curious Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 25 minutes ago, barryb said: Not sure I have much issue with this mate. Is it really an issue? Not really. Just seems a bit odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigos1 Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 So I think 15k is quite good for all races for 13 meetings in July. Better than what I said (10k other than open handicaps 15k). I presume August depends on Government intervention? Is what occurred today enough to keep most Owners ,Trainers happy? I'm a bit (can't find the right word)....................about major handouts to racing when Treasury announced today ........predictions of unemployment by December could be 100k! It's weird as much as I love Racing I don't think it is more important than any other working enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, craigos1 said: So I think 15k is quite good for all races for 13 meetings in July. Better than what I said (10k other than open handicaps 15k). I presume August depends on Government intervention? Is what occurred today enough to keep most Owners ,Trainers happy? I'm a bit (can't find the right word)....................about major handouts to racing when Treasury announced today ........predictions of unemployment by December could be 100k! It's weird as much as I love Racing I don't think it is more important than any other working enterprise. Craig, old son, you are apparently forgetting that racing is not simply a bit of fun for punters large and small...it is a significant employer/career path in this country. Why should the Govt hand out $30m ?? to (say) the Forestry Industry after Covid's arrival in Wuhan flocked up the contractors/export industry here?? Why didn't they say "bad luck, tiger, join the dole queue"? Why did the Govt give truckloads to Air NZ to stay alive when borders were closed ..taxpayers own only 52% of Air NZ ! Taxpayers have a vested interest of our industry because we earn export $$; it employs thousands and it generates truckloads of tax $$$ from income, wagering and GST...allowing it to die now is NOT AN OPTION Edited April 30, 2020 by Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Maximus said: Craig, old son, you are apparently forgetting that racing is not simply a bit of fun for punters large and small...it is a significant employer/career path in this country. Why should the Govt hand out $30m ?? to (say) the Forestry Industry after Covid's arrival in Wuhan flocked up the contractors/export industry here?? Why didn't they say "bad luck, tiger, join the dole queue"? Why did the Govt give truckloads to Air NZ to stay alive when borders were closed ..taxpayers own only 52% of Air NZ ! Taxpayers have a vested interest of our industry because we earn export $$; it employs thousands and it generates truckloads of tax $$$ from income, wagering and GST...allowing it to die now is NOT AN OPTION The government gives racing $150m per year already. Every year. A free gift. A large portion of that $150m does not even come from any activity relating to NZ racing. And they are a small industry. Under 0.5% of GDP imo. They are nowhere near forestry, tourism or practically any industry in NZ. A which point do you think the government should stop the handouts - forget Covid handouts, I'm talking handouts in general. And the tax $$$ from wagering (that's not just NZ racing, but from all TAB operations including off-shore racing, sport and pokies), is only $75m per year and about to be less than that with the levy reduction. The tax take from the participants (GST, income) is also small, and wouldn't be lost anyway as people would ultimately be redeployed. I'm not suggesting they will let it end now, but letting it die is an option. And if things don't improve, an option that will likely come to the forefront of a government at some point soon. It is simply not prudent financial management to keep propping something up that delivers little benefits to the nation, where the money could probably be better spent elsewhere. Nobody wants that, but they will need to do something massively different to what they have been doing, if they want to take the focus off their continual requests for financial handouts above and beyond the massive handout they get every year. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigos1 Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 (edited) Max I don"t disagree with anything you said.....................I'm not trying to be Devil's Advocate. Perhaps I was thinking a little about my own situation....................27.5% cut in wages and am unsure come August whether I'll still be in a job. I have shares in 1 Galloper and 1 Harness horse.I realise everyone is doing it hard but should Racing get a bail out when others don't...........................will trainers lower there fees especially those at the high end of the scale by 27.5%....................???? Edited April 30, 2020 by craigos1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 1 hour ago, barryb said: Not sure I have much issue with this mate. Is it really an issue? