poundforpound

Now the sh#t hits the fan

45 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, weasel57 said:

can this industry pay a higher price than is already being paid? National did nothing significant to revitalise an ailing industry in nearly a decade of power. At least we are seeing real legislative action, led by Winston, delivering on his promise for the codes pre-2017 election; any imperfections in this Bill can be amended over time. ,National is farting into the wind arguing the toss over this 'rushed' Bill; it will be passed, so they may as well pick on another issue -preferably one that they haven't already lost  credibility on. 

Not only National asking questions apparently....

http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/340080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, poundforpound said:

Ted, you’re a dinosaur.....Racing doesn’t own the TAB, nor did it fund the establishment of the TAB......punters did that......that argument you’re using is old & tired......feel free to explain how greyhounds fit into your model though.

A 50,000 pound overdraft was taken out to set up the TAB in 1949. Late 1950 a gaming amendment allowed for 7.5% commission on all off-course bets. That loan kept them solvent in the early years. Prominent Wanganui racing administrator Richard Sewell was a taxation consultant and he persuaded the TAB to distribute all it's profits to the clubs each year and then borrow the money back to meet it's capital requirements (keeping some of the money for it's own development) and legitimately avoiding paying too much tax. These loans which were contributed by clubs in the ratio that their respective share of profit bore to total profit reach $500,000 by October 1971. These were repaid in 1976 $160,00 and 1977 $340,000.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, poundforpound said:

Ted, you’re a dinosaur.....Racing doesn’t own the TAB, nor did it fund the establishment of the TAB......punters did that......that argument you’re using is old & tired......feel free to explain how greyhounds fit into your model though.

Not quite right. The racing conference took a loan out from the BNZ to develop the totalisator and fund its operational activities. The loan was repaid from profits, the majority of it being betting. Had Gary Chittick and Murray Acklin dug their toes in under National, they wouldn't have seen ownership of the TAB vest in government's hands through the introduction of a clause that locked down any challenges of ownership (past and future) and set them aside. Essentially Gary Chittick and Murray Acklin agreed to grant ownership of a $1b business to the government without as much as a whelp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As I said the TAB establishment costs were effectively met by profits derived from punters .....that means the punters own the TAB not the racing industry 

Quote

 

My mate purchased a bar mostly on loaned finance, profits generated from his patrons effectively met the costs to establish it but his patrons by doing that don't own his bar. The TAB was established by the Racing Industry to combat illegal bookmakers. The TAB provided a service for punters where the racing industry could reap the benefits. When you make a transaction as a customer to an organisation selling a product you have zero entitlement to any ownership.   

Clubs had to supply the venues for owners to race their horses which punters then bet on. For the TAB's establishment  racing Clubs had to be exist before punters did. TAB operating costs were met by profits derived from punters after its establishment. The 50,000 pound loan to help establish the TAB was repaid from profits derived from its customers not partners.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help me understand how the greyhound code fits into that scenario 

Anyway your argument is facile, the ownership of the TAB was long ago ceded ( is that a word ?) to the state, be it right or wrong, it’s happened and it’s water under the bridge 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greyhounds became part of the TAB in the early 80's I think. As an organisation they had to buy into the TAB for around $17 million which was the agreed amount to compensate for the money that the galloping and harness codes had invested into the establishment and further development of the TAB. Obviously they didn't have that amount of money at the time so it was treated as a loan to be paid back from revenue generated from their racing product.  When the Racing Authority was replaced by the TAB many industry loans were wiped and I think about that time the Greyhound loan was written off.

There was a report commissioned years ago who I can't remember to establish who actually owned the TAB but I don't think it was ever finally determined. If the State owns it they need to be pumping more money into it as ownership wise they have let it deteriorate. Maybe they could also take ownership of the $30 million overdraft.

Bottom line is your correct its all water under the bridge but the waters now higher and about to wash the bridge away. 

      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Berri said:

snipped...........

A sucker like NZRB comes along and pays for the development of a "new look FOB platform" but doesn't own the exclusive rights to deploy. That belongs to the developers (Open Bet), who are also competitors because they have retained the rights to distribute the platform in other jurisdictions. To really push the boat out, these developers have also negotiated a service agreement which allegedly provides the Open Bet with fees of $17m per annum. 

............................

 No doubt the NZRB will also be sucked into giving away the furniture with 5G.

Obviously 5G will be huge for all sports but racing needs to be innovative like linking up say with tourism. More direct video for an overseas investor in NZ thoroughbreds like the mare foaling then right through to racing.

