Race Fields Legislation

[hesi]

10 hours ago, curious said:

How would that be affordable? About half the current wagering revenue on racing is on Oz racing. I don't see how you could make a business case to install Strathayrs or synthetics for that matter in NZ.

The idea from the report is

1.  Big generation of cash from a yet to be validated sell off of assets, to generate 190 mil to improve facilities at the remaining 28 tracks, including total rebuild of tracks at Awapuni, Trentham, Riccarton, Ellerslie, and a reconstruction of tracks at places like Hastings, Wanganui, New Plymouth etc etc

2.  The improved tracks increase the confidence of bettors to wager on races held there

3.  The improved facilities increase the likelihood of people attending on course

4.  The doubling of stakes, along with 2. and 3. above, improve the fields, which improve the wagering turnover, which make the whole thing self sustainable.

Well that's the theory, and it is going to take a lot of commitment to make it work, and very skilled leadership, so it it understandable why there is so much cynicism.

For Gods sake, Peters went straight to Messara to get this report done, surely that is a message to anyone involved in Racing at a governance level, at NZRB, NZTR, Harness and Greyhounds, that you are not needed any longer.

Yet still these people make comment.

Peters will commission people for RITA, he will run the show, this is his baby, everyone else would be well advised to politely slip away

Edited September 29, 2018 by hesi

[hesi]

Oh yeah, and I presume this whole thing of NZRB becoming Wagering NZ, NZTR becoming Racing NZ along with Harness and Dogs, outsourcing the TAB, is to greatly reduce operating costs, it must be, which facilitates the doubling of stakes

[curious]

16 minutes ago, hesi said:

Oh yeah, and I presume this whole thing of NZRB becoming Wagering NZ, NZTR becoming Racing NZ along with Harness and Dogs, outsourcing the TAB, is to greatly reduce operating costs, it must be, which facilitates the doubling of stakes

Dream on. You can't increase stakes without increased net revenue and they are already about double that. If any of these changes can bring that back into line it would be a miracle. Adding $100m is a pipe dream.

[hesi]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

Dream on. You can't increase stakes without increased net revenue and they are already about double that. If any of these changes can bring that back into line it would be a miracle. Adding $100m is a pipe dream.

I agree, but what are the other options.

I worked for a large multi national for many years in new products and marketing, and you saw what many years of neglect could do to a brand, to a point where it was uneconomic to try and retrieve

[curious]

7 or 8 years ago I thought it might be possible but certainly not guaranteed. A further decade of neglect and it now seems impossible. I know what I would try, it's the same thing, but far less sure that it can work.

[mardigras]

Yes, you have to fix tracks. I doubt you need to build any new ones. Why waste money doing that?

They shouldn't even be using the word sustainability. That just makes them look stupid. Their 5 - 10 year goal should be to reduce dependency so that the focus is less on what they receive, but what they actually may be somewhat contributing. They will likely never be self sustainable again.

The money targeted for new tracks could easily be used to over time, address the current track issues over the next 5 - 7 years. With a model designed to rework that in a cycle.

If increasing stake is such an issue (i.e. for owners etc), run less races.

[Freda]

So....what is the consensus on here,  then?

Reduce races/racedays - makes sense to me,  years ago I don't recall anywhere near the plethora of races up and down the country.

Repair/renovate tracks on a rotational basis to restore product integrity [ horrible term]...also makes sense.

So what else?  I'm asking for opinions,  not just being a smartass.

I'm not against allweather tracks in theory,  but fail to see how the installation will create the extra turnover required.

Is the land-grab a good idea? or not ?  assuming that the whole process isn't locked away in a shit fight for years...I don't like the concept at all,  it's just not right IMO...but I'm only one opinion.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Freda

[curious]

I can't see any possible case for new tracks or AWTs. Doesn't make sense to say that on one hand and close half the ones we have on the other. It's just not affordable. I agree that they need to get off the beneficiary queue and quickly. They've sat around for a decade waiting for the next hand-out, duty relief, pokies, sports betting revenue, overseas racing revenue, etc.etc. and now this proposal asks for more. Now needs at least $10m a year to fix tracks. 2-3 a year. Pick the ones that are closest to being viable and could be reconstructed for $2-4m. Can't think of one in the Waikato. Maybe Avondale/Ruakaka in the north. Foxton or Wanganui in the CD perhaps. Whatever. Yes, reduce races to sustain stakes if necessary, or reduce stakes. There will be fallout of course. More now than there would have been a decade ago. Get stakes back aligned with revenue, probably in a single tier structure. That might be enough to provide for the track fixing. Sort the handicapping system so racing is competitive and the integrity system so it is fair and seen to be so. Get the TAB providing a much more competitive (globally) betting product. Then your on the way and have to just cross your fingers.

Edited September 29, 2018 by curious

[Mark D]

Tweet I found that I sent to John Allen when he was crowing about the racefields legislation was introduced

 

Mark Daly‏ @marksparkdaly 1 Aug 2017

 

 

Replying to @NZRBJohnAllen @DavidBennettMP

Merely introduced. Don't count your chickens - whoops you already have

 

Have a few more which I tried to find (I couldn't) when I caught the last 5 minutes of Weigh where the system that he told everyone that he was sure was going to be completed within a year would not be.  Told him at the time that he was "dreaming".  I know everyone hates a "I told you so" but I did.  Not particularly smart on my part because when have you ever seen an IT system be implemented on time and on budget?

[Kihikihi Kid]

RaceFields gone

FOB in serious serious strife 

Allen and Hughes still there ffs 

Where's the accountability

[Mark D]

I agree and while they can't be held directly accountable for the racefields legislation thay can be for believing that the passing of the legislation was a slam dunk and foolishly making (poor) financial decisions on that basis.

[von Smallhaussen]

it was obvious that Racefields legislation was on the backburner and compounding before Christmas last year!