Cambridge today

[mardigras]

Gotta love the new track. 9 races - maximum race distance 1550. How good is that? More and more like Oz every day.

[Maximus]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Gotta love the new track. 9 races - maximum race distance 1550. How good is that? More and more like Oz every day.

following the Ozzie model is more likely to make the industry sustainable...

[mardigras]

27 minutes ago, Maximus said:

following the Ozzie model is more likely to make the industry sustainable...

How so?

We shouldn't be following their tiered model. We shouldn't be following their sprint focused model. We shouldn't be following their handicapping model.

We should follow their funding model, but that isn't going to make a huge difference now since we've lost so much of our base.

Which part of their model do you want to follow.

Edited June 1, 2021 by mardigras

[Maximus]

we are too small a 'player' to have their multi-tiered model. We need to follow any model that gives strong incentives to (in no particular order) owners, trainers, breeders and bloodstock industry services.

I expect today's lack of racing beyond 1600m has something to do with the track being 'looked after' in its early days. Just guessing.

[mardigras]

55 minutes ago, Maximus said:

we are too small a 'player' to have their multi-tiered model. We need to follow any model that gives strong incentives to (in no particular order) owners, trainers, breeders and bloodstock industry services.

I expect today's lack of racing beyond 1600m has something to do with the track being 'looked after' in its early days. Just guessing.

The Australian model is very much based around tiers. But the key aspect of the Australian model and one we definitely should do, is base reward on interest. Doing that would at least make our industry somewhat sustainable since the level of reward for race meetings would be commensurate with the level of interest that meeting has. After that, all you need to do is align the overall level of interest with the overall level of reward correctly and everything works.

That won't provide huge incentives since there is no interest. But it least it would place the size of the industry in the right position as to what it is. And remove the need to fund NZ racing from everything under that sun that has no relationship with NZ racing. Such as sports betting, pokies, off-shore betting.

Then build NZ racing up from that base with appropriate strategies around how to grow interest and where money needs to be spent to do that. Like any normal business would.

[barryb]

8 hours ago, Maximus said:

we are too small a 'player' to have their multi-tiered model. We need to follow any model that gives strong incentives to (in no particular order) owners, trainers, breeders and bloodstock industry services.

I expect today's lack of racing beyond 1600m has something to do with the track being 'looked after' in its early days. Just guessing.

Max, like many you left off the most important person and therein lies the problem with NZ racing.

THE PUNTER

[Maximus]

7 minutes ago, barryb said:

Max, like many you left off the most important person and therein lies the problem with NZ racing.

THE PUNTER

sorry mate... but there's nothing for the punter to punt on if there are no horses being bought, sold, fed and watered and cared for, then ridden, trained and paid for ..the punter is at the end of the line because he or she will bet on flies, frogs, camels, chickens or crocodiles and they really don't give a shit about the horse, jockey, strapper, groom, stable foreman, vet, farrier, trainer or owner.

MM

Edited June 2, 2021 by Maximus

[Turny]

Without the Punter, there is no racing it really is as simple as that - the rest need us 100 per cent

Edited June 2, 2021 by Turny

[barryb]

1 hour ago, Maximus said:

sorry mate... but there's nothing for the punter to punt on if there are no horses being bought, sold, fed and watered and cared for, then ridden, trained and paid for ..the punter is at the end of the line because he or she will bet on flies, frogs, camels, chickens or crocodiles and they really don't give a shit about the horse, jockey, strapper, groom, stable foreman, vet, farrier, trainer or owner.

MM

Sorry Max, but Turny is bang on.

Have a think about what you have posted, you will see how upside down you have it and that’s exactly why NZ Racing is fucked.

What you are suggesting is the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer are more important than the end user customer. I cannot think of any business where the manufacturer is more important than the customer, none of the 3 survive without the customer. 

[LookingForValue]

There are other regions where the NZ punter can take their betting. Australia, GB, HK etc. I can't bet through the NZ TAB so have to bet elsewhere. I bet on NZ thoroughbreds because I can download the horse performance details easily. I also have a database of HK horses that give me so much info., I should just focus there. I would never bet on flies, mosquitoes or any other wildlife. I'm not a compulsive gambler. I like to invest to make money. If I can't do that, I stop. 

