G'day Punter!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Who's Online

0 Members & 45 Non Members

Saturday 22 August 2009

West Australian Racing
TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
edited November -1 West Australian Racing
8 Race program for Saturday, 4 of them have 11 runners or less accepting at this early stage. By Saturday that number should have dwindled further, based on recent weeks attrition rate. The feature Race, the Goodwood Sprint, has just 10 runners although a good quality field for this time of year.

Again I can't get there for the whole program, but it doesn't really feel like I am missing out that much.
+1 -1

Comments

  • cubescubes    689 posts
    2 x $40,000 races, start of things to come?
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    2 x $40,000 races, start of things to come?

    In acknowledging the financial position of the WA Turf Club, last Friday in The West, Chairman Ted Van Heemst stated that stakes money would not be changed. We can only presume he means no further changes, because as you rightly question the $40,000 stakes in 2 races on Saturday, if this was to be extrapolated to a full financial year, then the savings would be in the order of $1M.

    The previous AGM was presented with a lot of chest pounding about how much money the Committee had allocated to stakes money for the 2008-09 racing year. $3M in fact, and how this was second only to the VRC.
    Well with the adjustment as mentioned above, there hasn’t been an announcement of a 33% cut in stakes for the 2009-10 racing year, but on their own figures that is exactly what they have done.
    +1 -1
  • NortherlyNortherly    251 posts
    They dropped the 1600m 3yo Open race on Saturday and in its place they split the race with the biggest nominations which was the 62-74 1200m race (race 4 & 5)
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    said:

    2 x $40,000 races, start of things to come?

    In acknowledging the financial position of the WA Turf Club, last Friday in The West, Chairman Ted Van Heemst stated that stakes money would not be changed. We can only presume he means no further changes, because as you rightly question the $40,000 stakes in 2 races on Saturday, if this was to be extrapolated to a full financial year, then the savings would be in the order of $1M.

    The previous AGM was presented with a lot of chest pounding about how much money the Committee had allocated to stakes money for the 2008-09 racing year. $3M in fact, and how this was second only to the VRC.
    Well with the adjustment as mentioned above, there hasn’t been an announcement of a 33% cut in stakes for the 2009-10 racing year, but on their own figures that is exactly what they have done.
    the drop by $10,000 in certain races was announced ages ago when they announced a rise in stakes for the Winterbottom
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    I'm well aware it was announced some time ago. But the smoke and mirrors are hiding the fact, that the contribution by the WA Turf club has diminished by a considerable margin overall for the year ahead.

    Ignoring this fact won't make anything any better. It really is dangerous when you put all your eggs in one basket, that is stakes money. Without the solid foundation of a healthy business, and more importantly, healthy business practises and management, you will sailing full steam ahead and not recognising the looming danger that is the ship sinking iceberg on the horizon.

    The reductions to mid-week stakes money coupled with the Saturday reductions make the increase to the Winterbottom almost insignificant. Why increase this Race anyway ? It is not like it was upgraded in Group status.

    Its just another example of our determination to be second only to the Victorians in stakes money contribution. Like that is in the least bit important.

    What a disaster.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    just speaking soley on the Winterbottom - you dont get given an upgrade without reasonable cause - given WA's prominence as a producer of sprinters to increase prizemoney in this race is a proactive move in order to achieve that upgrade - if we get another geniune Group 1 quality race like it was last year then I believe it will receive a due upgrade to Group 1 status

    PS - you are baggin Perth Racings financial position yet also bagging the decrease in prizemoney (I think???) - isnt that contradictory - surely a decrease in prizemoney would help the financial situation not hinder it
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    just speaking soley on the Winterbottom - you dont get given an upgrade without reasonable cause - given WA's prominence as a producer of sprinters to increase prizemoney in this race is a proactive move in order to achieve that upgrade - if we get another geniune Group 1 quality race like it was last year then I believe it will receive a due upgrade to Group 1 status

    PS - you are baggin Perth Racings financial position yet also bagging the decrease in prizemoney (I think???) - isnt that contradictory - surely a decrease in prizemoney would help the financial situation not hinder it

    Well you know as well as I do, that until I pushed the matter, no problem existed as far as Perth Racing was concerned. The reason I criticise the decrease in stakes money. is that I forecast it at the last AGM, and was shouted down by Ted Van Heemst & Alister Robertson as not knowing or understanding how I could arrive at such a position.

    Well this year I'm saying that $27M in a hole is a radioactive glowing example of the arrogance of this Administration. If this was a publicly listed company, shareholders would be calling for blood.
    +1 -1
  • RelampagoRelampago    279 posts
    Personallty, I think that a couple of $40k rces on a Sat will be good long term...

    A) of course the financial saving to the club...
    B) Might actually increase midweek numbers instead of all craming for the extra $$ on a saturday
    C) A lot of horses that win Saturday events in Perth, IMO, dont deserve to win a $50k race...
    D) The lesser $$$ creates incentive to take your horses to the next level, creating more noms in the higher $$ fields and opening spots in the low rating races for horses who are currently not getting a start to now get one...
    +1 -1
  • [DeletedUser][DeletedUser]    0 posts
    Tete, i don't think anything the current administration did would meet with your approval.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    Tete, i don't think anything the current administration did would meet with your approval.

