Chief Stipe

Rubbish! No one with a decent horse want's to run on a G3 at Riccarton which in reality is closer to G2! Especially when it looks like this. Where is the plan to fix it? If there is a plan will it be done before November?

Racing Minister Grant Robertson just announced a review into the welfare and safety of dogs in the Greyhound Industry. I'm telling you now Greyhound's are going to cease being an industry before the term of this Government is over. You won't get any support from the codes as it isn't in their interest. Glenda Hughes has ZERO empathy for the industry and the NZRB/RITA/TAB-NZ is controlled by Thoroughbreds. Now you can turn on each other and point the finger at certain practices and trainers BUT you will lose out and have NO industry.

I don't quite understand your formula here. Please explain. Are you saying 300 horses will trial twelve times in one season on the AWT? Or is the CJC proposing a set yearly fee to use ALL the facilities?

And the worst "Premier" Turf Track in New Zealand.

How many horses have good stabling at Riccarton now? Is there 300 in full work housed there? Is there room for more than 300?

So where are you going to get the 300 horses that you referred to in your post? How many horses have good stabling at Riccarton now? Is there 300 in full work housed there? Is there room for more than 300? This AWT reminds me of the chap who won Lotto - bought the big $4m house and the $2m boat and a couple of dud horses and then realised that his $60k a year salary wasn't enough to pay the rates, fuel the boat or pay the horse trainer! Capex is easy peasy when it is gifted to you but it is the Opex that hurts!

Shame you never accepted my offer. However what has become clearly evident is you are either motivated entirely by self-interest or have no idea of what benefits the industry as a whole. I realise you don't give a damn and probably view the AWT as your private training track but how is the recruitment of 6 more trainers with 50 or more horses going? Wasn't that YOUR estimate of what will be required to enable the AWT to pay its way? Even closing down all those tracks you mentioned isn't going to see 250 horses shift to Riccarton is it?

Perhaps that's how they will pay for its maintenance and renovation of the turf track - charge tourists and sight seers for guided tours?

Another thing that doesn't quite add up is if what we have read in the JCA judgement is 100% correct why haven't there been criminal charges laid? Are the Police "gun shy" after the INCA debacle? Or are the victims of the crimes not willing to lay complaints outside the RIU/JCA system?

The Racing Integrity Commissioner has called on Stewards to provide evidence at an own motion inquiry next week. Photo: George Salpigtidis INDUSTRY Laming stewards ordered to give evidence over bungled case Article Author Gilbert Gardiner 4:15PM15 April 2021 0 Comments Racing Victoria Stewards involved in the bungled Richard Laming case will give evidence in a three-day hearing next week. The Herald Sun has established the Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner has launched an “own motion inquiry” into RV’s failure to prosecute the high-profile integrity matter. Up to 10 people, including RV employees and members of the Victorian Racing Tribunal, received a notice from Commissioner Sean Carroll this week to attend and give evidence behind closed doors. Under the Racing Act 1958, the Commissioner has the power to summons persons or documents, administer an oath and examine a person under oath. Persons that fail to comply with these requirements could be penalised under the Act. It is understood phone records will form part of the inquiry. Carroll signalled an own motion inquiry last month. Evidence to be heard next week will not be made public. RV last month demoted the senior steward at the centre of the Laming case. RV confirmed former Compliance Assurance Team manager Dion Villella, who gave evidence to the VRT, breached an order not to contact witnesses, or interested parties during an adjournment. An internal RV review uncovered Villella “initiated contact” with steward Mark Stevens, who was also due to give evidence, “on three occasions over three days”. Carroll would not be drawn on the matter on Thursday, but confirmed his preliminary report and recommendations, to be delivered by the end of April, remains on track.

I thought there was data sharing between the jurisdictions otherwise how does the Betting Integrity Analyst (do we still have one?) check that drivers and jockeys are not betting? Hell if it was that easy that all you needed to have was an offshore account to bet on the races you were steering in! That part of the story doesn't seem quite right to me. I hope it wasn't another case of the RIU turning a blind eye hoping to find something bigger.

Is that the one they race on or another training track?

I'm not sure it is profitable as I haven't finished the financial model - still working on getting the costs. But assuming that you are "in the know" Pitty it is clear what the intent is and thanks for declaring their hand. That is - more of the same. Which quite frankly hasn't worked so far and is what has got us into this shyte - namely suck the provinces dry and shift from a low cost model of operation that had a wide market reach to a high cost model with less market reach. Here's hoping stakeholders wake up and fight back because quite frankly going on the CJC's record to date I don't have much confidence that your lot are going to get this right.

So basically the AWT at Riccarton is going to suck the regions dry? Some good turf tracks mentioned there are going to lose revenue. Low cost tracks as well. Will there be enough extra revenue to fund the renovation of the turf at Riccarton?

