Racing Act Admendment Underway

[Phantom 494]

22 minutes ago, barryb said:

Lots of gernalisations in there Phantom, that are more emotional than fact mate.

"most Kiwi sports punters bet off shore" 

I highly doubt it for a start. would it even be a 1/4? 

Quite right Barry, I should have added "serious". and i didn't mean exclusively offshore. Or if you prefer, "a lot of Kiwi sports punters bet off shore". Happy?

Emotional? Yeah I do feel pretty strongly that the "jobs for the boys" bunch of lawyers bankers et al at Pet-one have been able to bleed the coffers dry and pay themselves six-figure salaries whilst standing idly by and watching as the Kiwi racing industry, once one of the three cornerstones of New Zealand society, disintegrates into the shambles which it is today. 

Maybe if the NZRB had been a bit more emotional they wouldn't have hired so many people with neither an affinity or understanding of either racing or betting. But if I'm the only one saying what i'm saying then I must be wrong, right? Unless the Allen/Hughes regime have managed to silence the entire racing media by putting them on the payroll.. lol

[Leggy 4,096]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

Yes that's exactly my argument 

Bugger, I wrote that backwards. What I meant to say was you could equally argue that SKY should pay the NZRB because taking wagering on the event increases viewership, interest and subscriptions. Surely the NZRB should get a share of that increased business?

[Leggy 4,096]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

Leggy here's a part of your quote from above 

 

"The rest should go to the government and NZ taxpayer. Though the government may decide to re-distribute some or all of that in some way across NZ sports including racing."

 

Help me understand why proceeds earnt in NZ, derived from international events, should go to the government and taxpayer, yet proceeds in the reverse should go to the NBA.

Can I presume the government and citizens of the USA are less worthy ? 

 

You really are more muddled than I thought and it seems to be rubbing off on me. I accept that it may be the anticipatory effects of the birthday celebration or some kind of lag effect from the last one perhaps re-triggered by the weather.

As far as I know, the US government does not operate a wagering outfit.

It's really quite a simple concept. The wagering provider pays a cut of the gross betting profit to the event owner, say in your example, 20% - $100 to the NBA. The balance, $400 goes to the wagering provider to cover operating costs in the first instance with any remainder going to reserves or distributions to shareholders. If it's Tatts that's me. If it's the NZRB that's the government and taxpayers, also me. Thanks.

Where else would you have that remainder go?

 

[Leggy 4,096]

1 hour ago, barryb said:

Lots of gernalisations in there Phantom, that are more emotional than fact mate.

"most Kiwi sports punters bet off shore" 

I highly doubt it for a start. would it even be a 1/4? 

No, it's more like 7% according to the MoH commissioned AUT National Gambling Survey, but in line with Phantom's point, nearly 50% of total expenditure.

[Midget 4,489]

The proceeds of gambling facilitated by the government appointed body corporate should go to those indicated in the relevant legislation.

That's where you and Admin get it wrong, you argue that the gummint and the tax payers should get the net proceeds, but that's against the law.

I could gently skewer you about the NBA too but I'm satisfied that your logic is like my eggs, and Donald Trump's your father.

[Guest 2Admin2]

7 minutes ago, Midget said:

The proceeds of gambling facilitated by the government appointed body corporate should go to those indicated in the relevant legislation.

That's where you and Admin get it wrong, you argue that the gummint and the tax payers should get the net proceeds, but that's against the law.

I could gently skewer you about the NBA too but I'm satisfied that your logic is like my eggs, and Donald Trump's your father.

Your initial argument was that revenue earned through sports gambling should be distributed to racing however sections 55, 56 and 57 are quite clear that it should go to sports.  However any surplus can be distributed to the racing codes.  It is the latter which provides the subsidisation given the minimum distribution amounts are paltry.

[Leggy 4,096]

7 minutes ago, Midget said:

The proceeds of gambling facilitated by the government appointed body corporate should go to those indicated in the relevant legislation.

That's where you and Admin get it wrong, you argue that the gummint and the tax payers should get the net proceeds, but that's against the law.

