Au Revoir Cam

[Leggy 4,087]

8 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

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.

Some people prefer alternative facts 2admin2.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

21 minutes ago, Leggy said:

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.

They were not beneficiaries - they were either subscribers or guarantors but I have definitely seen the schedule of Club contributions (which clearly neither you nor Admin have).  Two things about beneficiaries - first you can be a settlor(one who puts the money or assets in) AND a beneficiary but two if you are not a settlor then you have not put money or assets in.  In this case clearly clubs did put money in whether via actual cash or by guaranteeing the debt(and if they guaranteed the debt then they sacrificed dividends to repay it effectively contributing cash).

If the Gaming Amendment Act 1949 says different then it merely shows that Governments were ripping off and deceiving the public even in that time(and in this case that continues today). 

I doubt whether there is anywhere in legislation that says the Iwi owned anything either but we have all spent the last 200 years giving it back to them 

Bottom line is the TAB would not exist without the NZ Racing Clubs and as such the Clubs are entitled AS A MINIMUM to beneficial(there's that word again) ownership of the organisation.  Once again we have been ripped off.

And your reference to google Admin - as I said before don't trust the internet.

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

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

They were not beneficiaries - they were either subscribers or guarantors but I have definitely seen the schedule of Club contributions (which clearly neither you nor Admin have).  Two things about beneficiaries - first you can be a settlor(one who puts the money or assets in) AND a beneficiary but two if you are not a settlor then you have not put money or assets in.  In this case clearly clubs did put money in whether via actual cash or by guaranteeing the debt(and if they guaranteed the debt then they sacrificed dividends to repay it effectively contributing cash).

If the Gaming Amendment Act 1949 says different then it merely shows that Governments were ripping off and deceiving the public even in that time(and in this case that continues today). 

I doubt whether there is anywhere in legislation that says the Iwi owned anything either but we have all spent the last 200 years giving it back to them 

Bottom line is the TAB would not exist without the NZ Racing Clubs and as such the Clubs are entitled AS A MINIMUM to beneficial(there's that word again) ownership of the organisation.  Once again we have been ripped off.

And your reference to google Admin - as I said before don't trust the internet.

 

What's wrong with Google?  I suppose you are anti libraries as well?  In contrast you expect us to believe that you have seen some schedule of Club contributions in the deep past that proves your point.  The bottom line is that Clubs have never "owned the TAB."  Any "contributions" ultimately came from the punter - using your logic you could argue that they own the TAB!

Essentially it is this sense of monopoly entitlement that has got us in the strife we are in.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

46 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

What's wrong with Google?  I suppose you are anti libraries as well?  In contrast you expect us to believe that you have seen some schedule of Club contributions in the deep past that proves your point.  The bottom line is that Clubs have never "owned the TAB."  Any "contributions" ultimately came from the punter - using your logic you could argue that they own the TAB!

Essentially it is this sense of monopoly entitlement that has got us in the strife we are in.

Well the punter has a bloody sight more entitlement to it than the government(or the Rugby Union for that matter).  Having said that the question of the punters owning it begs the question - since advertisers and contributors fund Race Cafe do they own it?   Leggy assures us that the Clubs are 'Beneficiaries' under the 1949 Act.  Can you enlighten me as to whether the Rugby Union, The NZ Golf Assn, NZRL, NZ Basketball NZ Netball and God knows who else is also listed in that Act as 'beneficiaries'?  Because if they are not then they are not entited to a share of the profits and if they have subsequently been put in as beneficiaries then the rights of the existing beneficiaries have been diluted and that is a rip off.  

I don't 'believe' I have seen the schedule I know I have seen it (and I know you haven't).  Berri clearly has as well.  The reason I remember was the number of now defunct Racing Clubs which were original contributors. 

Government itself tacitly recognises that it does not own the organisation because if it did it would be demanding dividends from it like every other state owned enterprise.

As far as Google goes well ask Julie Christie - when she was doing the many shows of 'This is Your Life' she got multiple examples every time of BS 'facts' on the net.  Every one had to be double checked with the truth to verify before being used.  Nothing like a big celebrity saying 'that is incorrect' to pop Paul Holmes' balloon and make the producers look like fools.

