Forbury TC Stakes

[Happy Sunrise]

4 races out of 9 are worth $20 000 on Thursday. Including one for 35 to 42 pacers.

The supporting races at the NZ Cup were only $25 000 last year. The junior free for all won by Krug was worth $31 000.

Not sure if it is good or bad.

[Rusty]

22 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Not sure if it is good or bad.

Those 4x $20k stakes are not too shabby in my opinion. Look they are not life changing, but it's better than $9k or $12k obviously. 

And good point about the NZ Cup Day stakes. They have been arse for some time now. NZMTC is resting on its laurels. 

[Happy Sunrise]

9 minutes ago, Rusty said:

They have been arse for some time now. NZMTC is resting on its laurels. 

Cup Day stakes might be increasing this year? Seems a lot of positive changes to stakes so to increase the value of Cup Day races seems logical and overdue. 

Even the graduation final on Show Day last year is only $10 000 more than Forbury on Thursday.

[Happy Sunrise]

7 hours ago, Gospel Of Judas said:

Have some news for as all! the 20k stakes are for Winter Rewards Series. Forbury TC not puting up any extra money.

Which must mean Cup Day stakes etc will be boosted too? I really like the upped stakes but it must be done comparatively.

[karrotsishere]

 Would like to see a boost in minimum stakes ASAP. No more racing for NZD9k. Winner gets approx NZD5K approx USD3K. With cost of living, inflation etc 2022. This level should not be accepted by owners.

Its not sustainable to expect to get new owners with minimum stakes so low. Minimum wage in NZ is approx NZD21.20. 

Owners folking out hundreds of dollars weekly or monthly from any time frame of approx 6 months to 3 years before their horse races. 

All for the chance if your horse wins its 1st race for USD3K!  If it wins it lines up again for similar stake money. Wow wee lets pay all this money upfront over years to hope to win USD3k. 

Can anyone else see a problem with this picture?

Owners need put pressure on clubs now. By looks yes clubs can afford it heres an e.g Cambridge not putting its minimum stake up, races for 9K but puts on The Race. Also says it hopes to increase that stake level, PLUS introduce a trot The Race.

Remember Happy recently we read about some owners association that put in a letter to protest those 2 lads up on sexual charges. Goodness priorities. Surely in the longivity of Harness racing increase in MINIMUM STAKE should be the TOP of their list. 

Owners as a collective, could force change if so desired. Simple just dont race your horse until an acceptable level has been implemented around country.

No horses, no races. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by karrotsishere

[Happy Sunrise]

4 hours ago, karrotsishere said:

Surely in the longivity of Harness racing increase in MINIMUM STAKE should be the TOP of their list. 

But stakes come from punters having the confidence to bet into races which increases turnover and then stakes.

Hence, the reason I harp on about the little things like stipe inconsistency, starting issues, movement notifications etc. Punter confidence is key. HRNZ are doing some good things for sure but they turn a blind eye to the little but important things around racing.

When you compare a harness race to a gallops race in Australia I know which one I would have confidence betting into.

[Hesi]

I mentioned this quite along time ago, I can't find the report now, but many years ago NZTR(I think), did some market research into what the general public thought of horse racing.

The results were dismal

Most thought the industry was rigged

If you were not in the know, then you were on the back foot as far as betting on horses, so why would you bother, as opposed to other forms of gambling where there is mainly a level playing field.

The only positive, being that a day at the races was a great form of entertainment.

I looked up an old NZTR Business Plan from 2011, when Mathew Goodson was in charge.  I have pasted this bit below, unfortunately, nothing has changed

Marketing

Promoting the Sport of Thoroughbred Racing

Despite a high combined industry spend on marketing over the last five years, thoroughbred racing does not feature as an entertainment option of choice for most New Zealanders. Current Status  NZTR does not currently market or co-ordinate the marketing of thoroughbred racing sport

 

[PWJ]

2 minutes ago, Hesi said:

I mentioned this quite along time ago, I can't find the report now, but many years ago NZTR(I think), did some market research into what the general public thought of horse racing.

The results were dismal

Most thought the industry was rigged

If you were not in the know, then you were on the back foot as far as betting on horses, so why would you bother, as opposed to other forms of gambling where there is mainly a level playing field

 

Interesting Alan, I remember that report and how many in the industry just didn't believe the findings.

