• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LightsOut last won the day on September 14

LightsOut had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About LightsOut

  • Rank
    Progressive - R85

Recent Profile Visitors

1,399 profile views
  1. Someone is making the claims but given its the NZ TAB is it any surprise he is labelled as an expert!
  2. Mate said he took a photo of The Shark walking down the Street. A bit harsh but it all adds up now.
  3. I am not bagging him I like him posting his picks as I said above it makes it easier to pick winners.
  4. Do what I do & add his selections to the scratchings (helps in trifecta and quaddie betting) or lay his picks on Betfair, either way you will make money.
  5. in NZ and even more so to past and current NZ TAB management. The NZ TAB is such a perfect example to use when explaining the meaning of the Peter Principal. If you need to use another Organisation as an example throw in the DIA.
  6. it seem's a very heavy handed approach by the DIA to contact Facebook and request for the removal of BGP's Group site which was complied with by Facebook. Facebook's past practice of dealing with promotion of sweepstakes or contests when alerted to any violations of their guidelines is a strongly worded message from them or punishment of the page concerned such as: 1.suspend members/fans from liking your page for a certain time. 2.remove the likes that were accumulated over a certain period. 3.take your page access away. 4.or completely delete the page (not delete the Facebook Group). BGP I read has been going for a number of years and the % of pages during that time relating to the promotion of challenge contests wouldn't even be 1% so clearly that would show that the main purpose of the Group is not to run the above types of event. That is why I believe the DIA request for Group removal was over the top. The event had not being run and the DIA if doing their 'job correctly' should have had no problem in ascertaining who to contact at BGP to inform them that they considered this type of promotion on the Group's page to be breaching NZ's Gambling Laws and request that they immediately remove the relevant information and not to proceed with the running of the event. Failure to do so would result in possible charges laid under NZ's Gambling Law. The event as advertised on Facebook doesn't then proceed so why once again go to the request for the removal of the Group and not just the page in question? THE DIA reports in the story "They have only received one other complaint about the group, in 2018, relating to advertising overseas gambling."We contacted the organisers and they removed everything to comply." Perfect result and fully shows the Group's acceptance to adhere to the DIA's request so why would they not think to go down that path again?. The DIA and the whistle-blower both refer to the event as a sweepstake. The DIA should be fully aware of what constitutes as a sweepstake and the complataint states he is aware of the laws relating to the running of sweepstakes. He like myself is a member of BGP so no doubt was sent the e-mail inviting members to partake. At no stage does the invite mention the word 'sweepstake' it refers to the event as a competition & challenge. A sweepstake is where prizes are given away to winners who are randomly chosen. A contest is where the winner is based on merit eg best performance. The contest challenge in contention was based on a points system where the top prizes were paid to the individuals who had the highest scores. Prize competition rules in NZ are: a competition involving skill may not be subject to the Gambling Act 2003 requirements if no gambling is involved. Is using your skill to select the top 3 in a finish skill based? It's certainly not gambling I am sure. Either way the DIA need to educate themselves that the supposed Gambling breach relates to a contest based competition not a sweepstake. If your going to regulate first you need to know the correct terminology to use when addressing the media. I read the story twice and on both occasions I came up with the same conclusions this so called Steven doesn't exist and the complaint was lodged from elsewhere. If your a member of a Group most normal people would inform the Group Admin that they could possibly be breaching a regulation relating to the NZ Gambling Law it's called a 'heads up'. A BGP rep said ""We are yet to hear from any official authorities so cannot comment further on this specific scenario." DIA advised of the event (I am not referring it as a sweepstake as its not) and the BGP Admins not notified 10 days later? If your going to regulate you have to firstly communicate. Why would the supposed whistleblower need to phone The Herald and say he had complained to the DIA about the sweepstake (contest)? There was nothing to gain for him by doing that. Then he says " there was no scrutiny or accountability to ensure that the sweepstake was run cleanly." The contest stipulated the number of entry's and how the prize money was to be split. The e-mail to members advised the contest would be updated with leaders and points after all races. You would have to be pretty thick not to be able to convert contest entry numbers to the prize payouts eg thats the scrutiny and accountability kicking in. Poor form by the NZ Herald reporter who starts of the story saying the complaint was made by a member of the public then further down referring to him as Steven who is a member of BGP. 15,000 members of BGP no doubt there are a few Steven's part of the Group so by naming him every Steven who is a member becomes a suspect as to being the possible whistleblower. Whistleblowers don't get named full stop in the media and their is a law now to enforce that. Earlier quote in the story - The Department of Internal Affairs said the sweepstake was "illegal", and had contacted Facebook to have the group removed. Later quote in the story - "The department notified Facebook and requested that the post be removed as it breached the Gambling Act 2003.The post has been removed. Hang on if firstly you contacted to have the Group removed why would you then say contacted to have the post removed? The first request supersedes having to request the second request. Just crap reporting again and the DIA coming across as looking confused again. The DIA sole purpose of existence is to regulate NZ's gambling laws as long as your carrying out your duties and policies as required under the Act relating to your Department if your not you shouldn't be working in glass buildings and throwing stones. A little bird told me there might be some more media stories coming up soon regarding Gambling Act breaches stay tuned.
