Category: Year 2017 Stories

by Brian de Lore
Published 30 November 2019

The art of racecourse management goes mostly unnoticed until something goes wrong, and then all hell can break loose.

And then you get a season in which 24 meetings are lost to weather and track conditions, and the question arises – how many could have been saved with better resources and a bit more know how?

There is, perhaps, no-one in Australasia with more experience in fixing grass racecourses than 75-year-old retired racecourse manager John Jeffs who last week reflected on his lengthy and highly successful career of maintaining grass surfaces and keeping them in the best of condition to produce the best racing.

Jeffs was at the Karaka Ready To Run Sale assisting with the marketing of the Diamond Lodge draft, one of 17 sales he has attended this year on behalf of various vendors as ‘the marketer,’ a role perfect for the man who knows everyone in racing, has personality plus and instant recall on pedigrees and racehorses.

Sydney Turf Club Chairman and Tyreel Stud owner, the late Jim Fleming,  talked Jeffs into the retirement role in 1998 and he’s been doing it ever since. And you don’t keep doing something like that for that length of time unless you’re good at it – but it was turf management that made Jeffs famous during his primary career.

“Drainage is the key, and that’s what we did in the old days,” explained Jeffs. “Gordon McVeigh at Ellerslie was also a great man for drainage, and when I took over Rosehill it was widely known as the worst wet weather track in Australia.”

“We spent a fortune on both Canterbury and Rosehill and turned them into the best-wet weather tracks in Australia, if not the world. You can drain a rice paddy field if you want to and if you do it right, it will work. You can drain anything, even a swamp.”

Draining the swamp is another story for another day. But as racing people debate the pros and cons of synthetic tracks, StrathAyr grass installations and drainage while also considering climate change and what the future holds, the John Jeff’s voice of experience is well worth an ear.

The Cowra born Jeffs began his career in 1972 at Rosehill and learned the art from people like the legendary George Johnson at Randwick and even our own Gordon McVeigh at Ellerslie. Jeffs says, “I don’t profess to know it all, but I do know that’s its 95 percent common sense, and only five percent theory and what works practically is what you stick with.”

Jeffs spent 17 years looking after the Sydney Turf Club courses of Rosehill and Canterbury before the Jockey Club in Hong Kong lured him to the colony in 1989 where he was course manager for five years, overseeing the installation of Sha Tin’s StrathAyr grass surface in 1990.

And in light of the Auckland Racing Club’s recent decision to go for drainage over an expensive StrathAyr, Jeffs just might be agreeing with them:

“I don’t say that StrathAyr doesn’t work – it works, but it works at a cost, says Jeffs. “People would phone me from all over the world about StrathAyr – USA, South Africa, Asia, Australia and I would try and be as honest and helpful as I could.

“I had to warn them that the upkeep and maintenance was the issue, not the track. The RHKJC could afford it – they had an unlimited budget. I’ve been home from Hong Kong a long time now, 20 years in fact, but in those days it was seven to eight times the cost of a conventional track.”

So what makes StrathAyr work in Jeffs’ opinion and why are we losing so many meetings to dangerous conditions after rain – the question was posed to Jeffs:

“StrathAyr works and what does the job is the sand in the correct proportion. To my mind looking after racecourses has gone backwards – we lived on the principle that it was 75% soil and 25% sand – the sand gives you the draining characteristics.

“Looking after tracks is not a perfect science, but we have lost the old original tracks. As I said, in my day it was 75/2, but today they have 25% soil and 75% sand – some are worse, as high as 10/90. What it has done has taken the uniformity out of the tracks.

“In Australia, they have to water courses and get them to a Dead 4 in the hope they’ll be a Good3 on race morning – Caulfield on Caulfield Cup day was a disaster – they tell me many horses left the course lame. It was just too hard.”

As a racing journalist in Sydney in the 1970s in Randwick’s heyday, witnessing the clashes of greats like Triton and Gunsynd who fought out their titanic Doncaster and Epsom Handicap battles on a racing surface then described as the best in the world, why was it now so different now?

”Randwick was renowned for its drainage and beautiful cushion of grass explained Jeffs. “It was built on pure white sand but over the years they removed all the sand, sealed it all off and introduced all these foreign types of soils from other locations and when they firm they firm like a brick., Randwick was the best in George’s day.

“George Johnson was legendary, and a great mentor to me – George had a sump system at Randwick down near the old ledger, and at times after a tropical storm there might be a foot of water covering the track. He would locate his sump plug under bricks beneath the surface of the track, and when they removed the bricks it was like pulling the plug in a bath.

“Melbourne has problems because they have gone sand mad,” continued Jeffs, “- too much sand. Now they have to water their tracks overnight or on race morning to make them forgiving – that’s not fair.

“The recent Melbourne Cup carnival was awful as far as the tracks were concerned. The first day had a bias, and on Melbourne Cup day they left the rail in the true position and every winner pretty much on the day came through on the fence. Then they moved it out for the Thursday and Saturday.

“Gordon McVeigh’s tracks were real tracks – has Ellerslie been as good since Gordon? – I don’t think so. McVeigh used the roller between races as I always did – it helped to put the divets back in addition to having 20-25 people replacing divets – and now no one rolls the tracks between races.”

Times have changed all aspects of racing, and through Jeffs’ eyes and experience, advancements in turf management have not always produced improvements:

“The jury is still out on synthetic tracks, but there’s a very good one in Canberra. It’s called a Thoroughtrack. Warwick Farm also has a good synthetic training track, but they have still experienced problems. There are three types of synthetic tracks; the main two being Polytrack and Proride.

“Today track managers go to conferences to listen to the academics, and that’s the problem. Too many academics having too much say. Academia has infiltrated everywhere – it’s now running racing, but we need to get back to the grassroots if you excuse the pun.

“What happened at Eagle Farm is that they appeared to use the wrong shape of sand. It wasn’t cohesive enough because sand grains are all different shapes and the best analogy is to look at a beach – you walk along the beach and where is the best place to walk?  Down by the water where all the fines go – they are filtered down to the water, and the course sand stays higher. Every time the tide comes in its filtering sand. It’s the shape of the sand – and any geologist will tell you that – but I’m not a guru, I’m a practical man.

“Course sand also has its place – take a track like Bathurst or Orange – they would spread it slowly and evenly, and that was giving the track a platform to grow the grass through.

“I used to get my staff at Rosehill and Canterbury to spread course river sand in the areas the horses would jump from the barrier – sprayit on and in the following weeks we’d do it again and it was building a platform that the grass could grow through and wasn’t cutting the track out.