Anecdotally I found it to be true. People I asked who had nothing to do with racing thought it was dodgy. You could write a very long piece on where this belief originated and grew but suffice to say it was a prevalent view then and probably still is. These same people which I quizzed were often compulsive investors in Lotto every week where the organization's deductions were massive but when asked to tell me what they thought the deductions were, no one had any idea. Some actually thought all the money invested was paid back ! The launch of Lotto was very well done to hook these exact people - ma & pa types - who would never go near a racetrack.

The other curious finding I made was that most who played Lotto but never had a bet at the TAB or went to the races, didn't believe Lotto was gambling. Some argued quite strongly that they definitely didn't gamble but spend $30 week on Lotto ($1500 annually) but they swore it wasn't gambling. That's the strict protestant colonization of NZ leaking through, the wowser-ism alive and well.

When I was a little kid, I remember being up town on a Friday night and walking past a lane in downtown New Plymouth (Brougham Street) I spotted a number of people going in and out of an entrance with a little sign above the door that read "TAB". I had no idea what it was and I was confident I knew every shop in town and what was sold there. I asked Dad and he literally put his hand on my head and guided my eyes away from the view down the lane and said something to the effect of: 'don''t worry about that son, just bad people up to no good". For thousands of other curious kids that seen was probably repeated all over the country for years.

Image is everything...

[Hesi]

That's the trouble with the industry in NZ, it is so inward looking.  Sure there may have been aspects of research that were contestable, but the overall perception was, that racing was crooked.  And guess what, perception is what determines how people act.

I bet if similar research was done in Aus, the results would be much more positive

With regard to Lotto, they have done a superb job over the last 30 years, sanitising gambling, to the extent it is now acceptable to most in NZ.

By comparison, the TAB's attempt to market a life changing product, in Triple Trio, was laughable and short lived.

Marketing 101, says if you want to try and sort out racing in NZ, get the product right.  How do you do that, by asking what your potential customers think via research.  Take the results and try and find out what is wrong and how to fix it, then market the shit out of the your revamped product, not just for 12 months, but year after year, to build a brand image, just like Lotto have done

[PWJ]

7 minutes ago, Hesi said:

That's the trouble with the industry in NZ, it is so inward looking.  Sure there may have been aspects of research that were contestable, but the overall perception was, that racing was crooked.  And guess what, perception is what determines how people act.

I bet if similar research was done in Aus, the results would be much more positive

With regard to Lotto, they have done a superb job over the last 30 years, sanitising gambling, to the extent it is now acceptable to most in NZ.

By comparison, the TAB's attempt to market a life changing product, in Triple Trio, was laughable and short lived.

Marketing 101, says if you want to try and sort out racing in NZ, get the product right.  How do you do that, by asking what your potential customers think via research.  Take the results and try and find out what is wrong and how to fix it, then market the shit out of the your revamped product, not just for 12 months, but year after year, to build a brand image, just like Lotto have done

Nothing got the non-racegoing public more excited about racing than the early 70s jackpots and why wouldn't they ? You could set yourself up for life with a $1 ticket. I still don't understand why we can't go back to jackpots and market them to the General Public in such a way as to get everyone on board.

Envision this: Summer Carnivals - major race of the day - run live on domestic TV at 5.50pm - pick the first 6 home in the right order - just $1 a ticket - encourage syndicates - encourage everyone - guarantee a couple of million in prizemoney for winning it - give it a unique & cool title and tell everyone they must be involved - fast paced 3 minute build-up showing runners/colours then let it rip ! MAKE IT MORE EXCITING THAN A FRIGGIN LOTTO DRAW which literally takes up the same timespan. In winter give the harness boys a go, shift it maybe to 6.50pm or 7.50pm.

[Hesi]

10 minutes ago, PWJ said:

Nothing got the non-racegoing public more excited about racing than the early 70s jackpots and why wouldn't they ? You could set yourself up for life with a $1 ticket. I still don't understand why we can't go back to jackpots and market them to the General Public in such a way as to get everyone on board.