So what if the person has only a 1% share or less? It is only one line of data. Someone has to keep track of the source data all they have to do is share it with the HRNZ registry. As I said above - SOMEONE has to record the details and presumably electronically. All they need to do is share it with a central registry. But hell with Kerr in one case there was only TWO owners and in the other 6 or was it 7 owners. Hardly onerous. Geez as I keep saying people are quick to put the boot into those caught doing wrong but damn forgiving of the over paid administrators who seem to do nothing and have no responsibility. Galah you are quick to talk about Harness Racing being a professional sport but why can't we have a professional administration system?

Especially if they have to pay $80 a gallop on a track that doesn't suit their horse.

Very optimistic of you Pitty. With regard to the Business Case "Strawman" at this stage I'm focusing on the costs. Now the machinery costs I referred to isn't the capital cost but the annual opex costs i.e. fuel, maintenance and depreciation. So the capital is irrelevant. With regard to your "positive" approach with regard to revenue I'd rather we were realistic than Pitty in the Sky. Currently, according to the last annual accounts, the revenue obtained from "Services Rendered" which includes rentals and track fees is $514k however that includes rentals to members. Only $253k from track fees. So where are the 300 horses coming from? What will be the track gallop fee? It is AUD$80 a gallop at Pakenham. Are local trainers able to afford this? Or owners for that matter! Where are the trials shifting from? What will be the trial fee? In the model I have to be careful that I don't double dip on revenue or expenditure.

Well it wasn't particularly kosher in the first place when McKenzie was doing BOTH roles!

Mmmm a new dedicated Marketing Manager in a shirt skirt and heels that designs glossy brochures selling the virtues of the new training setup (the stables and lack of lights and security will be photo shopped out of the pictures).

FFS Gammalite this isn't complex! Example: Kerr has a colt called Hand's Down. He values it at $100,000. He tells everyone that it is $10,000 for a 10% share. Instead of 10 shares he sells 15 shares at $10,000 each. Each person who buys a share thinks they are getting 10%. None of them knows more than 2 or 3 of the other share holders. So Kerr effectively sell Hand's Down for $150,000. In reality the shareholders only have a 6.7% share. Now to stop this rort is simple. ALL Owners fill out a HRNZ ownership form that clearly states their % share. HRNZ checks that the total ownership of Hand's Down is 100% NOT 150%. If it isn't 100% then Hand's Down can't race or be sold. Now the syndicate manager might be in on the rort so he when he files the Ownership papers instead of 10 owners with 10% he files 15 owners with 6.7% banking on none of the owners knowing everyone in on the ownership. At the end of the day all you see in the racebook is the Syndicate name NOT individuals. So the filed papers pass the first HRNZ check. The second check in the system is as a registered owner you can access the HRNZ registry and check that you have the 10% you paid for. Now how hard is that? Nothing to do with who pays more of the bills than others. As you say that can be a private arrangement and of course it doesn't stop Kerr from inflating the bills sent to each of the other owners to cover his share, the syndicate manager's or his mates. Now this approach as described would also stop one of the other rorts that we saw in the Kerr case where ownership was sold in a horse that didn't exist. Every Standardbred is freeze branded and every Standardbred is recorded in the Stud Book and in HRNZ's registry. If a change in ownership occurs then the process I've described above MUST be promptly followed. If it was then there is no way someone could pay for share and get charged bills for a horse that didn't exist for OVER a YEAR!!!!! You could further tighten up the selling of registered horses by HRNZ having a compulsory escrow facility whereby the payment for shares in horses is paid and held in a HRNZ account until all conditions are met. It isn't as if HRNZ doesn't charge enough for change of ownership transactions.

Not quite! I thought I would create my own spreadsheet model as no one seems to have a copy of the business case and I can't be bothered going through an Official Information request and being told for commercial reasons I can't have it. So BOAY'ers perhaps we can put some assumptions together and jointly come up with a close estimate. Costs I have so far: 2 Extra full-time staff @$30/hr. The $30 includes overtime and all the extras that go with employing people. Total: $124,800. Should there be more additional staff? Annual Maintenance costs (including machinery opex): $50,000 Annual Reserve Account for 3 year renovation: $250,000 divided by 3 = $85,000 This figure comes from two club accounts one of which is Pakenham, Victoria, Australia. Annual costs so far: Approximately $260,000 Can anyone think of other costs? Depreciation for specialised grooming machinery?

Well we used to get a proper half yearly report. Now it is just a few marketing spin like statements and a piece of a spreadsheet on a web page. Where have all the details gone? Surely they have to do that for management purposes? I bet if you asked they would say "this is a cost saving measure"! Yeah right! Smoke and mirrors!

Fixed.....

Equity Total equity of $80 million is up $27 million (+51 percent) compared to 31 July 2020, driven largely by the retention of surplus funds to rebuild TAB NZ’s financial resilience. What does this statement really mean? Building up reserves again (when the industry stakeholders are starving) or what is required to be able to repay the $35m Overdraft that is due in August?