Jump to content
The Race Place

AWT discussion


mardigras
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think the whole discussion on AWT - Poly v Tapeta v say a Strathayr or sand even, is a bit pointless. 

I'd have exactly the same issue with the development and investment on a new track of any kind that I would for the new tracks being built. To me it isn't about the type of track, it's about the financial justification for it/them.

Some are just hung up on being anti AWT - when they should be anti unwarranted expense that will have an overall negative impact on revenue versus expenditure.

We should be spending those large amounts (but smaller on each track), to bring the current tracks up to an appropriate level over a cyclic period. At this stage, building a new track/complex is simply throwing more money down the drain as the payback costs are never going to be reached if the overall industry isn't also brought into line.

Once that starts turning things around and where excess money is available, then enhancing what you have could be looked at. And then a proper eval could be done.

Arguing about whether it should be an AWT or a Strathayr is tantamount to suggesting if they had chosen to do Strathayr implementations, everyone would be happy. But that's stupid. The very same issues around how that choice was made should be raised, and rightfully so. But i suspect the ones arguing about the AWT on the basis that punters don't like them, would go away, even though a newly built Strathayr complex is just as big an issue for the industry sustainability.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for for Geelong getting the chop. Geelong wasn't ousted because they didn't want the track, it was ousted because they decided they wanted only two, and Ballarat got the nod due to location etc. And Geelong was at the end of its initial life span so it gave them an ideal time to make that decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mardigras said:

And for for Geelong getting the chop. Geelong wasn't ousted because they didn't want the track, it was ousted because they decided they wanted only two, and Ballarat got the nod due to location etc. And Geelong was at the end of its initial life span so it gave them an ideal time to make that decision.

Punters bet on the AWT at similar levels to turf for the same grade of meeting. About the same sort of ratio that they bet on the Strathayr compared to standard turf for the same grade of meeting.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I think the whole discussion on AWT - Poly v Tapeta v say a Strathayr or sand even, is a bit pointless. 

I'd have exactly the same issue with the development and investment on a new track of any kind that I would for the new tracks being built. To me it isn't about the type of track, it's about the financial justification for it/them.

 

Spot on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mardigras said:

And for for Geelong getting the chop. Geelong wasn't ousted because they didn't want the track, it was ousted because they decided they wanted only two, and Ballarat got the nod due to location etc. And Geelong was at the end of its initial life span so it gave them an ideal time to make that decision.

 

I think that costs were at the back of the decision to run with only two....but, you're  correct in saying that the Geelong rationale was the logical option as it was due for replacement.  And location, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Freda said:

I think that costs were at the back of the decision to run with only two....but, you're  correct in saying that the Geelong rationale was the logical option as it was due for replacement.  And location, of course.

I agree Freda - and costs should be a major part of the decision, along with an alignment of what overall makes the industry a better running industry with fuller options, whilst at the same time consideration to the horse population and what best meets the needs there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

I think the whole discussion on AWT - Poly v Tapeta v say a Strathayr or sand even, is a bit pointless. 

I'd have exactly the same issue with the development and investment on a new track of any kind that I would for the new tracks being built. To me it isn't about the type of track, it's about the financial justification for it/them.

Some are just hung up on being anti AWT - when they should be anti unwarranted expense that will have an overall negative impact on revenue versus expenditure.

We should be spending those large amounts (but smaller on each track), to bring the current tracks up to an appropriate level over a cyclic period. At this stage, building a new track/complex is simply throwing more money down the drain as the payback costs are never going to be reached if the overall industry isn't also brought into line.

Once that starts turning things around and where excess money is available, then enhancing what you have could be looked at. And then a proper eval could be done.

Arguing about whether it should be an AWT or a Strathayr is tantamount to suggesting if they had chosen to do Strathayr implementations, everyone would be happy. But that's stupid. The very same issues around how that choice was made should be raised, and rightfully so. But i suspect the ones arguing about the AWT on the basis that punters don't like them, would go away, even though a newly built Strathayr complex is just as big an issue for the industry sustainability.

I think the concept of having world class infrastructure is good and necessary, but it needs to be taken in context of the big picture of an industry that is so far behind the eight ball, that rectifying things is an almost impossible ask, and this must be the priority, not questionable value infrastructure

Other sporting bodies have done it, and if they had not done it, they risked being excluded from the world scene, namely the rowing facility at Karapiro, the velodrome at Cambridge and the kayak course at Manukau, to name 3.