I could gently skewer you about the NBA too but I'm satisfied that your logic is like my eggs, and Donald Trump's your father.

Your original question was where do I think it should go, not where does the current legislation say it should, at least I was answering on that basis. There's certainly nothing in the current legislation preventing the NZRB paying the NBA for the right to take bets on their events. The current legislation determines that any surplus goes to sports and racing (or reserves). Under that, and in the absence of any provision to return a surplus from sports events to the government, it seems a reasonable and ethical approach would be that what is generated from sports betting is returned to sports, and what is generated from race betting is returned to racing?

[Midget 4,489]

45 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Your original question was where do I think it should go, not where does the current legislation say it should, at least I was answering on that basis. There's certainly nothing in the current legislation preventing the NZRB paying the NBA for the right to take bets on their events. The current legislation determines that any surplus goes to sports and racing (or reserves). Under that, and in the absence of any provision to return a surplus from sports events to the government, it seems a reasonable and ethical approach would be that what is generated from sports betting is returned to sports, and what is generated from race betting is returned to racing?

That's correct, sports is entitled to a share, that's not in dispute, but you two have been arguing ( not now conveniently ) that racing has no rights, that somehow the gummint has been subsidizing racing, and that excess profits from sports should go to the gummint / tax payer.

The law is quite clear, sports get a fee, historically a fixed fee not a commission, and the balance goes to racing.

I thought you'd both wriggle and swerve your way around to my way of thinking. Well done.

 

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

1 hour ago, Midget said:

That's correct, sports is entitled to a share, that's not in dispute, but you two have been arguing ( not now conveniently ) that racing has no rights, that somehow the gummint has been subsidizing racing, and that excess profits from sports should go to the gummint / tax payer.

The law is quite clear, sports get a fee, historically a fixed fee not a commission, and the balance goes to racing.

I thought you'd both wriggle and swerve your way around to my way of thinking. Well done.

 

 

I haven't argued what you say I've argued.  What I do believe is that sports should get ALL their share and not cross subsidise racing.

With regard to the return to government the TAB is NOT a good business for them to be in.

[mardigras 27]

9 minutes ago, Midget said:

That's correct, sports is entitled to a share, that's not in dispute, but you two have been arguing ( not now conveniently ) that racing has no rights, that somehow the gummint has been subsidizing racing, and that excess profits from sports should go to the gummint / tax payer.

The law is quite clear, sports get a fee, historically a fixed fee not a commission, and the balance goes to racing.

I thought you'd both wriggle and swerve your way around to my way of thinking. Well done.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone argue about what is the law. And based on what is the law, having an improved fixed odds platform for sports customers has to be a good thing. Racing gets the vast majority of that revenue as per the law.

The only time that is going to be a concern is when the law changes. Which is what most have been discussing. Except you. The law as it stands has NZ racing receiving vast sums of money from areas of which it has no control or contribution to.

[Leggy 4,096]

53 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I haven't seen anyone argue about what is the law. And based on what is the law, having an improved fixed odds platform for sports customers has to be a good thing. Racing gets the vast majority of that revenue as per the law.

The only time that is going to be a concern is when the law changes. Which is what most have been discussing. Except you. The law as it stands has NZ racing receiving vast sums of money from areas of which it has no control or contribution to.

Exactly. And the government have now put on the table a proposal to change the law. I don't see how Midget can first seem to argue about those changes which is what the head-post in this thread signaled, then when that seems not to be suiting, argue for the status quo under current legislation. A very conflicted line of debate indeed.

The good thing is that the government and the RB have now put the Act on the table and in an election year. Hopefully, that will mean some of the issues will become the subject of wider debate and the industry, politicians, and voters can have a say, particularly on the distribution of funds to racing for which racing makes zero contribution as you point out mardigras.

In fact there can now be an opportunity to review the whole Act, not just dismiss the ludicrous current proposal with respect to offshore betting. In particular, the constitution and appointment of the board, accountability issues, the above-mentioned use of funds unrelated to racing, especially consideration that the RB's C4 gaming profits be returned to the communities from whence they came, re-examination of the s16 distribution rules, the utility of the mostly gormless sector groups being recognised in the Act etc. can all be thrashed out and even tested as an election issue.

