NZTR Abandonment Report

[curious]

1 hour ago, Kihikihi Kid said:

Stipes

Stipes are not employed by NZTR.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Special Agent said:

Taking everything into account the solution is fairly simple.  Rather than NZTR withholding funding from RACE and the CJC, remove all race day licences for at least 12 months.  That should be sufficient time to correct all racing surfaces.  Management of a racing club is not required if the club is not racing.  The Boards will no longer require CEO's and Caretakers and NZTR should takeover management of both clubs.  After all NZTR have all the expert personnel to fix the tracks and run the business, and there are enough alternative venues in both regions because they haven't been culled as suggested previously.  Just as well for the entire industry.

 

Agree with that except they can't withhold licences. Betting licences are issued to clubs by TABNZ, not NZTR.

[Special Agent]

40 minutes ago, curious said:

Clubs are not licensed to NZTR. NZTR is their at there behest and does license trainers and jockeys.

My mistake.  I always thought clubs were licensed and thought it was covered in the Racing Industry Act (2020) under 15. Functions of racing codes 1 (a) (iv)

[Huey]

34 minutes ago, curious said:

Agree with that except they can't withhold licences. Betting licences are issued to clubs by TABNZ, not NZTR.

But raceday licences are issued by NZTR, no betting if no race day.

[Special Agent]

34 minutes ago, curious said:

Agree with that except they can't withhold licences. Betting licences are issued to clubs by TABNZ, not NZTR.

Yet clubs have been under the impression if they did not do as expected NZTR would do just that.  There are also trainers who believe this to be the case.

[curious]

18 minutes ago, Huey said:

But raceday licences are issued by NZTR, no betting if no race day.

No. By TABNZ as I said including the dates.

[curious]

22 minutes ago, Special Agent said:

My mistake.  I always thought clubs were licensed and thought it was covered in the Racing Industry Act (2020) under 15. Functions of racing codes 1 (a) (iv)

May be a matter of semantics. Clubs do have to be registered with the codes but have to do something very bad to be de-registered. Betting licences and dates are issued by NZTAB though no doubt NZTR has an influence on those.

[Huey]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

No. By TABNZ as I said including the dates.

That may well be the case but it is definitely NZTR who control the process around rubber stamping race days.

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

No. By TABNZ as I said including the dates.

No wonder everything is stuffed.  Those that should be responsible for doing something aren't but those that do have the responsibility don't have the staff or the knowhow to manage it.  So they all point fingers at each other.

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, curious said:

May be a matter of semantics. Clubs do have to be registered with the codes but have to do something very bad to be de-registered. Betting licences and dates are issued by NZTAB though no doubt NZTR has an influence on those.

That needs to change.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Special Agent said:

Yet clubs have been under the impression if they did not do as expected NZTR would do just that.  There are also trainers who believe this to be the case.

What I totally agree with is that the NZTR penalties go nowhere near far enough. As I understand it, withdrawing funding only applies to abandonments. If you take the CJC case though, aside from the massive costs and disruption that the Cup day abandonment caused, their total ineptitude and flagrant disregard of NZTR guidelines and advice has already led to further disruption, cost to owners, interference with horses' campaigns etc. for at least 2 other meetings to date; the 2/12 meeting which was shifted to the AWT and now the Jan 19 meeting shifted to Ashburton. I don't see why the same penalties should not apply for those meetings as well. They are a direct result of the same incompetence. Maybe then the board would wake up and take some action.

Edited December 11, 2022 by curious

[Freda]

10 hours ago, Special Agent said:

Yet clubs have been under the impression if they did not do as expected NZTR would do just that.  There are also trainers who believe this to be the case.

Yes.  I think I was aware that TAB issue betting licences - or did, at least, before the 2020 Act.  I'm not sure where I got the notion that most of that control had been devolved.

So, under what authority, then, did NZTR disallow Hokitika from racing again?

[Freda]

On 10/12/2022 at 1:28 PM, Doomed said:

"A significant level of funding has been withheld". What exactly does that mean? Will their next feature meeting be an industry meeting instead? Will NZTR not fund their Xmas parties? Have the CEOs had their annual bonus cut?

That is a concern of mine...I realise I have already commented, but it worries me.

Given that the CJC - in particular - is crying poverty over the lost Cup Day, what chance is there that they can meet such a penalty [ whatever that may be ]   from their own coffers?

Losing a few racedays would be another way of imposing a penalty - again owners are hit, but as commented elsewhere, there are enough grass tracks around to utilise.

Whatever happens, it is the owner who cops the penalty.  And we desperately need to cherish these rare - and becoming rarer - creatures.

[Huey]

3 hours ago, Freda said:

Yes.  I think I was aware that TAB issue betting licences - or did, at least, before the 2020 Act.  I'm not sure where I got the notion that most of that control had been devolved.

So, under what authority, then, did NZTR disallow Hokitika from racing again?

Only in name, the calendar and decisions around who gets racedays is largely influenced by NZTR.

The venue plan a great example of this, they sat around and pin pointed the venues they wanted to sell off and to do so had to remove licences from them, isn't there something in the act that says if a club doesn't hold a race day for 2 years they can instigate a process with the club, check out their(NZTR) strategy plans where they have stipulated clubs will only get licences up to a certain season.

[Special Agent]

25 minutes ago, Huey said:

isn't there something in the act that says if a club doesn't hold a race day for 2 years they can instigate a process with the club, check out their(NZTR) strategy plans where they have stipulated clubs will only get licences up to a certain season.

Yes, that's a definite.  I know Curious isn't on board with my comments that racing clubs are licensed to NZTR but, even on their website they mention how many clubs are licensed.  It may just be terminology but wording has won and lost cases in court.

I agree with Freda too we should be looking after those who are still wanting a slice of the racing experience while we still have it.

It is very sad to think a few inept leaders at club level are going to be the main cause of racing's demise.  I know some believe all of these problems could have been avoided and trainers (as an example group) have let it happen.  It is a hard task if you are one of only a few in a group who can see the writing on the wall and the bad intentions or stupidity of others when, try as you may you cannot convince your peers of the inevitable until it is too late.  Then the lunatics still try to argue that their actions were the right ones.