“Sand slitting really helps – we did a lot of it – Te Rapa has done it correctly and is said to be one of the best all-weather tracks. Avondale is good because it’s a conventional track and the drainage has been done properly – it takes the surface water away but not every bit of moisture.

“In my opinion, Kikuyu grass is the best grass for racetracks if you can get it to grow. I tried to get it to grow in Hong Kong but couldn’t – it’s a native of South Africa. It needed diurnal temperature variation so it can switch off and sleep, but in Hong Kong, it didn’t get that variation – too hot all the time.

“We got it to grow, but as soon as you put it out on the track, it would die fairly quickly.

“Moonee Valley had the best Kikuyu which was near where the commentator used to say ‘up by the school,’ but they took it out and introduced some other varieties – some university graduate who would say ‘this other grass is what you should be using.’

“I’d love to be 20 years younger, and I would come to New Zealand and help out with these problem tracks – I don’t want to be the man in charge anymore, but I am always happy to give some advice if it was wanted. But if I went somewhere, it would be one ship and only one captain.”

by Brian de Lore
Published 8 November 2017

If our new Racing Minister Winston Peters keeps his promise and sweeps a wide broom through racing administration and the Racing Act is dismantled and rebuilt, the facility for complete transparency and accountability to the stakeholders must be adopted.

Racing doesn’t operate like usual businesses in that the stakeholders are not bona fide shareholders and in reality have no say in their destiny. The administration of racing began in the first instance with the appointment of racing people who came from within the industry but also had administrative skills.

It’s fair to say that for many years they did a very good job, although racing like every other business has had its share of ups and downs. But when the Racing Act of 2003 was passed, few could have envisaged our administration would grow horns and develop into the monster it has become today.

Once it was administered from one office in Wellington with a staff of around 20 people, and the TAB came into being when racing clubs got together to set up this new betting platform for the benefit of racing. Time lends enchantment but let’s not get nostalgic – we have to deal with what we have today and where we are heading.

It’s been only a few weeks since the election, and our Racing Minister has been relatively quiet; understandably so given that as well as being the Deputy Prime Minister he is also Minister of Foreign Affairs and this week, for instance, has gone overseas to attend the APEC conference in Vietnam.

Peters wasn’t available for any comments pre-departure, but the NZ First racing spokesman Clayton Mitchell did speak to The Informant to convey what progress they had made. He said that Peters understood the urgency for racing concerning the Racefields legislation and they would have liked to have achieved something before the Christmas parliament adjournment, but that was now looking very unlikely.

Mitchell explained that with the protocols required for a new, incoming government and other matters deemed more urgent than racing, the five and a half weeks in which Parliament would sit would not allow time for further progress.

Eliminate January and February, and March is the earliest we can expect action. Rest assured it will happen as fast as Peters can make it happen and the importance of it happening fast is that it will alleviate the debt this business is racking up through NZRB borrowing $24 million for increased stake-money over this and next season.

Australia has had Racefields legislation for years, and annually it returns in the order of A$160 million in actual prize-money. Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA) runs a similar sized business to the NZRB and gains between A$27 million and A$30 million annually from Racefields. South Australia gains more than A$30 million.

One source says that after three years of Racefields in New Zealand, the return could be around $20 million annually to our stakes. Add that to the savings that could be made through a restructured NZRB administration, which is blatantly top heavy and extravagant, and racing could get back to an economically sound footing – as Winston Peters says, ‘decent stakes for the owners’.

Anyone who has been in business knows that you can’t always control your income, but costs are completely controllable. The problem with the NZRB is that while they claim to be transparent in their dealings and their Statement of Intent (SOI) always claims they are cost-cutting, there is no real evidence to back it up.

Look at this excerpt from the most recent SOI: “…NZRB’s underlying operating costs are reducing by $200,000 over the past year, with a significant reduction in staff expenses. Operating costs are budgeted to reduce by a further $500,000 in 2017/18. It’s an ongoing focus area with further initiatives being progressed to minimise future growth in operating costs.”

Does it need to be pointed again that the operating costs last year were $205 million, so reducing them by $500,000 is hardly significant, even if that budgeted figure is achieved without any creative accounting? Then we have last week’s announcement that the NZRB has appointed a new five-person team to ‘manage our communication and engagement with our government and industry stakeholders.’

What the hell! The NZRB already has 488 employees, and now we have more? And for what – communications. In the press release, it stated that one of the appointments was for four years the Ministerial advisor to former Racing Minister Nathan Guy and therefore he understood racing – Guy was the minister who sat on his hands with the Racefields legislation for years and contributed little to racing.

Another appointee worked in Parliament for Bill English for six years, and yet another formerly worked with John Allen at the post office. The five-person appointment which reeks of more National Party nepotism is very well summed by journalist Mary Burgess in her blog entitled ‘More climb aboard the NZRB gravy train.’

In my most recent communication with NZRB CEO John Allen, I expressed scepticism about the NZRB’s ability to make the FOB platform work financially after spending $30 million to build it and then having to pay a further $17 million annually in running costs – presumably there is an on-going commission to be paid to Paddy Power.

Allen declined the request to show any figures as to how he arrived at the projected profit of the FOB in the first year of $11.6 million andthe second year of $17.4 million, citing the sensitive nature of such information to the TAB’s competitors. What competitors?

The TAB doesn’t have any competitors domestically, unlike Tabcorp has in Australia with a plethora of bookmaking companies operating. With no bookmakers in New Zealand, the TAB has the whole market, and as Allen pointed out, they have no interest in selling the FOB offshore. Its success is based solely on increasing their margin by recruiting more punters at home through sports betting and then converting them to racing.

The problem for racing is that the net return on sports betting is only two percent, whereas betting on horses across all the exotics and the pari-mutuel tote returns racing 15 percent. In other words, horse racing turnover of $1 million will return racing the same profit margin that a sports turnover of $7 million will return.

Having to get extra profit just to cover the $17 million running costs, and then achieve the objective to recruit sports bettors to be converted to racing seems to be akin to a plot you would find in a Jules Verne novel. The required increase in TAB turnover must be astronomical – and remember that we are living in times when most businesses are happy to retain their margins and reduce costs as a path to success.

On page 57 of the 2015-16 NZRB annual report, under Turnover Related Expenses, there appears a figure of $7,519,000 for advertising and promotions. Upon enquiring as to how that expense was incurred a brief breakdown of ‘the spend’ was supplied in an email. Requesting more detail, a second email informed that the information could be supplied only under the Official Information Act (OIA).

