Au Revoir Cam

[barryb 2,064]

It's a  complex issue Tom and certainly not confined to NZ.

Google up Racing in Decline, you will find multiple stories from the States & UK on it and to a lesser degree Australia.

Common themes come through though.

1) Sports betting more appealing to young people

2) Poor leadership and Govermental administration

3) Animal welfare

 

[barryb 2,064]

https://newrepublic.com/article/121970/slow-decline-sport-kings

Has very significant parallels to us.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

1 hour ago, barryb said:

It's a  complex issue Tom and certainly not confined to NZ.

Google up Racing in Decline, you will find multiple stories from the States & UK on it and to a lesser degree Australia.

Common themes come through though.

1) Sports betting more appealing to young people

2) Poor leadership and Govermental administration

3) Animal welfare

 

Fair Comment

[Midget 4,489]

1 hour ago, barryb said:

It's a  complex issue Tom and certainly not confined to NZ.

Google up Racing in Decline, you will find multiple stories from the States & UK on it and to a lesser degree Australia.

Common themes come through though.

1) Sports betting more appealing to young people

2) Poor leadership and Govermental administration

3) Animal welfare

 

And there's an equivalent argument that says the countries whose racing industries are failing all have the same fundamental weaknesses, typically too many tracks, overheads are too high, returns too low, administration is without vision, they haven't adapted to an information based internet world, and they typically show an inability to offer a desirable product to the global market.

As has been mentioned here a hundred times the model that we must aim to emulate is Singapore.

We can't be Hong Kong for obvious reasons but we certainly can be as good as or better than Singapore because we have everything they've got, and more, except decent leadership.

[Berri 2,131]

Midgie is right but we are about to lose what we've got and that is a diluted version of what we had. We need rationalisation and integration but we also need to be liberated from the complex conflicts of interest that the board appointment methodology has created. I will give you an example. You will all be every sick and tired of hearing about the jackpot bet type Race-O. It was designed to produce 1st division prize pools (with subsidiary prize pools) that would compete with the lotteries and that includes the Power Ball. This can only be achieved through a couple of methods because racing is heavily structured as an event (i.e. there are few options due to the nature of the event). 

So we've wondered why racing's bureaucracy didn't embrace this concept because it seemed logical that racing needed a community based long odds bet type to compete with the lotteries. We thought that it was to do with the personalities involved. Now we find out that it had all to do with the Lotteries Commission not wanting to have competition. So here we are (racing that is) not being able to cater for one area of the betting market because some other government department are trying to act anticompetitively. This just so happens to potentially be the best area in the future because people are drifting away from conventional bet forms and are migrating to life changing lottery structured bet types.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Under the new proposed Act, this is exacerbated by the top heaviness of sports representatives and the proposed terms of the Act. Under the proposed Act, the Minister and the Department authorise new bet types (no longer the NZRB!!!) and the deductions from betting and distribution as a result of those bets being provided. As the Lotteries are having problems getting enough funding to all the historic charitable organisations (grass roots sports being one of them), the government has given a directive that these funds should be accessed through offering advanced forms of sports betting via the TAB (not the Lotteries Commission). As a result the Commision doesn't need to fund the traditional Lotteries sports grants. This way the Lotteries Commission can keep giving the same funds to the likes of Culture and Art, who were at risk of having their allocation drop by $25m if grass roots sports continued to be funded by the Commission. By now shoving this to the TAB, sports events can be formulated into lottery style bets with more choices (in relation to racing) in respect of the bet structure and offering.

So who and what has been suffering? ........Racing? If left to its own devices, who will suffer in the future?.....Racing?

So what do we need to do?....Fight our corner to make sure that we are able to offer any type of bet for horse racing and ensure we get the lion's share of the sports betting revenue?

Politics and manipulation!!!! ............Bah...Humbug

[Guest 2Admin2]

Why is Racing entitled to the "lion's share of sports betting"?