Envision this: Summer Carnivals - major race of the day - run live on domestic TV at 5.50pm - pick the first 6 home in the right order - just $1 a ticket - encourage syndicates - encourage everyone - guarantee a couple of million in prizemoney for winning it - give it a unique & cool title and tell everyone they must be involved - fast paced 3 minute build-up showing runners/colours then let it rip ! MAKE IT MORE EXCITING THAN A FRIGGIN LOTTO DRAW which literally takes up the same timespan. In winter give the harness boys a go, shift it maybe to 6.50pm or 7.50pm.

Because all the inward looking old boys in racing would say, why are you spending money on marketing when it could be going on stakes

[Hesi]

Anyway, the price of entry to this game has gone up.  A million bucks was okay 20 years ago, now it is not enough to capture the attention of the general public.  Lotto offer a lot more than that, and every week, 52 weeks per year

[karrotsishere]

3 hours ago, Hesi said:

I mentioned this quite along time ago, I can't find the report now, but many years ago NZTR(I think), did some market research into what the general public thought of horse racing.

The results were dismal

Most thought the industry was rigged

If you were not in the know, then you were on the back foot as far as betting on horses, so why would you bother, as opposed to other forms of gambling where there is mainly a level playing field.

The only positive, being that a day at the races was a great form of entertainment.

On the money post.

3 hours ago, PWJ said:

Anecdotally I found it to be true. People I asked who had nothing to do with racing thought it was dodgy.

These same people which I quizzed were often compulsive investors in Lotto every week.

The other curious finding I made was that most who played Lotto but never had a bet at the TAB or went to the races, didn't believe Lotto was gambling. Some argued quite strongly that they definitely didn't gamble but spend $30 week on Lotto.

Image is everything...

On the money post.

3 hours ago, PWJ said:

Interesting Alan, I remember that report and how many in the industry just didn't believe the findings

Are people like thick or something if they dont understand these basic no brainers.

4 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Hence, the reason I harp on about the little things like stipe inconsistency, starting issues, movement notifications etc. Punter confidence is key. 

I understand where you are coming from.

4 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

But stakes come from punters having the confidence to bet into races which increases turnover and then stakes.

I still put forward a motion to move, to increase minimum stake levels. If minimum stake level isnt increased to $12K by xyz date, these following dates will be effected & 40% of owners (with current horses racing, will not nom their horses for).

Cambridge  - 1st meeting in October 2022

Ashburton - 1st meeting in Nov 2022

Manawatu - 1st meeting in Dec 2022

Invercargill - 1st meeting in Jan 2023

And so on until stake minimum are put up & if ness rinse & repeat. Hitting every club paying less than $12k minimum stake.

(This is imaginery but boy, might just get some results - what would clubs do ... ?)

Go 1 step further, if clubs cant afford this should they be operating? Next if they starting to feel pinch due to this increase, who will they then go in turn to pressure? 

Just throwing it out there? 

As a collective do owners need to step up & force change within the industry?

I know owners on this site that I know of eg gone MIA (missing in action - Double R), Royal Nod, myself want an increase.

Far Too Much thoughts, minimum stakes increase? Tots cool if you not for an increase. Democracy rules. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by karrotsishere

[Happy Sunrise]

2 hours ago, karrotsishere said:

I still put forward a motion to move, to increase minimum stake levels.

But where does the money come from?

[karrotsishere]

19 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

But where does the money come from?

Hey Happy,

Im an owner folking out hundreds of dollars regularly. Do I care where this money comes from re minimum stakes increase?

Reminds me a lil of when we had the change of flag debate, my mate & I were totally keen to have a change of flag. Then there was this thing, re it costs this much money re change. So people went & voted against change. Even tho too late that money was already spent regardless whether we change it or not. BUT what cracked me up was when I asked my mate, "where does this money come from?". Her reply " I dont care how much it costs, just want change 😂". Of course she has gone on to marry a prince - no jokes. Haha so funny tho. 

Do I look like I care 😉

Edited July 5, 2022 by karrotsishere

[karrotsishere]

29 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

But where does the money come from?

But in all seriousness altho my above post is kind of serious. 

Lets have this debate tomorrow 😄

You can be FOR the fact the Harness industry can't afford it. 