The reason for the interest in this figure was based solely upon being told by a reliable source that a $1 million Joseph Parker fight promotion conducted by the TAB has delivered only a small return. The cost of such promotions comes under turnover-related expenses, which in the last annual report amounted to $66,436,000 and which when added to the year’s operating expenses of $138,751,000 produced the total expenses for the year of $205,187,000.

Every dollar spent by the NZRB on expenses that doesn’t yield a return is a dollar that’s not coming back to the three codes for prize-money distribution and other dire needs such as infrastructure investment. And if the $1 million spent on a fight promotion which is essentially racing’s money, and the potential return is only two percent net back to racing, then racing stake-holders might consider that a very poor investment – and remember that for racing to benefit the sports betting fans then have to be converted to racing.

By Brian de Lore
Published 21 September 2017

Cambridge Stud boss Sir Patrick Hogan has this week declared his allegiance to Winston Peters and NZ First following the party’s announcement last week supporting the racing industry’s urgent need for an all-weather racing surface.

In a surprise announcement made in a media release last Friday by NZ First’s associate spokesperson for racing Clayton Mitchell MP, the party declared its recognition and support for a state-of-the-art all-weather racing surface for the betterment of New Zealand racing and a foil against abandonments.

But don’t think the announcement suddenly won Hogan over to support NZ First; that’s not the case at all. What it did do was prompt the leviathan stud owner to publicly voice his support for an industry that he believes badly needs leadership, some restructuring and innovations which happen to include a modern, all-weather racing surface.

“NZ First has a good track record doing things for racing,” explained Hogan in a frank interview this week. “This is a huge, huge opportunity; along with its racing policy to have NZ First add its support to build an all-weather track is a huge leg-up, and if Winston Peters does end up being king or queen-maker, whichever way it goes, and takes the portfolio of minister of racing which he’s passionate about, we have nothing to lose by picking up the opportunity presented here.

“No other minister of racing has ever done anything for us. He has proved himself, and therefore we have only got ourselves to blame if we don’t take this opportunity – bang on! – we have to make sure that we support NZ First with the party vote on Saturday.”

To hear Hogan talk so openly in this manner was not only surprising but also music to the writer’s ears, as one might surmise it would be music to the ears of many people devoted to racing who have struggled over many years and advocated change and a better return to all stakeholders.

For someone so successful in the thoroughbred business over such a long period, Patrick Hogan has been a surprisingly quiet voice over the years, certainly on the political side of the industry. When suggested it was more than marginally un-Patrick like for him to voice this type of opinion he replied:

“The thing is, I’m not one who has stuck my nose in the political mix and become an annoyance to the industry over the 60 years I’ve been in it, but I have been able to see what’s happening, and although I haven’t ruffled any feathers I’m now at an age now where I can see all these things – especially now – I have to say something.

“It’s so annoying, and I just have to say it. Hopefully, whatever I say for the first time, and I have come out and said these things – and I can’t really put words to it – I am saying what I believe that hasn’t been done and also the things that are there that shouldn’t be there.”

It was a very different Patrick Hogan to the person I had first encountered by appointment in the members’ bar at Randwick racecourse in the autumn of 1979. The purpose of that encounter was to plan a promotion around his new stallion purchase, Marceau, a son of Kaoru Star which Hogan had thought should be promoted back to the Aussies in his first season at Cambridge Stud.

In those days Hogan was the outgoing entrepreneur, full of hope and new ideas for his fledgling stud farm. Now, almost four decades later, post-Sir Tristram and Zabeel with a few lesser names that will test the memory in between, we find a much more reflective Patrick Hogan but a man who still possesses the entrepreneurial spirit and sees an opportunity to be seized.

But to digress from the all-weather track for a moment and while Hogan was on a roll, talkative and willing to state his take on the industry, what about the state of our industry today?

“The NZRB is not interested in giving the stakeholders and everyone else connected to racing and breeding what they need to sustain a decent living,” he continued. “They are not interested – only interested in racing from their viewpoint in that it exists within their four walls in Wellington.

“It doesn’t go any further – doesn’t reach out to our industry – they seem to think the racing business performs and succeeds within those four walls and that’s where the money should be spent – not one of them would get a job on my stud farm because they would send it broke.

“And this thing about the present political party, and for the Minister of Racing to say that the racing board is a statutory body and so it’s governmental and he can’t do anything about it – get in there and do something about it!

“His answer to that is that he is there to oversee it and not to interfere. So it’s time that it wasn’t a statutory body, and they butted out and had nothing to do with it.”

But the primary reason for our chat was not the vagaries of the NZRB which have been well-documented here in recent times, but for Hogan to espouse his belief in an all-weather track and why he wants Winston Peters back in charge of the racing portfolio.

“Most of us in the industry have been crying out for an all-weather track with 34 meetings abandoned last season, and we have to start somewhere,” Hogan continued. “The industry is not going to build three to start with but without a doubt, we need one track, and one would be a start. It’s not going to be affordable to do more than one at the beginning.

“The Waikato region badly needs one first; that’s where the population is. You only have to look at the Cambridge where there’s over a thousand horses trained and Matamata where there’s over 700, and it’s not just a case of winter, it’s now a case of wet tracks from autumn to spring – they are too wet to be racing on for six months of the year.

“I don’t want to be too specific on what type of all-weather or where it should be. If Winston became minister, then it will go ahead and then it can be decided where. They’re going to stump up with the money; it will be state-of-the-art track and with the population being in the upper North Island it’s obvious that’s where it has to be.

“In this election, there’s only one horse to back as far as I’m concerned. It’s NZ First who has the race record – twice he’s been there, and it’s now up to us to give the party vote to them, or we are not helping ourselves.

“The details have to be done after the election. Clayton Mitchell said that they are supportive of an all-weather track and I know Winston well enough that if he says he’s supporting it, then he will make it happen. He’s the only parliamentarian that’s had any passion for our business.

“Winston has made the announcement, and we have to get out there and support it, take it as positively as we can. The whole industry can’t afford to miss this opportunity – they are the only political party that has proved themselves in the past.

“Every eligible voter that has anything to do with the industry should get behind it and give us the opportunity for an all-weather track. It’s up to us. Winston has done his bit, and this is the only way we will get it.”

Hogan and the Chittick family at Waikato Stud have between them not only been the most successful commercial breeders in New Zealand over the past 35 years but have also each supported the industry as owners to the tune of more than $1 million in training fees annually over recent years.

Both know the value of stake-money and would fully understand the benefits of an all-weather surface and the possibilities of a new government and racing minister.

“In my time as a racing administrator we sought support from all political parties to enhance racing’s place,” said Garry Chittick this week. “Not only as a sport but as an important part of our culture and branding.