[Midget 4,489]

10 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

Why is Racing entitled to the "lion's share of sports betting"?

Why is the sporting community entitled to use a racing platform to derive income ?

The racing industry forgave their rights to ownership claims of the TAB when they agreed to the introduction of The Racing Act in 2003, but with Racefields legislation there's been a paradigm shift in how The Racing Act is worded and interpreted, it's now for the benefit of "racing and sports".

That's such a massive shift it should mean that the racing industry may now seek to make the relinquishment of their ownership rights null and void and to then contest ownership of the TAB, or alternatively charge all sports a fair and reasonable fee to use the platform, and to leverage off the racing industries historical  intellectual property.

It follows that sports may of course start their own betting agency.

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

3 minutes ago, Midget said:

Why is the sporting community entitled to use a racing platform to derive income ?

The racing industry forgave their rights to ownership claims of the TAB when they agreed to the introduction of The Racing Act in 2003, but with Racefields legislation there's been a paradigm shift in how The Racing Act is worded and interpreted, it's now for the benefit of "racing and sports".

Thats such a massive shift it should mean that the racing industry should seek to make their relinquished rights null and void and to contest ownership of the TAB, or alternatively charge all sports a fair and reasonable fee to use the platform and to leverage off the racing industries historical  intellectual property.

 

Racing has NEVER owned the TAB.

[Midget 4,489]

7 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

Racing has NEVER owned the TAB.

I said they contested the ownership of it.

[Guest 2Admin2]

5 minutes ago, Midget said:

I said they contested the ownership of it.

What I read in your comment was that Racing SHOULD contest ownership of the TAB.  Waste of time when the Government has always owned it.  As for "racing's historical intellectual property" why bother about something that is now a liability and not an asset?

[Berri 2,131]

10 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

Racing has NEVER owned the TAB.

I actually totally disagree. Quite clearly the racing industry (the conferences) were loaned money by the BNZ in order to fund the development of technology and systems that would become the TAB. The Totalisator Act was created in order to manage the governance and operations for race betting. Three important aspects of that Act was that:

1. The racing clubs had the right to operate their own totalisators because the racing clubs were worried that the off course tote system would cannibalise the on course business and betting activities; and

2. That those totes were apparatus or methodology for accepting bets and were under the management of a Steward of the Club or a responsible person: and

3, That the Club could offer bets as long as they were registered with the Conferences and they were legally bets and not games of chance.

The funds borrowed from the BNZ by the Racing Conferences (not the greyhounds at that stage) were paid back and this was documented.

In 2003 all that got taken away by withdrawing the ability for all Clubs to run their own totes, and the bet types were then to be authorised by the RIB and the Department. At the same time all the accounts were to signed off by the Minister and the Board appointments, although suggested by the codes, were accepted (or rejected) by the Minister. Certain board members needed to be independent. This 2003 Act also saw the introduction for the ability to accept sports betting BUT everything was still promoting JUST the welfare of racing.

But the biggie in the 2003 Act was a lazy clause, that no-one racing objected to or fought for, and that was that the Act rescinded any claim that racing had in respect of the ownership of the Tote and clearly vested ownership in the hands of the Ministry.. It further more stated that all past claims were settled and that the Transition Act didn't apply to any of those potential claims. So ownership in the tote was effectively transferred to Crown.

 If I were the racing industry I would challenge this part of the 2003 Act as it being unconstitutional and still part of the Transition Act because there were a number of statements and claims publically made by responsible persons claiming that racing rightfully owned the Tote. It would seem logical and right that it certainly couldn't simply be taken by the Ministry (Crown) without a proper and formal revue.

Now everything has changed again under the guise of Race Fields legislation which effectively reinforces the 2003 Act but goes even further.

