RaceCafe..#1...Tipsters Thread.... Share Your Fancies For Fun...Lets See Who The Best Tipsters Here Are.

Laurie Sutherland

Members
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Laurie Sutherland

  1. NZTR supplies only a MINIMUM level of prize money. The vital issue though is that for the large majority of clubs the amount NZTR supplies each year is a whole lot LESS than the amounts the clubs have actually earned each year. The most ill-treated club in 2009/10 was paid some $307,000 LESS than it had earned through the betting volumes it had generated. More than 40 clubs were collectively short-paid some $4.4 millions that year - mostly on their 'industry' racedays. Each racing club pays out most of its income as prize money to the Owners who race their horses at club racemeetings. So it is the Owners who race at 'industry' meetings who are cheated/swindled out of the $4.4 millions worth of net profits which their horses have have attracted from wagerers. In my opinion this regular under-payment practice is identical to theft as defined in the NZ Crimes Act and in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Plenty of others, including a senior barrister friend, agree. Racing and Golf There are several similarities, and differences- one major - between racing clubs and golf clubs in NZ:- Similarities: * both are recognised sporting activities * both were set up long ago by community enthusiast volunteers to bring the respective sports to, and for the benefit of, their own communities *each utilises a sizeable area of land and has one of more buildings for participants' use *all are organised as clubs and each is registered under the law as an Incorporated Society (except for a very small number of golf courses privately owned, e.g. Sir Michael Hill's golfcourse at Arrowtown) * every club is an individual sovereign entity, and each is subject to the laws of the land including taxation laws and the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 * the members and officeholders of each have their own rights, duties, and obligations *each club is registered with its respective regulating body - NZTR inc, HRNZ Inc, or NZGRA Inc for the racing codes, and the New Zealand Golf Association Inc for all the public golf clubs *in a 2008 Judgement the NZ Court of Appeal stated that the Committee/Officers of Incorporated Societies are obliged to treat all applications for membership fairly. It would seem to follow logically that applicants, on becoming members, should continue to enjoy the benefits of being treated fairly. The officers of NZTR Inc appear to have thumbed their noses at the Court of Appeal by treating the majority of their member clubs very unfairly to the tune of some $4.4 millions in the 2009/10 racing year alone. Perhaps they decided to resign en masse earlier in 2011 before someone brought prosecution proceedings against them? Differences * every golf club pays an affiliation fee to its regulating body, otherwise it keeps all its own earnings entirely for its own use as its own elected committee sees fit * a majority of thoroughbred racing clubs suffer a very important part of their off-course betting earnings being taken away by their own regulatory body, and given to a very small number of fellow member clubs which already enjoy various other financial benefits * there are currently 67 thoroughbred clubs, using 51 different venues. There are currently at least 400 golf clubs using at least 400 different venues * the officials who have been in charge of the affairs of the thoroughbred code are wondering why the people are showing a reluctance to participate and invest. To the best of my knowledge the golfing fraternity does not have that problem. Further Comment In New Zealand every practising lawyer is required to be a member of the New Zealand Law Society Inc. Imagine the screams of outrage if the Law Society decided to require lawyers in smaller centres to hand over up to 60 percent of their business incomes to NZLS so that it could gift that money to the biggest law firms in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, plus in a few other cities. Similarly with accountants and the NZ Society of Accountants, engineers, doctors, surveyers and many other who go about their business as a member of a regulatory body.
