Public Opinion Against Supporting the Racing Industry

[We're Doomed 4,855]

1 hour ago, tasman man 11 said:

Maybe.......but the folk I'm thinking of are up to their eyes in Racing......buying expensive horses, studs and big on sponsoring.

Take Sir Owen G......OK made his money elsewhere but now a huge investor in Racing and also a huge contributor to many sports , Universities and good causes.

Sir P.....made everything from Racing /Studs.......sells his golden egg to a Racing keano who reportedly didn't even blink at the price asked.

These 3 alone would probably give the first new track ,part of which would be named after them.....their legacy !

Then all the other Racing enthusiasts who appear on the Rich List ,say over $100 million ,could give a few million each and a second is built.

Many don't realise it ,but they have plenty.....way more than they need or can spend !

I would even give a few thousand for a life membership ,my name on a seat in stand !

We are all going to die ,as many rich people come to realise as age increases and mobility decreases ,you can't take it with you and kinda pointless in giving it to your kids/grandkids to spoil them rotten and make them miserable misfits !

Its kinda obvious IMO !

They love Racing , its brought them amazing thrills ,they have more $ than they need so now its time to save the Industry !

 

Any investment has to be cost effective and self funding. If millions of dollars are poured in from somewhere but it is only pouring good money after bad what is the point?

The industry has to be properly run and efficient. Why would anyone bail out an industry that is just going to carry on as it has before when it is already on a downward spiral.

We need leadship that people have confidence in. None of the current lot would even care if the industry collapsed. Geez, most of them come from NZ Post, another twilight industry. Talk about inspirational.

[We're Doomed 4,855]

Surely our man Bernard comes from Victoria where the two main precedents for what we are after are at Geelong and Pakenham. Both of those tracks have synthetic surfaces inside the original grass track, and they are designed to provide a fair surface throughout the winter. Pakenham only spent about $9 on their polytrack. The obvious location for the allweather track is Matamata, or perhaps Te Aroha.  An 1,800m polytrack could fit inside the grass track at either of those centres, with perhaps some rearranging needed at Matamata. It's not really as big a deal as many are making out. We have the advantage of all the technical knowledge accumulated at Geelong and Pakenham.

One thing to consider is that some nearby clubs may have to close down or lose a lot of meetings. Currently Matamata has about 13 meetings annually and TeAroha 12. With the investment in an allweather surface the club selected would need to race 25-30 times annually to make them viable, these dates will have to come off someone locally. Perhaps Ellerslie might want to stop racing totally during the winter months.

[Turny 1,224]

Te Aroha - why not Gore

[Insider 3,944]

2 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

Leggy will say that the industry returns negative GNP.

Sort of like the Welfare system, is that what you and Leggy mean?

 

[We're Doomed 4,855]

18 minutes ago, turny said:

Te Aroha - why not Gore

It has to go where there are lots of horses nearby so it has the ability to be raced on regularly with reasonable size fields to provide a gambling product.

[Leggy 4,076]

3 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

Leggy will say that the industry returns negative GNP.

I don't recall ever reaching that conclusion.  I don't really see how any active industry can not make a positive contribution to GNP? I may have speculated that the cost of the racing industry producing its contribution exceeds that contribution perhaps?

[Guest 2Admin2]

8 hours ago, Leggy said:

I don't recall ever reaching that conclusion.  I don't really see how any active industry can not make a positive contribution to GNP? I may have speculated that the cost of the racing industry producing its contribution exceeds that contribution perhaps?

As you were.

[Disillusioned 389]

21 hours ago, 2Admin2 said:

It is apparent that public opinion is dead against the Government offering support and financial assistance to the Racing Industry.  They have a point when they point to the NZRB's prolific announcements that they are a "successful billion dollar industry." 

 

 

Agreed, 2Admin2.

Once again I wonder at you lot, heh heh…

You and I know that Racing needs a bit of a ‘hand up’ and that it is a fine industry, full of hard-working grassroots-type souls…

But have a look at how your industry is being portrayed by your bosses to the average man in the street.

I watched ONE News’ coverage of the Karaka Millions racenight the other day with a mate whose sole bet each year is on the Melbourne Cup.

He muttered something about ‘look at all the idle rich’ (meaning the sunglassed, wine-flute-in-hand, dark-suited Hooray Henry types there with their short-skirted dollybirds).

[That Tony Bloody Veitch earned a bob or two from Avantage’s win didn’t improve his mood much, either!]