It could be that racing is indeed NZ's greatest beneficiary as you mention Midget and has got there in a decade from being largely self-sufficient. That self-sufficiency needs to be restored and a review of the Act is a good starting place. BTW, FYI, the current legislation provides for sports to be remunerated in part on a commission of gross betting profit basis.

 

[Midget 4,489]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

I haven't seen anyone argue about what is the law. And based on what is the law, having an improved fixed odds platform for sports customers has to be a good thing. Racing gets the vast majority of that revenue as per the law.

The only time that is going to be a concern is when the law changes. Which is what most have been discussing. Except you. The law as it stands has NZ racing receiving vast sums of money from areas of which it has no control or contribution to.

No, I've said that the industry should beware that migration from tote to a F/O platform is potentially dangerous "IF" the law is changed.

I've also noted the sinister way "sports" is becoming common vernacular in communiques from head office.

Leggy has long argued that racing is not entitled to profits derived from sports and that such profits should go to the gummint.

Admin argues that the gummint subsidizes racing full stop. He's never quite clear how or why that happens but it's one of those " if you repeat it often enough it becomes fact " situations and I don't happen to agree with that assertion.

I just wanted to manouvre them both into accepting exactly what the law is and what The Racing Act actually says.

You've done rather well on your very first post to make a false accusation about me, and with such authority too, nice use of alternate facts Mardigras.

 

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

8 minutes ago, Midget said:

No, I've said that the industry should beware that migration from tote to a F/O platform is potentially dangerous "IF" the law is changed.

I've also noted the sinister way "sports" is becoming common vernacular in communiques from head office.

Leggy has long argued that racing is not entitled to profits derived from sports and that such profits should go to the gummint.

Admin argues that the gummint subsidizes racing full stop. He's never quite clear how or why that happens but it's one of those " if you repeat it often enough it becomes fact " situations and I don't happen to agree with that assertion.

I just wanted to manouvre them both into accepting exactly what the law is and what The Racing Act actually says.

You've done rather well on your very first post to make a false accusation about me, and with such authority too, nice use of alternate facts Mardigras.

 

 

I'm not sure you fully understand the act or what it says.  However racing has helped themselves get to the position of where they are by not addressing the fundamentals a long time ago.  Instead certain groups within the industry have fed long and frequently at the trough.  To the point the product they provide is no longer attractive to the punter so the vicious spiral down tightens.

The industry now expects pokies and sports betting to keep their poor product afloat while they desperately lobby for more protection in the form of the futile racefields legislation.

Arguably if the full revenue had gone to sports from the beginning racing may have got their shit together sooner.

The government does subsidise racing and protects through monopoly legislation.  In my opinion that is the source of its ills.

[mardigras 27]

Many of the posts are based on IF the legislation is changed. I would argue that the legislation regarding the distribution of surplus revenue will change at some point.

I would also agree with leggy that racing should not be the recipient of any sports revenues (or pokie revenues). The times have changed since when the Act was set up. The government may well have believed the racing industry was worthy of assistance due to the level of contribution it made to the NZ economy etc at that stage. That was then, and that is no longer the case - certainly to anywhere near the degree of the past. Which would suggest the government support of an industry leaking the way it is, is a bad political decision. Shifting those surplus revenues to areas more suited would be the sensible thing for a political party to do imo.

You didn't manoeuver anyone. I didn't see anyone debating the law although that is now what you claim was the topic. In light of your questions to leggy prefixed with the words 'should', I doubt that would suggest you were asking about the actual. More about an opinion on what would be more suitable.

Still, I don't really expect much from you given your past writings. So I've probably got that wrong and when you asked 'should', you were actually asking what the actual situation is. I'll have to remember that for the future.

[Midget 4,489]

22 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

I'm not sure you fully understand the act or what it says.  However racing has helped themselves get to the position of where they are by not addressing the fundamentals a long time ago.  Instead certain groups within the industry have fed long and frequently at the trough.  To the point the product they provide is no longer attractive to the punter so the vicious spiral down tightens.

