Chief Stipe

NO. I love debate. But I'm driven by logic and facts. I work hard to eliminate emotion from my arguments. You could be black, brown, yellow, white or indifferent. Male, female, binary or undecided. Poor, rich, mega-rich or have an account in the Cayman's. I don't care. It is what you say and whether or not it has sound logic and/or facts to support it. I remember a debate I was in at High School. Westland High vs Marlborough Girls High - 1978. We had the debate at Murchison High (Buller) because that was a compromise in terms of distance. The moot was something along the lines of "the World is running out of oil.....something else" - I can't remember exactly. We were the negative team i.e. we were debating that "the World is not running out of oil...". I was third speaker for the Negative so I had the most rebuttal. I went in guns blazing BUT....backed up with a whole lot of research. Note we didn't have the internet in those days. Essentially my argument was based on the premise - "based on the data how do you know that we are running out of oil?" I had the girls from Marlborough Girls High crying - literally tears flowing! I'd ripped everything they said to shreds. Anyway - in 1978 we were going to run out of oil within 5 years. We now have 42 years later more oil than we can sell. Westland High lost that debate. Why? Because the adjudicator (from Murchison High) didn't have a clue about adjucicating a debate. Which was evident in the statement when he rubbished my speech by saying that "everyone knows we are running out of oil." PS: It didn't help that I gave Bill Rowling a serve in my speech and didn't know that it was on national radio that his son had committed suicide. FFS Politics.

He must have a doozy of a contract or has pictures of key individuals riding goats! My oil tells me that there are some serious issues that have been covered up in the bookie department and some quiet departures. If Peter's wasn't whiskey brain dead he'd be calling for a forensic inquiry.

No on page 12 of RITA's annual report for 2019 you will see a list of the number of people on $100,000 or more. There is only 1 in the $690k to $700k range. One would assume this wasn't the sausage roll stuffer but the CEO. Galah that is where you do sound like a galah. If you have followed my posts over the years you will find that my criticism has been consistent regardless of who the Minister was or is. The difference between you and I is I put my political affiliations aside (this year was the first year in 36 years that I have been motivated to contribute to a political party) and focus on the data, the issues, the proposed changes and their potential outcomes and unintended consequences. I'm not blinded by my political or economic philosophy. The only reason I devalue your opinion, just as I do JJ Flash's, is that there is no substance - no data, no facts just a continual diatribe of either trust me or revisionist history!

Galah you don't do your argument any good by making it political. Peters is no different to the rest of them over the years and if you think that this current Board doesn't have its nose in the trough then you are either partisan to the point of being irrational or just plain naive. Unfortunately you are blinding yourself with historical actions and politics instead of looking at what is happening NOW! If you value harness then wake up to the fact that things are being controlled NOT by your code.

Not correct. I believe McKenzie is close to being paid more than Allen at $630k a year.

In another opinion piece De Lore states that his sources tell him that McKenzie is on $630,000. As CEO he takes 10 months to do anything and even then the action is driven by Covid-19. Same old same old. However the looming issue is the new Racing Industry Bill - this will change the racing landscape forever and not for the good I'm afraid. In a nutshell what it does is: Devolves the NZRB functions to the three codes OTHER THAN the function of wagering; Gives power to each of the codes to Register and DEREGISTER Clubs i.e. determine who races and who doesn't and who have other functions within the industry e.g. trials and workouts; Of those clubs each code deregisters they will be given the power to acquire and distribute their assets as they determine (not the clubs). Further if unable to get agreement or when they face legal difficulties in doing so they will be able to appeal to the Minister for An Order in Council to effectively confiscate those assets and distribute as the code administration recommends; Creates a new entity called TAB NZ which will be responsible for managing wagering and generating revenue for the three codes - each of the codes will be share holders in that new entity; Create a new entity called the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) to take over the functions of the RIU and JCA. Boy is there some snakes in that lot!!!

What I've been posting for weeks. Come in JJ Flash.

I owe you an apology JJ Flash. I've done as you suggested and thoroughly looked into Birnies background. Yes he is well suited for the job of selling RITA off to Australia. His experience coming from his involvement with the sale of the assets of BNZ, Post Bank, Telecom, Tranz Rail and others to overseas interests. Oh and more recently the sale of Purerua Peninsula in Northland to the Swiss. Mmmm I wonder if Shane and Winnie had a role in that?

No the NZRB was useless. Peter's didn't do much when he was Minister previously. Now get back on topic.

It's irrelevant if it is or it isn't a requirement. However it has been custom and practice for decades. The industry stakeholders should be shown transparency.

Bloke - how many times have you posted this? Getting bloody boring.