So to the ownership of the TAB, it's gone, the ability to run totes is gone, the ability to appoint the Board members is gone, the ability to deploy certain bet types is gone, the ability to set the rules structure and distributions is gone, and the largest competitor to the betting market has been placed the fox in the hen house without allowing racing to create policy to help itself because of the direct conflict on the board ....namely racing revenue distributions versus sports betting distributions. One activity is acceptable....the other isn't. Racing is now not relevant due to the bickering, mismanagement and ill advised manipulation by multiple members of the racing and political fraternity due to their misaligned motivation.

Why can't you guys get this simple notion?.......Bah.......Humbug

 

[Midget 4,489]

22 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

What I read in your comment was that Racing SHOULD contest ownership of the TAB.  Waste of time when the Government has always owned it.  As for "racing's historical intellectual property" why bother about something that is now a liability and not an asset?

As I said racing has every right to renege on their agreement to cede ownership of the asset.

I'd also encourage racing to withdraw from any cooperation with the TAB, but that's only my view.

The reason I'd like it to heppen though is simply because the large bloated tail now wags the rather emaciated dog, and that's not what was intended when the Racing Act was introduced.

The NZRB was there to act as a clearing house to the codes, and to manage media and dates, nothing more. Now they run the industry,  even to the point where they're shareholders in the RIU FFS !!!

It's high time the weak puzzled soft cocks who run this shit show rolled up their sleeves and advised the NZRB that we own this industry, not them, and we want control of our own assets, revenue streams, media, and most importantly our destiny. That means the NZRB is assigned the role of clearing house and tricode dates coordination, nothing more.

Betting should be outsourced, media should be outsourced, the retail footprint and staff numbers reduced by 90%, then let's get racing back to where it rightfully belongs.

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

5 minutes ago, Midget said:

As I said racing has every right to renege on their agreement to cede ownership of the asset.

I'd also encourage racing to withdraw from any cooperation with the TAB, but that's only my view.

The reason I'd like it to heppen though is simply because the large bloated tail now wags the rather emaciated dog, and that's not what was intended when the Racing Act was introduced.

The NZRB was there to act as a clearing house to the codes, and to manage media and dates, nothing more. Now they run the industry,  even to the point where they're shareholders in the RIU FFS !!!

It's high time the weak puzzled soft cocks who run this shit show rolled up their sleeves and advised the NZRB that we own this industry, not them, and we want control of our own assets, revenue streams, media, and most importantly our destiny. That means the NZRB is assigned the role of clearing house and tricode dates coordination, nothing more.

Betting should be outsourced, media should be outsourced, the retail footprint and staff numbers reduced by 90%, then let's get racing back to where it rightfully belongs.

 

I agree except on the ownership issue.  It is also questionable that the TAB is now an asset.  Sadly they can't fund any infrastructure improvements now without Sport contributions.

Also agree with outsourcing everything however with any outsource agreement its success is determined by the skill of those managing the agreements/contracts.  That could be the hardest thing to fix.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

That's crap about the industry not owning the TAB.  I saw an historic document when I was Greymouth Secretary detailing how much each club had subscribed to the start up and while the Government MAY have advanced money to start it up they were not that generous in those times and it will most certainly have been repaid.  Tragically I never got a copy of it and God knows where it is now.  In any case even if the industry put nothing up it was the NZ Racing industry that grew the organisation and paid for it so they most certainly do (or did) own the bloody thing.   If it were not for the NZ Racing Industry it simply would not be in existence.

Having said that I still think it is time the industry started up it's own gaming agency in the Cooks or somewhere.  Not that that would save tax but at least the bloody government would not be able to get its sticky fingers on it and gain control of it .

[Berri 2,131]

It wasn't the government that loaned the racing clubs the TAB start up funds, it was the BNZ. The loan had a commercial interest rate and the club's underwrote the loan as guarantees. I also saw the documents in the early nineties. The racing clubs as a collective used to own the TAB. Now they don't. The TAB has the rights to sports betting of which the racing industry was the sole beneficiary . Now the government now owns all the the rights through the TAB ownership and is effectively the sole beneficiary. Anything wrong with this equation?