The industry now expects pokies and sports betting to keep their poor product afloat while they desperately lobby for more protection in the form of the futile racefields legislation.

Arguably if the full revenue had gone to sports from the beginning racing may have got their shit together sooner.

The government does subsidise racing and protects through monopoly legislation.  In my opinion that is the source of its ills.

Some of what you say about the product we're producing is correct, and you know my feelings about pokies.

[Berri 2,131]

It all comes down to what the ACTUAL deal is in respect of the percentages of gross profits going to sports. Leggy...go back to Russia if you support all profits arising from sports betting going to sports. The RIB (Racing Industry Board) came out of RACING, not sports. Racing paid for the betting process to be established and its exofficio, the TAB was mandated to offer and accept bets on racing's behalf....not sports....not the government...not Sky or the NBA.....just racing. It was mandated to look after the welfare of the people in racing....read the Act if you don't believe me.

So to the current process....the distributions from betting to sports.

Years ago, the TAB was offered the right to market and distribute the lottery. It declined the invitation because it thought it would cannibalise racing. What a bunch of idiots who turned that down....because despite screwing with Racing's market share of betting, racing's revenue didn't go down.......a market kick on betting occurred BUT we lost the potential commission and it started to cost us more to keep what we had.

The key to this lottery proposition was the acceptance by racing in respect of the commissions that racing should have received for distributing such a lottery product. The DIA, when accepting the right to market and distribute sweepstakes, games of chance and lotteries, allows a distribution to the promoter of approx. 8% of the turnover after costs. The amount given to the charities (remember that the DIA will decline the application IF charities aren't the beneficiaries of such an initiative) is negotiated by the promoter and the charity but these terms need to be signed off by the DIA. This would have been the position if the TAB had accepted the task to run the lottery.

So now WE ARE being hijacked by government, sports, politicians, JA and DH IF the deal sees racing lose its position as the main beneficiary of the current proposed initiative. Why isn't Alan Jackson briefing his beneficiaries (all members of the thoroughbred racing industry) as to what the deal actually is? Why isn't he being very public in respect of lobbying for all of us in respect of the actual deal? Why aren't the respective leaders of the Trainers Association, Breeders Association, Owners Association and Jockey's Association DEMANDING TO SEE the terms of the proposed deal? The wrong deal could be the deal breaker for the survival of the horse industry in the future.

We need to see the detail. It could be good or it could be a disaster. Why the FUCK aren't people speaking out and asking the right question?!?!?

[Midget 4,489]

No Mardigras you're the one trying to be clever.

For some time we've been discussing the consequences of a mass migration from tote to a F/O platform and how it would leave the industry dangerously exposed to a change in legislation IF an anti racing gummint was in power.

Meantime I merely asked Leggy and Admin to explain their curious thinking, one line of which is that the gummint and the tax payer should benefit from gambling facilitated by the TAB ( they already do, it's called GST amongst other taxes ) and the other claim is that the gummint currently subsidizes racing.

These claims are bizarre and extraordinary.....and so clearly are Mardigras/Leggy/Rod Hill, whomever you are today.

[mardigras 27]

Just now, Midget said:

No Mardigras you're the one trying to be clever.

For some time we've been discussing the consequences of a mass migration from tote to a F/O platform and how it would leave the industry dangerously exposed to a change in legislation IF an anti racing gummint was in power.

Meantime I merely asked Leggy and Admin to explain their curious thinking, one line of which is that the gummint and the tax payer should benefit from gambling facilitated by the TAB ( they already do, it's called GST amongst other taxes ) and the other claim is that racing subsidizes racing.

These claims are bizarre and extraordinary.....and so clearly are Mardigras/Leggy/Rod Hill, whomever you are today.

I'm not being clever. I'm being factual. You asked opinion on where revenues should go. Which is entirely different to asking where they do go.

Their thinking is quite acceptable. The government owns the TAB. The government legislates where the surplus goes. There is just as much logic behind sports revenues going to sport as there is for suggesting racing revenues go to racing. More so I would say than for suggesting sports revenues should go to racing.