    On that point you are wrong. I can think of one thing that they can do, that would have my complete approval.
    +1 -1
  • [DeletedUser][DeletedUser]    0 posts
    said:

    said:

    Tete, i don't think anything the current administration did would meet with your approval.

    On that point you are wrong. I can think of one thing that they can do, that would have my complete approval.
    Care to name it ?
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    Personallty, I think that a couple of $40k rces on a Sat will be good long term...

    A) of course the financial saving to the club...
    B) Might actually increase midweek numbers instead of all craming for the extra $$ on a saturday
    C) A lot of horses that win Saturday events in Perth, IMO, dont deserve to win a $50k race...
    D) The lesser $$$ creates incentive to take your horses to the next level, creating more noms in the higher $$ fields and opening spots in the low rating races for horses who are currently not getting a start to now get one...

    totally agree
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    said:

    said:

    Tete, i don't think anything the current administration did would meet with your approval.

    On that point you are wrong. I can think of one thing that they can do, that would have my complete approval.
    Care to name it ?
    Appoint an Administrator, then stand aside.
    +1 -1
  • RelampagoRelampago    279 posts
    said:

    said:

    Personallty, I think that a couple of $40k rces on a Sat will be good long term...

    A) of course the financial saving to the club...
    B) Might actually increase midweek numbers instead of all craming for the extra $$ on a saturday
    C) A lot of horses that win Saturday events in Perth, IMO, dont deserve to win a $50k race...
    D) The lesser $$$ creates incentive to take your horses to the next level, creating more noms in the higher $$ fields and opening spots in the low rating races for horses who are currently not getting a start to now get one...

    totally agree
    What are your thoughts on this tete out of curiousity???
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    In answer to your question .........

    Immediately I would remove the top up fund and revert to the stakes money prize pool provided by RWWA with a sensible allocation between mid-week and Saturday Racing, for the next 2-3 years.

    Use the consolidated funds from all business ventures of the Club,(Perth Racing) to immediately retire the debt of current projects.

    Abandon the Belmont redevelopment and refurbish this tired facility as soon as possible.

    Quit the Ascot Vale land development at cost, to remove the projected losses once and for all.

    Amend the Constitution, in consultation with the State Government, that future Chairman’s of the WA Turf Club, cannot proceed in any capitol venture on any project other than Racing facilities. Also that financial liability is not protected under the Constitution for the Chairman.

    Also restore the tenure of the Chairman to a maximum four year term.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    Personallty, I think that a couple of $40k rces on a Sat will be good long term...

    A) of course the financial saving to the club...
    B) Might actually increase midweek numbers instead of all craming for the extra $$ on a saturday
    C) A lot of horses that win Saturday events in Perth, IMO, dont deserve to win a $50k race...
    D) The lesser $$$ creates incentive to take your horses to the next level, creating more noms in the higher $$ fields and opening spots in the low rating races for horses who are currently not getting a start to now get one...

    I agree with the sentiment you express, my only thought in regards to the rewarding of higher quality Saturday fields with higher stakes money, generally has led to a smaller field and then a reduction in betting turnover follows, as pointed out by Lucky Longshots stats last week.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    its not the increased stakemoney that has led to lower numbers in the races - that is such a ridiculous statement

    the problem was created when we adopted the new RBH system of grading races - WA is just catching up now with how it should be
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    its not the increased stakemonay that has led to lower numbers in the races - that is such a ridiculous statement

    Can you read my statement again ? I said that small fields have been the norm in recent times, and if you want to keep Saturdays for the highest level, as a result you are going to get the smallest number of competitors. It follows that smaller turnover will occur as a result.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    edited August 2009
    said:

    said:

    its not the increased stakemonay that has led to lower numbers in the races - that is such a ridiculous statement

    Can you read my statement again ? I said that small fields have been the norm in recent times, and if you want to keep Saturdays for the highest level, as a result you are going to get the smallest number of competitors. It follows that smaller turnover will occur as a result.
    totally incorrect - you think if we ran Saturday racing as a card of 8 x 16 horse maidens that turnover would be mammoth - that will not happen

    the best class of horses attract the most turnover - just have a look at the quality in Melb this Spring - and they have the highest levels of prizemoney in Aust.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    The RBH system of grading has highlighted the lack of depth we have in our stock. To improve field numbers I think they just need to widen the parameters of each grade. More ratings points should be awarded to winners when coming through the grades that lessen as you reach the highest categories. But the biggest probelm it seems is that if you wish to continue to set the bar so high for Saturday Races, then you will get small fields in this State. It doesnt matter how much money you throw at it.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    I dont agree with you going away from the rest of Australia with the template - we need to keep somewhat closely inline - otherwise we run the risk of creating a situation where West Aussies will be buying even more eastern staters to compete over here - our breeding industry will go further down the tube

    The answer is create a program where field sizes are reasonable whilst giving horses of all ability the ptoential to race and earn prizemoney - the continual changes in our programming is being done to achieve this and PR and RWWA are slowly getting on the right track with this
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    Irrespective of your viewpoint Della, this Club is in strife. $27M at the moment, with a claim by the Chairman that by the October AGM of the Members, that it will have fallen to $9M.