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

36 minutes ago, Berri said:

It wasn't the government that loaned the racing clubs the TAB start up funds, it was the BNZ. The loan had a commercial interest rate and the club's underwrote the loan as guarantees. I also saw the documents in the early nineties. The racing clubs as a collective used to own the TAB. Now they don't. The TAB has the rights to sports betting of which the racing industry was the sole beneficiary . Now the government now owns all the the rights through the TAB ownership and is effectively the sole beneficiary. Anything wrong with this equation?

Berri thanks for confirming that.  I knew the Clubs had subscribed(maybe it was just a guarantee but there was a list of clubs and contributions) and to be fair as I remember there was a disproportionate contribution from the South as well.

There are some on here who are adamant that the industry contributed nothing(financial) whatsoever and therefore never owned the TAB.  I have had that argument before. 

There is something wrong with the equation all right but nobody knows better than a Coaster that governments are not to be trusted.  Helen Clark signed a document called the 'West Coast Accord' as a Minister in the Lange Government guaranteeing the West Coast timber industry access to (sustainably logged)  native timber then promptly reneged when she got the top job.  When the West Coast Sawmillers  planted the exotic forest here they were guaranteed the produce - when Lange and co came in they  flogged it off to whoever.  Makes you sick but I guess we have to accept it(and we keep voting for the Red Mob and taking the punishment so I guess we deserve what we get).  National are no better of course - their actions in disestablishing the Mines Inspectorate of course led directly to the Pike River situation.

Take the government out of the equation I say and set up our own gaming agency  cut the takeouts and watch the money flow in.  Those Aussies will find a way to punt on it if they can get 10c more on the win tote.

 

[rdytdy 5,341]

43 minutes ago, Berri said:

It wasn't the government that loaned the racing clubs the TAB start up funds, it was the BNZ. The loan had a commercial interest rate and the club's underwrote the loan as guarantees. I also saw the documents in the early nineties. The racing clubs as a collective used to own the TAB. Now they don't. The TAB has the rights to sports betting of which the racing industry was the sole beneficiary . Now the government now owns all the the rights through the TAB ownership and is effectively the sole beneficiary. Anything wrong with this equation?

Berri, have you read the book "Two Over Three On Goodtime Sugar" by David Grant.?

[Guest 2Admin2]

Berri and Tom you are both wrong.

[Midget 4,489]

7 hours ago, rdytdy said:

Berri, have you read the book "Two Over Three On Goodtime Sugar" by David Grant.?

Spare me pleeeaasseee.......we've heard this before, a book is just one man's version of what he thinks happened, often supported by dodgy evidence.

I know I'm cynical but can I remind you that Dillo wrote a couple of books, does that mean such books are reliable and factual ?

[Leggy 4,075]

16 minutes ago, Midget said:

Spare me pleeeaasseee.......we've heard this before, a book is just one man's version of what he thinks happened, often supported by dodgy evidence.

I know I'm cynical but can I remind you that Dillo wrote a couple of books, does that mean such books are reliable and factual ?

David Grant, a professional historian, was commissioned by the TAB to write that history. It is extensively referenced to original TAB minutes, annual reports, legislation, and other documents. A more authoritative work, you could not find. The TAB initial funding did come from a 50,000 pound BNZ overdraft. That was arranged by the first TAB chair, H.R. Chalmers who also happened to be chaiman of the BNZ. Whether or not racing clubs guaranteed the loan is irrelevant. If I take out a car loan and my rich uncle guarantees the loan, it doesn't mean he owns the car.

It is amazing how some in the industry want to rewrite history out of their own desperation and that of the industry. The TAB is and always was a quasi state owned and run organisation.

[Midget 4,489]

31 minutes ago, Leggy said:

David Grant, a professional historian, was commissioned by the TAB to write that history. It is extensively referenced to original TAB minutes, annual reports, legislation, and other documents. A more authoritative work, you could not find. The TAB initial funding did come from a 50,000 pound BNZ overdraft. That was arranged by the first TAB chair, H.R. Chalmers who also happened to be chaiman of the BNZ. Whether or not racing clubs guaranteed the loan is irrelevant. If I take out a car loan and my rich uncle guarantees the loan, it doesn't mean he owns the car.

