Owners muscle up with OIA requests

[Barry Lichter 179]

https://www.lincolnfarms.co.nz/stories/owners-muscle-up-oia-request-for-answers-from-rita-could-fuel-judicial-action/

[We're Doomed 4,855]

It does show the stupidity of the old Racing Authority and the old TAB both now being merged as Rita. (Stupid bloody name too, everytime I see it mentioned on the news I wonder what the hell the public must think it means)

It is becoming totally obvious that the TAB should just be allowed to go bust and the industry should get in an overseas operator to provide betting services, with an upfront fee to fund stakes until the industry gets moving again.

Bit hard for rita to declare itself bankrupt. Can it chop off one arm and retain the other? How the hell can an incompetent, bankrupt outfit have a gig on the side where they are supposed to manage the entire racing industry. People have to get over the idea that the TAB is somehow an integral part of the industry. They are a service organisation, they are as relevant as the people who provide the pies or the hotdogs for race meetings. They can be replaced, just like any other supplier to the industry.

I just hope the racing industry hasn't somehow signed a personal guarantee to guarantee the TAB's $80m odd of debt.

[Leggy 4,076]

$80m? I thought it was $40m odd?

[We're Doomed 4,855]

57 minutes ago, Leggy said:

$80m? I thought it was $40m odd?

Like most others on here I make up most of these numbers as I go.

[Peter R S 412]

There is no limited liability like you get with a company, actually the government probably has to stand behind it, so walking away from contracts won’t be an option.

[Pam Robson 1,547]

8 hours ago, Leggy said:

$80m? I thought it was $40m odd?

That was the figure Pitty referred to on his TV appearances.

I assume that is 40 to mop up the debt and 40 to kickstart it 

[Leggy 4,076]

2 hours ago, Pam Robson said:

That was the figure Pitty referred to on his TV appearances.

I assume that is 40 to mop up the debt and 40 to kickstart it 

Maybe that is what WD was referring to but I thought he was referring to current TAB debt not the extra $80m that Pitty proposed they incur. That would make a total of $120m odd wouldn't it? Cripes, that is a scary thought with no strategy or revenue to repay it.

[Redoute's Choice 16]

10 hours ago, We're Doomed said:

It does show the stupidity of the old Racing Authority and the old TAB both now being merged as Rita. (Stupid bloody name too, everytime I see it mentioned on the news I wonder what the hell the public must think it means)

It is becoming totally obvious that the TAB should just be allowed to go bust and the industry should get in an overseas operator to provide betting services, with an upfront fee to fund stakes until the industry gets moving again.

Bit hard for rita to declare itself bankrupt. Can it chop off one arm and retain the other? How the hell can an incompetent, bankrupt outfit have a gig on the side where they are supposed to manage the entire racing industry. People have to get over the idea that the TAB is somehow an integral part of the industry. They are a service organisation, they are as relevant as the people who provide the pies or the hotdogs for race meetings. They can be replaced, just like any other supplier to the industry.

I just hope the racing industry hasn't somehow signed a personal guarantee to guarantee the TAB's $80m odd of debt.

Is one betting agency in a country akin to one insurance agency, one bank? If Australia can race in 6 states and have a plethora of betting agencies operating alongside each other surely we could have more than just the TAB.

[Tapu 48]

I thought the TAB belongs to the racing clubs so how can anyone offer it as collateral for loans when they don’t own the asset?  The document from 1950 clarified ownership.

 

[Tapu 48]

Ministers instructions to RITA

The Minister instructed RITA should ensure as much money as possible goes to additional prizemoney – not racing industry overheads by:

* Maintaining the current level of overall funding to the codes as a baseline.

* Minimising transitional costs for the industry and government.

* Looking for efficiency gains in operations without compromising organisational capability and ensure the transfer of functions to the codes does not result in an overall increase in cost to the industry.

* Progress the doubling of returns to owners as a key component of the cycle of revitalisation in the Massara Report.

Critically, RITA was to have provided written and non-financial reports to the Minister for Racing and his department not later than four weeks after the end of each quarter.

“I may alter this frequency depending on RITA’s performance and risks,” Peter said.

“In addition, there is a ‘no surprises’ expectation, under which RITA is required to inform my office and the department of any material matter that arises and respond promptly to information requests.”

Questions sent in under the Official Information Act by the federation seek, among other things, to discover whether the above instructions have been carried out.

Under the Act answers must be provided within 20 working days but extensions can be sought if producing a large quantity of information unreasonably interferes with the operations of the agency.

[Tapu 48]

In his letter the Minister demanded RITA:

* Make best use of the $3.5m Crown contribution to the cost of industry change – ensuring that this funding ‘buys change’ rather than underwrites business as usual activities.

* Improve customer service while improving operational efficiencies.

* Provide for temporary management of residual functions, if necessary, after the formation of RITA’s successor organisation and the devolution of the intended functions to the codes.

* Avoid any further deterioration in the RITA balance sheet and put steps in place for improvement.

* Embed a customer service ethos that invests efforts into keeping promises, being realistic in making promises, and delivering on target.

The letter also said RITA must complete the work started by the Ministerial Advisory Committee.

It should:

* Prepare a devolution of racing functions to the racing codes.

* Continue assessment whether TAB betting operations should be outsourced to a third party – including exploring the extent to which joint venture and other arrangements with betting, broadcasting and gaming operators can provide the organisation with cost-effective access to up-to-date skills, knowledge and technologies.

[Leggy 4,076]

17 minutes ago, Tapu said:

I thought the TAB belongs to the racing clubs so how can anyone offer it as collateral for loans when they don’t own the asset?  The document from 1950 clarified ownership.

 

Don't think so Tapu. The 1950s docs say that clubs underwrote the loan used to start the TAB, not that they owned it. That loan was quickly repaid.

Not that anyone would probably want to own it at the moment anyway by the sound of things.

[Pam Robson 1,547]

31 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Don't think so Tapu. The 1950s docs say that clubs underwrote the loan used to start the TAB, not that they owned it. That loan was quickly repaid.

Not that anyone would probably want to own it at the moment anyway by the sound of things.

And - I stand to be corrected, as always - I thought that the formation of the new entity, the RB from the former RIB/TAB in the 2003 Racing Act vested ownership in the Govt.