Ill be FOR owners saying we want a minimum 12k stake.

No getting personal, just put forward our best arguments 😄

[Happy Sunrise]

1 hour ago, karrotsishere said:

my mate & I were totally keen to have a change of flag

I find it surprising given the climate the country is in the flag debate does not reappear. 

How the woke community can live with a symbol of colonisation such as a Union Jack on the flag is something I cannot comprehend.

[Royal Nod]

58 minutes ago, karrotsishere said:

be FOR owners saying we want a minimum 12k stake.

I think there should be more of a sliding scale for stakes.  For a 35 - 45 rating race say $6k minimum.  For up to rating 49 say $9k, and for 50 rating & above 12k min.  We have plenty of horses in that lower bracket and if they were racing in Aussie or USA horses of that quality would be lucky to be racing for $5k.  Let’s put more into the intermediate horses to encourage them to stay here & hopefully get better races & fuller fields in the grades where we are low on numbers.   That’s my thoughts anyway. 

[Happy Sunrise]

4 minutes ago, Royal Nod said:

For a 35 - 45 rating race say $6k minimum

They are the type who race every week because they are not very good. Low stakes but go around often to recoup.

[Rusty]

1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said:

I find it surprising given the climate the country is in the flag debate does not reappear. 

How the woke community can live with a symbol of colonisation such as a Union Jack on the flag is something I cannot comprehend.

That whole flag debate was ahead of its time wasn't it. By about 5 years, thank goodness!!! 

[Rusty]

I've always thought some coin could come off the big races, the real big ones. Eg. NZ Cup. Then reallocate that money to the lower grades. 

Because it doesn't matter if the stake is $500,000 or $1,000,000 for the Cup, the vast majority of the field will still be happy to start at 500k. Not to mention the 3 or 4 horses that start, just to clutter up the field, not even worthy of being a "proper" Cup horse. 

[Happy Sunrise]

10 hours ago, Rusty said:

I've always thought some coin could come off the big races, the real big ones. Eg. NZ Cup. Then reallocate that money to the lower grades. 

Because it doesn't matter if the stake is $500,000 or $1,000,000 for the Cup, the vast majority of the field will still be happy to start at 500k. Not to mention the 3 or 4 horses that start, just to clutter up the field, not even worthy of being a "proper" Cup horse. 

I don't really get the grading system these days.

When did the 35 rating come in? I thought the bottom was 40.

When you have a 4 win horse like Royal Pride racing in a 42-53 I don't get how the ratings system can go up to 130. It is a horse still on the up, won 4 races but can still be racing plodders with no future at all.

It feel like 90% of the horses are below a rating 50 judging by the racing served up. The system seems weighted against horses going up the scale but rather designed to make them go south of the 50 mark.

If you are above 50 then maybe you should race for more money like Royal Nod suggests.

[Purple Parsnip]

17 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

But where does the money come from?

 

[karrotsishere]

Need to think of my closing argument to put forward to the The Race Place jury panel. And had lined up Royal Nod as a witness but it wasnt quite the testimoney one was hoping for.

(Regarding that, great idea Nod re more stake for intermediate grade. Re lower grade often Amatuer grade anyway isnt it, whom think race for less eg $6k ish). 

Craig your an owner arent you? What are your thoughts if your willing to share

Edited July 6, 2022 by karrotsishere

[Happy Sunrise]

16 hours ago, Royal Nod said:

I think there should be more of a sliding scale for stakes.  For a 35 - 45 rating race say $6k minimum.  For up to rating 49 say $9k, and for 50 rating & above 12k min.  We have plenty of horses in that lower bracket and if they were racing in Aussie or USA horses of that quality would be lucky to be racing for $5k.  Let’s put more into the intermediate horses to encourage them to stay here & hopefully get better races & fuller fields in the grades where we are low on numbers.   That’s my thoughts anyway. 

They should be encouraged to go up the grades. Higher you go the more you race for.

If I owned a mid range 55 rated horse and and saw 35-43s racing for 20K I would feel a bit peeved.

I suppose if one looks at Friday night the stakes range from 13 to 17k. Low grade 13 and higher grade 17 so you could say they are doing that now, however, the ratings range from 35 to 73 so not really at all.