He’d probably have said something similar if ONE News had shown any of the Karaka Sales…

The perception out there is that Racing is much like the America’s Cup.

‘Why should we help them?’, etc etc.

Exactly what are the umpteen too-highly-paid folk who ‘run’ your industry doing to clue in the public as to its value? The jobs it creates? The export income?  The benefits to that public of a little bit of taxpayer assistance?

[La Zip 468]

12 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

Surely our man Bernard comes from Victoria where the two main precedents for what we are after are at Geelong and Pakenham. Both of those tracks have synthetic surfaces inside the original grass track, and they are designed to provide a fair surface throughout the winter. Pakenham only spent about $9 on their polytrack. The obvious location for the allweather track is Matamata, or perhaps Te Aroha.  An 1,800m polytrack could fit inside the grass track at either of those centres, with perhaps some rearranging needed at Matamata. It's not really as big a deal as many are making out. We have the advantage of all the technical knowledge accumulated at Geelong and Pakenham.

One thing to consider is that some nearby clubs may have to close down or lose a lot of meetings. Currently Matamata has about 13 meetings annually and TeAroha 12. With the investment in an allweather surface the club selected would need to race 25-30 times annually to make them viable, these dates will have to come off someone locally. Perhaps Ellerslie might want to stop racing totally during the winter months.

As you know Pakenham is right in the middle of a rain belt.  A meeting scheduled for Pakenham all weather was actually transferred to Sale last year due to the state of the track....too much rain!  So again the type of surface selected is critical and as things go here in NZ, that’ll be another bun fight

[mckenzie 607]

Another issue is communication from the top. Leadership is about being able to take an idea and sell it to whoever needs to be convinced, in this case the general public. The lack of effort in selling the importance to the industry of this track to taxpayers has been glaring so far, but not unsurprising. I predict it will only get worse, and critics emboldened, as the industry fails to be proactive. 

[Peter Jenkins 2,120]

19 hours ago, hesi said:

You got it exactly right Admin

The RB is awash with truckloads of money, trouble is, a lot of it does not end up for the direct benefit of Racing

Sort that out and there is no need for asking for tax payers money.

The RB has a Culture Dept and a Head of Culture, when all  they were really meant to do was run an efficient wagering organisation.

The only culture is one of extravagance

Hesi I agree. If the costs of running the RB made a $4m saving per year for 5 years ($20m) there would be no need to ask Government for assistance. At the same time not placing a burden on stakes funds. Surely $4m a year could be trimmed in salaries and expenses ???

[Scotch Thistle 133]

16 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

Surely our man Bernard comes from Victoria where the two main precedents for what we are after are at Geelong and Pakenham. Both of those tracks have synthetic surfaces inside the original grass track, and they are designed to provide a fair surface throughout the winter. Pakenham only spent about $9 on their polytrack. The obvious location for the allweather track is Matamata, or perhaps Te Aroha.  An 1,800m polytrack could fit inside the grass track at either of those centres, with perhaps some rearranging needed at Matamata. It's not really as big a deal as many are making out. We have the advantage of all the technical knowledge accumulated at Geelong and Pakenham.

One thing to consider is that some nearby clubs may have to close down or lose a lot of meetings. Currently Matamata has about 13 meetings annually and TeAroha 12. With the investment in an allweather surface the club selected would need to race 25-30 times annually to make them viable, these dates will have to come off someone locally. Perhaps Ellerslie might want to stop racing totally during the winter months.

Ruakaka would have to downsize bigtime if a synthetic track in the Waikato was successful

[slam dunk 1,317]

50 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Hesi I agree. If the costs of running the RB made a $4m saving per year for 5 years ($20m) there would be no need to ask Government for assistance. At the same time not placing a burden on stakes funds. Surely $4m a year could be trimmed in salaries and expenses ???

Fair comment. However how come racing hierarchy has no problem supporting investment of over $50 million for some dodgy sports betting facility but then goes cap in hand to government for something directly benefittng racing.

[barryb 2,064]

3 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Hesi I agree. If the costs of running the RB made a $4m saving per year for 5 years ($20m) there would be no need to ask Government for assistance. At the same time not placing a burden on stakes funds. Surely $4m a year could be trimmed in salaries and expenses ???

The industry can have both, govt money and a shave in costs.

[Guest 2Admin2]

1 minute ago, barryb said:

The industry can have both, govt money and a shave in costs.

On what basis is it entitled to Government money?

[Guest 2Admin2]

4 minutes ago, hesi said:

Hang on a minute, isn't the RB, who operate the TAB, whose profit, by virtue of the Racing Act 2003, all goes to the racing industry, a Government Dept.