The government subsidizes racing. That comes from the revenues generated by the TAB. All of it is used to subsidise. Where it goes is determined by legislation in the same way the government can subsidise hospitals.

 

 

[Midget 4,489]

14 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I'm not being clever. I'm being factual. You asked opinion on where revenues should go. Which is entirely different to asking where they do go.

Their thinking is quite acceptable. The government owns the TAB. The government legislates where the surplus goes. There is just as much logic behind sports revenues going to sport as there is for suggesting racing revenues go to racing. More so I would say than for suggesting sports revenues should go to racing.

The government subsidizes racing. That comes from the revenues generated by the TAB. All of it is used to subsidise. Where it goes is determined by legislation in the same way the government can subsidise hospitals.

 

 

The TAB is just an operating arm of the NZRB.

The NZRB is a government appointed body corporate, in perpetual succession.

It answers to the Minister and the Crown in turn is bound by The Racing Act.

I don't see that as being "owned by the government" at all.

I asked Leggy and Admin for their thoughts because I happen to disagree with their often repeated but incorrect interpretations.

The gummint does NOT legislate where any surpluses go, it's absolutely clear in the Racing Act how such surpluses are distributed and the gummint has ZERO say in such matters.

If you think a hospital is funded in the same manner as the racing industry you're really stupid, in fact I'll go further, you're a fuckwit and a troll who talks shit just to be inflammatory.

Now back you go, get under your bridge until you learn to read and understand The Racing Act.

[Leggy 4,096]

30 minutes ago, Berri said:

It all comes down to what the ACTUAL deal is in respect of the percentages of gross profits going to sports. Leggy...go back to Russia if you support all profits arising from sports betting going to sports. The RIB (Racing Industry Board) came out of RACING, not sports. Racing paid for the betting process to be established and its exofficio, the TAB was mandated to offer and accept bets on racing's behalf....not sports....not the government...not Sky or the NBA.....just racing. It was mandated to look after the welfare of the people in racing....read the Act if you don't believe me.

Berri, I don't give a flying fig where the RIB came from. It doesn't even exist any more. We are talking about where it is now and where it might go with any changes in legislation. And you are dead wrong about the Act. It was not mandated to accept bets ONLY on behalf of the welfare of the people in racing. It was equally mandated to look after the welfare of people affected by problem gambling. Perhaps that is where the surplus revenue from sports betting, pokies and overseas racing events should be directed under the current act.

 

 

[Leggy 4,096]

13 minutes ago, Midget said:

The gummint does NOT legislate where any surpluses go, it's absolutely clear in the Racing Act how such surpluses are distributed and the gummint has ZERO say in such matters.

Yes they do and have by legislating the current Racing Act, and will continue to do so by any legislated changes to that. Who do you think writes and passes such legislation if not the government?

[Midget 4,489]

14 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Yes they do and have by legislating the current Racing Act, and will continue to do so by any legislated changes to that. Who do you think writes and passes such legislation if not the government?

Every time you talk like this you reinforce how deranged your thinking is and how far left you are philosophically.

The government creates and passes the legislation, that's true,  but the NZRB is a body corporate that answers to the Minister. but in turn binds the Crown.

The NZRB is a stand alone entity free of gummint influence, but they're bound by the Act, and they do have to submit a business plan etc... to the Minister....but to suggest the gummint orchestrates where surpluses go is outrageous.

Do you understand what a body corporate is Leggy /Rod / Mardigras ? as in that it's a corporation or legal entity in its own right. 

 

 

[Leggy 4,096]

53 minutes ago, Berri said:

So now WE ARE being hijacked by government, sports, politicians, JA and DH IF the deal sees racing lose its position as the main beneficiary of the current proposed initiative. Why isn't Alan Jackson briefing his beneficiaries (all members of the thoroughbred racing industry) as to what the deal actually is? Why isn't he being very public in respect of lobbying for all of us in respect of the actual deal? Why aren't the respective leaders of the Trainers Association, Breeders Association, Owners Association and Jockey's Association DEMANDING TO SEE the terms of the proposed deal? The wrong deal could be the deal breaker for the survival of the horse industry in the future.