  2. I'm sure there are plenty of small clubs making a lot of dollars every year. Their difficulty is that successive NZTR Boards have taken away (or maybe cheated, awindled, thieved, stolen, deliberately underpaid) them out of a very considerable part of the off-course betting profits these clubs racemeetings have generated. The NZTR Boards have long been controlled by the nominees of the few big-city clubs, and it is these clubs which are given the cash taken from the rightful earnings of the smaller, mainly rural/provincial, clubs. Statistics for 2009/10 are the most recent publicly available, and by calculating the profits the TAB collects on the various classes of betting turnovers (i.e., off-course FOB; off-course NZ racing; and overseas betting onto NZ races exported via TV to Australia and elsewhere), and then applying these profit rates to the betting turnovers generated by each individual club, it becomes possible to arrive at fairly accurate figures of the true earnings of each club. The 2009/10 figures show more than 40 NZ thoroughbred clubs were collectively underpaid more than $4 million for that year alone. Because all these clubs are robbed of so much of their rightful earnings, they in turn have no choice but to pay correspondingly less stakesmoney to the Owners (and to a lesser degree the Trainers) who race horses at these clubs' racemeetings - especially the so-called industry days. And on top of that, the NZTR Boards have been sharply lifting the amounts taken from the earnings of ALL NZTR clubs and gifted as a cash contribution to Group and Listed races. For G1 races, for example, the amount taken from all clubs' earnings ( in proportion to their off-course turnovers) has skyrocketed from $40,000 per G1 race in 2003, to $60,000, to $80,000 and currently to $200,000, with G2s, G3s and Listeds being increased in line. If you will send me your FAX address, or Email address, I will be happy to send you some details - 7pp + 2pp, also some other info 2pp + 5pp. My FAX is 03 2189859.
  3. The Greyhound code can take a lot of satisfaction as to its performances compared to the other two codes over the last 20 years. However, and without knowing the full background, it seems to me the policies of GRNZ in more recent times have been unfairly harsh on both Wairarapa and Manawatu GRCs. 2006/07 seems to be the last season that Wairarapa raced its customary 5 meetings a year. For that season the club attracted an average 102 starters per meeting, compared with the code average of 96. Its On-course turnovers averaged $16,000 per day (from RB figures), compared to the code average of $10,340. Its Off-course average was $344k per day, compared to the code average of $370k. I do not know whether or not the club's allocated dates would be regarded as average, or below or better than average. Manawatu GRC, for the 2008/09 season was allocated almost entirely low-profile Monday weekday dates by GRNZ. Its average Off-course at $213k per day was, as a result, well below the code average of $334k. It does seem the Club was paid by GRNZ a slightly higher rate of commission/payout on its Off-course turnovers, BUT, not nearly enough to compensate for the lower Monday figures. On the basis that, with an average mix of racedates, this Club might be expected to have achieved an average of, say, $313k, and then been paid at around the code average payout rate, this Club would have received around $200,000 additional payout for the season. Whether that would be enough to keep it solvent I do not know, but it must surely have been a big help. Fair dealing, with ALL their member Clubs is a fundamental obligation upon each Code Governing Body, in my opinion, and is in respect of all Incorporated Societies probably also a fiduciary duty at law.
  4. A former Minister for Racing once told me, with a definite element of seriousness, that it wouldn't make any difference to turnovers if the takeout rate was 50%. The Minister's reasoning: almost everyone making a bet was confident that bet would result in a profitable dividend. From experience, I was not able to agree!
  5. Leggy - apology for delayed reply. The procedures for appointing the Chair do seem rather vague. More clear-cut for the other 6 members. Sec. 11(1) of the Act states:- "Membership of governing body The governing body consists of 7 members, acceptable to the Minister, as follows: (a) an independent chairperson appointed by the Minister after consultation with the racing industry; and (, ©, (d) abbreviated, one person appointed by the Minister from nominations of each of the three Codes; and (e) 3 persons appointed by the Minister on the advice of the nomination advisory panel referred to in Sec. 12 ...." But, back to the Chair. The Minister must appoint a Chairperson after consultation with the racing industry. The term 'racing industry' is not defined by the Act, and so helps cause the vagueness. In practice I understand the Minister publicly invites nominations for the Chairmanship, after which he informs all the recognised racing organisations the names of those nominated, then waits a reasonable time for any comments, then decides who to appoint. Getting to the current situation, Mr Stiassny's predecessor as Chair was Mr Warren Larsen, whose 3-year term expired on 31 July 2006. The then Minister (Rt Hon W Peters) invited nominations. Mr Larsen was re-nominated (I don't know by whom), and to the best of my memory the only other nominee was Mr Stiassny - nominated solely by the New Zealand Thoroughbred Breeders Assn. The 'racing industry' was then given opportunity to comment, and after an unusually long time the Minister chose Mr Stiassny and appointed him with effect from 1st January 2007. Upon learning that his then boss was not re-appointed, Mr Allan Jackson (as an independent member of the Board, saw fit to resign as from 31 December 2006.
