LightsOut

Mate said he took a photo of The Shark walking down the Street. A bit harsh but it all adds up now.

I am not bagging him I like him posting his picks as I said above it makes it easier to pick winners.

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.

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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle?fbclid=IwAR1mUBPdpV0URx8oQP3zBnIs64kwD-LlNQ6UCJJcNYi5Sm3yOozzHu_LRjs

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12369532 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.

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.

Boards meaning over the last 15 years, Glenda and Co were not there for that period.

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 enquiriesnz@caldwellpartners.com 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?

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.

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 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.

Hard to top this horse's race comment.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/300016801/anger-at-winston-peters-make-racing-great-again-leads-to-petition-against-government-funding-for-racing-industry

That's a given, the Racing Minister informed Government that more funding in the very near future will be required to keep the Industry solvent. The trouble is once Peters is gone in a few weeks who will be the new Racing Minister and will he or she be as much of a saviour as Peters was.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2007/S00354/gambling-ad-breached-code-with-use-of-language-associated-with-addiction.htm Use Of Language Associated With Addiction Monday, 27 July 2020, 3:09 pm Press Release: Advertising Standards Authority The TAB advertisements were two separate emails promoting various gambling options. Advertisement 1 was an email titled "Weekend Highlights" and promoted different sports and betting options available in the coming week. The Greyhound section of the advertisement says “Two meetings today to get your chasing fix.” Advertisement 2 was an email titled "Here is a Top Up Bonus offer specifically for you!" and was a personalised email that said “Simply make one deposit of $ or more into your TAB account.” The offer gave the customer a time period and then said “and we will load your account with a $50 Bonus Bet. How good?!” The Complainant was concerned the Advertisement 1 was socially irresponsible as the term “chasing fix” encouraged gambling in excess. The Complainant was concerned Advertisement 2 was misleading as the advertisement did not state the amount the customer needed to deposit to receive the Top Up Bonus and claimed the offer was specifically for the customer. Advertisement 1 was Upheld in relation to the use of the word “fix” and Not Upheld in relation to the use of the word “chasing.” The Complaints Board agreed “chasing” did not meet the threshold to condone or encourage harm in context with greyhound racing where the dogs chase a lure. Considering the use of the word “fix”, the Board said a common definition of a ‘fix’ is to temporarily satisfy an addiction and it can also be associated with simulating a ‘high’ or ‘rush’. The Board said linking gambling in any way with the language of addiction was a breach of the Gambling Advertising Code.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300071112/tab-just-months-away-from-collapse-before-government-bailout