Whatever happened it is clear the situation is now beyond the point of no return so in my view Clubs should be looking for alternative gaming revenues and setting up their own strikes me as a bloody good start.  Relying on the government, Glenda and John Allen, it is obvious , is no longer an option.  Like everything he government does they will eff it up.

 

[Midget 4,489]

Leggy / 2admin2, a question for you both, who owns the NZRFU ?

 

[Leggy 4,087]

4 minutes ago, Midget said:

Leggy / 2admin2, a question for you both, who owns the NZRFU ?

 

NZR is a union isn't it? An association of clubs much like NZTR. So, if anyone "owns" it, that would be the member clubs?

[Midget 4,489]

21 minutes ago, Leggy said:

NZR is a union isn't it? An association of clubs much like NZTR. So, if anyone "owns" it, that would be the member clubs?

I thought you wouldn't know, and I was right.

It's a bit of a trick question though, and I only found out myself yesterday, by coincidence.

It's owned by the provincial unions, not sure why I'm even mentioning it other than it seems rather similar to the racing industry ( in some ways.)

[Guest 2Admin2]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

I thought you wouldn't know, and I was right.

It's a bit of a trick question though, and I only found out myself yesterday, by coincidence.

It's owned by the provincial unions, not sure why I'm even mentioning it other than it seems rather similar to the racing industry ( in some ways.)

The Government doesn't own the Rugby Union.

[Guest 2Admin2]

2 hours ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

Well the punter has a bloody sight more entitlement to it than the government(or the Rugby Union for that matter).  Having said that the question of the punters owning it begs the question - since advertisers and contributors fund Race Cafe do they own it?   Leggy assures us that the Clubs are 'Beneficiaries' under the 1949 Act.  Can you enlighten me as to whether the Rugby Union, The NZ Golf Assn, NZRL, NZ Basketball NZ Netball and God knows who else is also listed in that Act as 'beneficiaries'?  Because if they are not then they are not entited to a share of the profits and if they have subsequently been put in as beneficiaries then the rights of the existing beneficiaries have been diluted and that is a rip off.  

I don't 'believe' I have seen the schedule I know I have seen it (and I know you haven't).  Berri clearly has as well.  The reason I remember was the number of now defunct Racing Clubs which were original contributors. 

Government itself tacitly recognises that it does not own the organisation because if it did it would be demanding dividends from it like every other state owned enterprise.

As far as Google goes well ask Julie Christie - when she was doing the many shows of 'This is Your Life' she got multiple examples every time of BS 'facts' on the net.  Every one had to be double checked with the truth to verify before being used.  Nothing like a big celebrity saying 'that is incorrect' to pop Paul Holmes' balloon and make the producers look like fools.

Whatever happened it is clear the situation is now beyond the point of no return so in my view Clubs should be looking for alternative gaming revenues and setting up their own strikes me as a bloody good start.  Relying on the government, Glenda and John Allen, it is obvious , is no longer an option.  Like everything he government does they will eff it up.

 

Tom the Google link is to an online copy of the book mentioned by other Cafers including Leggy.  There is only one version of the book - fact.  Suggest you read it.  As for your comparison with your sister are you suggesting that because you and Berri say it it must be fact?  Can you scan us a copy of the schedule?  Who compiled it even?

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

Just now, 2Admin2 said:

Tom the Google link is to an online copy of the book mentioned by other Cafers including Leggy.  There is only one version of the book - fact.  Suggest you read it.  As for your comparison with your sister are you suggesting that because you and Berri say it it must be fact?  Can you scan us a copy of the schedule?  Who compiled it even?

In the past you have been proven yourself comparatively sensible Admin but really I am starting to wonder what you are on.  Do you ever consider that the 'book' may have been written by someone with another agenda(eg being paid by people who want him to write what they want to hear).

As I said I know I have seen the documents about the formation of the TAB and the subscription by individual Clubs.  Just because your book is easily at hand does not mean that it is more authoritative than that original schedule which was specific and was also clearly old (ie produced around the time).  How do you know the 'book' is based on facts, who complied those facts and most importantly who verified those facts?  Your book is,from where I sit, a quite likely to be propaganda.