  6. Guess who nominated him - the NZ Thoroughbred Breeders Assn,as their sole nominee
  7. According to NZ Racing Board statistics for 2009/10 the Hawera club compares quite favourably:- Average Starters per Day Hawera 146.5 (5th highest of 47 clubs) Code Average 113.1 Waikouaiti 155 (highest club) Average Off-course per Day (excl FOB) Hawera 738.5k Code Average 743.7k Geraldine 1250.0k (highest) Auckland TC 896k NZMetro TC 930.6 Cbge-Te Awamutu 711.7 Taranaki TC 536.5 Stratford TC 571 Wanganui TC 639 Average On-course per day Hawera 73.5k Code Average 83.5 Kaikoura 406 (highest) Auckland TC 169.6 NZ Metro TC 140.9 Cbge-Te Awamutu 54.7 Taranaki TC 40.0 Stratford TC 59.0 Wanganui TC 38.0.
  8. I seem to recall our code's share of Winston's largesse was allocated to: the 2000 Guineas the Railway the Telegraph the NZ Derby. Can anyone remember how much went to each of these? Thanks.
  9. For 2009/10 the NZRB paid to Govt net GST of $30.3m, at the then rate of 12.5 percent. At Mr English's new rate of 15.0 percent the $30.3m rises to $36.36m for a full year - a cash cost to the NZRB and Racing of $6.06m.
  10. Midget, the crucial difference is that General Schwarzkkopf NEVER ordered his foot-soldiers, his GI's, to hand over 20%, or 25%, or 30% of their incomes to General S for the direct financial benefit of him and his mates. Our Thoroughbred Racing Board does exactly that! And more and more foot-soldier clubs and owners are thoroughly sick of being cheated and swindled of some $4 millions a year in this dishonest way.
  11. NZTR latest Annual Report says, as at 31/7/09, their Integrity Committee was Peter Hutt (Chairman) (Timaru), Denis Ryan (Matamata) and David Smith (Waikato RC) Members.
  12. GO! Of the three SS men Mr A Sutherland has been longest in a position of official influence. He joined the then Racing Industry Board during 1996/97. Prior to his arrival the thoroughbred code had a turnover of $524.781m (on-course $63.242m + off-course $461.539m. No fixed odds at that time). The RIB's Annual Report for 1996/97 contained on its inside front cover the statement "The NZRIB is committed to making racing New Zealand's most popular sport by 2005". That statement was repeated on the outside back cover of the 1997/98 Report. And the results show? Thoroughbred code's turnover for 2004/05 was DOWN to $443.578 (on-course $45.476m + off-course $398.082m incl low-profit FOB of $8.768m). Mr A Sutherland continued on the Racing Board. The latest code turnovers 2008/09 show a total up slightly to $465.924m (on-course $46.606m + off-course $419.318 incl a big increase in low-profit FOB up to $42.120m). This seems to me pretty convincing proof that, at least so far as the thoroughbred code is concerned, Mr A Sutherland and his fellow Board Members of 96/97 and 97/98 HAVE FAILED IN THEIR COMMITTMENT and should no longer hold office. PS Interestingly, one of NZ's three racing codes did succeed in substantially increasing its participation and turnovers in the years since 96/97, and the other has broadly held its ground. Only the thoroughbred code has lost ground and has lost market share of the very important NZ betting on NZ races. And these facts should lead all concerned stakeholders to examine the policies of the three Code Governing Bodies over the period and to look for the differences that might explain the obvious drop in thoroughbred participation. I will put forward my opinions in a later post.
  13. We would certainly expect that Mr Stiassny at least owns NO raceable horses and NO raceable greyhounds. The primary requirement for every chairperson of the NZ Racing Board is INDEPENDENCE - that the person be independent upon appointment, and stay independent at all times while holding the office. This means the chairperson should have, and be seen to have, no bias or favouritism towards any code or to any sector (e.g. top, middle, or bottom) of any code. The chairperson has a duty to be independent and remain independent. If the chairperson does anything to compromise his/her independence then the Minister has a moral and legal duty on behalf of Parliament to see him/her either regain independence, or to dismiss him/her from the chairmanship. Schedule I, Sec. 3(2) of the Racing Act gives the Minister full authority and power to do this:- "The Minister may, ...., remove the member from office at any time, without compensation, for inability to perform the duties of office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct, .....
