Annual Report - TAB

[mardigras]

Where is it? Surely can't be far away. Should make for a few laughs.

[curious]

There's this to feast on in the mean time. Haven't seen any comment on it though.

https://loveracing.nz/OnHorseFiles/NZTR AR 2019-20 HiRes_RBG_29_Oct20.pdf

[curious]

Nor on the Minister's updated Letter of Expectations for the TAB.

https://www.tabnz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Letter to Dean McKenzie (1).pdf

[Hesi]

18/19 NZTR report, where is that?, not on the website

[mardigras]

The same issues still are evident. Auckland Racing Club with the horrendous funding level at 1/5 of the total domestic betting on their races. Just keep funding them with massively more than there is paying spectator interest in their races. Good effort. Some clubs received funding of less than 1/10th of their domestic betting levels.

[curious]

38 minutes ago, Hesi said:

18/19 NZTR report, where is that?, not on the website

https://loveracing.nz/OnHorseFiles/NZTR Annual Report 2019_LowRes 30-Oct.pdf

[mardigras]

The whole idea behind tiered racing is farcical here. Punters don't give a toss about it - the major tracks get the premier meetings (with the excess funding), but the punters aren't any more interested in them than any other meeting on a comparable date.

And none of the meetings are anywhere able to fund themselves from betting revenues. Time to increase the pokies venues.

[Hesi]

With a Finance Minister also as the Racing Minister, is this lack of self funding likely to come under more scrutiny, or is it too entrenched now.  A Racing Minister who is also the Sports Minister, good or bad?

[Freda]

So...just more of the same, plus the addition of AWT's not to mention the benefits soon to be realised by shutting down tracks in an arbitrary manner.

Very exciting times ahead.....not.

[mardigras]

"and the synthetic tracks will also produce significant savings for owners"

"The Cambridge Jockey Club and NZTR began planning for the synthetic track some time ago, with the involvement of the Provincial Growth Fund [PGF] allowing the scale of the project to be extended. A robust business case was compiled and was further examined by RITA before the PGF funding was confirmed."

The robust business case is so robust, they would have made it public surely. Anyone seen it?

I also like how they make sweeping statements such as producing significant savings, but what backs this statement up. They just say any old thing and expect people to believe them.

The reality is, New Zealand racing has gone through change already, and does need to change. However the changes it has already gone through have been so dramatic, the industry will never now be able to sustain itself. Let's have more changes like that one.

"Fields of less than eight runners are turnover killers, while full fields significantly boost punter interest"

I'll put up some data that highlights why this statement is pretty stupid.

But even if it were the case, why are they then continuing to program in a way that doesn't ensure the maximum capacity of the races they run. Surely they would be identifying the races needed to be run from those that provide the horses (the trainers), not setting them up in some manner largely based on what was done in previous years.

It's quite surreal reading about how well they see themselves as having done, when I don't see any evidence of any actual skill in directing the industry.

Edited November 18, 2020 by mardigras

[mardigras]

10 hours ago, Hesi said:

With a Finance Minister also as the Racing Minister, is this lack of self funding likely to come under more scrutiny, or is it too entrenched now.  A Racing Minister who is also the Sports Minister, good or bad?

I'd expect it will only change when the situation becomes more evident to the public. Most wouldn't realise the situation NZ racing is in with regards to how it is funded. So the government is able to sweep the situation under the carpet in the hope the masses don't find out.

Send him an email asking him if the government would be able to set up a 'vehicle' such as the TAB whereby that vehicle could make non income tax paying profits and distribute that across all the restaurants in NZ so that restaurants overall can keep going even when they are unsustainable themselves. Maybe we can have a vehicle that does that for tourism. Get the government to set something up that can make money, exclude them from paying any income tax, and use it to support tourism business.

Edited November 18, 2020 by mardigras

[mardigras]

I said I would put up some data around betting and field size. The idea that more revenue will be generated from larger fields is simply not something that is known to happen (long term). You could create greater efficiencies around the year's races by better programming, but the revenue generated annually isn't likely to correlate with field size, unless your program is stuffed.

Below is from 4 years of NZ gallops betting. There is little difference between the turnover per starter at the low numbers to the higher number of starters for the commingled pool of VIC TAB (NZ TAB inclusive). That was even more so for the non-commingled TABs and Betfair pools.