Fake racing news only paints the glossy picture by Brian de Lore Published 17 July 2020 Truth is stranger than fiction as the saying goes but the problem with racing today is that no one is telling the truth, and therefore the racing public cannot make the comparison. We know the fiction dished up to racing people is strange but it’s becoming even more curious, and the fiction was again on show this week when some non-des-plume writer posing as ‘Newsdesk.’ wrote a story entitled, ‘Outgoing McKenzie hails Racing Industry Act.’ Subsequent inquiries to NZTR has revealed the author of this advertorial journalism is Andrew Birch. It’s a hard headline to swallow given that Dean McKenzie and RITA was diametrically opposed to most of the changes made to the legislation between the first and second reading (and there were a lot of changes), but he is now displaying his versatility by adapting to it like a chameleon and is happy to accept the credit for all the gains made in legislation, given he is the boss of racing’s reform. New Zealand racing administration has seen plenty of chameleons The ability of the chameleon to change colour and adapt immediately to the environment in which it resides has long mystified the scientific world; in New Zealand racing administration, however, we have seen plenty of chameleons come and go. The opening salvor in this article fails to convince in saying, “McKenzie believes his time at the helm of NZ racing is ending on a high with the passing of the Racing Industry Act.” Let’ s get this straight! The Racing Bill reads only the way it reads because of a focused Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee who met most of the wishes contained in the well over 900 diligently written submissions including almost 100 who fronted personally for the oral hearings. They are responsible for this legislation – not the lines of arguments put forward by RITA, which performed poorly at the hearings (McKenzie) and was against many of the issues the industry wanted, such as retention of the IP (Intellectual property). Further on in this story, McKenzie continues to use the pandemic excuse by saying, “COVID-19 was the ultimate curveball,” but Treasury throws cold water on that excuse in a paper that appeared on it’ s website that can be found at: file:///C:/Users/User/OneDrive/Documents/NZRB-RITA/TreasuryRacingb20-initiatives-ia-4278244.pdf On Page 4, Clause 5 says: “note, that due diligence on the RITA has confirmed that there were significant commercial and ownership issues that existed prior to COVID-19, and that the long-term commercial viability of RITA may be in question unless significant reforms are made.” Treasury had PWC looking at the RITA books in March and Clause 5 confirms everything The Optimist has been saying about RITA’ s financial state over the past year. Clause 6 confirms what Minister Peters alluded to in his pre-budget announcement: “note, that RITA is likely to require further additional support in the future to position the industry for recovery.” It’ s not that difficult to conclude if you’re the recipient of $50 million from the Budget 2020 but still require further funding with a big question-mark on the long-term commercial viability, according to Treasury’s advice from PWC, then you’re skint. …budget figures disclosed did not add up to delivering the funding for the codes for 2020 ($139.6 million)… RITA still hasn’ t posted the full half-year report on their website, only an abbreviated version in News. It was put up briefly but taken down quickly and has not reappeared. The reason possibly because the budget figures disclosed did not add up to delivering the funding for the codes for 2020 ($139.6 million) committed to by Dean McKenzie and RITA. You can only cover up for so long – the truth will have to come out but no one is telling it at the moment. McKenzie talks about how well he’s done with the legislation but fails to mention RITAs debt level to the ASB which is still reputed to be at $45 or $47 million. Remember, it’s election year, and our Minister will not want any bad news for racing until at least September 20th. To catch the votes, lousy news must be toned down to a minimum, and that’s why we are supposedly racing for the same stakes – the $139.6 million – although there’s nowhere near that amount of money available coming in on current revenue levels. The get-out clause of a quarterly review on stakes money is sure to be used. And that’s why this good news story about McKenzie, who like Allen before him, is only fake news, strangely posted on the NZTR website. Why would such a story appear on the website of NZTR promoting someone who has caused them the most grief in the past 18 months? NZTR supposedly represents the participants of the industry, and in fact, is in place to serve the industry in the best manner possible. Where is the leadership? Racing people in New Zealand at the very least deserve some honesty, but no one from any organisation is currently providing it. The End Alice Hoodsays: July 18, 2020 at 8:30 am Well said. I asked NZR CEO, for one of his online question sessions who and what the ” suppliers and suppliers” were that were to be paid the $26m. His answer, you’ll have to write to RITA as they know that. Why have we got a CEO who either won’t or can’t answer that question. As a breeder and race horse owner, I am pouring money into a dark hole as there is no transparency . it is a sorry state of affairs. WE need the truth before the election but it probably won’t happen Brian de Loresays: July 18, 2020 at 8:37 am No leadership, no transparency, no accountability – this industry has all three in truckloads Reply steve herlihysays: July 19, 2020 at 10:46 pm I,m laughing and out LOUD , what a circus, and everyone stakeholder pre covid are still in. Had a light bulb moment I have scaled my racing interests down to one horse and have ceased breeding after 25 years. FREEDOM of choice , I don,t have to put with the BS . My bank balance is on the rise, think I might buy a boat, or a plane ! Let me know when the industry goes bust, and when the NEW opposition company are calling for share holders. Thanks Brian , for all the hard yards , no BS, love your work. Reply Leave a Reply

Doesn't matter what they do to the site now they will never regain the number of customers they had prior to its start. Once a Company loses customers because of a lack of confidence in their service and products they offer its the beginning of the end. Designed by clueless people unable to comprehend what was and is required by customers so unfortunately it was doomed from the start. Remember it was touted to pay for itself in three years, the first 6 months of this season shows how much of a fantasy that call was. I suppose when you live in Fairyland you will believe in fantasy's.

