AGM

[lamour 673]

Has anyone heard what became of the AGM.  I haven't heard what remits were passed or what changes have been made.

Where are our intrepid reporters ??

[eljay 1,719]

All on holiday overseas last I heard!!

 

Rennell said on Radio today all except one remit was passed - Remit 4 re rule 814 I think was the one that failed to get passed.    

[eljay 1,719]

www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/arguments-and-against-owners-acceptance-fees

[lamour 673]

42 minutes ago, eljay said:

All on holiday overseas last I heard!!

 

Rennell said on Radio today all except one remit was passed - Remit 4 re rule 814 I think was the one that failed to get passed.    

Eljay, my blood is boiling,  that remit which concerned acceptance fees was a no brainer. 

I would love someone to come on here and justify why they voted against it.  

THE ONLY ORGANISATION THAT BENEFITS FROM  ACCEPTANCE FEES IS THE   IRD.  

They do NOTHING to increase stakes and if these people think it does they have no concept of how g.s.t. works. 

Seriously, do they think if we pay a $250.00 acceptance fee and our horse runs down the track and gets $500 that we are really $500 bettor off

My 7 year old daughter would understand you have only made $250.  Why can't these club administrators get it.....

 

 

[lamour 673]

15 minutes ago, eljay said:

www.odt.co.nz/sport/racing/arguments-and-against-owners-acceptance-fees

Thanks for posting that. I have just read it,  and the arguments for acceptance fees are first class B.S.

1- Brian Rabbitt states " They give integrity as far as anyone who is having a bet"  and " Gives a good insight into who is intending to start:"

Now this is rubbish. 

He is confusing nomination fees and sustaining payments with acceptance fees.  While his argument may have some validity with nom fees and sustaining pmnts which do have a place in racing,  the acceptance fee is for horses who have ALREADY ACCEPTED into the field.  They have nothing to do with early betting.

Remember - Remit 4 dealt with Acceptance fees and NOT Nomination fees as far as I can remember.

2- He goes on to state that acceptance fees are "used to help boost the stake" and are common place in the thoroughbred industry"

 Two  points here.

1-  ACCEPTANCE FEES DO  NOT BOOST STAKES.  Mr Rabbit if I give you $1000 dollars and you give me $2,000 I AM NOT $2,000 better off as you seem to think. Can you not grasp  this most simple of mathematical concepts that any 6 year old child would understand?

2- Because someone else charges acceptance fees does not make it correct or a good idea.  A policy such as this must stand on it's merit, and acceptance fees have zero merit, as the misleading justification for acceptance fees is  proves.

 

Please come on here Mr Rabbitt and debate this, it is important.

[Ohokaman 5,831]

Good luck with that Lamour....Rabbitt or anyone else....

[what a post 811]

I've often wondered who they think they can fool. Obviously they believe it works,so obviously themselves.

If you look at some of the races  programmed  you get more for being an also ran at addington in a non winners race than you do in a group 3 race on the same night. For example on 1 September at addington you get $269.98 cents for one of the  non win races where as in the Group 3 race you get $600- $345 acceptance fee = $255 .

[lamour 673]

11 hours ago, what a post said:

I've often wondered who they think they can fool. Obviously they believe it works,so obviously themselves.

If you look at some of the races  programmed  you get more for being an also ran at addington in a non winners race than you do in a group 3 race on the same night. For example on 1 September at addington you get $269.98 cents for one of the  non win races where as in the Group 3 race you get $600- $345 acceptance fee = $255 .

Thanks What a Post - shows the stupidity of acceptance fees.

As I understand it owners don't actually pay the fee to the club.  It is deducted off the stake money the horse earns when the money is paid out.

So the fee only exists on paper. 

So here is the absurdity of acceptance fee's

Using your example, if the club just paid the also ran the $255.00  instead of the $600 - $345.00 which = $255.00 the club itself would save $45.00 in g.s.t. The owner gets the $255.00 regardless but the club has an extra $45.00 per runner if no acceptance fee.  

Over a season the NZ Met would probably be $50,000 or more better off without acceptance fees which could be put into real stakes.

Why can;t they see this....

 

[eljay 1,719]

lamour - you get no argument from me.     All I can think of is that the big clubs want to keep in sweet with the pollies and get their annual free breakfasts.        

[eljay 1,719]

Just received "The Informant" - Garrick has a very interesting article on this subject published this week.    

[lamour 673]

19 minutes ago, eljay said:

Just received "The Informant" - Garrick has a very interesting article on this subject published this week.    

Look forward to reading it.

 

Thing is, I would not be against acceptance fee's if anyone could explain a true benefit to the industry for having them.

Brian Rabbitt's arguments are utter nonsense 

[lamour 673]

9 hours ago, eljay said:

Just received "The Informant" - Garrick has a very interesting article on this subject published this week.    

Had a look for it online but can't find it