You are only going to get a certain number of horse starts in a year (of which improved programming might help increase that) - from a betting perspective, they don't care whether they are in a 7 horse field or a 12 horse field. The only benefit comes down to if you are to reduce the number of races run each year (allowing the average stake to go up), whilst still receiving the betting on those horses. 

A lot less races, better programming, more competitive fields. 

The above is only tote pools. But equally, fixed odds receives greater investment the shorter the price of the favourite (in general). Smaller fields are generally more likely to have lower priced favourites.

[Hesi]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

"and the synthetic tracks will also produce significant savings for owners"

"The Cambridge Jockey Club and NZTR began planning for the synthetic track some time ago, with the involvement of the Provincial Growth Fund [PGF] allowing the scale of the project to be extended. A robust business case was compiled and was further examined by RITA before the PGF funding was confirmed."

The robust business case is so robust, they would have made it public surely. Anyone seen it?

I also like how they make sweeping statements such as producing significant savings, but what backs this statement up. They just say any old thing and expect people to believe them.

The reality is, New Zealand racing has gone through change already, and does need to change. However the changes it has already gone through have been so dramatic, the industry will never now be able to sustain itself. Let's have more changes like that one.

"Fields of less than eight runners are turnover killers, while full fields significantly boost punter interest"

I'll put up some data that highlights why this statement is pretty stupid.

But even if it were the case, why are they then continuing to program in a way that doesn't ensure the maximum capacity of the races they run. Surely they would be identifying the races needed to be run from those that provide the horses (the trainers), not setting them up in some manner largely based on what was done in previous years.

It's quite surreal reading about how well they see themselves as having done, when I don't see any evidence of any actual skill in directing the industry.

Just like making public the selection criteria for going with Polytrack, I can't recall seeing anything ever published on this

[Hesi]

The Racing Act 2003 now the Racing Industry Act 2020, which protects the income stream from these other sources like Sports, would also have to be changed.  That is another way things could change, with pressure from the big sports bodies

[mardigras]

4 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The Racing Act 2003 now the Racing Industry Act 2020, which protects the income stream from these other sources like Sports, would also have to be changed.  That is another way things could change, with pressure from the big sports bodies

The income streams are a form of benefit handout. That's all they are. NZ Racing management seem happy to continue on that path. Says a lot about the type of people in NZ Racing management.

[mardigras]

Taking the races/starters and stake information from the NZTR report. 

If you reduced the number of races to 1450, retained the same number of horse starts, you would end up with average stake over $30k. It's about programming, not field size as such. And you would run less meetings overall which reduces the costs of running meetings.

You would then get the opportunity to reduce total stake payout (instead of upping the average to $30k), spend more on infrastructure as you try to alter the ratio of betting attraction between NZ and off-shore by making racing more attractive here.

[Hesi]

13 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The income streams are a form of benefit handout. That's all they are. NZ Racing management seem happy to continue on that path. Says a lot about the type of people in NZ Racing management.

Not entirely

The TAB has been set up on the back of the racing industry, a very definite brand name has been created over many years.

NZ'ers , the man in the street type, love to bet on their favourite sports, and for most, through the TAB is the most convenient way.  Most will not be that sophisticated to have set up off shore accounts.  Sports benefit from this wagering, through the various arrangements that have been put in place, so Racing getting a share of this is fair enough

[mardigras]

18 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Not entirely

The TAB has been set up on the back of the racing industry, a very definite brand name has been created over many years.

NZ'ers , the man in the street type, love to bet on their favourite sports, and for most, through the TAB is the most convenient way.  Most will not be that sophisticated to have set up off shore accounts.  Sports benefit from this wagering, through the various arrangements that have been put in place, so Racing getting a share of this is fair enough

Doesn't really matter how the TAB came to be. It was still afforded special privileges by the government (and whatever the past, IS a government entity). And sports betting and off-shore racing were never a part of what was the original TAB.

If the TAB starts acting as a hotel booking site or a bungee operator, I guess that's OK as well since they have a brand name that has been created over many years and the man in the street loves to go to hotels and travel around. More non income taxing paying money for the good of the racing industry.

The TAB is now simply a government vehicle for making the NZ Racing industry money. It doesn't matter where that money comes from - it doesn't even have to relate to NZ racing. That's a handout from a government entity - entirely.