They wouldn't know the meaning of customer service. I don't struggle its the fact before it was one click to get to info now its more which wouldn't be a problem if it was so damm slow. Like many I gave up on the NZ TAB use TopSport in Aussie clean, easy to use site unlike the $50 million clunk of crap.

I gave up on it when it kept on giving the circle of death. It's too slow compared to overseas sites and terrible for navigating around. It was supposed to be simple to use not designed by simple, .

The only way that site will ever improve is with a change of management.The biggest financial disaster in the NZ TAB's existence and it has had plenty in both human and software form.

to have legislation put in place before they can introduce virtual racing when NZ Lotto already have this type of betting available for gambling online in NZ? Surely under either the Fair Trading or Commerce Acts if a Company is already offering this type of service to their customers then the same product should be available to other NZ based gambling companies. The Christchurch Casino a number of years ago had Virtual Horse Racing you could bet on so once again very odd that new legislation is needed by NZ Racing to conduct this type of betting. No doubt the clueless DIA advised them that legislation was required. Virtual betting is betting on computer-generated images of a sporting event, usually a horse for virtual horse racing. That is what NZ Lotto offer so once again why the need for the NZ Racing Industry to have to wait for legislation to be passed for them to offer the same type of betting product? Currently NZ Lotto has a monopoly on Virtual horse racing betting in NZ. Remind me again how much NZ Lotto contributes to the NZ Racing Industry? Below is the horse racing online betting that NZ Lotto offers to their gambling customers. Granted it's very basic but it still constitutes online virtual racing to bet on.

Maybe we shouldn't knock Dean McKenzie and RITA so much as I heard over the weekend that NZ Lotto and the various Casino's around the Country are very very happy with their efforts and progress to date since their appointments. SKY City shares $1.30 in March 2020 now $2.41 and word is to those that missed on the $1.30 buy now because as soon as the NZ TAB announce their 2020 end of year result it will spruik their share price.

Why are they reporting revenue growth in this area when merchant fees charged to a consumer are only supposed to be a recovery of bank credit card costs by a Company. The expense and income from this area should cancel each other out. Elite customers don't pay credit card fees and with them turning over % wise in betting more than the average 'Joe' punter it seems they are subsidising the free ride for the Elites. John Allen said the $50 million dollar plus $17 million a year in costs would be world class and enable the NZ TAB to competitive with overseas rivals. Well the first thing you do is remove credit card deposite fees like all TAB"s and Corporate bookies have in Australia. Paying a fee to use that nightmare of a site is a joke. Mind you John Allen did say this when interviewed about his new role for the Wgtn City Council Must be some good shit getting blown around Wgtn at the moment. Poor NZ punter deposites $20 into his account pays his bank $2.15 for a credit card fee, if he uses card credit pays about 20% then punts into tote pools with a top takeout of 26% then they poor $#$@ard has to try and pick a winner. That credit card fee came in a year after Bayliss and his ex banking GM mates came in. The NZ TAB would have a good % rate on their merchant fees, most companies that do charge a credit card fee are around 2.5% so teh $2.15 on a $20 deposite is a high % for a customer to pay and on that type of a transaction results in a money making excercise. Interesting Lotto don't charge a merchant fee for online deposites. The merchant fee for debit cards online is 1% and $0.00 through eftpos. If anyone was charged a merchant fee of $2.15 by the TAB when depositing online during Lockdown e-mail them for a refund as banks waived merchant fees during this period. Its not the amount but the principal; as punters already get stung enough without adding to the TAB's revenue line when they don't have to. The first 6 months I would rate RITA's performance 2/10 as saw nothing to make me think they were onto it and made changes needed.