Chief Stipe

True but we imported most of if not all of those races. I hope they are analysing the data they captured during Covid-19.

Maybe not in recent months. By December 2019 RITA had done deals with 80% of the online Australian Bookmakers. So you are right this would have shown up in the half-yearly report. That information would have given a solid indication of the returns to be expected from this channel. If it was good news then the release of those figures would have gone some way to appease those of us that have doubts about RITA's predictions on the returns. In the last annual report $22m was received in fees from offshore agencies for betting on NZ races. $28m was paid in fees for offshore races shown and bet on through the NZ TAB. A deficit of $6m. Which is not surprising given we imported 88,000 races and exported 10,000 races. There's also another $1.5m in commingling fees. Interesting too that 50% of the races we export are greyhound races.

But it would have at least given us a view that the necessary actions were being taken however I suspect there was a lot of hand sitting, borrow and hope, and waiting for the Racing Reform Bill White Rabbit. Covid-19 was an external risk that although not exactly able to be quantified could have been broadly identified as one of those risks that reserves (rainy day) are used for. With regard to the very quick depletion of substantial reserves we have had years of constant mist and drizzle rather than a torrential downpour. The latter being Covid-19. Essentially my point is the half-yearly report would have shown us that the new management was taking steps to address the fundamental issues quickly. As for racefields revenue - what is your calculation on its quantum? Enough to cover the fees of the 80% of the races broadcast that come from other jurisdictions?

The withheld half-yearly report would have shown us: What actions had been undertaken to reduce costs; The status of the revolving credit drawdown; Senior Executive salaries including the new CEO's; The RITA Board members remuneration, number of meetings and meeting attendance; Shortfall in creditor payments; Most importantly - 6 months of the new betting system and impacts on revenue.

Which meant they needed to slash costs straight away instead they drew down the rest of the revolving credit and stopped paying creditors.

And no doubt full access to the NZRB's financials.

Brodie I have to agree with those that are saying you are behind on this one. This was posted on the Gallops forum on May 3.

Especially when the MAC and RITA's Board are the same people. Also is it correct to say RITA continued with the new season stakes commitment based on the borrow and hope policy of the previous Boards?

He did have - he could have slashed costs.

They used up their revolving credit facility of $45m which has to be paid up or renewed April 2021. I would assume they will need a Government guarantee to either repay, renew or refinance. For that to occur it would probably need an amendment to the new racing reform bill!

It wasn't bank repayments but payments for the new software and broadcasting. Two strategic decisions that are affecting all current decisions.

I'm asking you as you purport to have more experience and knowledge than the rest of us on this matter. However that is doubtful especially based on your interpretation of employment law. You "suspect"?! Didn't you read the terms of reference for the Racing Industry Transition Agency? Or the MAC for that matter? The bill was introduced into Parliament in MAY 2019. So it wasn't on RITA's priority list!! RITA's brief was to transition the industry towards the recommendations of the Messara report. Of course one of the tasks of RITA was to move the industry towards profitability and growth. You write this statement as if it is a fundamental truth when in fact it is far from that. Numerous new boards brought in with a clear mandate to address issues of insolvency or negative profitability move quickly to make changes. That is largely their mandate. As was RITA's. As for the RITA's Board "not knowing the business they inherited" is a load of BS. They had full visibility of the business for a full 6 months BEFORE becoming Board members. Plus they were appointed for their "experience and knowledge" of the industry! MacKenzie presumably once had the full support of the Minister who made him Chairman AND CEO of RITA. A position of incredible power over RITA. What was done? Nothing until Covid-19 arrived AND creditors pulled the pin. MacKenzie and co were relying on the Bill going through quickly enabling asset pillaging and racefields POC legislation to balance the books and provide new revenue. They were sitting on their hands waiting for this to happen because they didn't have the gumption to act and do the hard yards.

Why didn't McKenzie and his Board TWELVE MONTHS ago start that process?

Don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative. McKenzie has been in charge for nearly 12 months. His Board team have been on the job for 18 months! We got half yearly and yearly reports each year that their predecessors were there. What's more we got weekly reports on turnover.

Rule Number(s): 869 (2) & Whip RegulationsMr Ferguson (HANS IDEAL) was charged with a breach of r 869 (2) and the Whip Regulations in that he used his whip excessively in Race 2. Mr Ferguson admitted the breach and appeared at the hearing. Miss Haley, with the use of the video, pointed out the position of HANS IDEAL prior to the home turn. Mr ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869 (2) & Whip RegulationsMr Hunter (CALL ME KEITH) was charged with a breach of r 869 (2) and the Whip Regulations in that he used his whip excessively in Race 3. Mr Hunter admitted the breach and appeared at the hearing. Miss Hayley, with the use of the videos, stated CALL ME KEITH was following the leaders into the home straight. ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2) and Contravention of Use of Whip RegulationsRACEDAY JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECISION Informant: Mr N Ydgren - Chief Stipendiary Steward Respondent: Mr MJ Anderson, Licensed Open Driver Information No: ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Rule Number(s): 869(2)Following the running of Race 10 an information was filed by Chief Stipendiary Steward, Mr N Ydgren, against Licensed Open Driver, Mr D Butt, alleging that as the driver of MARIA TSARINA in the race, “used his whip on more occasions than permitted by clause (b) of the whip regulations”. Mr Butt requested ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

View the full article

Obviously I don't understand how the subsidy criteria works. Politically it doesn't sit right with me that all the racing organisations involved could essentially claim the subsidy for the loss of the same source of revenue i.e. a bit like double dipping. Also as "businesses" they don't actually pay tax. However you can't begrudge them for playing the game and getting the dosh.

"Year on year income" - what month to what month? PS: Did Foxton get a subsidy? If not why not?

Even so given their largest revenue earners happened BEFORE the lockdown the numbers don't add up.

But aren't those payments to cover the cost of holding race meetings - which didn't happen?

The numbers don't seem to add up to meet the criteria unless they claim the loss of revenue from RITA. The majority of which gets paid back out in stakes - given they didn't race that means they didn't have the cost either.