6 hours ago, Hesi said:

Nice idea, but we are just the small fish for now, suggest it on RC.  Sorry but you couldn't suggest it on BOAY, talking about fixing the woes in NZ racing when they can't even fix their own site

I'd still love for someone to front up with a few figures that shows exactly how and where Stratford racing at NP saves money.  I guess they looked at Stratford, Waverly and NP, and Stratford is the only one that is freehold, the other 2 are leased, so the decision was influenced by that.

Here's a question, if Waverly and NP are leased, then how advisable is it upgrading infrastructure at those courses

Probably depends  on the length of the lease? Some are in perpetuity I think. Or the lessee could own the buildings and other infrastructure.

4 minutes ago, curious said:

Perhaps a site like this could take the media initiative and invite Saundry to answer those hard questions with supporting hard data. How hard would that be?

It could be in written, audio or video format.

Perhaps a site like this could take the media initiative and invite Saundry to answer those hard questions with supporting hard data. How hard would that be?

I agree Hesi and particularly with Mardi's alienation comment. These strategies and the way they are being brought about just push people into fight or flight mode. Then they complain about the lack of cooperation and collaboration. The DIA RIA noted the lack of consultation with respect to the land business, especially in light of wide ranging dissenting comment in response to the Messara report. It would be hard to write a better recipe for disaster.

Yes. Both those strategies are a complete waste of time, energy and money, quite likely for no net return to the industry. That they are proceeding with the land business despite the warnings from the DIA with respect to the legal implications is just nuts. The PoC tax likewise when the predictions are that there may well be no net gain or a possible net loss. And as you point out Mardi, there can be no gain unless it somehow inspires punters to lose more or increases the customer base both of which seem highly unlikely propositions to me.

7 hours ago, Hesi said:

Taroni, she did not run straight, that is her problem nothing to do with BLR

Yes, BLR had the whole straight to get past Taroni

BLR could not run straight in the last 50m , because Taroni was carting him out

I think that's arguable and not how I saw it. It appeared to me that most of that time BLR moved out as Taroni did but was never pushed out or its line taken except at the point of contact. If BLR moves out as Taroni does, the space between them is fair game for either horse to use I think.

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Very good post Virgil

While VvD's comment is fair, that's speculation about a situation that didn't exist. You could also say had that been the situation that Taroni may well not have run out with a horse inside it obscuring its vision of the post etc.and run straight, winning even more  comfortably.

1 minute ago, PWJ said:

Having nothing to say and not being questioned are not the same thing. I have never seen an inquiry in Australia where the jockey of the horse allegedly affected was not asked whether their chances were affected. This is different to declining to "comment"

Yes, I completely agree PJ that the JCA should still have interviewed Sam not just accepted Mr Ellis's statement. It's bizarre.

34 minutes ago, PWJ said:

 That the connections of Bordeaux La Rouge never even lodged a protest or that the horse's rider Sam Collett was never questioned it seemed a crazy outcome.

That's not entirely correct PWJ. From the JCA report:

The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest. At this juncture Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards would be the Informant and proceeded on that basis.

Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

https://loveracing.nz/Common/SystemTemplates/Modal/Video.aspx?v=https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fembed%2faEy83L6XK1s&i=%2fCommon%2fImage.ashx%3fw%3d565%26h%3d314%26a%3d1%26o%3d1%26z%3d1%26bg%3deeeeee%26p%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fimg.youtube.com%2fvi%2faEy83L6XK1s%2f0.jpg&r=Stewards' Vision Race 2 - EXECUTIVE TRAVEL 1100&rs=1

14 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Possibly - it helps explain their gross betting revenue.

That happened maybe 18 months ago on  a US race I had a $20 bet on. Result showed all horses 1st. Mine ran 5th but I got paid for the win bet. Tried to ring and point out the error but couldn't get a real person so gave up. Some of the sports bet errors are probably worse though I don't follow those closely but some have been pointed out to me and the new platform does not seem to have helped. Certainly contributes significantly to the GBR issues I'm thinking.

14 minutes ago, mardigras said:

And not that it matters as it doesn't change anything. But from an information perspective, it's pretty poor given the money spent.

Are they paying out on all three?

And back to the headpost, even the free speech site is censoring to defend TA behaviour now.

7 minutes ago, Hesi said:

They could make a case for revamping the tracks and facilities at all provincial courses, using an allocation from the Provincial Growth Fund.

They have a chance while Winston and Shane Jones are still there, but it might pay to get a wriggle on.

Both John Key and Bill English despised Racing

They could but it would be yet another waste of taxpayer money. Fixing tracks is important but on its own will do nothing but that.

2 minutes ago, Hesi said:

So the doubling of stakes is a total pipe dream

Halving of them seems a better chance now unless they rob a bank, and it's probably what needs to happen anyway.

14 hours ago, Hesi said:

I presume by this you mean the Kevin Morton fiasco that you were so helpful and involved in......90 horses was it?

Probably been over this before, but can you elaborate on what needs to happen

Yep a hundred times. A decade ago it held some hope. 5 or 6 years ago a glimmer. Now, it would be a waste of breath.

If it attracts losers to the game, all good. We need more of that. A lot more.

17 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Well that is going to increase when stakes double

lol....true. But what's the big deal? This is a reflection of the whole basis of industry problems where NZTR etc. are incapacitated by a power base that can not see what needs to happen because of their own commercial interests. Shame really.

Then they start picking on individual stake holders who dare....

Sorry about the ellipses.

yeahh what is it? 2-3% pay their way?

Yep. When I go for a performance review they only compare my performance with my agreed KPIs from the year before, not everybody else's, though those might inform the setting of mine. Bit like assessing horse performance. Population stats aren't a lot of help.

It's reemerged with gusto it appears 🙂

Yes. I was there! We also had a small share. Her other trial wasn't bad either.

You didn't add the bit that Gerald thinks Donna is mad Pete! Bloody thing'll probably win half a dozen races now 🙂

I note that RWC turnover for the TABin 2015 was just under $20m so this is a big increase on that.

8 hours ago, mardigras said:

Gross revenue higher than any other event of $7.5m, and they are happy with $2.9m of profit ahead of budget.

It might be brilliant, but I'd prefer to see how the budget was arrived at.

I'd prefer to see how the budget is allocated through the year too. I wish they'd just give us the actual quarterly figures.

It's staggering to me that they achieved a margin of nearly 23% on the World Cup betting if those figures are to be believed. 7.5m GBR on 32.9m turnover. Could that be right?