“It is well recognised that our industry is a significant employer of people of all levels of skill. To be fair, NZ First is the political party that has not only recognised our importance but delivered in a big way with the reduction in betting duty after they committed themselves to it.

“Their commitment to further support the racing industry is entitled to be taken seriously. Racing people should read the NZ First racing policy and vote accordingly,” concluded Chittick.

by Brian de Lore
Published 13th September 2017

Little more than a week before the general election it’s pertinent to examine the racing policies of the three major parties and contemplate the prospect of whether the racing industry will be getting more of the same, or renewed hope under a new coalition government.

After nine years of National government rule and a series of uninspiring Ministers for Racing that have yielded only crumbs to our eroded and sullen industry, is there still faint light at the end of the tunnel?

Or even more optimistically as Oscar Wilde once said: “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

What this industry desperately knows is that the decay needs to stop; it needs to cut out the dead-wood; it needs to regroup and reinvigorate the troops and set the ship on a new course towards a port called prosperity.

Not everyone in racing understands or admits that racing has reached a crisis point which must now be arrested before it dives into insolvency. Consider that in 2006 thoroughbred racing had $70 million in cash reserves and $36 million in assets (all sold off). A total of $106 million which today is gone – flittered away!

A decade later, the NZRB is borrowing millions to increase stakes; an olive branch to long-suffering stakeholders well documented in previous stories by this writer.  Does it sound like good business practice to be borrowing money to raise stakes for the first time in over 150 years of racing?

So what conclusions do we draw from this? Graph it, and you have an Olympic downhill ski slope. We are assured by NZRB that when race fields legislation does eventually arrive and the promised FOB ‘silver bullet’ is launched the money will flow – but will it?

There is a saying that a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And the cynicism oozing from this keyboard certainly concerns the promised value of the FOB. It’s a high-risk promise that may not deliver – but wait; there’s an election next week!  

Under MMP the permutations for the final result are wide and varied. The polls have swayed to and fro in a never before experienced pre-election drama involving all the parties and their promises. But we need to know the runners’ form before we bet on either the election quinella or trifecta.

To find out, this week I spoke to the major players – current Minister for Racing David Bennett, Labour’s shadow Minister of Sport and Tourism, Kris Faafoi, and NZ First Leader Winston Peters.

Minister Bennett categorically stated that it’s not the job of the Minister to examine or interfere with the workings of the NZRB, but Faafoi and Peters both took a different stance.

“We are not going to tell the NZRB what to do,” said Bennett when verbalising the National Party racing policy which was still being written this week despite the proximity of the election. “Our policy is due to be released on Thursday, but I can talk now about the four points it contains.

“The first thing is that we see immense potential for the industry going forward. We have that strong Australian market on our doorstep, and we also expect the Asian market to grow exponentially – we think racing is in a very good place for opportunity.

“The second is the race field legislation – we don’t envisage a lot of change or debate around it – in Parliament most parties are supporting it. Everyone wants to see it happen. The Bill itself doesn’t have a lot of clauses in it to amend.

“The third thing is the wider economic and political conditions that exist under a National government. Racing needs a strong economy to support it and we have fundamentally built the best economy in the western world – high growth, low unemployment, very stable interest rates. Those basic economic conditions are very solid.

“The fourth thing is the future. We have a very positive view of where racing is heading. We envisage structural changes but not the NZRB structure as we can’t get involved at that operational level. There may be some opportunities at clubs getting together to align or provide new infrastructure on new investments – we would like to engage in those conversations.”

The Labour Party manifesto of 2017 includes a ‘racing policy’ which more than anything else generalises, acknowledges and commits good intentions rather than specifying the problems and suggesting the fixes.

It’s about supporting race fields legislation, how skilled industry people are and how vibrant the business is and how vital exports are, plus its contribution to the GDP, and how much Labour has done for racing in the past and the recognition for sustainable growth, etcetera.

It’s flowery and tries to say all the right things, but is patently uninspiring and comes from a party that lacks empathy towards an industry it hasn’t had to think much about over the past nine years.

Labour’s two most inspiring paragraphs read: “Recognising that change must come from within, Labour will convene a round-table discussion of major stakeholders in the industry with a view to strengthening and enhancing the economic viability of racing in New Zealand. We will ensure that a strategic direction is developed and implemented.

“Labour recognises the difficulties faced by the racing industry in modernising itself for the 21st century. We will work with all major stakeholders to ensure the revitalisation of a strong economic performer which can do better.”

More impressive than the policy itself is Labour’s shadow racing minister Kris Faafoi, who spoke eloquently in favour of the race fields Bill at its first reading before parliament recessed in August.

“The racing industry has been waiting too long now and deserves to get this done soon,” he said when quizzed on how long we might have to wait on race fields legislation in the event of a Labour-led coalition government.

“We will examine all aspects of racing including the efficiency of the administration at the NZRB and look at helping in any way we can. We will consider all the problems and make every effort to solve them.

“We want to work in the best interests of all people in the industry and particularly those in the majority such as the stable workers, track riders, jockeys and trainers.

“We will not allow sports betting to muscle-in on racing and disadvantage racing’s percentage take,” concluded Faafoi when asked if the amendment to the racing act might work against the percentages returned to racing in the future.”

New Zealand First has a much more detailed and positive racing policy. Two of their 10-point promises include an urgent review of the operations and costs at NZRB and taxation relief. Another is to defend the rightful share of returns from the TAB to racing in the event of sports organisations demanding increased percentages.

“The next minister of racing has got to say they are going to fix this industry and fix it really fast, and that they are not going to be bound by the past or bothered by a conflict of interest,” said Winston Peters this week in obvious reference to the policy of Board member appointments.

“I couldn’t give a hoot what the conflict of interest is as long we make a fist of advancing the interests of this industry and growing it to its total and serious potential as fast as possible.

“The great thing about racing is that if it gets some early positive signals, it will adapt and react really fast. I don’t think most people understand the problem. The racing community that I have talked to all know it’s wrong, but they don’t grasp why it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because of political neglect for decades – they have got to face the facts.

“It’s seriously appalling that the cash reserves that existed a decade ago have since been squandered and frankly I can tell you that I have not put out definitively what will happen. I have one or two things up my sleeve, but I want to say to the industry you have got to give yourselves a break – you have to make up your mind if you want a change, and then if you do you have to start shouting from the rooftops.

“We need a dramatic flush out with the greatest of speed, but the key to it is the moment the election is over, and decisions have been made, and we know who is doing the administration and what needs to be done, the industry is going to have to get a small team together that knows what its objectives are, and that team must involve the most critical person – the owner.

