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

Leggy

Members
  • Posts

    7,842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by Leggy

  1. To be fair Sheriff I think you've offered your own destructive sh#t stirring about both Mallard and Hill-Cone which has nothing to do with the facts. As for me I merely posted the article. I didn't comment. I thought it was amusing though, and somewhat pragmatic in its suggestions. Getting back to those facts and given you have now announced your conflict of interest in the matter, perhaps you'd care to answer the simple question I asked you this morning which you have carefully ignored, instead of going off at all and sundry who disagree with you. "Surely Sheriff, you and everyone else can see that the claims are true, that he was Business Development Manager of Granada not ITV, since ITV wasn't formed at the time]the past five years as Chief Operating Officer of Racecourse Media Group as MS claimed in the 2009 annual report since that entity wasn't formed till 2008. What other evidence do you need that the RB's claims in the annual report and appointment media release are false and grossly misleading?"
  2. I see the following post on the other channel: RIU... is anybody home? by Curious
  3. I think 'met' is actually a bit dishonest Prop. Possible 'close encounter' is about as far as I would say you should go.
  4. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=10704002
  5. and I see the Herald pressed print today Sheriff Sport of King-sized Pay Packets - Deborah Hill Cone "Of course if the board's chairman wants to lead by example, he could just start by releasing his CEO's CV and explaining why he earned such a huge salary"
  6. Prop, there are only three plausible ways that I can think Andrew Brown's work history came to be mis-represented in the annual report. Either AB mis-represented it to the recruitment firm and/or the Board, something he says he will produce a vigorous defence of, which as you say, will hopefully be forthcoming shortly; OR the recruitment firm hyped their candidate to the Board; OR the Board decided to hype their appointee to the stakeholders and public of NZ. If neither MS or AB will be forthcoming about which it is, then hopefully Mr. Mallard will get the answers so we can all know once and for all how we came to be so misled.
  7. Surely Sheriff, you and everyone else can see that the claims are true, that he was Business Development Manager of Granada not ITV, since ITV wasn't formed at the time]the past five years as Chief Operating Officer of Racecourse Media Group as MS claimed in the 2009 annual report since that entity wasn't formed till 2008. What other evidence do you need that the RB's claims in the annual report and appointment media release are false and grossly misleading?
  8. It would only be defamatory if the claim/s were false wouldn't it?
  9. http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=300
  10. Yes, I agree that is the question Leedsip and according to Esquire "There is a company value difference of about GBP 1.5 billion between ITV Plc and Granada Plc and GBP 85k - 110k in salary for a Head of Business Development position." So putting the former on your CV, or announcing it to your stakeholders, or negotiating a salary on that basis if it was the other, certainly apeears significant to me, and surely amounts to a false or misleading representation?
  11. Well, Sheriff, regardless of the evidence from ITV which MS could quickly confirm of he wants, how could he have worked for them when the company was formed in 2004 when he was supposedly CEO of Racing UK?
  12. Just guessing but maybe someone bullied them out of it? Or they had the same end of the stick as the SST and without knowing what was actually in the cv as we don't couldn't find anything wrong?....or they are just plain thick?
  13. Maybe, but it's Carter's answers not mallards questions that'll be the interesting bit, won't it?
  14. Well I dined with his mother in London once, before she made any Royal connections. So, if you let me know when it's suitable, I'll be able to add to mine as well. 1979, London: Met with the King's mother.
  15. It seems pretty clear that the reports in the media release and annual report are incorrect. If so, and AB wants to correct the situation and defend his credibility as he says then wouldn't he simply say something like "it was incorrectly reported that I was employed as Business Development Manager for ITV. It was in fact for Granada PLC which later merged to become ITV. That is what my CV stated at the time I applied for this job." End of matter Since he has had a couple of recent opportunities to do that in the media and hasn't, one wonders why not and who he is trying to protect.
  16. I think that is a quite ludicrous position which some seem to be taking here. If I was General Manager of McDonalds, Hicksville store and it is then bought out by McDonalds, NZ, I don't put on my CV that I was general Manager of McDonalds, NZ. And if you later employ me you don't announce to your stakeholders that I was the latter unless you were misled and failed to do the necessary due diligence. Likewise you don't negotiate my salary based on the latter. This is a misleading, damaging and blantantly false atrocity that should have been corrected a long time ago yet continues to be perpetrated. Shame on AB and the RB and shame on you for minimising it.
  17. I don't see why you should be having to sort out an NZRB stuff up Sheriff. This has been going on for months. What the hell is the matter with the outfit especially when there is the threat of further embarassment to the industry in the House next week?
  18. Just to get back to the thread topic I sort of agree with the principles here and there certainly seems room for cutting administration costs one way or another and some reduction in takeout rates especially on exotics. I'm not sure about the benefit of amalgamating with another betting provider which would have little interest in NZ Racing and rather than a One Racing structure, I prefer the idea of scrapping the RB and having the codes run a corporatised TAB directly. I wonder about the benefit of cutting racing and tracks in half though it may happen anyway if something doesn't change shortly. The risk I see is if that results in half the turnover, we'll have half the size industry in the same situation and more top heavy. I'm yet to see any sound business case that suggests that would be beneficial. It seems we have a fixed and shrinking punting dollar spent in NZ. The first way to remedy that would seem to be making the betting product competitive. The next is to make the racing product more attractive. Margins need to be optimalised for maximum revenue and rather than cut NZ racing which the TAB receives the full margin on, it may be better to reduce the less attractive imported product which costs 3% and divert the spend to a higher margin NZ product.
  19. If I'm not mistaken Rod, the Racing Act 1971 did not originally allow fixed odds, only tote betting to be conducted by the TAB. It was amended in 1995 to allow FOB.
  20. FOB Sports 1996 Futures FOB Racing 1997 FF FOB September 2003
  21. Great thread Caramello. How's the team btw? Good to be thinking about what we can do with what we have, which appears certain to become less before it becomes more. I've seen the idea about reducing number of races tossed about before. I like the idea in principle but the problem I see is that turnover is closely tied to number of races and runners, so to make it work, we'd need the same number of runners for the 8 races as we have currently for 10, otherwise the funding generated would still probably only warrant current stake levels per race. Likewise, when a R70 field is split to accomodate the number of runners, it generates sufficient turnover to justify the additional stake. I take your point though that it maybe the programming could be better adjusted so we have say an R65, an R68, and an R80, so the three fields are more evenly divided and more competitive. One thing I do think that should be given maximum attention and every penny we can find, is the provision of the best quality and maintained racing and training surfaces we can possibly manage. There seems to be quite a number of tracks with faulty drainage and irrigation systems that could be made a lot more functional at relatively low cost. With one or two notable exceptions though, I think a bouquet is due to NZTR and the clubs and track managers for the much more forgiving tracks presented this summer.
  22. Oncourse 435,963 down 5.5% Offcourse 2,797,261 down 9.9% FOB 453,677 down 20.3%
  23. OOps ... correction. That was Anniversary day. Sorry, my stuff up. Not great all the same.