mardigras Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Who can point me to turnover info provided - either NZTR or TAB - such as YoY comparisons/venue comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 36 minutes ago, mardigras said: Who can point me to turnover info provided - either NZTR or TAB - such as YoY comparisons/venue comparisons. Yes please. I'm looking for that too, especially venue/meeting comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I don't think you are going to get it. NZTR used to do it every week, venue, YTD etc etc, then Saundry put a halt to it. Only suggestion, is to email NZTR and/or TAB NZ and ask that data be published Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VC! Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 The Hong Kong jockey club turnover for 2022/2023 was HK 304 Billion, just a walk in the park really 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 32 minutes ago, VC! said: The Hong Kong jockey club turnover for 2022/2023 was HK 304 Billion, just a walk in the park really if NZ geoblock - they may as well revert to a HK model and go tote only. Gives them better returns and zero risk. No brainer - however, I bet you $5 they won't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 11 minutes ago, mardigras said: if NZ geoblock - they may as well revert to a HK model and go tote only. Gives them better returns and zero risk. No brainer - however, I bet you $5 they won't do it. Lot lower costs too. Might be the go. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 What's happening on the geoblocking anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 (edited) 1 minute ago, curious said: Lot lower costs too. Might be the go. Absolutely. Huge overhead reduction. No client management around price offers. No limits on customer bets, and no decisions around evaluating price and setting markets. Edited February 4 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Rep Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 It works for HK. Why wouldn’t it work here? Ever since FOB came in, the stakes went down, the payout to clubs dropped and the cost of running the business skyrocketed. Entain have reversed the cycle, but for how long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 2 hours ago, mardigras said: Absolutely. Huge overhead reduction. No client management around price offers. No limits on customer bets, and no decisions around evaluating price and setting markets. We are not privy to all the data, but it would be interesting to look back at Racing Board annual reports to compare what costs were, before and after FO betting was introduced. I can't remember what year it happened 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 9 hours ago, Hesi said: We are not privy to all the data, but it would be interesting to look back at Racing Board annual reports to compare what costs were, before and after FO betting was introduced. I can't remember what year it happened There has been some analysis done which suggests the costs of NZRB went up significantly in line with their fixed odds offering increasing. And that is logical. You have to manage markets as well as understand pricing. Something they never needed to do before on racing events. And when the turnover didn't change and the returns from fixed odds was lower than tote overall, the gross returns became smaller coupled with increased costs. Luckily sports and then pokies helped balance that out overall. But little to no net revenue growth. Myself and a number of others had written extensively on this back around 2007. As commingling was also another massively poor decision. Their lack of understanding of wagering markets didn't allow them to realise what the true effects would be - even though they were always claiming how great it was going to be. It never happened. They had the perfect opportunity to stay with tote only - be flexible around commission rates on tote markets as a marketing tool. But chose to do fixed odds achieving margins lower than tote anyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 As I said we are not privy to the figures, which is a shame for those interested. I can recall that the Racing Board allowed costs to balloon to 220 mil with a revenue of about 350 mil These costs were brought down by RITA to low 200 mil. So it would be interesting to see what the breakdown is now with Entain's expertise and economies of scale. The last annual report on the TAB NZ website is 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 4 minutes ago, Hesi said: As I said we are not privy to the figures, which is a shame for those interested. I can recall that the Racing Board allowed costs to balloon to 220 mil with a revenue of about 350 mil These costs were brought down by RITA to low 200 mil. So it would be interesting to see what the breakdown is now with Entain's expertise and economies of scale. The last annual report on the TAB NZ website is 2020 We would never get full breakdown. But I did get the full details around turnover by code/by country/by bet type for four years when fixed odds came in (by way of the OIA). They wouldn't provide yields at that level saying the information was commercially sensitive - which is a load of bull - since they had no competitor. And therefore I still had enough information to make reasonable decisions as to whether fixed odds on NZ racing was generating extra revenue. By using the published fixed odds yields etc compared