Anyway the AWT at Cambridge, surely, is a token of gratitude for the financial and public support of NZ First by important influencers within racing, such that they can continue on with the business of preparing horses for racing offshore and sale offshore, unhindered by the NZ climate

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Hesi said:

I think the concept of having world class infrastructure is good and necessary, but it needs to be taken in context of the big picture of an industry that is so far behind the eight ball, that rectifying things is an almost impossible ask, and this must be the priority, not questionable value infrastructure

I am a real advocate of having appropriate infrastructure. One or two shiny new pieces of it along with 30+ pieces of shit, is not a goal that will deliver industry improvement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, some keep repeating the same shit - with zero evidence.

Punters DON'T like punting on them in our largest market - Australia.    

This is simply not true. Some punters may not like them, some may like them. Same with turf, same with Strathayr.

Why don't they give us the average amount bet on on Ballarat AWT compared to Cranbourne, Mornington, Warrnambool or Geelong turf?

And then give us the average amount bet on Moonee Valley compared to Sandown, Caulfield and Flemington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

As I said, some keep repeating the same shit - with zero evidence.

Punters DON'T like punting on them in our largest market - Australia.    

This is simply not true. Some punters may not like them, some may like them. Same with turf, same with Strathayr.

Why don't they give us the average amount bet on on Ballarat AWT compared to Cranbourne, Mornington, Warrnambool or Geelong turf?

And then give us the average amount bet on Moonee Valley compared to Sandown, Caulfield and Flemington.

I'm guessing you have those figures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, curious said:

I'm guessing you have those figures?

I've had them in the past - and have them now but only for betfair. I'll put some up. Betting was lower in the very early days of AWT in Victoria - maybe as people were wary initially. That has now changed. I don't think punters want them for consistency of horse performance, my view is they want them for consistency of track performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Turny said:

I think you will also find certain bookies in Vic don't raise their stands at AWT venues, unpredictable for them too. They are a pure disaster IMHO for both horse and punter 

I disagree. Maybe bookies don't go there because punters trust the track surface is consistent and therefore make it more difficult for bookies that just rely on other odds setters.

You don't have to punt on them. Many will (and as per above, do). I bet on all types of tracks and I'd rather bet on a AWT than a bog that was under water for some of the track and firm for other parts - with no information about where the variances are.

And I certainly couldn't give a hoot about which bookies are on track. I have a bookie mate who fields at Flemington and I wouldn't go near him for a bet.

But as I say, the issue in NZ shouldn't be about whether there is an AWT because punters don't like them, it should be about is there justification for one from an industry expense/revenue perspective.

If you introduce the argument that they shouldn't have one because punters don't like them, you are giving the supporters of them ammunition, since your argument is clearly flawed - thereby lessening the merits of your own argument.

And if you suggest they should have gone with Strathayr, that is equally diminishing your own argument against them, as that suggests the expense of a new track is OK, but only if it is one you like.

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally rather see some existing grass tracks replaced with Strathayr because they need replacing anyway and that's probably the state of the art grass surface. However, partially replacing them with the addition of some other AWT is pretty much the same thing as far as  I can see from a net revenue perspective. How you justify the cost either way is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, curious said:

I'd personally rather see some existing grass tracks replaced with Strathayr because they need replacing anyway and that's probably the state of the art grass surface. However, partially replacing them with the addition of some other AWT is pretty much the same thing as far as  I can see from a net revenue perspective. How you justify the cost either way is beyond me.

I like the idea of bringing the current surfaces up to a decent level. But I'd prefer an assessment of the suitability of Strathayr (even if it is based on turf), in a climate like NZ and what the costs are associated with that. I haven't seen many that are used when very cold/wet. HK shuts down for the wet season (and not cold), Launceston doesn't run during winter, MV doesn't get that much racing during winter either. And I understand Moe has had issues in the past. But at least a proper evaluation such as what should have been done before going down the AWT path.

A proper evaluation and understanding of what the requirements are for maintenance/costs etc and consideration as to whether the climate is going to be an issue. And what the perceived benefits will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hesi said:

Not withstanding the justification for AWT's in the first place, but has anyone seen the reasons/feasibility/rationale etc why they proceeded with Polytrack, over other AWT's

The required expertise was in Australia (if you believe what other's have suggested)

Edited by mardigras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...