  14. Your figures on the Average Stakes per race in NZ also need to be looked at in the light of:- * the jump from $13,915 in 05/06 to $17,265 in 06/07 all came from the gaming duty tax reduction from 1/8/06 * the smaller jump from $17,265 in 06/07 to $18,932 in 07/08 was a 'one-off' because at least $1,000 of that increase came through NZTR Inc running up a loss that year of $3,151,473 which went on stakes increases - almost all at the upper end. ($3,151,473 over 2970 races that season = $1,061 average per race). NZTR is in no position to continue to incur losses * the 07/08 average carried through closely to 08/09, B U T we must remember that the NZ Racing Board incurred a $22.155 million loss that season, by reason of a much higher payout to the Codes. Thoroughbred's share of that overpayment was around $12,000,000, which amounts to $4,000 per race over 3,000 races * the thoroughbred code must, sooner or later, face up to the stark truth that the high-stakes races have for years been consistently failing to produce anywhere enough betting to generate the profit required to pay these high stakes. NZTR has been siphoning off profits earned by the smaller clubs and the low stakes races, and these clubs have had more than enough of being cheated and are finally saying "We are sick and tired of it." Witness Avondale JC * there are a few very greedy and selfish people in the hierarchy of thoroughbred racing, and, having siphoned off other people's/clubs' earnings to the point of breaking those clubs, they are now openly scheming and planning to sell profitable racing venues in the provinces and use the proceeds to lavish on themselves. As the late Sir Robert Muldoon was apt to say "And they know who they are!" The Code 'leaders' are right now finalising their profit distribution policy for 2010-2011. If that policy is not a whole lot fairer, over ALL the stakeholders, then I feel there is an increasing likelihood of a widening rebellion in thoroughbred racing.
  15. May I suggest that one of the first things the Code needs is for the Rules/Constitution to be added to so as to make it compulsory for EVERY candidate for Regional or LP Representative be required to submit to GRNZ at the time of entering his/her nomination, a written Statement of Policies the candidate would pursue if and when elected. GRNZ would then send out with the voting papers a copy of every candidate's policies. We expect our candidates for Parliamentary elections to state their main policies before each election. Clubs and LPs can then vote for those persons whose policies they think are best overall for the Code's future. Another benefit is that those doing the voting have then got at least SOMETHING with which to hold the elected candidates to account. In fact I think all Codes should do this. Maybe it should be compulsory for each candidate to issue his/her policy on a few major items, such as Funding, Dates allocation, Fair Dealings with all stakeholders, and then the candidate could add as many others as he/she thinks are important.
  16. In reply to your question - NO! Let me give one example which has two distinct aspects to it. Around 2004/5 the Racing Board embarked on what it called "The Transparency Project" The objective was to ascertain all the costs incurred by the TAB arm of the RB in servicing each racing venue throughout NZ - all codes. That is, they wanted to know the costs of providing to the venues such things as an Outside Broadcast Van for raceday (transport, travel and accommodation, maintenance, and depreciation thereof), costs of providing staff to televise the days races and transmit same throughout NZ and to Sky Australia, costs of providing big TV screen (if any), costs of raceday interviewers (if any), and any other services provided by TAB and not already charged for. They already arranged/supplied, and charged each club for, hire of jetbet machines and on-course TV monitors, costs of staff to operate the machines, cash handling fees, Radio Pacific's race calling and broadcasting fees, and a few other items. The first aspect of interest to me was that I wrote to the Racing Board about 2006 under the Official Information requesting a copy of the Transparency Project when available. The TP was put into effect for the 2007/08 racing season. I still await a reply from RB and a copy of the TP results. The second aspect of interest is the statement at Note 18(a) on page 81 of RB's 07/08 Annual Report "Racing Services Income has increased by $8.6m over the comparable period in the prior season as the New Zealand Racing Board now fully recovers the cost of providing on-course Trackside operations ...." If we now go the the RB's Statement of Financial Performance for that year we find that:- Total Betting increased by $92,154,000 and Net Return before Industry Expenditure and Distributions increased by $9,119,800. On the face of things that about the amount of increse to be expected, BUT $8,600,000 of that came from RB's increased charges to the clubs. So the true increase in Net Return was a meagre ($9,119,800 - $8,600,000) = $519,800. An extra profit (net return) of only $519,000 was all that was to show from $92.154m of extra betting. The Chairman's Report says "On behalf of the Board I am pleased to report turnover increased 6.4 per cent for the 2007/08 year to $1.528 billion. Operating surplus was $130.9 million (including $8.5 million for the 2007/08 year of full recovery of on-course services". It does NOTHING to explain that the 6.4%, or $92.154 million turnover increase resulted in a true year on year profit gain of only $0.519million, or 0.4 per cent. Neither did the Chairman see fit to mention that the Board's Operating Costs had increased year on year by $10.035 million, or 7.8 per cent. So in answer to your question 'Do TB racing's leaders communicate in a sincere and open manner', my answer has to be NO, and neither do the RB's leaders.