“I can’t believe horse ownership has gone from being a good chance of getting a return after you go to the sales to buy a horse to what we have now. Today the chance of getting a return is a bit like walking into a casino and handing over all your money.

“There is salvation in some highly efficient cost-cutting changes; that’s true, but the second relief you need is some of your tax money back. Unless we do that the industry is less likely to survive – there’s no short-cut to it. “

by Brian de Lore
Published 10 August 2017

NZ First leader Winston Peters spelled out a clear message this week when he intimated that the racing industry should take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and then get its act together before its fortunes can be turned around.

The veteran parliamentarian who was Minister of Racing between 2005 and 2008 and was clearly the most successful and productive minister that racing has had, is critical of the industry’s previous lack of unity and leadership and says that needs to change.

No one currently in parliament understands our business better than Peters, and with just six weeks before the election, it is appropriate to air the views of both Peters and the new and current Minister of Racing David Bennett.

Bennett, who assumed Nathan Guy’s racing portfolio in only May this year after Bill English became PM, has been in parliament since 2005, comes from a dairy farming background and is MP for Hamilton East.

Conversely, Peters is a wily campaigner who has been an MP since 1978 and since that time has dealt with all the leaders of racing and witnessed all the changes and declining fortunes of the industry over recent years.

The common denominators are that both come from farming backgrounds and both see stake increases as the most pressing issue for racing. But when they individually spoke to The Informant this week it was very evident they differed greatly on how each would take racing into the future.

“The racing industry can expect nothing is going to change unless they themselves change,” began Peters in his distinctly dominant tone. “Racing can’t go on expecting serious change in policy unless the people in it are prepared to work for it and vote for it. You need to ask the racing industry ‘do they or don’t they want a change?’

“The idea that they are going to get something without doing anything in return does not work in modern day politics. In short, all I’m asking them to do is get out amongst their membership – professionals, vets, trainers, jockeys and the whole hundred yards, and for heavens-sake organise themselves and ensure they vote right.

“The racing industry shouldn’t be taking aim at the NZRB when surely if they were focused and had a grip on the crisis they are facing, they would firstly be pointing the finger at the minister and the government’s basic policy – why would they avoid the obvious.

“I’m saying, ‘if you want to save yourselves’ – and it’s pretty serious what’s going on – and restore this country as one of the leading racing countries in the world, and one which instead of having only 6,000 thoroughbred mares but has the 12,000 plus mares it should have – given the market it’s operating in – then for heavens-sake get focused on the problem. Stop avoiding the obvious because if you are, some of you might vote that way.

“Either you want a change, or you don’t; to get change then change yourselves. If you’re losing the war you don’t go out and start firing the platoon commanders – you fire the general.”

Peters didn’t require a treatise on how the thoroughbred industry was travelling; that things were tougher now for its stakeholders than possibly at any other time in its history. He may have been relatively silent in terms of industry comment in recent times, but he has still had his ear to the ground and wasn’t mincing his words.

On the other hand, Bennett was less concerned about either the state of the industry or the need for a change in attitude from its stakeholders. When asked how he thought the racing industry looked at the moment he replied like this:

“I’m very confident going around the industry and very optimistic about the future – we have a great product, especially our breeding and also the skill level of the people involved and their passion – I think we have a very strong base to work off – a growing Asian market and think that we will have a huge desire for horse betting in the near future.

“But I also acknowledge there are some challenges in the delivery of the product we have, and how we are going to capture those opportunities that will come our way. I think racing has a lot of opportunities ahead of it.”

Bennett was painting a different picture to that of Peters; perhaps understandingly given they are from different political parties pursuing different policies and objectives. So how would Bennett react to the view of Peters?

“I wouldn’t agree with Winston on the criticism levelled at the industry itself not doing enough, but he’s passionate about horses and racing,” began Bennett.

“So many racing people are passionate and are really wanting to succeed and do well, and they are giving their whole lives to it – we just have to get the product mix right – where we land the industry so we take advantage of the opportunities, so I’m not critical of the people in it.

“I think there’s some good vision coming forth and I actually think there is common agreement that they want to do things – after talking to the trainers. Fundamentally this industry is in good shape, and there’s a desire to take it forward. We have just got to get those proposals off the ground, and it’s not a thing government needs to do; it’s something the industry can do itself and is doing itself, and I think Winston is overly critical.

“We want people to have different ideas – we want them to have smart new ways of thinking – if we all thought the same we’d never achieve much.

“It’s a positive thing to have that discussion but I think the discussion would hold back delivery of change, and there is a mood out there to do things and that discussion is part of that mood to get the best solution we can for the industry.”

So here we have differing views – oceans apart you could say. Peters, on one side, saying if you want change it can only happen by electing a new government (his) and for that to happen the industry should vote for it, but on the other side, Bennett saying retain the government, there is passion out there in the stakeholders, and the signs are positive.

Bennett is new to the industry and therefore isn’t familiar with its recent history then you could fully understand his point of view. But after years of decline and some ineffective predecessors to Bennett and a less than average governance it’s hard to get too excited about whatever ‘passion’ is left in the horse people out there – the stakeholders.

The passion that Bennett speaks of is something all racing people have always had; passion is all that’s kept them going over the past 12 years that’s seen our industry cash reserves of $70 million and assets of $36 million – a total of $106 million – all disappeared.

Passion is what is keeping us going through times of diminishing broodmare and foal crops (halved in the last 30 years); passion has kept us going through domestic turnover dropping year after year, our 40-odd best racemares being sold overseas every year, dropping turnover in the TAB, closing TAB stores and a cannibalising of racing in favour of sports betting.

And when you eventually run out of passion, you will then need a new spirituality called ‘hope.’ Because now you will need hope that race fields’ legislation will eventually come through, hope that the FOB platform will give us a return after a $50 million investment, hope that the money borrowed to increase stakes won’t leave the industry in debt and hope that the 35,000 full and part-time employees can keep their jobs on an on-going basis.

However, both Peters and Bennett independently agreed that the owner was the person suffering most in racing and that redressing the stakes issue had to be the priority:

“The number one person you have to look after in the racing industry is the owner,” said Peters. “They are paying the bills and when you’ve got the lousy prizemoney that we have got, and you can win six races and still not pay the way for the horse – that just ridiculous! You have to start right there.

“The owner has to have the return on investment, or where at least you have some chance of recuperating your money – currently you have no chance of doing that. As an industry, in terms of encouraging the owners to be involved, every signal is presently a bad one.