 

[Midget 4,489]

1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said:

The Government doesn't own the Rugby Union.

Not sure why you think I suggested they did.

I was merely about to use the NZRFU as an example of stakeholders owning a national sporting body but now I can't be bothered as I'm getting caught in that trap whereby you argue with idiots and in doing so reduce yourself to their level   

[rdytdy 5,343]

1 hour ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

In the past you have been proven yourself comparatively sensible Admin but really I am starting to wonder what you are on.  Do you ever consider that the 'book' may have been written by someone with another agenda(eg being paid by people who want him to write what they want to hear).

As I said I know I have seen the documents about the formation of the TAB and the subscription by individual Clubs.  Just because your book is easily at hand does not mean that it is more authoritative than that original schedule which was specific and was also clearly old (ie produced around the time).  How do you know the 'book' is based on facts, who complied those facts and most importantly who verified those facts?  Your book is,from where I sit, a quite likely to be propaganda.

 

Surely someone must have the information Tom. NZ Racing Conference/NZTR.

Before you dismiss the book read the preface for starters as one of the people he interviewed was Maurice Smythe who was right there at the beginning, being the organization's first secretary and then general manager from 1958 to 1970.  

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

2 hours ago, rdytdy said:

Surely someone must have the information Tom. NZ Racing Conference/NZTR.

Before you dismiss the book read the preface for starters as one of the people he interviewed was Maurice Smythe who was right there at the beginning, being the organization's first secretary and then general manager from 1958 to 1970.  

I'm not dismissing the 'book'(I have lost track of what the book even is Ted and these days usually take the attitude that if I can't change it I will not bother researching it).  But I know what I saw.

Expecting NZTR to have anything sensible to contribute is a bit of a long shot.  In my experience you would get more sense out of talking to a concrete post.

Racing has been sold out (maybe with its own acquiescence from the sounds of things) yet again and that gives me the s#*^ts

I never thought I would see the day when i would yearn for the good old days of Alan Fenwick, (I hesitate to say) Murray Acklin and Jack Bennett and Co.  Even G Chittick, despite trying - and failing - to root the industry, was a cut above this lot.   

Bloody frustrating

[rdytdy 5,343]

Tom, The book is called "Two Over Three On Goodtime Sugar" and if you google "Two Over Three On Goodtime Sugar - Preface" it will show you that preface and what is written plus who were consulted. There is also a statement "I emphasise that there has been no editorial interference from the TAB and it's principals in the writing of this book. The thoughts and opinions expressed are entirely my own."  

You can read it on line but well worth obtaining a copy as it does have a lot of information in it. 

Cheers. 

[Patiti 274]

Jack Bennett was a very competent lawyer and administrator and should not be lumped in with some of those others...

[Guest 2Admin2]

19 hours ago, Midget said:

Not sure why you think I suggested they did.

I was merely about to use the NZRFU as an example of stakeholders owning a national sporting body but now I can't be bothered as I'm getting caught in that trap whereby you argue with idiots and in doing so reduce yourself to their level   

Well Midge it is a known fact that the rest of the population are idiots in your world.  The TAB is not a "national sporting body."  So I guess you were just obfuscating.

[Guest 2Admin2]

19 hours ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

In the past you have been proven yourself comparatively sensible Admin but really I am starting to wonder what you are on.  Do you ever consider that the 'book' may have been written by someone with another agenda(eg being paid by people who want him to write what they want to hear).

As I said I know I have seen the documents about the formation of the TAB and the subscription by individual Clubs.  Just because your book is easily at hand does not mean that it is more authoritative than that original schedule which was specific and was also clearly old (ie produced around the time).  How do you know the 'book' is based on facts, who complied those facts and most importantly who verified those facts?  Your book is,from where I sit, a quite likely to be propaganda.

 

Read the book Tom instead of relying on your memory of seeing some schedule in the distant past.  It is a good read and in my opinion is a a very balanced historical record of the TAB.