I am convinced now that the disastrous TAB website was purposedly designed to switch punters away from tote onto fixed odds hence sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LightsOut said:

My mate purchased a bar mostly on loaned finance, profits generated from his patrons effectively met the costs to establish it but his patrons by doing that don't own his bar. The TAB was established by the Racing Industry to combat illegal bookmakers. The TAB provided a service for punters where the racing industry could reap the benefits. When you make a transaction as a customer to an organisation selling a product you have zero entitlement to any ownership.   

Clubs had to supply the venues for owners to race their horses which punters then bet on. For the TAB's establishment  racing Clubs had to be exist before punters did. TAB operating costs were met by profits derived from punters after its establishment. The 50,000 pound loan to help establish the TAB was repaid from profits derived from its customers not partners.  

I was going to say much the same thing, so you have saved me the effort. As to the Greyhounds; yes they had to pay their share in recognition of the fact that the other two codes had originally paid to set up the TAB and they couldn't be expected to make use of it without recognising that fact..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LightsOut said:

My mate purchased a bar mostly on loaned finance, profits generated from his patrons effectively met the costs to establish it but his patrons by doing that don't own his bar. The TAB was established by the Racing Industry to combat illegal bookmakers. The TAB provided a service for punters where the racing industry could reap the benefits. When you make a transaction as a customer to an organisation selling a product you have zero entitlement to any ownership.   

Clubs had to supply the venues for owners to race their horses which punters then bet on. For the TAB's establishment  racing Clubs had to be exist before punters did. TAB operating costs were met by profits derived from punters after its establishment. The 50,000 pound loan to help establish the TAB was repaid from profits derived from its customers not partners.  

Exactly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth remembering is that when Sports Betting was first mooted the Lotteries Commission lobbied hard to run it. There is always a chance a government could allow some sports betting with the Lotteries people.

TAB was always more interested in cementing sports betting for itself at the expense of racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, poundforpound said:

As I said the TAB establishment costs were effectively met by profits derived from punters .....that means the punters own the TAB not the racing industry 

you've weighed in ..light AGAIN..it means no such thing..without the punters there is..NOTHING...their representation is nil.

I recall a former head of the NZRB,who had many 'fans' referred to them as ..'scum'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, poundforpound said:

As I said the TAB establishment costs were effectively met by profits derived from punters .....that means the punters own the TAB not the racing industry 

That’s like say that your customers own HQ! 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Charlie Bukowski said:

So the nzrb is paying $17,000,000 a month to use openbet ,

That equates to $46,700 per  day or....

$327,000 per week

Worth it you think ??

Also Great post Berri

$17,000,000 per annum. 

"A sucker like NZRB comes along and pays for the development of a "new look FOB platform" but doesn't own the exclusive rights to deploy. That belongs to the developers (Open Bet), who are also competitors because they have retained the rights to distribute the platform in other jurisdictions. To really push the boat out, these developers have also negotiated a service agreement which allegedly provides the Open Bet with fees of $17m per annum."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rdytdy said:

$17,000,000 per annum. 

"A sucker like NZRB comes along and pays for the development of a "new look FOB platform" but doesn't own the exclusive rights to deploy. That belongs to the developers (Open Bet), who are also competitors because they have retained the rights to distribute the platform in other jurisdictions. To really push the boat out, these developers have also negotiated a service agreement which allegedly provides the Open Bet with fees of $17m per annum."  

F##KIN IDIOTS ! :rcf-angry-2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rdytdy said:

$17,000,000 per annum. 

"A sucker like NZRB comes along and pays for the development of a "new look FOB platform" but doesn't own the exclusive rights to deploy. That belongs to the developers (Open Bet), who are also competitors because they have retained the rights to distribute the platform in other jurisdictions. To really push the boat out, these developers have also negotiated a service agreement which allegedly provides the Open Bet with fees of $17m per annum."  

Spot On Ted , cheers.

It's getting scarier ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Insider said:

That’s like say that your customers own HQ! 

Really?

That wasn’t my point.

I was offering an alternate view of who owns the TAB.....the ignorami have this delusional idea the racing industry owns it, when clearly it doesn’t, my view is that it’s just as reasonable to say those who funded it own it.....and there’s no disputing that punters funded it.

The reality of course is that the TAB was officially made the property of the gummint many years ago.....which in turn means it’s effectively the property of the tax payer, and so we all own it, but given that I pay far more taxes than you lot I guess I own more of the TAB than you :) in fact, based on my punting form of the last two years I probably own at least one retail outlet..

Seriously though, the TAB is legally owned by the NZRB, and the NZRB is a body corporate established by virtue of The Racing Act 2003 and owned by the state.

The area of debate should be who owns the IP of the industry.....but given that most contributors here on Cafe can’t do their shoe laces up there’s no real point in debating something quite so esoteric as industry IP ownership.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now