    The club contributed last year, off the back of a very good year of turnover, $3M to the funds provided by RWWA. Based on that number alone, hoping that turnover and attendances and profitability on course did not suffer, then if the Club withdrew support of stakes money and put that $3M towards retiring the debt, it would take 3 years to achieve.

    Bearing in mind that none of which had to happen, if not for the stupidity of these two land projects.

    Arguing about quality of Races is irrelevant.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    I have never made any comment with regard to the financial status of the club - I am happy to admit my knowledge in that area is not to the standard of being able to make an informed decision

    I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your views on that aspect of things
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    I dont agree with you going away from the rest of Australia with the template - we need to keep somewhat closely inline - otherwise we run the risk of creating a situation where West Aussies will be buying even more eastern staters to compete over here - our breeding industry will go further down the tube

    The answer is create a program where field sizes are reasonable whilst giving horses of all ability the ptoential to race and earn prizemoney - the continual changes in our programming is being done to achieve this and PR and RWWA are slowly getting on the right track with this

    I'm probably as much to blame as a lot of people, in that I have bred to OK horses, with Sires of questionable ability. The current financial worries for most Breeders will ultimately be good for the quality of the stock we are producing, as it makes us take a critical look at the decisions we all make when deciding to continue with under performing mares to less than desirable Sires.

    The second part of your statement can only be addressed by a change in the aspirations of the host club in the type of races they want to hold. I cannot recall a single issue with any Club outside the metropolitan area in respect to programming and field sizes.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    said:

    I dont agree with you going away from the rest of Australia with the template - we need to keep somewhat closely inline - otherwise we run the risk of creating a situation where West Aussies will be buying even more eastern staters to compete over here - our breeding industry will go further down the tube

    The answer is create a program where field sizes are reasonable whilst giving horses of all ability the ptoential to race and earn prizemoney - the continual changes in our programming is being done to achieve this and PR and RWWA are slowly getting on the right track with this

    I'm probably as much to blame as a lot of people, in that I have bred to OK horses, with Sires of questionable ability. The current financial worries for most Breeders will ultimately be good for the quality of the stock we are producing, as it makes us take a critical look at the decisions we all make when deciding to continue with under performing mares to less than desirable Sires.

    The second part of your statement can only be addressed by a change in the aspirations of the host club in the type of races they want to hold. I cannot recall a single issue with any Club outside the metropolitan area in respect to programming and field sizes.
    thats because the the RBH change created a shortfall of horses in the higher class of races and made a log jam in the lower grades - that beneifts every Club except Perth Racing and its not them who set the programs its the RWWA
    +1 -1
  • [DeletedUser][DeletedUser]    0 posts
    Yes Yes and Yes again Della.
    +1 -1
  • cubescubes    689 posts
    Perth Racing can have serious input to the programme.

    Part of the problem is trainers/owners wont jump rating bands.
    +1 -1
  • TheDivaTheDiva    13,248 posts
    said:

    Perth Racing can have serious input to the programme.

    Part of the problem is trainers/owners wont jump rating bands.

    yes completely true

    the other issue is non accpetances when drawing a wide barrier - its ok for everyone to whinge about field size but when you are an owner or trainer and your horse who has limited ability draws a wide gate there is no reason to be running it

    maybe there should be an increase in nomination fee with the surplus funds going to a starters subsidy for unplaced runners who accept from wider than barrier 10
    +1 -1
  • LuckyLongshotsLuckyLongshots    4,270 posts
    said:

    They dropped the 1600m 3yo Open race on Saturday and in its place they split the race with the biggest nominations which was the 62-74 1200m race (race 4 & 5)

    That is a great idea, well done to RWWA for adjusting the programme when nominations were (for the 3YO 1600m) were poor.

    I posted this a week or so ago, and it seems that RWWA have done the right thing - I applaud RWWA officials on this matter as they have adjusted the programme to suit the horses that are currently running around!
    said:

    If RWWA and Perth Racing can't find good full fields at nominations, they should shelve a race for a week or combine it with another race.

    +1 -1
  • ShanghaiShanghai    381 posts
    the other issue is non accpetances when drawing a wide barrier - its ok for everyone to whinge about field size but when you are an owner or trainer and your horse who has limited ability draws a wide gate there is no reason to be running it

    maybe there should be an increase in nomination fee with the surplus funds going to a starters subsidy for unplaced runners who accept from wider than barrier 10

    very good idea, it will stop people selecting 3 races , then waiting on what field drops away
    +1 -1
Sign In or Register to comment.