  17. I think you will find them all still there - or 3 of the 4 anyway. And in light of your comment I feel ALL racing's stakeholders are entitled to an explanation.
  18. You have posted three paras which refer to me so I shall respond to each one: First Para I am NOT being misleading, deliberately or otherwise. The gaming duty is a tax specific to gambling. It is levied only on gambling/gaming activity. The act of gambling/gaming is done universally in $$$, and each $1 has exactly the same value however or wherever gambled. For this reason the $$ value of gambling, i.e. the throughput, the turnover, is the only common denominator across the four main gambling activities in NZ., and it follows logically that the $$ value of the betting on each activity is the best method of making valid, true, and fair comparisons. Unless of course you can present a better method. For Lotto, Poker Machines and Race Betting all the turnover is measured automatically, to the very last $1. Casinos are the only activity that causes any sort of a measurement problem Last time I looked at Sky City Casino's figures about one-half of their total gaming turnover was through their poker machines, and turnover is recorded automatically. So its only the table games where it may not be so easy to measure turnover. I may not be entirely right but I think a 'Gross Profit' system is used to calculate the GST amount due on Table Games gambling. Punters have to pay cash for the 'chips' used in gambling on these game. If the 'chips' cashier starts the day with say $1,000 in change money, and finishes the day with $45,000 plus $1,000 of change money, then the Gross Profit is $45,000 and the GST is calculated on that amount. Second Para Indeed Casinos do pay Income Tax on their residual profits, and their employees and any sub-contractors also pay income tax. Apart from the Gaming Duty tax they pay, Lotto itself does not pay income tax. The Government owns Lotto, and gets all the residual profits. If Lotto were to pay say $10m in Income Tax, the Govt would still get exactly the same return - $10m as Income Tax and Residual Profit (less $10m). With Gaming Machines the suppliers of the machines make a profit and pay Income Tax on it; people who repair and maintain the machines make a profit and pay Income Tax. The people who supply enclosed building space to house the machines make a profit and pay Income Tax. So do all the various other workers and suppliers in the GM activity The G M owners (all the many Charitable Trusts) pay Gaming Duty. They are exampt from Income Tax because they are required to distribute their residual profits to certain eligible community organisations, including sports and racing bodies. Apart from the punters everyone involved with Lotto, Casinos, and Poker Machines gets an employee income or a profit. Racing is different. Not only do the punters, as a group, not make income or a profit. The Owners, probably the most important group in racing, also as a group, do not make a profit. As a group they make a very substantial loss, and they are barred from offsetting those losses against whatever other incomes they may have. That is the essential reason why racing is different from the other gaming bodies, and why all stakes-money the Owners receive is exempt from Income Tax. As a group their losses and costs always well exceed their earnings from stakesmoney. Third Para I'm not at all sure what you are on about there. It would help if you were to give an example or two - always making sure of course that whatever statistics you use are in no way misleading or distortionary.