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, barryb said: No Trainers shouldn't lower fees, but my suggestion is this, No Trainer or Jockey should get anything extra ie: the 10% or 5% of the prize money other than the winner of the race. Lets get real here. Everyone is feeling pain, taking temporarily now will give them much longer term pain when I like so many others pull pin for a runner whom runs 14th and have to give away a %, fuck off. Good point. As a trainer, or possibly a trainer to be I think it would be dreadful to take 10% of the money for running 14th. Maybe for the first 3 or more likely for any stake over a certain amount, say 5k? That can be written into your training contract though by agreement. Edited April 30, 2020 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Good points re. percentages, I agree. Incentive monies shouldn't count, IMO. As for the furore elsewhere about horse welfare, punting integrity, etc, etc, with 'unfit horses on heavy tracks' ....ffs...if your nag isn't fit, and/or doesn't handle mud, don't run the effing thing. I have two among my small team that I would gladly run fresh over 2200 - and further. If there are no races further than 1400 on offer, they would be seriously outgunned, and that would be a punting ' integrity' issue in itself. We can look at so many UK trainers who routinely present fit horses over distance; it isn't done so often now, but running, not just fresh, but first time out in the Epsom Derby has been done and successfully too. Blakeney ? Morston? Curious will know. Remember Bill Hillis? Presenting a chaser fresh and winning? no one commented then about how many trials and jumpouts he needed. Might have gone hunting, but still....bloody hell. A punter could back a Myers, Oulaghan, Nelson horse fresh over any distance. Ability might be a problem, fitness wouldn't. It makes me grit my teeth when George Simon hollers into his microphone ' great training performance ' about a horse who has just won fresh over 1100 metres... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Freda said: We can look at so many UK trainers who routinely present fit horses over distance; it isn't done so often now, but running, not just fresh, but first time out in the Epsom Derby has been done and successfully too. Maybe not so often in things like the Derby these days, but it is routine overall. Take a horse like Stradivarius for example. First start 2017 - 2000m won First start 2018 - 2800m won First start 2019 - 2800m won The last two years were Group 2 races. They don't run their horses in races for the purposes of getting them fit. They take them to the races fit for the race. Which means they don't run their horses over unsuitable distances (or at least what the trainer would think is unsuitable). That's what I call integrity, not running a horse over 1600m that is a jumper wanting 2m - 3m, using the race to get the horse fit for later assignments. Edited April 30, 2020 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 • Stakes will be paid on the following basis: 1 st 54% 2nd 15% 3 rd 7% 4 th 4% 5 th - 14th 2% • The payments for horses finishing 5th-14th are considered stake money payments (not starters incentives). Accordingly, rider and trainer percentages will be deducted from the amount paid. • Where starting limits or starter numbers for a race are less than 14, the ‘excess’ stake money will be allocated to the first-place getter/s of that race (e.g. if the starting limit is 12, the amount that would have been paid to the horses finishing 13th and 14th will be paid to the first placegetter(s)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Ok, but I don't agree with that. Overall though, July could have looked a lot worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesi Posted April 30, 2020 Author Share Posted April 30, 2020 A number of issues been pointed out, but I think they have done a reasonable job. It appears also the communication side is a lot better. They delivered a communique when they said this time. The 20/21 budget is going to be a completely different story, it can't be a one off fix like for July. Major changes to the system, or it is just an exercise in futility. The Ministerial letter of expectation, expects these changes to be made, that is quite clear, for the sake of racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) we also need to remember that July is the worst time of year all round for racing here - cold, windy and/or wet, tracks sometimes unsafe (hence abandonments). Unpleasant for everyone who has to be outside, esp jockeys - and for horses. So, under the Covid circumstances, a minimal reintroduction in terms of meetings/courses to get through July to ed this shambles of a season - makes sense. However I think they should have opted to include the best winter surface in the North Island (Ruakaka) for July/August/Sept despite the difficulty/cost of televising those dates. I see RITA is considering an 'earlier than July 3' resumption. There are usually two meetings in the second half of June at Ruakaka - but I doubt RITA will schedule Ruakaka now. Edited May 7, 2020 by Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 7, 2020 Share Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) On 4/30/2020 at 6:32 PM, curious said: True. So if you accept and scratch because the track is not acceptable you pay? Or not? i think it makes sense that if you nominate and accept, then choose to scratch for any reason (other than at the barrier, perhaps), you pay an appropriate fee. In many cases, your withdrawal has, in effect, prevented another runner from starting. Which raises the question: will they announce acceptances including a decent number of 'emergencies' (ballots)? Edited May 7, 2020 by Maximus 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.