RA member expectations list

Regarding the "Achiever"


The following was received from Mr Vos today.



The Achiever had her first jump at the pens today.



She will be sent back for another jump two weeks from today and will be ready to be nominated after that.



I am happy with her progress and will keep you updated.



Kind regards,

John Vos

That sounds positive for the new guys on the block.

I am afraid that the achiever has probably succeeded in convincing,all involved,that ownership is not something you would want to be paying for !!!!

Frodo Wrote:

>
> Thanks for engaging on this issue; please excuse
> my ignorance, but I don't follow the formulas as
> shown above:
>
> 'The following % take-outs apply to the stakes
> pot'
>
> What is meant by 'take-outs'?
>
> What is the precentages meant to show - if added
> together these come to 195%?
>
> Which 'variable' (if any) is descreasing?


Regarding the Tote: take-out refers to the amount that Phumelela receive from the betting on the tote for each race (The Gross pool for each bet type less the net pool). If the racing is being held in a Phumelela region, approx 60% of this take-out goes to Phum, with approx 40% going to GC, and vice versa if the race is held in a GC region.



For example, assuming a win bet has a take-out of 20%, and racing is held in a Phum region:

R100k Gross bets on wins

R80k Net pool available for punters

R20k Total take-out

+- R12k of take-out for Phum

+- R8k of take-out for GC



Contribution to the stakes @30% of Phum take-out = R3600



This is a simplified example as there is also a split between Phum and GC depending on where the bet is place, hence the 60% and 40% are approximations.

Dear RA

what % does the RA represent of the total ownership pool in SAF?

Hi John!

I hate to think conspiracy!

However, to date, not only mine, but there are numerous other questions that have been lodged here that you have not responded.

The least would be, if not within your terrain, say so....and also direct to the relevant party/ies!

Otherwise, this whole exercise is one of firefigting, appeasement and promoting friciton within the industry.
Such tactics will eventually backfire!

Many have left the industry. with others threatening / preparing to do. Besides them there are punters who are being pissed off horseracing (I myself, despite my life-long avid interest in it), am considering 'laying-off' for good with all this crap of non-accountability, selective responses, nepotism. inconsistencies, etc (worse than what one would accuse the ANC of)!

So, let's have some honesty... even if it shakes the estbalishment!

Or, tell us to ... f...k off!

Then, we know where we stand.... and what to do!

RA Wrote:

---

> Regarding the Tote: take-out refers to the amount
> that Phumelela receive from the betting on the
> tote for each race (The Gross pool for each bet
> type less the net pool). If the racing is being
> held in a Phumelela region, approx 60% of this
> take-out goes to Phum, with approx 40% going to
> GC, and vice versa if the race is held in a GC
> region.
>
> For example, assuming a win bet has a take-out of
> 20%, and racing is held in a Phum region:
>
> R100k Gross bets on wins
>
> R80k Net pool available for punters
>
> R20k Total take-out
>
> +- R12k of take-out for Phum
>
> +- R8k of take-out for GC
>
> Contribution to the stakes @30% of Phum take-out =
> R3600
>
> This is a simplified example as there is also a
> split between Phum and GC depending on where the
> bet is place, hence the 60% and 40% are
> approximations.


At last an answer to the question that I have been asking for at least 2 years. I understand the idea of the 60/40 being approximations but small percentage swings amounts to big money either way (it is claimed that R50 mil being paid out every week therefore R12,5 mil earned by the 2 operators per week). Lets look at this in terms of the woes of Cape racing:

1. fractional differences on the 60/40 however small can have an impact on earnings.

2. Cape racing, in the past has not been given the best betting days

i. Tuesdays - This is happening less in the Cape with the Vaal mostly owning this day of late. I would love to know whether t/overs have been improved as a result of this switch to the Vaal. The obvious benefit for GC is that it does not cost them anything They still get their 40% at no cost. It begs the question, if t/overs on Tuesdays have not improved then
a. Does it cost less to run racing at the Vaal? or
b. is racing in the P region on other days subsidising this day; Tuesdays Vaal racing?
c. I suppose we can go one further and say, are these smaller meetings costing more than they bring in, and if so, is it a case of cross subsidy and do we have too much local racing on the go? I would prefer to see less racing in difficult times rather than see reduction in assets. Race meetings can be replaced or increased easily in better times. Assets are not so easily replaceable.

ii. Saturdays - Cape racing has generally competed with Turfontein on a Saturday. It goes without saying, Turfontein racing is in the centre of SA's economy and more disposable income is available in Gauteng and therefore this centre would be more popular as bigger money is played into this pool. Money follows money and so the rot sets in for Cape racing. (combined with some dubious results and you have a recipe for disaster)

iii. I believe days of the week have a significant role to play. The psyche of the gambler needs to be considered very carefully. Wednesday in general terms feels like a better day for me than a Monday or Tuesday. I would be more inclined to spend on a Wednesday (we need to remember that not everybody just wants to gamble for the sake of it) than on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday. Of Course Friday and Saturday are bigger spending days. I am talking general spend not specifcally spend on wagering. Spending patterns have to be looked at in general as they have to have an impact

Whilst the above focuses on local racing, questions have to arise out of the above and its formulas. chief being:

Mr RA please can you provide us with the percentages on the international product.

1. Income vs cost as expressed as a ratio (roughly)
2. What percentage of international earnings makes it back into to stakes for SA racing, if any?
3. Are there agreements in place between P and GC on how these earnings are split or is it as simple as 50/50? (regardless of the PGE arrangement)

Whilst the questions posed may seem to have nothing to do with the topic "RA member expectations list", I believe that it is important to understand what is happening in the financial engine. From an owners perspective (your mandate in terms of your members) stakes growth. Unhealthy tension between the operators could flow down racing structures and have an impact on the source of the income, (the punter) which in turn affects stakes.