to the tote yields. The expenses were never going to be broken down in a way allowing full relationship between the types of bet - as they knew they would highlight their folly. You simply can't do a bunch of things you never had to do before, and somehow do it all without cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) I did eventually get the yields for 4 years about that time and from memory the gross FOB return ranged from 2+% - 12% p.a. Never did look at the cost increases though. Edited February 4 by curious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 (edited) 13 hours ago, Hesi said: We are not privy to all the data, but it would be interesting to look back at Racing Board annual reports to compare what costs were, before and after FO betting was introduced. I can't remember what year it happened 1995 Edited February 4 by curious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 3 hours ago, Hesi said: As I said we are not privy to the figures, which is a shame for those interested. I can recall that the Racing Board allowed costs to balloon to 220 mil with a revenue of about 350 mil These costs were brought down by RITA to low 200 mil. So it would be interesting to see what the breakdown is now with Entain's expertise and economies of scale. The last annual report on the TAB NZ website is 2020 No it's 2022. https://www.tabnz.org/reports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, curious said: I did eventually get the yields for 4 years about that time and from memory the gross FOB return ranged from 2+% - 12% p.a. Never did look at the cost increases though. The really odd thing is the gross yield on fixed odds is a) less than the gross yield of tote b) requires skills and contains risk - which tote does not require and is risk free c) incurs costs that tote does not incur (managing markets/setting prices/managing accounts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 20 minutes ago, mardigras said: c) incurs costs that tote does not incur (managing markets/setting prices/managing accounts) Are they still paying Betfair/Paddy Power $40m a year for that, or are Entain/Ladbrokes now providing that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 20 minutes ago, curious said: Are they still paying Betfair/Paddy Power $40m a year for that, or are Entain/Ladbrokes now providing that? I'd like to think Entain would be providing that. Not sure what exit costs they would face from PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, mardigras said: The really odd thing is the gross yield on fixed odds is a) less than the gross yield of tote b) requires skills and contains risk - which tote does not require and is risk free c) incurs costs that tote does not incur (managing markets/setting prices/managing accounts) That is with the TAB bookmakers setting markets. You guys would know from your experience what these major betting agencies like Entain typically average as a gross yield on FOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I recall TAB tote margins averaged about 20% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karrotsishere Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Heard Entain have been approaching people who they have had a good relationship with in past & have in past got results & not nessary those who are in current favour. In order to get a variety of opinions & information. With the end goal improving things. Im talking about Harness not Gallops but maybe same for Gallops. Sounds like they have some out of the box thinkers. Bypassing racing club boards etc on future decision making & in general calling the shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 9 minutes ago, Hesi said: That is with the TAB bookmakers setting markets. You guys would know from your experience what these major betting agencies like Entain typically average as a gross yield on FOB Their gross yield would be no more than 15-17% on racing (and likely closer to 12-14%), and lower on sports - below tote yields. But those operators aren't usually in a position of being allowed to run a tote. They are given as exclusive licenses. So in the world where you have to compete, you have limited choice and fixed odds is about your only option - hence why so many want to restrict punters. NZ TAB was never in the position where it had to compete as it wasn't really competing with anyone - as will be the case if the geo-blocking comes about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Do you know what the rationale was for the TAB expanding into FO for sports and racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 6 minutes ago, Hesi said: Do you know what the rationale was for the TAB expanding into FO for sports and racing No. My guess would be they thought it would make their offering more competitive and attract additional interest. And Tabcorp were doing the same thing - however Tabcorp already had a huge number of competitors offering fixed odds. NZRB didn't have any skills in this area although they like to think they do. No doubt why they ultimately had to 'buy' a capability to manage things for them. Sports is a little different in that the outcomes are generally more limited - but tote could work there as well - but with a reduced commission rate to make the offering more attractive. I think NZRB just thought they were smarter than they actually were, and thought all this stuff would be easy money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.