[Maximus]

34 minutes ago, barryb said:

Sorry Max, but Turny is bang on.

Have a think about what you have posted, you will see how upside down you have it and that’s exactly why NZ Racing is fucked.

What you are suggesting is the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer are more important than the end user customer. I cannot think of any business where the manufacturer is more important than the customer, none of the 3 survive without the customer. 

there are no customers without products/services, mate. 

[mardigras]

21 minutes ago, Maximus said:

there are no customers without products/services, mate. 

if there are no NZ products, the customers simply go elsewhere - of which there is ample choice. NZ racing is competing for customers, as does every business. Any business that loses sight of that is pretty well f'd. NZ is so stuffed, it is why they are trying to find ways to force customers to bet through a local provider. That should tell you straight away that the product by itself is not attracting/retaining customers, and they have to implement such measures to assist.

[mardigras]

Further to that, take things like the NRL, or PGA golf. The customers don't need them, they need the customers. Broadcast rights, sponsorship deals - they don't happen if no one wants to be involved with the sport.

Customer is always right - pretty much a true adage. Even when you don't like what they're saying.

Even in a country like Dubai where there is no betting(as such), the same rule applies. In that case the customer is the tourist and the vehicle aiding in tourism is the racing.

Edited June 2, 2021 by mardigras

[mardigras]

40 minutes ago, Maximus said:

there are no customers without products/services, mate. 

This is like saying that without NZ beer producers, there would be no beer customers. If the NZ beer producers were no good, do you really think the beer customers would give a toss?

[Hesi]

1 hour ago, Maximus said:

there are no customers without products/services, mate. 

Excuse the pun Maxi, but you have the cart before the horse

[Hesi]

Think of it this way, the racing industry are, the clubs, NZTR, owners, trainers, jockeys, associated workers and industries, including breeders, broadcasters etc

The punters are the customers, without customers an industry cannot exist.  Sure, the associated workers and industries have other customers.  Vets for instance.

It is always disappointing to read about insular people in racing, who do not understand this, and others within racing that support that insular view.  Trainers for instance, who believe they have no obligation to front the media

Everyone in the racing industry has an obligation to present their industry in the best light, because their masters are effectively the general betting public

As an aside, I read about Naomi Osaka not fronting.  Wheeling out the mental health thing doesn't really compute.  I thought all elite sports people, to get to where they are, had to be mentally tough

 

[barryb]

4 hours ago, mardigras said:

This is like saying that without NZ beer producers, there would be no beer customers. If the NZ beer producers were no good, do you really think the beer customers would give a toss?

And what would the NZ beer producers do?  They would adapt and change to match customer demand to survive.

Unfortunately this thinking is all too common in NZ Racing, People with minimal exposure to S&OP, Marketing  just fail to understand what the drivers are.

[mardigras]

6 hours ago, Hesi said:

Trainers for instance, who believe they have no obligation to front the media

Everyone in the racing industry has an obligation to present their industry in the best light, because their masters are effectively the general betting public

As an aside, I read about Naomi Osaka not fronting.  Wheeling out the mental health thing doesn't really compute.  I thought all elite sports people, to get to where they are, had to be mentally tough

 

I'm not a fan of people having to present to media. Regardless of who is paying the bills, there are some that would potentially help the 'sport/industry', many that won't. Why would an industry want people fronting the media that were actually a negative to it. Some sports have those kind of rules built in. The rule doesn't necessarily make what they say and how they say it any more advantageous to the sport. It's obligation for obligation sake.

Major company bosses will often not front media. They have customers. They still continue in business. They'll use their specialist PR people for a lot of that. Yet for some reason, some sports expect people without those skills to do so. Some of the best sports people in the world are seriously challenged when it comes to string two sentences together. 