As a general comment, I do believe that the RA has a role to play in looking at the interests of SA punters. Protect the source of income. Look at income and punter retention. Study punter paterns and question why there is a shift from racing to soccer or racing to poker, for instance . This area is so poorly managed by all concerned in the industry. In fact I would go as far as to say that the industry is totally disconnected from the interests of the source of all its income. Not sure but it also seems to be a global phenomenon. Certainly a shift to soccer bets in the UK too as it has been reported on these sites. There is a need to understand that shift. It may be related to a generational difference but what could be the next shift? Surely the goal is to claw back some of the losses and protect the future of racing? The place to start is with the punter.

I didn't have time to read the whole thread and others but i see SFRW have asked why i didn't report back on the meeting...I didn't think it necesseray as most of the questions raised are all on here anyway...

Only other matters i raised was:

Why Larry doesn't address the other sites questions too especially SFRW and Charl and informed me that he is willing to do so as long as it is questions regarding racing and not personal attacks. I just want to follow up whether the RA is still willing to answer their questions as they do raise valid points [concerning racing].

Secondly i raised the point regarding "vet" bills that are so astronomical which will be looked into. Larry said they are looking into it and will advise... If any feedback please post.

Thirdly the issues around maiden plates [something is done i must admit], seen more maiden races and promised qualified maidens etc, some split races...that is positive...

I did ask about the Newmarket issue [why moved to Turfies and the lights issue] and why Bloemfontein is just sitting there...i think it best if the new appointed operational manager [answering all questions on here] can answer this on here on Larry's behalf...

I raised the issue of the way the TBA conducts auctions at sales [i'm an auctioneer myself] as in the old days in selling insolvent imovable assets our auctions saw bank representatives bidding on the bank's behalf pushing buyers...we since stopped this scenario and i feel breeders should not be present in the sales ring or have others bidding on their behalf [think this issue was answered in the thread].

I also raised that the TBA should conduct the yearling sales like the ready to run. I stated that we buy yearlings [April sale and Cape in January] which stand in spelling, costing money so why can't we have a 6 cheque scheme or similar here as well. Breeders will be insured of income every month and fetch better prices giving us small owners a chance of buying a more expensive better bred horse...

Another issue i raised was the commission on stake namely 7% [ some 10%] to jockeys and trainers...Jockeys ride for R550 per race which is fair. I feel for Natal owners as their stakes were dropped but still the jockey gets his fee and 7%. The Natal owners stable fees didn't drop and no stakes on fifth place. The jocks and trainers have a win win situation but the owner loses as he / she gets a smaller chunk but the trainer fees and jockey fees stays the same...Any feedback or comments from anyone yet?...In matter of fact that means at the time of any race any owner actually just own 86% of a horse...Don't get me wrong, i don't mind the comm but i feel alternatives should be looked into for the Natal owners...at this stage it's nearly more profitable for them to race in PE...

We discussed other matters already on the thread...some deeper aspects which i am not a fundi on and i leave it to the experts on here and elsewhere...

I don't know Larry personally, met him for the first time, he came accross direct answered all i asked did mention other issues which will obviously be posted here but i do get the idea he is really trying to better things for us members of the RA...will be looong and stakingly painful as well...

I did mention that i know of the politics surrounding him and RA of which is none of my business but that i hoped it could be resolved in time with all parties concerned and that all the main role players in this RACING INDABA could be included for the better of the Sport...and eventually sit around one table and better Racing...

Hope this helps, i'm not an expert but tried to ask questions as meaningful as possible...

The first thing the RA must sort out is inviting the MAIN ROLEPLAYERS from the 3 main forums to talks / feedback on repective sites...

@RAD:

Tnx Rad; though many other issues still linger.

I would like to make the ff point (against the background during corporatisation that punters are customers only....nothing more!):

1.
If there is a supermarket chain, how can suppliers have their own indaba, manufacturers, their own, the chain its own, the advertisers & the property owners their own WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION WITH OR CONSIDERATION OF THE CUSTOMER'S NEEDS OR EXPECTATIONS?

That is the bottom line, as much the horseracing scene is beset with incestuous relationships where owners, trainers, jockeys, etc are also punters first (at times)!

Umlilo...

Going back to your e-mail to me you raised some good issues and i believe you should raise them here too...I think the RA should be opened to punters...the bigger the RA, attracting more concerned racing enthusiasts the RA could become the COSATU of horseracing...and believe me the government sits up and take note when they rally. We need the RA to be like that...rally the masses [owners, punters, grooms, etc] and the operators will sit up and take note...

The RA does not need strengthening,it needs to be REPLACED with a NATIONAL body representing ALL owners (and breeders IMO)
That body should have a non-profit management company that runs racing and betting to the benefit of punters & stakes.Owners have a more direct motive to provide punters with a good service and the present "P" dividends would be a very positive addition to the stakes pot.
The only takeout should be a)operating costs (@cost)
b)punters winnings
& c)stakes contribution
That way almost all proceeds would continue to be reinvested into the industry.

Squeeze the corporate out of local racing and let them handle sports and overseas betting! They are completely inefficient and are an unecessary and expensive liability to local racing.

@RAD:

appreciate your comment.

The point is I have already raised some questions here (with RA) and they have not been even obliquely referred to!

I would not mind joining hands with them if they are representative, sincere and have no hidden agendas to mobilise all of the punting fraternity (black and white) & grooms, together with owners, trainers, etc. to pen out a viable strategy to ensure the survival and sustainability of horseracing.... and even involving Government.

Right now, there are disconcerting tensions within the industry and 'pockets' with vested interests pitted against one another.

My previous experience with Graeme Hawkins has also left me with a bitter taste in being used.