model however they feel.

The current model has no impact from either of those issues since the current model allows the individual codes to operate their racing in a competitive fashion to deliver the best results it can against its local competitors and the current model requires that the NZ codes actually try and deliver something attractive to punters. 

[curious]

7 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The current model has no impact from either of those issues since the current model allows the individual codes to operate their racing in a competitive fashion to deliver the best results it can against its local competitors and the current model requires that the NZ codes actually try and deliver something attractive to punters. 

Hmmm...makes me wonder why they wouldn't have tried to do that given the existing model. Instead they seem to want and be hanging out for the money from other's efforts?

[curious]

10 hours ago, mardigras said:

And worse than that, it is open to easy manipulation. The betting agency can simply take more off-shore gallops races and less of the others. Driving the resulting ratios up in favour of one over the another. Simply shifting the revenue model however they feel.

And I could see that happening but the other way round also. Given the RB's expressed interest in offering more and more events and more bet types, it is quite plausible that they might decide to reduce offshore gallops events offerings and increase the much more quickfire greyhound events. If that happened, under the Messara distribution proposal, gallops would get a lesser distribution through no fault of their own. The idea simply does not make sense. Why would TR support such a proposal that could make their funding vulnerable to decisions beyond their control? I totally don't understand why JM has recommended this.

[mardigras]

2 hours ago, curious said:

And I could see that happening but the other way round also. Given the RB's expressed interest in offering more and more events and more bet types, it is quite plausible that they might decide to reduce offshore gallops events offerings and increase the much more quickfire greyhound events. If that happened, under the Messara distribution proposal, gallops would get a lesser distribution through no fault of their own. The idea simply does not make sense. Why would TR support such a proposal that could make their funding vulnerable to decisions beyond their control? I totally don't understand why JM has recommended this.

My view is that people simply don't think these things through. They don't do what Messara suggests in Australia. And one of the reasons is probably that. Why would they give up control over their revenue stream based on decisions tabcorp etc make. 

It's a kneejerk rection because they have made their beds and now don't seem to want to sleep in them.

[hesi]

13 hours ago, hesi said:

Distributions on average the last 5 years(Messara in brackets)

Thorougbred 54%(67.2)

Harness 30%(27.1)

Dogs 16%(5.7)

Why would anyone involved with greyhounds or harness support this

So anyone got any thoughts on what the percentages should be.  The Messara figs are great for Thoroughbred and would put another 30 mil in the kitty, but at what cost..... a splintered racing industry

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, hesi said:

So anyone got any thoughts on what the percentages should be.  The Messara figs are great for Thoroughbred and would put another 30 mil in the kitty, but at what cost..... a splintered racing industry

I don't know what the % as such should be. But I would think the best way is to deliver the net proceeds to each code based on their net earnings. Run the betting operator as a pay service. Pay for airtime. Pay for fixed odds management. Apportion some shared services. Allow the codes to decide what services they want and when - and pay accordingly. 

Then allow then to receive the net proceeds from all of that. i.e. if greyhounds didn't want fixed odds, they could decline that service. If they wanted airtime with two staff at the track for coverage, they pay for it. Standard business model.

Then they would see just how their business does in respect of income and expense. And receive the net proceeds accordingly. The current model is massively contrived around which code gets the airtime/the promotion etc. But they don't pay proportionally for that.

[Dark Beau]

7 hours ago, mardigras said:

I don't know what the % as such should be. But I would think the best way is to deliver the net proceeds to each code based on their net earnings. Run the betting operator as a pay service. Pay for airtime. Pay for fixed odds management. Apportion some shared services. Allow the codes to decide what services they want and when - and pay accordingly. 

Then allow then to receive the net proceeds from all of that. i.e. if greyhounds didn't want fixed odds, they could decline that service. If they wanted airtime with two staff at the track for coverage, they pay for it. Standard business model.