  19. In the RB's 2009 Annual Report, under main heading 'GOVERNANCE', sub-heading 'Compensation and Development Committee', is the following statement: "The Compensation and Development Committee's purpose is to monitor issues and determine policies and practices related to the remuneration and review of the Chief Executive and the Senior Executive Committee, as well as overseeing management development and succession planning processes. The committee consists of Thayne Green (Chaairperson), Liz Dawson, Michael Stiassny, and Alistair Sutherland". Thus all four could agree on remuneration levels, or any three of the four, or even the Chairman and only one other if the Chairman has a casting vote. Clearly the senior pay rates are set among these four, and the outcomes are their responsibility.
  20. If that is honestly and truthfully the name of the person? behind post #86. I must say the words do not sound the least bit like those of the Kevin Morton I know. That aside, thank you for your latest shipload of bile and vituperation. You are sounding more and more desperate. Be careful all the acid doesn't dissolve you. By the way, my name is correctly spelled at top left of my posts. Will you tell Cafers whether it is through ill manners, or through plain ignorance, that you don't spell correctly?
  21. For your information. That part of Mr Peters' tax changes which related to stallion and mares depreciation rates may, or may not, have been written by the Velas. Those changes were of benefit mainly to commercial breeders. To the best of my knowledge the main part, which dealt with the excessive and grossly unfair (by about $30m a year) gaming duty tax rate, which brought benefit to virtually EVERYONE in racing when finally passed by Govt, was first drawn to political notice in September 1998 - some 8 years before it was actually reduced on 1/8/06. On behalf of Racing Support NZ I wrote in Sept 1998 to every MP who held a seat, showing very explicitly the incredibly poor deal racing had been given since 1988 when Poker Machines were first introduced. Quite a few MPs replied to our letter and it soon became clear they had not the slightest understanding of just how badly Racing was being treated. Gaming Machines paid NO gaming duty tax whatsoever for their first 3 years or more, at a time when Racing was having to pay 5.5cents out of every $1 bet. I researched the whole Duty situation and found that a Duty rate for Poker Machines was not set until 19 December 1991. The effective rate was about one half the Racing rate, and only came into effect from 1 March 1992. By the end of 1991 the Poker Machines betting had reached around $700m per year, on which they were paying no duty, while on that turnover Racing was forced to pay $37.5m on exactly the same turnover. No wonder Racing was on the back foot. But still another blow was to follow. In about 1989-90 the Government of the day decided it wanted to have Casinos in New Zealand. Interested people started planning, and of course they wanted to know what level of gaming duty tax they would have to pay. So on 19 December 1991 the Parliament also set the g d rate for Casinos. This turned out to be an effective rate of very close to 0.5cents per $1 bet. Racing to pay 5.5cents per $1 bet; Poker Machines to pay around 2.7cents; Casinos to pay around 0.5cents!!! Not surprisingly Poker Machines and Casinos gained market share, and Racing lost. One surprise, however, is that the principal Government speaker in the (short) debate on the new Duty rates for PMs and Casinos was a person who carried the title of Minister for Racing. I believe his title should then and there been changed to Minister FOR Poker Machines and Casinos, and AGAINST Racing. Anyone interested can read this whole sorry chapter in Hansard of 19 December 1991. I have been told since, on what I consider to be good authority, that the intending Casino operators were absolutely amazed at getting such a low and highly profitable rate. Their Gain, Racing's loss.
  22. I was at the initial meeting in the Bombay Hills when what became known as the FairTax campaign was established. However, the idea of painting FairTax on the horses' rumps - while an excellent one - was not mine. I don't think the idea came from the original meeting but may have been suggested soon after by a young lady named Janine (I think). The FairTax group should never have been necessary anyway, because the Government at the time had already stated four years earlier in August 2001 that they knew (i.e., had all the evidence they needed) that Racing was not getting a fair deal in the matter of the gaming duty tax, and that they would fix the situation. But, to the racing industry's huge cost ($30m a year for 4 years 2002-3-4-5) the then 'leaders' of the Racing Bodies did nothing to pursue the matter with Govt, so the Govt also did nothing and kept all that money in their own pockets. Then in 2005 a new Racing Board member decided to re-write all the same evidence the Govt already had, and charged NZRB about $250,000 for so doing. This immediately gave the Govt an excuse to put any duty reduction on hold until that report had been completed, then received by Govt, and considered at their leisure. Then in November 2005 a general election - Mr Peters found himself in a position to get things moving again - and the rest is history.