TROTTING Stakes subsidy scheme worries club officials

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33035, 30 September 1972, Page 8

TROTTING Stakes subsidy scheme worries club officials

The practical application of the stakes subsidy scheme announced last week by the Racing Authority is causing concern among trotting club officials in Canterbury, the majority of whom agree that subsidies should apply to all races catering for the four classes named in the schedule.

Concern was also expressed at the fast that the scheme was so far removed from what they had been led to believe were the Trotting Conference proposals for the subsidies.

“The subsidies should be applied to al) races in the four classes irrespective of the basic amounts paid by the clubs,” said the president of the Metropolitan club (Mr G. W. Blaxall). His club ran races each season for the four classes, but the owners

of place-getters would receive no benefit at all as a result of subsidies. “And it is from betting on meetings of the larger clubs that the monies for the subsidies will be derived,” he added. “I fail to understand why the basis of subsidy distribution is different between the two codes,” said Mr Blaxall. “It is obvious that the conference will have to make an early review of the minimum stakes schedule as it applies to classes other than those affected by the subsidies.” Mr Blaxall also expressed displeasure that no subsidy would apply to non-totalisa-tor races run by his club. “We ran five such races last season as a boost to owners of maiden horses and also as a fillip to probationary drivers, and we have included two in

the programme for our cup meeting in November,” he said. “According to the act subsidies shall be applied to races run only by totalisator clubs, but apparently the authority has ruled that nontotalisator races run by any totalisator club shall not participate in the subsidy scheme.” The stakes for the nontotalisator races in November are $550 and $6OO and it was most unlikely his committee will consider increasing the stakes for these events. “We will definitely run them so long as sufficient entries are received, but will review the position later.” Owners penalised The president of the New Brighton club (Mr J. R. Hartley) agreed with Mr Blaxall

that all races should receive the subsidy, even if it meant that the amount to be added to the stakes might be reduced slightly. This would ensure that all owners benefited, not just those racing at minor meetings. He emphasised that it was not club money that was paying the subsidies, but a rebate of taxation. His club had often run non - totalisator races for maiden pacers with stakes of from $6OO to $BOO. “Owners can’t be expected to race for less than the $950 minimum for maiden races at totalisator meetings and while the subject has not yet been considered by the committee, I am sure serious consideration will be given to deleting non-totalisator events in future,” he said.

Mr Hartley said it was unfair that some owners should receive a subsidy of $4OO, while others receive nothing. “The subsidy scheme is a curb in incentive,” said Mr F. T. Parkin, the president of the Banks Peninsula club. “My club has done everything possible to benefit owners by way of increased stakes, and it’s unfair that owners of winners at our meeting next week can’t participate in the subsidy scheme. “The scheme should be made retrospective to August 1 and should be changed to apply to all races in the four classes concerned,” he said. “It’s not right that a club prepared to pay $lOOO for a race for maiden horses should be penalised. Clubs could not be blamed for giving consideration to modifying stakes for those four classes so that they could become eligible for the subsidy.”

Auckland view The method of distribution of subsidies would lessen the likelihood of a voluntary decision by uneconomic clubs to amalgamate, the president of the Auckland club (Mr M. M. N. Corner) said, according to the Auckland correspondent of “The Press.” “I welcomed the earlier announcement that $750,000 would be given from a stakes subsidy account and that looser classes would be a first condition,” he said, “but I am disappointed with the way it is to be distributed. “Certainly, it will not assist toward voluntary centralisation — and centralisation was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.”

He said it seemed that clubs which, in the past, had given minimum stakes would gain at the expense of clubs which gave the maximum stakes their funds allowed. Mr Corner maintains that a more logical method of distribution would have been to allocate subsidies to various classes, providing stakes offered by clubs reached amounts indicated by the Authority. “This would mean," he said, “clubs would receive an incentive to make their own maximum contribution.

“As it is, a club can give the minimum for a class, of say, $550, and receive $4OO from the Authority. A club which makes a maximum effort and gives a stake of $750 for the same class gets only half as much.” He said it was possible under the present situation for a club to race on a course and receive subsidies while the club owning the course and responsible for its full maintenance and improvements might receive no assistance.

“It must be remembered,” said Mr 1 Corner, “that the money for the stakes subsidy account will come directly from totalisator turnover, a major part of which comes from the bigger clubs. “I am pleased the authority has announced the initial method will be in force only until October 31, 1973. I look forward to an adjustment that will benefit all clubs and sections associated in trotting.”