“I would be starting with the minimum prizemoney around the country at a much higher level than the current one, and I’m not disclosing how I’m going to do it but I know I can, and I know where the money is going to come from.”

Bennett has been talking to as many industry stakeholders as possible since his appointment and did not doubt the most earnest needs:

“Stakes money, that’s the message everyone is giving me. More difficult now than at any other time they are saying – stakes have to be enough – we need to give people a reason to own a horse and be involved in the industry.

“The first thing about stakes is that the high-level races look after themselves – the big races at home and in Australia – that in itself is a separate market in some ways. Then you have that medium to lower level racing – we need to have enough return to the owner to at least go out there and retrieve the costs or want to go out there and own a horse.

“Also, it would be good for industry employees as they would benefit with a higher return to owners. The strong message that I’m getting is that the entry-level racing is uneconomical; we need it to be at a level where there’s an incentive to have a horse and be in the industry.”

Neither Peters nor Bennett were saying exactly how stakes would be increased but race fields’ is coming and everyone in racing knows that a much leaner administrative annual spend by NZRB would be a good starting point and would save many millions in itself, and Peters was more than happy to air his views on those costs:

“The practice of hiring CEO’s and countless executives on massive salaries – all that’s going to stop if I get a chance,” began Peters in a louder tone.

“But the CEO is not where the problem is going be solved – it will be solved at a higher level; with a government and a minister that changes the legislative structure from top to bottom, and then changing the financial structure so that it comes back to being a paying proposition for the owner.”

But if Peters was in a position to form a coalition government following the election what would he do about the Racing Act 2003?

“Changing the racing act – I don’t disagree with you at all on that. You can change the act only if the right politicians are there to do it – the whole legislative structure has to be changed, and with the greatest speed possible.

“When I’ve gone along to racing industry meetings and everyone is whinging about different organisations, and all it’s screaming a lack of leadership from the top – that doesn’t happen when a campaign is organised properly to change an outcome.

“If the industry is serious about what’s going wrong then it needs to show that it’s serious.

“I didn’t campaign to be the racing minister last time but I made myself the racing minister because they’d been around for all these years getting crap treatment and neglect and if someone could improve the economic theories then it would pay off big time, and it did.

“Today that is still my view but I say the owners are the critically most important people in the chain, and the racing industry would be revived the moment you have a system that makes it worthwhile for them to be part of it again – and that’s prizemoney. There are a lot of other things that need doing as well, I quite agree with you.

“The other thing is the gross wastage – massively over-costed expenses in a computerised age which is utterly inexplicable. Years ago I brought in changes to the GST tax paid when the horse left the country; I brought in depreciation on stallions and mares and what have you.

“Straight away the treasury got in behind national party closed doors and started corroding it, so I go down and see the minister of Inland Revenue – he said he wouldn’t talk about individual cases, and I said it was a class action case and therefore no one’s details are going to be personally divulged – he ducked behind that.

“I’ve talked to a lot of people in the racing industry over the years and some of them think they know the business of politics, but they don’t. I probably don’t know as much about horses as I could but I seriously know a whole lot more about politics than they know – my point is that if they think they’re going to get something for nothing by sitting back and not doing anything – they won’t.

“That’s not the way the world works anymore. It’s extraordinary that you have got an industry that should be roaring at the moment – we should be bigger suppliers of thoroughbreds to everywhere than we are, and we’re not.”

Was Peters just starting to warm up?; a shame knowing half the quotes I had couldn’t be used for this story and that Winston needed to attend a new rally. So what would be his final message to the racing industry?

 “Give them this message – had enough then vote NZ First. It’s that brief. Well, if you are asking if ‘it’s now or never’ – you’re right, it’s now or never. And another thing, tell the industry that one thing Winston Peters can’t stand is people that are fast on the lip and slow on the hip.”

When fully recovered from the Peters interview it seemed a good idea to find out whether or not Minister Bennett could work with Peters on racing, especially in the possible event of the election outcome resulting in an NZ First-National Party coalition?

“We want to work with all the political parties around racing because it’s not a political thing – it’s an industry that we want to take forward – if Winston has good ideas then fine, we will work with him.

“I think regardless of what the election result is the industry has a very positive future and we just need to make sure we take some of those steps in getting it further towards that future.”

But questioning Bennett further on issues relating to the NZRB he replied like this:

“I think as an industry we are getting too caught up with the board – we can do things regardless of who the board members are. You don’t want the minister intervening in the board affairs. That’s not how it’s done – our job isn’t to do operations.

“Race fields had been through Cabinet by the time I was appointed, but we still had to write the legislation which was more difficult than anticipated because it’s inter-jurisdictional – because you are going into another country.

“So we have put a lot of pressure on DIA, and we have worked closely with the racing board and other departments to get this done as quickly as possible.

“The first reading of race fields is projected for next week at this stage but next week is the last week parliament is sitting, so we are pretty keen to get it done in the time frame.

“I can’t say that it will definitely happen until the order of the week has been determined – it was supposed to be this Thursday, but it won’t be – the first reading is an hour and a half of debate so it’s time-limited.

“The legislation itself will take some time to go through the house because you have the election period. Parliament then comes back and then it’s Christmas. I would imagine it would be well into next year before it’s passed into law.”

by Brian de Lore
Published July 2017

“We are quite happy to allow planning processes to go on forever. It’s not the big that eats the little; it’s the fast that eats the slow.”

They were the frustrated words uttered by Employers and Manufacturing chief executive Kim Campbell a few years back when asked what it was that impeded the Kiwi psyche in business.

Campbell’s statement could be related to the psyche we have in New Zealand racing governance today: – “happy to allow planning processes to go on forever,” followed by a racing industry that continues to contract and disillusion the bulk of its participants.

The brief history goes like this: racing was doing fine until the late eighties. The economic crash of 1987 followed by the internet and technology revolutions in the 1990s brought globalisation, and since then we have been gradually losing ground.

The clubs started the TAB in 1951, but before long the Australians came, looked and copied the model before opening the Victoria TAB in1961. Their prolific betting, larger population (They bet A$2.10 per head for every NZ$1.00 we bet) soon produced higher revenues, superior betting services and consistent, sustainable profits for a healthy racing industry.

Then the big game-changer occurred in 1993 when the Northern Territory state government licensed Sportsbet, the first non-government organisation allowed to provide betting services in Australia. Three years later Centrebet became the first company to offer online betting – the tide had turned.

Dwindling race crowds and on-course betting occurred concurrently in the late 1990s with a burgeoning online betting industry. Then the Australian government stepped-in with the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001.

