Chief Stipe

So what say you about the new RITA team? Concrete evidence to show they did NOTHING but make the situation worse.

So the NEW management were still purchasing brooms in order to sweep clean?

There is no balance sheet information so one can only extrapolate..... To fund the distributions they needed to borrow another $15m. Taking their Equity position to $9m. Technically not-solvent however if you consider the future distribution commitment (stakes) as a liability then yes they were insolvent and now it is worse.

Total Operating Expenses UP $4.5m on the same period in 2019.

Net betting revenue comparison for the same six month period: 2018 $153m 2019 $143m 2020 $147m Ok up $4m from 2019 but still down $5m on 2018. So much for the new betting platform.

How is that a highlight or even a goal when you sold the silver and then borrowed money to achieve it!!!? FFS! Does any company in the real world borrow money and declare it as profit!?

What it does show is what we all suspected that there was a high level of doing NOTHING! They were lucky Covid-19 intervened! For example NO action was taken on staff expenses in fact they were OVER budget!

JJ Flash - yep as the more enlightened amongst us suspected RITA were in the shit, knew it and did nothing about it. I think Mackenzie's use of the word "Highlights" is an embellishment!

Rule Number(s): 638(3)(b)(ii)Following the running of Race 8 (NZB Ready To Run Sale 1400) Information No. A12920 was filed with the Judicial Committee. It was alleged that Ms Schofer, the Rider of ARICINA used her whip excessively prior to the 100m. Ms Schofer and Mr Harris said that they understood the Rule and the Charge and confirmed ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 642(1)Following the running of Race No 9, the BGP Battlers Cup1000, an Information was filed Instigating a Protest pursuant to Rule 642(1). The Informant Mr Cole, alleged that horse number 9 (ALI BABA) placed 1st by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 8 (VAINGLORY) placed 2nd by the Judge. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(3)(b)Following the running of Race 6, Lamb & Hayward Pace, an information was filed by Stipendiary Steward, Ms R Haley, against Licensed Junior Driver, Mr B A Laughton, alleging a breach of Rule 869 (3) (b) in that Mr Laughton, as the driver of SWEET LORESS in the race, “near the 700 metres he allowed his ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

About bloody time. Only 87 days late! Now for the analysis. Hang on a mo - where's the detail? The devils always in the detail!!!

Fixed. Maybe I should tell the JCA how to fix it on their website!

There were already sentencing guidelines and precedents set. If you read the JCA judgment you will see reference to them!!!! The irony of course is if this action was taken in a Court then McGrath (assuming he didn't plead guilty) would have got off vis a vis INCA. In terms of justice McGrath has had his resources sucked dry as have a number of INCA accused. Therefore has no option but to roll over. Thinking more about that with the JCA and RIU being moved under the same roof (The Racing Integrity Board) as legislated by the Racing Industry Act 2020 and (God help us) the one management team perhaps there is a need for industry stakeholders to create structures to protect themselves financially. For example: a voluntary levy for all trainers, owners, drivers and jockeys (all licensed staff?); create an insurance scheme for legal costs and damages; ? Then it would be a fair fight. Might even force the RIB to get their stuff sorted.

Rule Number(s): 870(3)and Breaking Horse RegulationsFollowing the running of race 4 an Information instigating a protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren, against ONLY ONE WAY (M Williamson), placed 5th by the judge, on the grounds that it “galloped in excess of 50 metres over the concluding stages”. Mr Williamson had endorsed on the ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 870(3) and Breaking Horse RegulationsFollowing the running of race 1, an Information instigating a protest was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren, against THE ARTFUL DODGER (M Williamson), placed 5th by the Judge, on the grounds that it “galloped in excess of 150 metres in the early stages” thereby breaching Rule 870(3) and ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 638(1)(d)Following the running of Race 10 (BJW Motors/ Rayner Building 1400), an Information was lodged by Mr Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 638(1)(d) in that A Mudhoo caused interference in the home straight. Mr Mudhoo confirmed his understanding of the charge and his admission of the breach. Mrs Clapperton ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 642(1)Following Race 10 (BJW Motors/Rayner Building 1400) a protest was lodged pursuant to Rule 642(1) by Mr Vile alleging that horse number 5 (RELDA) or its rider placed 2nd by the Judge interfered with the chances of horse number 12 (DOUBLE ACT) placed 4th by the Judge. The Information alleged interference ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 614(2)An Information was lodged by Mr Neil Goodwin alleging a breach of Rule 614 (2) in that C Thornton saddled the wrong runners in race 2, AL HARAM and RICHARD OF YORK. Mr Goodwin told the Committee that both runners presented as normal in the enclosure and it was only when the riders came to mount up that ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Yeah...that makes sense if the dissolution of a Club was the only way to force the acquisition of a Club's assets. However from my understanding of the Legislation if NZTR decides your venue is "Surplus" then they can force the issue through that path of the Legislation. The issue which may be where the legal battle is fought is how is a venue determined to be "Surplus"? From a natural justice point of view if we use Cambridge Jockey Club as an example. If on the one hand you give Cambridge $10m and help with the other $6m required to create a NEW racing venue. Then you TAKE the race dates away from other Clubs and give them to Cambridge so they can pay their way. Then you say sorry to those you took the dates away from but you are now "Surplus" we want your assets. Well obviously the race dates themselves were never surplus. Or more importantly you create NEW race dates but only give them to Cambridge... Do you get my point? You create essentially 3 new venues and make a swag of existing venues "Surplus." I'm guessing that NZTR rather than creating any new criteria are just going to refer back to the Messara Report and what it says are "Surplus." However as Freda pointed out in a very good post when it suited them those that had been defined as "Surplus" suddenly became needed! NZTR and Racing NZ will argue Covid-19 caused that (boy how much in NZ is going to be blamed on Covid-19!) and so you can stuff because you were all fully consulted during the Messara report and the MAC. The weakness in that argument is that as pointed out by Reefton is that the criteria used was not clear and if there was any it was not applied equally to all venues. E.g. shit hole Kumara (Reefton quote) vs Hokitika vs Reefton vs Omoto.

Wairoa is one. Spill mikie or if you don't want to then PM me.

They'll have to keep the funding at a $1m afterall imagine what it would cost to rebrand the Karaka Million!

Very good point. Late last night long after finishing my excruciating convoluted journey through the legislation I had a thought - how much time and money ($millions) was spent on writing that piece of crap?

Westland Racing Club - SOLD from under the eyes of NZTR. ?

Yes I've got a copy of that. The interesting part of the exercise is putting the assets value alongside each. Including those that don't own their land but have cash in the bank. LOL I don't think it is a windfall however NZTR could end up with a lot a tractors. Perhaps they could swap out their and RITA'S corporate cars.