  7. The Government partly had to bail them out due to piss poor management and customer service two areas that would vastly improve with locally based competition. It actually might save the Government from forking out millions in the future as it would result in the NZ TAB having to actually be more committed to what it is supposed to be doing eg been a more cost and dedicated Company. Past results have clearly shown 'parasites' of the Industry don't exactly have to reside overseas to feed from it. Maggots are parasites but if used for beneficial reasons they way can actually improve a situation. If Aussie Bookmakers were allowed a presence in NZ & were required to pay the same Industry fees that the NZ TAB pays then their can't be a problem. The two biggest factors from such a move would be obviously more money to the Industry and the NZ betting customers receiving a better service than what has been provided over the past number of years. Monopolies usually pay a price to retain a monopoly but sadly the only one paying with regards to betting in NZ is the poor customer. The payment by Aussie bookmakers on NZ gallops race field fees would be better regulated here in NZ than overseas. Bookmakers are well known for avoiding paying tax on large bets by not recording them officially. If they can get out of paying fees or taxes on a reduced level they will. Overseas travel and new BMW's have to be updated every 12 months somehow and every dollar helps the cause. Voluntary and the full payment of race field fees by Bookies as proposed won't be recognised by all of them, that's money back odds.
  8. Boards meaning over the last 15 years, Glenda and Co were not there for that period.
  9. given the abysmal record of the last few CEO's appointed by the TAB Board they should have nothing to do with the appointing of the new CEO. Job Description Job Header Chief Executive Officer - TAB NZ Caldwell PartnersMore jobs from this company TAB NZ is an iconic New Zealand brand with a long history in the community. A major entertainment business, each year over $2+ billion worth of bets are placed at TAB either online, at the racecourse or through its retail network of outlets. TAB Trackside is also the largest outside sports broadcasting operating in New Zealand, covering more than 1,000 race meetings annually. With a focus on being a customer led organisation, TAB NZ generates revenue from three core streams: betting; broadcasting; and gaming activities. TAB NZ's purpose is to facilitate and promote betting, and subject to ensuring that risks of problem gaming and underage gambling are minimised, to maximise its profits for the long-term being of NZ racing and its return to NZ sports. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) An exciting and unique opportunity exists for a CEO to lead TAB NZ into a new era. utilising its platform and assets to build a truly commercial operation focused on growth. Redefining the TAB NZ brand for a highly successful and sustainable future, the CEO will work alongside the TAB NZ Board and executive leadership team to achieve this. The commercial shift will be achieved through being a customer led organisation and delivering a revenue growth plan that sees TAB NZ enhance and deliver new consumer offerings. Creating and building strong and sustainable partnerships with other industry players will also be key to success. The Person Against a backdrop of economic change and increasing competition from offshore, candidates must have a proven track record of transforming / evolving businesses as well as demonstrating significant commercial leadership and sustainable revenue growth. Candidates will demonstrate proven experience in leading consumer led organisations and delivery growth strategies in wagering, gaming or tech-enabled businesses. This role provides an opportunity for innovative thinking, creating new business pathways while building a strong collaborative team and candidates will be required to show experience in these areas. As importantly, the CEO will also ensure TAB NZ demonstrates social and responsible wagering practices and commitments. Prior experience successfully traversing complex multi-stakeholder environments with excellent negotiating, facilitating and influencing skills with be crucial to success. Please contact Natalie Stones at Caldwell at for further information. All enquiries are confidential. Applications close 19 October 2020. The application form will include these questions: Which of the following statements best describes your right to work in New Zealand? How many years' experience do you have as a chief executive officer? How many years of people management experience do you have? How many years' experience do you have with change management? Are you available to travel for this role when required?