You'll have to explain what you are talking about there Berri. I fail to see how racing could come close to losing its position as the main beneficiary of the current proposal, not that I expect there will be any significant benefit. And the proposed deal was put out as a discussion document last year and the Trainers Association, Breeders Owners and Jockeys' Associations had every opportunity to make submissions the same as everyone else. Until a Bill is drafted based on those, I don't really see what else there would be for them to look at?

[Berri 2,131]

37 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I'm not being clever. I'm being factual. You asked opinion on where revenues should go. Which is entirely different to asking where they do go.

Their thinking is quite acceptable. The government owns the TAB. The government legislates where the surplus goes. There is just as much logic behind sports revenues going to sport as there is for suggesting racing revenues go to racing. More so I would say than for suggesting sports revenues should go to racing.

The government subsidizes racing. That comes from the revenues generated by the TAB. All of it is used to subsidise. Where it goes is determined by legislation in the same way the government can subsidise hospitals.

 

 

First and fore most....I am an avid supporter of racing and the participants of the racing industry...not the sports industry...not a charity or the government....hence me being on this site.....the Racecafe....most may not know it but I provided some funding to this site when it was originally set up by Dave and Ange.

You're not quite right. The government doesn't actually own the NZRB but it does control it. The government doesn't legislate where surpluses go, the RB does. Although the appointments to the board need to be approved by government, the industry puts those positions forward for the majority of them. It is not a matter of logic where the distributions go...if you think they should all go to sports and not racing....then you go take a flying fart and piss off from this site. You're not wanted or needed. This is a racing site, not a sports site. Take your opinions to Timbuckto...Russia...Australia....where ever but you are not needed here.

The government doesn't subsidise racing. What a load of crap. The rule book allows people to bet, people to own horses and races them under a set of rules....rules that have been designed and amended over the history of New Zealand. One of those historical events was the NZ racing clubs taking a loan from the BNZ bank (not the government) to fund the development of the TAB under a set of rules. The loan was repaid by racing....not the government...not sports....racing. Get that right...learn your history.

The racing industry has precedence because the Racing Act has a clause in it in respect of the explicit mandate of the NZRB. It is enshrined in the ACT and if its removed we should simply go to the streets.

3  Purpose

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) to provide effective governance arrangements for the racing industry; and

(b) to facilitate betting on galloping, harness, and greyhound races, and other sporting events; and

(c) to promote the long-term viability of New Zealand racing.

9 Functions of Board

(1) The functions of the Board are—

(a) to develop policies that are conducive to the overall economic development of the racing industry, and the economic well-being of people who, and organisations which, derive their livelihoods from racing: and

(h) to use its resources, including financial, technical, physical, and human resources, for purposes that, in the opinion of the Board, will directly or indirectly benefit New Zealand racing:

So anyone who supports the changing of the Act to exclude these clauses and the mandate under the Act can also piss off. We should demand the terms of the sports distributions. The last time I saw this sort of crap was the amendments of the previous Act. Those amendments included removing any claim that racing had in respect of the ownership of the TAB, the change in the effective control that passed from racing to the government, and the right that the racing clubs had to operate their own totes.

We can't get hijacked yet again. Madigras and Leggy...go back to Russia or wherever it is that you have come from IF you support sports receiving all of the revenue generated by betting on sports. I'm sick of this bullshit. Come on you racing organisations....get some balls and find your voices. Doing nothing...making no comment....keeping the political line....it's not acceptable at this stage of the game.

FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL DEAL IS AND GO PUBLIC TO YOUR BENEFICIARIES

[Leggy 4,096]

11 minutes ago, Midget said:

Do you understand what a body corporate is Leggy /Rod / Mardigras ? as in that it's a corporation or legal entity in its own right.

I don't think I've disputed or commented whether or not it is a body corporate or not. It's irrelevant to my argument. I thought though that a body corporate was a legal entity created when land was divided into unit titles. Whatever, it's an entity created by government legislation which also determines what it can and can't do and how it is governed and operates. It appears that legislation is about to change.