The Act served to rein-in the online bookmakers’ free-for-all which had been tolerated until that time with strict rules and guidelines, but then further game-changers occurred in 2007 and again in 2010 with the respective introduction of smart-phones and iPads/tablets.

As technology advanced, more online bookmakers arrived, necessitating the drafting of race fields legislation to force them to give something back to racing. They were hurting the tote and paying nothing for the use of the race fields.

Sportsbet and Betfair contested the legislation in the High Court, and after dragging it through the legal mire for four years, a landmark ruling was delivered in March 2012 in favour of Racing NSW. The 1.5 percent of turnover that had been held in trust for those four years amounting to over A$100 million was freed-up to allow Racing NSW CEO Peter V’landys to announce infrastructure improvements and massive prizemoney increases for the state.

The door was now open for New Zealand to follow but, more than five years on, we are still writing the legislation for our race fields. That Kiwi psyche kicked-in, we were slow leaving the barrier and have continued to fall further behind our counterparts across the Tasman.

My reasoning for regurgitating this 25-year history is to emphasise how much the game has changed and then to contemplate the doubling of that amount of change over the next 10 years. That’s where technology is taking us – a place unknown.

Meanwhile, it may be this time next year or even further down the track before the race fields legislation goes before parliament and undergoes three readings and is then is passed into law. Presently it’s in draft form only, still requiring fine tuning, and from what the writer has learned is ‘low priority’ from a government viewpoint.

The racing industry viewpoint is racefields is ‘high priority’ because for each year that flows by without it being passed into law it costs gallops around $10 million that would go straight into stakes money.

And that $10 million is potentially $20 million annually because at present Australians betting on NZ racing represents only 3.2 percent of their turnover.  Unlike harness (6.7 percent) and greyhounds (6.5 percent), the gallops have been poorly marketed across the ditch and so the potential to double the percentage, given its exclusive time zone, is a very real one.

Aside from race fields which John Allen promised us in this session of parliament in his February ‘talking to the industry tour,’ the fixed-odds betting platform which is part of the $60-75 million the NZRB is spending and which was promised for early next year, is unlikely to arrive before the start of the 2018/19 season.

Late last week in a call to NZRB Head of Communications Kate Richards, she said: “The FOB platform has been agreed to in the partnership with Open Bet and Paddy Power, but it’s impossible to say how long it will take to implement – current estimation is that it will start in the 2018/19 season. The Board has approved the partnership to start the process.”

Does the time-frame blow-out also mean a budget blow-out? Cynicism for that comes from the perusal of annual reports, statements of intent, and budgets released by NZRB over the past six years that show a series of underestimated costs and over-stated returns.

For example, in the NZRB Annual Report for the year ended July 2012, the budget for employee expenses was $43,660,000 following the previous year’s actual of $41,149,000. But the actual for 2012 blew out to $47,155,000 – $3.5 million over budget.

Between 2012 and the year ended 2016, total revenue for the NZRB increased by over $50 million ($301,881,000 to $351,923,000), yet the thoroughbred industry stayed ‘flat-lining’ in terms of its returns. Why? Simply because costs at NZRB were and still are spiraling.

Is this the reason, or one of them, that prompted NZTR Chairman Alan Jackson to write the following in the Chairman’s Annual Report published in the November 2016 Thoroughbred Monthly?:

“Looking forward, there is only so much more running to stand still the Code can sustain. We cannot have another financial result like the current one, and we cannot simply continue to reduce the number of meetings and races to raise stakes.”

As stated here previously, the wages bill has now soared to $66,824,000 as per the P&L of the NZRB Financial Statements for the year ended 2016. Unacceptable in a public company environment, the difference here is that the NZRB came into being as a result of a now completely outdated Racing Act of 2003.

The Act and especially clause 16 is probably some of the dumbest legislation ever passed. It gives the NZRB ‘carte blanche’ on how much they return to the codes with no accountability on their costs. It was written by the bureaucrats for the bureaucrats and has placed us where we are today.

Back to the governance of racing, it’s not the fault of the NZRB but the government of the day and the legislation they passed that has put us in this hole. The NZRB comprises a group of people that don’t have their livelihoods at stake in racing because they are mainly corporates, marketing, and IT people whereas the NZTR is in the main body with a vested interest.

Ironically, the people at NZTR didn’t want to talk to me for this story, but the NZRB obliged.

But it’s the NZRB that’s setting off down the path to building its own FOB platform and an app for smart phones, all at considerable costs in a world that will continue to leave them behind in technology.

With at least 12 major bookmaking companies operating on Australian racing, some of which spend $120 million annually on IT to retain or gain market share, how could we believe the NZ TAB could be competitive long term.

Tabcorp recognised some time ago that scale was required to compete against the bookmakers. It’s now a massive, integrated betting organisation that supports all forms of wagering and is the rock that provides revenue for racing.

Tabcorp is currently in the process of taking over Tatts (Ubet) which is the Queensland equivalent of our TAB. They have signed a deal which now only requires ACCC approval for the corporate merger. The deal will strengthen Tabcorp and save Queensland racing hugely in annual expenses.

Tabcorp services also includes retail, digital and sky media platforms – their strength provides stability for a strong Australian industry. Scale gives them competitiveness in today’s globalised wagering business which gives better service to punters and more back to racing.

So why is the NZRB going it alone and risking massive capital to develop its own technology to compete against Tabcorp and the bookmakers who possess far bigger scale and budgets?

The reason New Zealand doesn’t have its own banks is simply a consequence of scale. We are not large enough to go it alone when the market is global.

Why wouldn’t they instead outsource all our betting services to Tabcorp and became part of the scale that would provide more certainty for our racing future? The answer may be in the DNA of the NZ psyche previously mentioned.

Outsourcing to Tabcorp would provide $50 million to $70 Million of savings over three codes in annual expenses. Those savings would transform racing in New Zealand as we know it. But the catch-22 is that most at NZRB would lose their jobs because that’s where the savings lie.

Instead, the racing business is all-aboard the Titanic and heading into the North Atlantic knowing there are icebergs to negotiate?  And is the NZRB the band that continues to play while rearranging the deck chairs?

Maybe it’s not too late to head back to port to replot a safer course?

by Brian de Lore
Published 19 May 2017

Should everyone in racing should stop what they’re doing, take a deep breath, and carefully read part of the Racing Act 2003?

Look in the section which says ‘Functions of the Board,’ the very first clause directly below that heading reads as follows:

1(a)
“to develop policies that are conducive to the overall economic development of the racing industry, and the economic well-being of people who, and organisations which, derive their livelihoods from racing.”