Can you give me an example of another industry that has such a setup in NZ? Just one will do.

Do you think the Australian racing industry has gone through similar pathways? Yet they don't have a government funded mechanism gifting proceeds from non Australian racing to the racing industry. I wonder why.

Edited November 18, 2020 by mardigras

[curious]

3 hours ago, mardigras said:

I said I would put up some data around betting and field size. The idea that more revenue will be generated from larger fields is simply not something that is known to happen (long term). You could create greater efficiencies around the year's races by better programming, but the revenue generated annually isn't likely to correlate with field size, unless your program is stuffed.

Below is from 4 years of NZ gallops betting. There is little difference between the turnover per starter at the low numbers to the higher number of starters for the commingled pool of VIC TAB (NZ TAB inclusive). That was even more so for the non-commingled TABs and Betfair pools.

You are only going to get a certain number of horse starts in a year (of which improved programming might help increase that) - from a betting perspective, they don't care whether they are in a 7 horse field or a 12 horse field. The only benefit comes down to if you are to reduce the number of races run each year (allowing the average stake to go up), whilst still receiving the betting on those horses. 

A lot less races, better programming, more competitive fields. 

The above is only tote pools. But equally, fixed odds receives greater investment the shorter the price of the favourite (in general). Smaller fields are generally more likely to have lower priced favourites.

Exactly. It's always been like this. 2 seven horse races do exactly the same total turnover as one 14 horse race. There is no turnover gain. All the data says the same thing and has done for years. So you can run two 15k races with 7 runners each or one 30k race with 14 runners and the overall savings are small but there may be some. The stakes distribution to participants is also the same.

[mardigras]

Just now, curious said:

Exactly. It's always been like this. 2 seven horse races do exactly the same total turnover as one 14 horse race. There is no turnover gain. All the data says the same thing and has done for years. So you can run two 15k races with 7 runners each or one 30k race with 14 runners and the overall savings are small but there may be some. The stakes distribution to participants is also the same.

The issue with what they write is that it seems to me they think they can still run the same number of races - but each with more starters, and therefore more revenue. But it won't work out like that.

[Hesi]

4 hours ago, mardigras said:

I said I would put up some data around betting and field size. The idea that more revenue will be generated from larger fields is simply not something that is known to happen (long term). You could create greater efficiencies around the year's races by better programming, but the revenue generated annually isn't likely to correlate with field size, unless your program is stuffed.

Below is from 4 years of NZ gallops betting. There is little difference between the turnover per starter at the low numbers to the higher number of starters for the commingled pool of VIC TAB (NZ TAB inclusive). That was even more so for the non-commingled TABs and Betfair pools.

You are only going to get a certain number of horse starts in a year (of which improved programming might help increase that) - from a betting perspective, they don't care whether they are in a 7 horse field or a 12 horse field. The only benefit comes down to if you are to reduce the number of races run each year (allowing the average stake to go up), whilst still receiving the betting on those horses. 

A lot less races, better programming, more competitive fields. 

The above is only tote pools. But equally, fixed odds receives greater investment the shorter the price of the favourite (in general). Smaller fields are generally more likely to have lower priced favourites.

The Vic figs go up more in line with what might have been expected, but not NSW??

[mardigras]

13 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The Vic figs go up more in line with what might have been expected, but not NSW??

Any rise in the Vic numbers from 7 up - is just as likely to be unrelated to the number of starters. The number of races diminishes the higher up you go, creating greater impact +/- from outlier events.

In the data I put up, both 11 and 12 starters had lower average per runner than 7 starters.

Betfair is in line with expected - since they are fixed odds. Smaller fields will have higher betting per runner typically as highly favoured runners attract disproportionately higher fixed odds betting.

On the tote with very small field sizes, you would expect less betting - the commission rate is spread across very few runners making the market unlikely to deliver any value to those punters betting solely around value. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by mardigras

[curious]

48 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The issue with what they write is that it seems to me they think they can still run the same number of races - but each with more starters, and therefore more revenue. But it won't work out like that.

Exactly but where would all the extra starters come from?

[mardigras]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

Exactly but where would all the extra starters come from?

HK? With all the extra revenue, they'll be competing stakewise with them soon enough.

Edited November 19, 2020 by mardigras

[curious]

https://www.tabnz.org/sites/default/files/documents/tab21780 AR 2020 f web (1).pdf