  10. Up 14% based on what period? Compared to April & May figures? Turnover will be up when your giving money back on every race if your runner finishes 2nd - 4th plus along with Bonus Bets at most meetings. I know one punter who has had 6 bets refunded back in a row, each time the codes I am sure get a % of turnover so that's more expense that the Industry must absorb. The $1.6 million should have been picked up by the Auditors when doing last years Annual Accounts. So they paid the Auditors a fortune to do the accounts and because they didn't pick up the error they look to pay an independent reviewer to find why and where. RITA were put in charge of all of the TAB's financial matters so the buck stops with them. Nearly 6 months on from the so called independent review and yet nothing reported to the Industry on the findings. When your going cap in hand with no money in the bank and owing tens of millions you have to have a sharper handle on financial matters. A monopoly situation was fine prior to the advent of the Internet. Companies who have monopolies get lazy and offer poor customer service eg Telecom and they don't pick up their act until competition arrives. Unfortunately the TAB management over the years didn't regard overseas bookmakers as a real threat and when they did the race was over. Even knowing they have lost thousands of customers to overseas competitors their customer service is poor, just ask any punter what they think of the TAB and its service. As for the disaster of the new betting platform what Company allows itself to get locked into a 10 year non-cancellable contract? They paid for it to be built but don't own it yet they pay $17 million a year to service it. 10 year locked in contract so why the hell would you be looking to outsource your betting? Remembering Jetbet used to do both tote and fixed odds so now you have two betting platforms doing essentially what one did previously. How did the TAB Board and TAB in-house lawyers allow that to happen? The Racing Act demands the TAB to be prudent and excercise financial care to ensure the Industry can prosper clearly given the total mess of the betting platform cost and ongoing costs verse return that didn't happen. You want move forward those two steps will get the ball rolling other than it's well not hard to work out the end result. Get rid of the TAB's monopoly and let overseas bookmakers operate in NZ as long as they pay their fair % to the Industry and get rid of the DIA's involvement in having anything to do with the future well being of the Industry, 9-5 public servants are clueless as to what is needed as has been proven n the past.
  11. It took me a few sentences to realise that I was wrong in thinking that I was reading a 'Hallelujah' e-mail from Destiny Church. Maybe RITA should have copied Brian Tamaki's Church revenue structure to ensure the Industry's survival extends well into the future. Dump the NZ TAB name and call it ' NZ Punters Church'. As a registered Church they pay no taxes and all punters pay 10% to the Church from their winnings. Followers throughout the Country have racetracks,casinos,Pokie bars and clubs where they can pray, play and pay. The good part is there is not one but many Gambling Gods catering to most nationalities. The bad news is Tamaki's structure rewards the Leader and his cronies (that part he must have copied from somewhere, wonder where from?). Sadly the weekly bible no longer exists but RaceForm for praying purposes is acceptable. Pick one God or take a multi to pray to. Do you think you deserve the attention of the gods? They may often punish those who are too greedy, but if you are deemed worthy then you can always hope they lend you some of their divine luck. Here is a list of all gods of gambling: Lakshmi – The Hindu goddess of wealth and prosperity Hermes – The Greek god of gambling Mercury – The Roman name for Hermes Fortuna – The Roman goddess of fortune and gambling Macuilxochitl – The Aztec god of gambling and games Nohoilpi – The Navaho god of gambling Nezha – The Chinese god of gambling and fortune Thoth – The Egyptian god of gambling, magic and time Although he is not a god, there is another heavenly figure associated with gambling and luck. Saint Cajetan is the patron saint of gamblers in the Catholic Church. Interestingly, he is also known as the patron saint of bankers, the unemployed, workers, gamers and Argentina. Insider tip if your male take 'Lakshmi' solid a God and throws out more luck than the others my Singapore mate below put me onto her:
  12. poundforpound re relevant facts have you factually seen anything on paper or spoken to Kyle Salinger to confirm from him that he approached the RIU? My info differs as to the reasons why an investigation was started and by who and was rubber stamped through another source from someone who should know and the dots all connected to confirm. I not doubting your info could be 100% correct but i wouldn't bet on it. In 2016 there was no criminal act to have someone charged for placing bets on behalf of someone else. Charges for monetary gain by receiving information not privy to others can be made but if that horse is tipped to the public via newspaper, the internet, tv trackside or radio trackside he has done the same as the punters who backed the horse by betting a tip given which hopefully will return you a monetary gain. I think if it was me on a charge of monetary gain by disceiving would be obtaining everything I could to show the public were also tipped it via one or more of the various means above. There is no time factor associatting with the criminal act of monetary gain by disceiving so if the person charged backs a tip a trainer or driver gives him at 9am raceday and a punter backs it at 7:--pm when it is tipped publically by the trainer how could he be charges as the public were given same info he was eg trainer or driver thin ks the horse will win. Given the above I cant see a conviction and even if you somehow in Court you did think maybe I could lose then you put Plan B into action for the final trump to win. I hope it does make court for a insider trading deceitful monetary gain charge to be heard as there is nothing better than seeing someone throw the trump card from out of nowhere.