It is amazing how some in the industry want to rewrite history out of their own desperation and that of the industry. The TAB is and always was a quasi state owned and run organisation.

A credible historian was " paid by the TAB "  to write a book proving the TAB owned the asset, using information and sources provided by the TAB.....I love it.....was that before or after he wrote the book paid for by Kim Jong Un explaining how North Korea is a utopia.....

BTW Mike Dillon, Aiden Rodley, Jason Tan, Tim Barton....all paid by the TAB directly or indirectly by the codes....does that mean everything they write or say is fact ??

Do you also know that ALL NZRB / Trackside employees are banned from reading Cafe, this site is blocked on all their computers, they can watch Pornhub, Redtube etc, but they can't read Cafe, because Cafe ( within reason ) tells the truth, but the NZRB can't handle the truth, unless they're writing their version of it.

By the way, I know you're not in business but don't be fooled by the power or responsibilities of a guarantor....if a loan is called up those guarantors you're dismissive of own the asset like it or not so they have ownership by default.

As a diversion, I rather suspect TOM is correct in suggesting a TB betting agency set up in somewhere like Rarotonga would work rather well, run by the code, just offer Internet betting using the NZ TAB odds,  plus a 5% margin on dividends, you'd travel light, make serious money, and all the proceeds go to those who put on the show.

That's exactly the sort of "wake up and shake up" this porcine Petone crowd need, and it's not much different to that silly insurance scheme that David Archer somehow managed to persuade NZTR to embrace. In other words bet with us for the direct benefit of your own code.

I guess media access might be a problem but the NZ TAB could still run their business as is and effectively be in healthy competition with the TB codes Rarotonga agency.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Who owned the BNZ in those days?

As Leggy points out the TAB has always been a type of QUANGO ( quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation).  Created by Government, owned by Government and exists only at the whim of Government.

Midget you yourself said the Clubs "didn't contest ownership" which infers there was doubt.

This latest stuff up by NZRB with the proposed amendment to legislation appears to be another dumb tradeoff.  They traded Sports having their legitimate skin in the game legislated against the spurious argument about stopping leakage.  Even the DIA disagreed with the latter.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

8 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

Berri and Tom you are both wrong.

Well I have seen the evidence (as has Berri clearly). Have you?

And in the case of your comment Leggy if my company borrows and I as shareholder guarantee that loan does that not mean i own the company when the debt is repaid?

You lot have been reading the Internet about the TAB origins.  That ARA NZ history BS about the TAB being set up as a government agency.  As someone who knows and relies on historical research told me 'don't ever trust the internet'

[Leggy 4,075]

The clubs were not shareholders Tom. They were beneficiaries. Go back and read the Gaming Amendment Act 1949 which established the TAB.

And btw, my information does not come from the internet. It comes from the above mentioned official history of the TAB and a very good and well sourced thesis on the matter.

[Guest 2Admin2]

12 minutes ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

Well I have seen the evidence (as has Berri clearly). Have you?

And in the case of your comment Leggy if my company borrows and I as shareholder guarantee that loan does that not mean i own the company when the debt is repaid?

You lot have been reading the Internet about the TAB origins.  That ARA NZ history BS about the TAB being set up as a government agency.  As someone who knows and relies on historical research told me 'don't ever trust the internet'

Suggest you have a read of this and then come back with your revisionist history:

https://books.google.co.nz/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=ISBN0864734018&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Seems the TAB has always had a reputation for largesse from the very beginning.  The first General Manager was paid 2,500 pounds per year with a 400 pound entertainment allowance.  The annual salary was more than the Primer Ministers at the time.  A trend that continues.  Although in today's money 2,500 pounds equates to $184,000.