Already Tasracing has cut three office administration staff and announced a continued freeze on some executive salaries.

That’s a step in the right direction for everyone except those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs but obviously a lot more is required.

Before any decisions are made on actual cuts to stakemoney or race meetings, every avenue of cost-saving has to be explored.

Several of the more obvious were likely to have come up for discussion when Tasracing met with the Thoroughbred Advisory Network, in the presence of Racing Minister Jeremy Rockliff, at Campbell Town last night.

These may have included the contentious interstate jockeys’ subsidy.

Although desirable to make our races more attractive to interstate punters, it is costly and, arguably, no longer essential.

The number of local jockeys and apprentices has grown since it was introduced.

Questions have to be asked whether the benefit – in  terms of increased turnover – is worth the expense and whether jockeys who can make almost $1000 a day without riding a winner should be subsidised to come here.

User-pays might be a fairer system. Owners can join forces at any time to share the cost if they want to import an interstate rider.

Tasracing chairman Brian Speers stated last week that there had been no pay rises or performance bonuses for the company’s top executives and that all other staff were paid according to the government’s wages policy, enterprise agreements or award rates.

He also stated that the seven Tasracing board directors were remunerated according to Treasury guidelines.

All good. But, what he did not address were industry concerns, aired on radio recently by veteran trainer and often outspoken critic Walter McShane, about whether at least two highly-paid executive positions at Tasracing are still necessary.

There is no doubt the landscape has changed since these appointments were made.

He also did not address whether Tasracing still needs a seven-member board, itself a significant cost.

Legislation may stipulate that number – but legislation can be changed at the government’s whim, as just witnessed.

Other smaller areas of expenditure that could have been discussed include the cost of some of Tasracing’s internet services, such as StrideMASTER and interstate tipsters and the cost of having night racing fields published in the Herald Sun.

All desirable, in a perfect world, but do the costs outweigh the benefits?

A review of minimum field sizes could also have been on the table.

Unless it’s a quality race, small fields normally attract lower betting turnover and are a liability.

Multiple entries from single stables need to be factored in when deciding whether a race should go ahead.

That may seem harsh but, in theory, every race deleted due to low numbers saves enough money to add $2000 to the stake for every other race on the program.

Tasracing may rule out all of the above as undesirable, impractical or not of sufficient value to justify the pain.

Only they know all the figures. But one thing is certain. Before stakes and meetings are cut, the racing industry has the right to have every possible avenue of cost-saving considered – no matter how unpopular.