Clause 1(a) was a statement of intent that was ratified by the then government and passed into law along with the rest of the act. It was a Racing Act that promised much but in 14 years has delivered little for the people at the ‘coal-face’ in racing. In short, it has been a huge ‘fail.’

Along with the Act came the formation of the NZ Racing Board to carry out function 1(a) and the others listed below it. It is true that the Board has ‘developed policies’ over those 14 years but where is the evidence of the ‘economic development of the racing industry’ or the evidence of the ‘economic well-being of the people or organisations’ in it.

There is no evidence. It has not happened!

The racing industry needs to have a long hard look at itself and admit that’s it’s now wallowing in its own horse manure, and it needs to rid itself of the denial and the apathy that’s endemic in it. It needs to wake up to itself!

It’s not good form to be negative, but denial of the truth is the cancer that needs to be ‘cut off at the pass.’ Why, because in the 14 years since the Racing Act of 2003 came into being, and the NZRB, the cost of running racing has soared to ridiculous heights as a percentage of its turnover.

In its current form racing in New Zealand is not sustainable. We have to change, and it must be soon. The cash generated by the industry stays at the top and is eaten-up by costs and salaries, and there’s too little trickle-down revenue for the people at the bottom of the chain – the owners, the trainers, the jockeys, the stable workers, etc.

If you go to the NZRB website, it says it employs 820 people both full-time and part-time. Yes, many of those are involved in the TAB and its TAB Trackside channels, but it is still a fact that there are 138 people employed by the NZRB that earn $100,000 or more. The total wage bill is $66 million.

Does anyone need reminding that Haf Poland once ran racing and the stud book with only a dozen employees?  Yes, these are different times and comparisons like that are futile, but it’s worth emphasising how far in one direction we have now gone in the other.

Recent announcements of the minimum stake going to $10,000 and the extra $24m for the three codes over the next two seasons deserved a round of applause. Racing badly needed a shot in the arm like that but from where does the revenue for the increase come?

It’s reliant upon future increased income from NZRB projects including the race fields legislation and a successful launching of the new fixed-odds betting platform – and it becoming a success.

So, the NZRB have allocated future race prizemoney increases on ventures they don’t know will work. The word on the race fields legislation has gone from confident to hopeful, and now the latest information suggests it will not be tabled in the term of this government.  

The election will come first. So when will it be tabled, debated and then passed? No-one knows; perhaps next year, but we are already spending the ‘anticipatory’ future profits on increased prizemoney which we haven’t yet earned.

Post-election race fields may come before a new coalition government, but regardless, I repeat, we are already allocating prizemoney we haven’t got. That might result in a deficit of millions at the end of next season which would ultimately be levied against and eventually clawed back from prizemoney.

The increased prizemoney announcement was $24 million for two years across the three codes but what happens after that if losses are incurred in successive years?

Don’t forget that the people who ‘develop the policies’ will still collect salaries regardless of performance and even if they ‘get fired out-of-the-place,’ the severance packages will be significant.

Now, if you were the shareholder in a company that used that ‘mode-of-operandi,’ would you be keeping your shares – I think not?

The real problem is the monster the Racing Act 2003 created rather than the quality of the people at NZRB. In what they may be genuinely trying to achieve they can never get scale on the operating costs.

International competition is a big problem for little old New Zealand – as small fish how do we now compete in a big pond? We have only a tiny pool of betting money by comparison, and it’s impossible – in this business the little guys don’t win.

Once upon a time, the New Zealand TAB was safe within a domestic market, but now we have no choice but to compete globally. Everything is global.

In Australia, Crown Bet and Sportsbet spent $60m and $40m respectively on advertising for customer recruitment alone.  How does New Zealand compete? Each spends around $120m a year on their IT development – we are doing a one-off project to develop a smart-phone app which won’t be launched until next year, and we are not spending anything on the tote.

Returns from the tote are just as important as the fixed-odds, and what might be gained from the new fixed-odds betting platform may be lost from tote betting –the net result may be a ‘standstill.’

Kiwis don’t have the discretionary money to bet more – the wealth isn’t here to do it. Further, when race fields legislation does eventually arrive punters are going to be more aware of the offerings in Australia, and they will become genuine competitors – a recent promotion in NSW TAB betting was the offering tote plus 20% for the first four races.

When John Allen toured the country in February and said he was going to double the number of TAB account holders; what he really meant to say was he wanted to reignite the betting of half the account holders that hold dormant accounts with only a 10 or 20 cents balance.

But that’s not possible. Punters run their balances down to nearly zero or draw money from them when things are tight. Some of those accounts may not have been used for years, or those punters might now be betting off-shore.

So, the real question to be answered is this:  Is the NZRB looking at sustaining themselves or the racing industry? Nothing is trickling down to the bottom rung of the ladder and after 14 years – the money is being ‘used-up’ at the top.

Historically, there is only one conclusion to be drawn.

With race fields not a goer in the short term and the scale against their other projects, the NZRB strategy is high risk. Do all the codes fully understand this because nothing is voiced – the racing bodies are quiet and especially Harness and Greyhound.

To put an election slant on the future of racing, I this week attempted to contact Winston Peters who to date has been our most successful racing minister. So far no luck but I’m not giving up on him.

How would Winston view the racing industry if he were in a position to form a coalition government?

Three attempts to phone NZRB’s Kate Richards at John Allen’s office to draw comment on the delay of race fields all failed. No answer and no return from the answerphone message.

Better luck with the NZTR when tracking down Chairman Alan Jackson at the airport in Melbourne.

Jackson said that the appointment of Bernard Saundry as a replacement to the outgoing CEO Alan Purcell was a step in the right direction and he would be an asset for New Zealand racing.

“Bernard had done this journey before, explained Jackson. “When he joined Racing Victoria they had a poor payout and were $48 million in the red – he turned them around.

“Here’s a guy who has dealt with race fields, knows how to price a product; he knows the importance of the thoroughbred getting its best opportunity in Australia.

“He’s got very good relationships with all the organisations in Australia – we can start to address issues like strengthening our organisations, clarifying marketing and providing good support to the infrastructure.

“He has done this work before and very successfully – he has worked with metropolitan clubs, regional clubs and community clubs – everything’s got a place and we may conclude that some clubs may not have a stand-alone place for the future.”

That was an interesting comment from Jackson, suggestive that the arrival of Saundry might coincide with some long, overdue industry rationalisation. It was indicative that the racing industry was at the very least heading for some rejigging.

“Bernard is a shining light,” continued Jackson. He possesses knowledge which will be very beneficial going forward.”