Then they would see just how their business does in respect of income and expense. And receive the net proceeds accordingly. The current model is massively contrived around which code gets the airtime/the promotion etc. But they don't pay proportionally for that.

The perfect answer and totally fair. 

[curious]

9 hours ago, mardigras said:

I don't know what the % as such should be. But I would think the best way is to deliver the net proceeds to each code based on their net earnings. Run the betting operator as a pay service. Pay for airtime. Pay for fixed odds management. Apportion some shared services. Allow the codes to decide what services they want and when - and pay accordingly. 

Then allow then to receive the net proceeds from all of that. i.e. if greyhounds didn't want fixed odds, they could decline that service. If they wanted airtime with two staff at the track for coverage, they pay for it. Standard business model.

Then they would see just how their business does in respect of income and expense. And receive the net proceeds accordingly. The current model is massively contrived around which code gets the airtime/the promotion etc. But they don't pay proportionally for that.

I think if you extended that model to clubs as well, you'd have a pretty good system. Then if individual clubs decided it made better business sense to race at another venue and potentially contribute capital to that venue's infrastructure, they could proceed to negotiate that.

[mardigras]

36 minutes ago, curious said:

I think if you extended that model to clubs as well, you'd have a pretty good system. Then if individual clubs decided it made better business sense to race at another venue and potentially contribute capital to that venue's infrastructure, they could proceed to negotiate that.

Any methods that put the focus on delivering for themselves and being accountable for the success of the industry(s)/club(s) should be the ways forward. The other methods rely on social welfare.

Edited September 27, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Any methods that put the focus on delivering for themselves and being accountable for the success of the industry(s)/club(s) should be the ways forward. The other methods rely on social welfare.

Yes and if you propose those sort of social welfare strategies as this report does, then there should be some sort of risk analysis which in my view is high. As you said, some of these things don't seem to have been thought through.

On this particular distribution strategy, why would JM recommend it for here when he didn't put a similar arrangement in place for NSW? Makes me wonder if there's a conflict of interest thing in play here or that someone else wrote the report and he just signed it.

[mardigras]

9 minutes ago, curious said:

On this particular distribution strategy, why would JM recommend it for here when he didn't put a similar arrangement in place for NSW? Makes me wonder if there's a conflict of interest thing in play here or that someone else wrote the report and he just signed it.

Possibly because as at a few years back, the ratios on off-shore gallops vs the rest were less than the local ratio. Surprise, surprise. It's all about feathering one's own nest - stuff the rest.

Edited September 27, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

Hmmm...

https://nzracingboard.co.nz/content/nzrb-submission-messara-report-october-2018-0

[mardigras]

This was funny.

3. Growing the number of active account customers has been a major focus. We have delivered a number of customer and channels initiatives which has seen the total number of account customers betting with us during the year reach a record of 230,000, up 18 percent on last year. This is a phenomenal rate of growth for a wagering business and one that every one of our competitors would be envious of.

Maybe. If it actually translated into revenue growth. That is yet to be seen. And what indications are there that those customers will remain betting.

Edited October 15, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

This was funny.

3. Growing the number of active account customers has been a major focus. We have delivered a number of customer and channels initiatives which has seen the total number of account customers betting with us during the year reach a record of 230,000, up 18 percent on last year. This is a phenomenal rate of growth for a wagering business and one that every one of our competitors would be envious of.

Maybe. If it actually translated into revenue growth. That is yet to be seen. And what indications are there that those customers will remain betting.

Yeahhh... sigh. Can they not grasp that more customers = more costs just the same as more betting products. Unless those customers are willing to lose more than the smaller group whether or not spread over more betting products or events there's no net revenue result, and so far there is not.

[hesi]

I find these submissions very hard to stomach.

How many of these industry leaders or major players in the industry, got up and showed proactivity to do something about the industry over the last 10-15 years.

Talk about run with the hares and hunt with the hounds!

Winston has already stated the RB is a dead horse, what don't they understand about what that means

[curious]

Seems to be a deafening silence on this or have I missed something?