  13. In my opinion the Police became involved not because they wanted to but because they were told to by higher above. The media and Industry was informed that the RIU got the police involved due to ''betting anomalies have been identified in at least one race in May 2018'. Phone tappings,survelience and an investigation costing and climbing to around $10 million on betting anomalies identified on at least just one race? I think I read that the supposed main money man was initially charged on a number of races and today that is down to just one. Unfortunately the RIU were either given misleading information or choose to believe without enough evidence that a major race fixing ring was operating. I don't believe the so called betting anomolies did provide enough evidence to think race fixing connected but not having the right people employed resulted in them believing that was the case and they acted on it full on without first investigating further before going forward to police on the matter. With weak evidence to support their claims they thought by informing the right people the police would be made to become involved and this would result in anyone suspected of been involved in race fixing to have the police get court warrants for their phones to be tapped. The RIU were of the view that the phone taps would provide the required evidence to substantiating their claims that a major race fixing ring was operating. Numerous phones tapped over many weeks and what did it result in? Yes obviously some industry participants were were collaterial damage fallouts when drug use was picked up during the surveillance but as we have seen charges relating to race fixing has dropped in numbers charges and it is looking likely that possibly all charges on race fixing will be dropped. So the bottom line is hard and factual evidence was needed to confirm RIU suspicions and the best result to achieve that was to get the police involved and to get the phones tapped. I pity the poor Police Minister who will no doubt be asked in the House re the above senario as to why and how did this fiasco happen which has resulted in millions of the Police budget to be squandered on obviously ill founded rumours. Once it is all over then an investigation should be launched into the RIU over it all which has resulted in huge sums of NZ Racing Industry money and Taxpayers money to be totally squandered on a poorly orchastrated investigation over 3 years. The Warren Report on Kennedys assination took less than a year,Watergate Investigation less than 2 years,Trump Investigation less than two years yet an Investigation into an Industry with its own Integrity unit still hasn't got any person charged with race fixing even with supposed race records of betting anomlies from over two years ago. This is looking like it can only add to more ammunition for the anti racing brigade in their future challenges to the Government as to why is the NZ Racing Industry getting provided with taxpayers money to bail it out when itself destructs itself. If that is in fact true then that one idiotic comment just once again 100% confirms to me that some wrong people were involved in the investigation. If I worked in a department of an Industry that paid my salary to ensure that the public and those involved livelihood wise had the integrity confidence to be associated with it now and in the future then I would be hoping that any initial red flagged integrity concerns were proven to be totally cleared following an investigation especially when its part of my jobs role to ensure that it operates above board at all times. “is it bad that I’m so excited about tomorrow?” $#%k me a 10 year old kid says that to his parents when his school is going to the zoo the next day. “is it bad that I’m so excited about tomorrow?” that it could provide much needed evidence resulting in millions of dollars in lost revenue due to a downturn in the public's betting confidence to support it and essentially destroy it financially even though I will continue to be well paid from it. Getting a hard on like that which reading between the lines is they are hoping Industry associatted people are going to go down basically explains to one why the Industry is $%^ed. A normal level headed Industry Integrity person would be saying "I bloody well hope that tomorrows investigation helps to dispel the serious integrity concerns raised because if that doesn't happen then the question is going to be asked if I lapsed in my duties to allow for this to have happened".
  14. 12 more starts after that run with 3rd the best finish. Obviously couldn't last the distance and lost interest in racing after that noted indescretion on the racetrack.
  15. Hard to top this horse's race comment.