Interestingly there was competition when the TAB started up.  Clubs owned on-course betting and the TAB off-course.  On more than one occasion the Government owned TAB bailed out struggling clubs in the early days as off-course betting impacted on-course attendance.   Using the "Molly Logic" arguably the TAB "owns" some clubs.

On a slightly different tact - the turnover of 23 million pounds in 1956 equates to $1.1 billion today i.e. when compared to today's racing turnover less the dogs (they weren't allowed in initially) it is roughly the same!

[Midget 4,489]

13 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

Well Midge it is a known fact that the rest of the population are idiots in your world.  The TAB is not a "national sporting body."  So I guess you were just obsfucating.

I thought no the word you're looking for is obfuscating......clearly you're mixing your homonyms ( sort of ) because I usually associate your posts with written defecation rather than obfuscation.

You're right about the TAB not being a sporting body, well spotted there, and I have to say you're rather good at spotting things I didn't say but implying or claiming I did.

Why don't we agree that you'll read my posts, twice, get a second opinion as required, and revert on a more informed and accurate basis in the future.

Thanks. Now what did I say about not engaging with idiots then being dragged down to their level  

[Leggy 4,087]

19 hours ago, Midget said:

Not sure why you think I suggested they did.

I was merely about to use the NZRFU as an example of stakeholders owning a national sporting body but now I can't be bothered as I'm getting caught in that trap whereby you argue with idiots and in doing so reduce yourself to their level   

Yes, certainly the idiots you are arguing with seem to have dragged you down to their level. Fortunately, those you are arguing against are maintaining a high standard of intellectual integrity. Perhaps if you try to match that, you will start to make some sense.

[Guest 2Admin2]

8 minutes ago, Midget said:

I thought no the word you're looking for is obfuscating......clearly you're mixing your homonyms ( sort of ) because I usually associate your posts with written defecation rather than obfuscation.

You're right about the TAB not being a sporting body, well spotted there, and I have to say you're rather good at spotting things I didn't say but implying or claiming I did.

Why don't we agree that you'll read my posts, twice, get a second opinion as required, and revert on a more informed and accurate basis in the future.

Thanks. Now what did I say about not engaging with idiots then being dragged down to their level  

Well you obviously don't follow your own advice.  Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake.  Putting a B in front of S is not normally a fault of mine but I observe that it is often done by the non-idiot population.

[Midget 4,489]

2 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Yes, certainly the idiots you are arguing with seem to have dragged you down to their level. Fortunately, those you are arguing against are maintaining a high standard of intellectual integrity. Perhaps if you try to match that, you will start to make some sense.

Fair point....now who owns the water ? ......BTW don't ever confuse train spotting, aka googling, as maintaining a high standard of intellectual integrity, it's not quite that grand although you do rather seem to fancy yourself as riding the intellectual high horse, albeit in your case a rather slow Clydesdale.

[Guest 2Admin2]

Just now, Midget said:

Fair point....now who owns the water ? ......BTW don't ever confuse train spotting, aka googling, as maintaining a high standard of intellectual integrity, it's not quite that grand although you do rather seem to fancy yourself as riding the intellectual high horse, albeit in your case a rather slow Clydesdale.

Effectively using Google is probably a step too far for the non-idiot luddites among us.

[Midget 4,489]

1 minute ago, 2Admin2 said:

Well you obviously don't follow your own advice.  Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake.  Putting a B in front of S is not normally a fault of mine but I observe that it is often done by the non-idiot population.

Touché, loving your work, now leave me alone, I've locked horns with a large portion of the Auckland tattooed community, well those who tattoo most of their heads and faces, and I've got that group of intellectually constipated idiots who need my undivided attention, and a bloody good life lesson, today.

[Midget 4,489]

1 minute ago, 2Admin2 said:

Effectively using Google is probably a step too far for the non-idiot luddites among us.

Google my name, 97% of the facts on there about me aren't true  

[Fartoomuch 1,376]

5 minutes ago, Midget said:

Google my name, 97% of the facts on there about me aren't true  

I can see the Newmarket imposter on the other channel getting ready to hit the keyboard after the above. Wonder how much bullshit he will produce this time.