Leggy

Hear, hear. I think that should read 26% and 21% respectively though Punna.

Not that I'm likely to get to an Auckland Cup again midweek in March, but who is this room open to? Just the owners with runners on the day?

Get ye to the waterfront! If I'm not mistaken that's exactly what Mannix was saying too.

You may be right Paul. From what I have seen it looks a big improvement. I was really just reacting to Berri's comments that "Typhoon is limited. Won't do what we need it to do. Doesn't provide the big boys market with the toys they need to play the game to the max. "

Apprentice....I quite agree that the CEO need not be an expert in everything, but wagering expertise is essential for the RB. There is none on the Board and the CEO had none. Surely they should be recruiting it or buying it in then at both the governance and management level? I do agree with much of the balance of your post. At the end of the day it is for the RB to provide strategic guidance to the organisation via the CEO. Why haven't they?

Prop, I quite agree with everything you say. A brilliant effort on three weeks notice. If you accept the arguments therein, thence comes my support for 'keep the existing federal model for now, fix it as best as possible, get some sensible strategies in place AND being executed, then form a tri-code committee or something to advance the Option 2 ideas' One thing you forgot....the date....I think once OneRace was gone that was the end of the dialogue from TR and RB.

Thanks for that input Berri. Yes, the World is our market and our competitor. It feels like the last few years we have made no headway in adressing that while much of the rest of the world surges ahead, further ahead. To think that the new betting system doesn't represent the cutting edge of the necessary technology makes me want to cry. Clearly a wagering interface (and takeout rates) for punters that facilitates high speed arbitrage decisions is absolutely crucial. Volume and liquidity attracts more volume. That's a no brainer. So are we going further backwards when it sounds like the necessary technology is out there, or almost?

I don't think anyone could argue with you there Punna. The modelling that underlies the impact of takeout adjustments in the strategic plan is more than incompetent, it's plain idiotic and has no bearing on any of the global research and statistics on the matter. We've discussed that all before, but for what is primarily a wagering organisation to demonstrate their total lack of expertise and understanding so blatantly is a travesty. How can you have an wagering outfit with no-one on the Board or in senior management that has a clue about wagering?

Prop the link in the post above was the greyhound and harness response to OneRace and their alternative suggestions. And the quote above from Carter followed a facilitated meeting of the RB and 3 codes called by Carter to thrash out a way forward. Yes, we may be at cross purposes by the sound of things but I don't see what legislative change for wagering purposes is necessary. The legislation already provides the RB with the power to introduce any kind of wagering (on Racing and Sports that they want).

I agree. But the leadership should surely be coming from the NZRB. That's their statutory function.

I appreciate that may be the case Sheriff but I wanted an answer so I rephrased the question. We have world leading software companies and IT brains right here in NZ. Can't we produce a world leading betting interface if such a thing as Berri suggests doesn't already exist?

Berri, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you are saying we have been sold another very expensive dummy that won't meet contemporary needs of sophisticated high end punters. As Paul asked, can you say whether there is an existing alternative such as you describe or one in development? Or would such a thing need to be built from scratch here?

You could claim they tried Prop, but it's hard to believe it was only 9 months ago that ended and Carter was sold an alternative dummy, AB's vaunted strategic plan. Prior to the below mentioned leaders meeting, the other two codes proposed a structural way forward, two actually, but the status quo won the day. I'm not sure if the other proposal was ever advanced http://bit.ly/dmZSRQ (pp. 22-27). Nor is it clear if the recommended subset of strategies if the existing structure were retained, has been addressed. Carter June 24, 2010 - NZHerald But the Racing Board's strategic plan was over-arching, he said. "I'm excited by this strategic plan; it's aspirational, but so it should be." Monday's leaders' meeting was not about the One Racing proposal, he told the breeders. The proposal, pushed by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing, seeks to bring all the racing codes and the Racing Board under one structure. "One Racing is not palatable to two of the codes and while that is the case, it isn't on the table," Carter said. He said everyone in the industry needed to back the Racing Board, the body that runs the TAB, and industry leaders. "I'm not interested in dictating terms, agreeing to submissions that don't have industry-wide buy-in, or messing with racing's governance structure. I am interested in the industry working together to find solutions to its own problems and plans for growth. If there is majority agreement and it fits in with the end goal then I will back it. "It is early days yet, but there is every intention of having the highest-quality racing industry in New Zealand. I sincerely believe that this is the objective of those tasked with managing the industry at the board and code levels."

She might have been better handier, but that's where she landed and if she hadn't been kept travelling comfortably might not have finished off as well as she did when going straight and balanced up on a notch better footing. Don't worry, she wiped out a few multis of mine. Wouldn't blame the ride though.

Didn't look like it was handling it much, certainly when they quickened up appeared to be floundering. Still made up a bit when balanced up the last bit. She'll keep and came to no harm.

On this last question I would certainly say no, I wouldn't run it like this, howebver changing the structure (which I agree is a good idea) is not the paramount change that is needed. Furthermore, it is much more difficult than with your hypothetical company because in this instance, legislative change is required. Even so, that structural change will fix bugger all if there's not a range of appropriate strategies put in place.

I didn't say the model was ok Neil, I said the structure was and so did Boardworks. I suggest you read the recommendations in that audit http://static.tab.co.nz/control/data/nzrb-other-reports/Performance-and-Efficiency-Audit-July-2008.pdf, particularly with respect to defining 'independence', distinguishing the role of governance, strategic planning etc., then tell me what's wrong with the structure. It doesn't matter what structure you have if there is no accountability and people aren't properly performing their roles. Another problem is the absence of expertise on the Board in the wagering and related IT area. Again, no amount of tinkering with the structure will fix that.

There's nothing wrong with the governance structure Neil (see the 08 P&E report). What's wrong is the governance performance including appointment of CEOs and accountability issues. Blame the CEO, blame the GFC, blame the statute, now blame the Christchurch Earthquake. The RB needs to look in the mirror and the Minister needs to look at the RB.

You'd 've gone down well at the little Bighorn

Say some more about that Berri

Much more demonstration of such wisdom and they'll second you onto the NZTR Board.

Rumpers, I understand he's headed to Auckland to attend his third ever NZ race meeting on Wednesday. Apparently the fee for looking after his garden for 7mins for the day was within the scope of his meagre salary.

Well it seems the garden leave is a vote of no confidence in their own appointment (or worse). Otherwise, they'd back their judgement and have him work out his contract. How Colgan who was apparently knee deep in the disastrous commingling agreement can be seen as a better interim option, doesn't say much for the RB's judgement in the appointment of AB at this stage.

So they've appointed a failed wagering expert as acting CEO while the failed CEO is on garden leave? Now who can you hold accountable for that?

I agree Sheriff. Iam also a bit confused by Punna's second paragraph. On the first though surely the Board has some continuity and the leadership if changing direction or projection would state that. MS reported in the 07 annual report "The introduction of commingling and the related International Marketing Agreement with Tabcorp-owned Sky Channel Australia are expected to generate significant benefits to the racing industry" They didn't deliver then, and last year in the strategic plan proposed further growth via international commingling opportunities including 10.7 m in export revenue growth and industry profit growth of 16.3 million commencing March 2010. That's exciting to look forward to now. Hopefully they'll deliver this time?