Not all All Blacks give post match interviews, the trainer of the tennis player isn't usually asked for a review of their players performance, neither does the strapper usually get an interview. I think people have become fixated on this issue. I agree with Osaka, mental issue or not. If you lose some people because of a few like that, then I don't see them being much of a supporter to worry about. Not all participants are going to walk away from the opportunity, enough will carry on.

And in regards racing, the idea that racing is better off by having a trainer throw out some standard line about their horses, than not speaking at all. That says a lot about who the people are that are keen on that - as that is what you largely get. I can't actually remember the last time I listened to a jockey or trainer pre or post race on tv/radio. Why worry about the few that don't want to front, there are plenty waiting around to fill that gap. And it's just noise.

As an aside, even though the world has gone somewhat PC mad, I'd expect elite athletes to be massively prone to mental issues. Mentally tough playing a sport, in and around the aspects of playing the sport, is not necessarily the same as mentally tough dealing with other aspects of life.

[curious]

Seems to me that Naomi Osaka has taken a mentally tough position. In the face of bullying, developing psychological barriers is a fair strategy imo, especially if you don't have a reasonable escape route. Don't think if I were an owner or trainer faced with the option, that I would want to be fronting the media. That's not my job.

No training, experience or skills for that. Probably be detrimental to the industry and me to do so. Also, after a race, there are other far greater priorities.

Edited June 2, 2021 by curious

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, curious said:

Seems to me that Naomi Osaka has taken a mentally tough position. In the face of bullying, developing psychological barriers is a fair strategy imo, especially if you don't have a reasonable escape route. Don't think if I were an owner or trainer faced with the option, that I would want to be fronting the media. That's not my job.

No training, experience or skills for that. Probably be detrimental to the industry and me to do so.

Yep, imagine Fonterra expecting the food chemist to come out and front the media about Fonterra business - or get a few of their co-operative farmers to do the same. Yet for some reason, people want that type of thing to happen in sport. 

Companies are more inclined to restrict their staff from talking to media - rather than letting them tell their customers their views on things.

[Hesi]

Fair point, but the racing industry is an unusual set up of stand alone businesses, represented by NZTR, a known ineffectual body, for whatever reason

Zespri represent the Kiwifruit growers and do all the talking to media.

The other aspect to this being the unusual disconnect of racing in NZ, whereby they are not directly accountable to their customers to drive revenue that funds the industry, that is the role of TAB NZ

[curious]

24 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Companies are more inclined to restrict their staff from talking to media - rather than letting them tell their customers their views on things.

Yep, that's certainly the case in the organisation I most recently worked for. Got my hand smacked for doing so. I think that many sports, e.g. NZ rugby, are very selective about who does that these days.

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Fair point, but the racing industry is an unusual set up of stand alone businesses, represented by NZTR, a known ineffectual body, for whatever reason

Zespri represent the Kiwifruit growers and do all the talking to media.

The other aspect to this being the unusual disconnect of racing in NZ, whereby they are not directly accountable to their customers to drive revenue that funds the industry, that is the role of TAB NZ

And Fonterra is a set of farmers represented/co-operated by Fonterra

Your own point is that Zespri don't expect all the growers to front the media to tell them how their fruit is going.

The whole issue should be a voluntary one - so that ideally those that are skilled at it, front the media. 

The issue about NZTR v the TAB - that is the case in OZ as well in respect of the betting operators. But the controlling bodies will still do active promotion of their racing to bring about that customer relationship with the betting operators and with the clubs/industry. I don't think there is anything stopping NZTR from promoting racing. 

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Fair point, but the racing industry is an unusual set up of stand alone businesses, represented by NZTR, a known ineffectual body, for whatever reason

The clubs are supposedly represented by NZTR. It is an association of clubs. Nothing to do with other participants such as trainers, jockeys, owners...

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, curious said:

Yep, that's certainly the case in the organisation I most recently worked for. Got my hand smacked for doing so. I think that many sports, e.g. NZ rugby, are very selective about who does that these days.

The two biggest organisations I worked for had processes for ensuring the likes of me did not talk to media - or as you say, you would face the consequences.