Maybe opening up a can of worms, asking for even more money

 

It isn't a Government department even though it is run like one.  It is closest to a QUANGO which only exists due to legislation.  

[Dopey 214]

I think you are all the over thinking this... storm in s tea cup. There is not a lot of outrage out there / rather “money going to what??” Comment. 

Its all fish and chip paper.

just get on with it. Plenty of industries get targeted support - it’s just racing’s turn. Even Jacinda said something along those lines on radio. DUNDEEL*

 

* money for racing is subject to a 2018 budget bid and Treasury approvals. While every effort has been given to political persuasion by the deputy prime minister, the minister of Finance (as guided by Treasury) reserve the right to divert funds as appropriate to priority investments. Please observe the Treasury safety policy at all times. 

[Phar Lap Fan 103]

Why is the Marketing/Public Relations Department on N.Z. R. so quiet? So quiet that I wonder if there is one. Somebody could point out that problem gamblers have other outlets (pokie machines that seem more addictive), T.A.B. returns approximately 80% of investments in dividends ( Lotto about 50%, casinos less?), racing is an industry that employs people, racing and breeding are export industries, etc. Must be a Media Consultant somewhere who is paid to invent this crap!

I'm more bothered by the Government spending money on the America's Cup 'sport', which is rather dependent on N.Z. winning the damned thing several times to warrant any investment. Hardly a spectator sport and provides employment to a small group of skilled people.

Nearly forgot - betting is taxed on turnover, not profit alone. Where else does that apply?

[Guest 2Admin2]

Eh?  Betting taxed on turnover?  Aren't you confused with NZRB takeout rates?

[Leggy 4,076]

1 hour ago, Phar Lap Fan said:

Nearly forgot - betting is taxed on turnover, not profit alone. Where else does that apply?

Yeahh, don't know where you dreamed that up from Phar Lap. Betting duty on racing is 4% gross profit.

 

[Insider 3,944]

37 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Yeahh, don't know where you dreamed that up from Phar Lap. Betting duty on racing is 4% gross profit.

 

How do you work out gross profit on betting?

In a normal business where you buy and sell something the gross profit is the difference between what you pay for it and what you sell it for.

I guess that you are saying that for every dollar invested, the Government takes the first 4%, then more is taken by the Racing Board (TAB),  then the balance is returned to the punter in the way of dividends. 

The amount taken by the TAB to fund everything depends on the tote or fixed odds, which can be quite different. 

Leggy if I am wrong please explain it to me and others so that we are all on the same page. 

Oh, and where does GST come into it?

[Guest 2Admin2]

2 minutes ago, Insider said:

How do you work out gross profit on betting?

In a normal business where you buy and sell something the gross profit is the difference between what you pay for it and what you sell it for.

I guess that you are saying that for every dollar invested, the Government takes the first 4%, then more is taken by the Racing Board (TAB),  then the balance is returned to the punter in the way of dividends. 

The amount taken by the TAB to fund everything depends on the tote or fixed odds, which can be quite different. 

Leggy if I am wrong please explain it to me and others so that we are all on the same page. 

Oh, and where does GST come into it?

Geez where have you been for the last ten years!

Totalisator:  set take out rate per bet type.  Varies on bet type.  Dividends to punters equals total turnover less take out percentage.  E.g.  $100 revenue less $17 take out equals $83 to punters.  $17 less costs equals profits which are taxed.  The $17 is revenue.

Fixed odds have variable returns based on how smart the bookie is.  Theoretically some books can return a loss.  So the revenue from FO is what is left after fixed odd liabilities are paid.

[N1MUE 1,877]

17 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

$17 less costs equals profits which are taxed.  The $17 is revenue.

No that's not quite right either.

They are exempt from Income tax so its not (revenue less costs) x tax rate as you suggest.

They pay 4% betting duty on the $17 in your example.  The $17 less the 4% gives you their net betting revenue, from which you then deduct expenses to see what is left for distribution.

 

[Guest 2Admin2]

Duty:  tax by another name.  Trying to keep it simple for Liz.  But you are correct the 4% is on gross revenue.  As is the GST is it not?

Theoretically the recovery is factored into the takeout rate which some argue isn't competitive with other betting options.  Hence the move to further legislate the NZRB monopoly.  No market incentive to reduce costs.

[N1MUE 1,877]

Yep agree duty is tax by another name - it's what gets taxed that is different to the way you explained it.