That's going to be a bit tricky when the brief that RITA has is to devolve most of its functions to the codes! 9Functions of Agency (1)The functions of the Agency are— (aa)to lead and manage the reform of New Zealand racing during the transition period, including (without limitation) by— (i)implementing a fit-for-purpose organisational structure for the governance of the racing industry: (ii)preparing for the transfer of the Agency’s functions to the racing codes and its successor organisation: (iii)supporting sustainability of the racing industry by undertaking initiatives to ensure efficiency and drive revenue growth: (iv)carrying out any other things necessary or desirable to promote the objective of reforming New Zealand racing:

Politicians would rather throw money at a problem than admit they were wrong. What surprises me is that Peters appointed Birnie who was knee deep in the infamous "Wine Box" inquiry through being the CEO of Fay Richwhite. If you start following some convoluted trails you start to find some dodgy connections in all sorts of things going on at the moment not just in racing. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sharemarket/news/article.cfm?c_id=316&objectid=12689 It is primarily through through the transactions referred to in the article that Birnie made his money.

No as far as I'm aware there isn't any statutory requirement apart from the 5 year performance review. However it has been custom and practice for many many years to release a half yearly report. Considering the number of stakeholders that depend on the revenue RITA generates you would think that it would be at least a courtesy to release regular financial statements. I've heard that the Minister wasn't particularly happy with the lack of progress by RITA prior to his bailout funding.

Can you translate all that for all the old core listener's?

Well they need someone to manage 77 race meetings

The one that they did get so far wasn't done by the Courts but by the JCA where it should have been done in the first place!

JJ - google the following for a start and tell us what you find: Bergdoff Investments Bernie Capital Property Partners Then join dots to: South Canterbury Finance Hanover Finance etc. etc.

Rule Number(s): r 870 (3) & Breaking Horse Regulations, r 1003(2)Stewards lodged a protest against the fifth placed RICHARD THE THIRD alleging a breach of Rule 870 (3) and the Breaking Horse Regulations in Race 10. They sought the disqualification of RICHARD THE THIRD from its fifth placing under r 1003 (2). The official placings were: [8] FULL NOISE ... (Feed generated with FetchRSS)View the full article

Why do you walk in where you haven't a clue? LOL.

Supposedly the old platform was becoming more and more costly to develop and maintain. However it seems the main strategic driver for development was enabling more products. In my opinion that was a misguided strategy. As Rutherford pointed out the fact that one wagering agency could offer 200+ options on one event and we could only offer 44 wasn't the reason we were unprofitable or losing market share. Plus NZ's market size can't sustain a plethora of options.

Pass on that detail. But I imagine given the quality of the tactical and operational decision making that we've seen to date NZ can't contract to anyone else to supply that data. I'm guessing there is technical constraint as well where the data interface is largely proprietary.

Not entirely. It is a license to use the software and includes updates and new functionality. However it has been reported publicly that NZ's use of new functionality is constrained due to customisation and the cost to test new functionality.

My research on the matter is probably not. But certainly not for owners. Although an owner may save on transport costs (if they are lucky to have their trainer training on the new AWT's) I'm picking that track fees will need to increase and/or more trainers relocating - the increase in track fees will be passed onto owners. As for relocation there are limitations at all three sites for trainer relocation. I would say so AND the Broadcasting contract to the NEP Group that they are hooked into in an equally long contract. Plus RITA has a $12m annual commitment to the RIU. You have to subtract $20m from the $72m as that is earmarked specifically for the AWT's and comes from the PGF. So that leaves $52m. Apparently $26m went straight out the door. They also have a BIG problem looming April 2021 (next year) where the $45m from the revolving credit facility is due for payment. Where the hell they are going to pull that from who knows! PS: Just another tidbit of information I picked up recently was that the reason the NRL in Australia doesn't have games occasionally in provincial areas is because of the studio centralisation of "The Bunker" and the HD broadcasting infrastructure required. Sound familiar? Should do because the company that provides that service in Australia is.......the NEP Group!

No - if you post something that I disagree with then I will respond. That is the basic tenet of what a Forum is. In terms of the financial situation of RITA I'm quoting the last annual report for the year ending 31 July 2019. The facts in that report are that RITA was trading beyond its means. It was behind on contract payments, was $21m short of cash, needed to use the remaining $10m in revolving credit to continue trading AND when intangible assets were ignored the Equity position was -$21m. That was BEFORE Covid-19. That position is not irrelevant - just follow your own advice and "ask any NZX listed company analyst." Any analyst worth their salt would assess a company's position BEFORE Covid-19 treating the impact of Covid-19 as an extraordinary event i.e. the analyst would look at the fundamentals of the business. If it wasn't solvent or profitable BEFORE Covid-19 then it sure as hell wasn't going to be afterwards unless of course they were in the business of PPE! As for RITA's half-yearly report for the year ending January 2020 it is important because it would have given the industry an insight into what steps had been taken to address the fundamental issues. BUT that aside it is apparent that it took Covid-19 and a call from its creditors BEFORE the RITA Board took any action. I'm guessing that they were winging it believing that the new wagering system and Racefields Legislation would be their saviour. Many astute industry commentators and posters on BOAY, including myself, were pointing out the above FACTS long before Covid-19. Then why did the Board sit on their hands for 10 months? Why didn't they address the issues that they were aware of 18 MONTHS ago (the RITA Board was the Ministerial Working Group)? Instead they continued to make promises about Stakes and essentially trade while insolvent. McKenzie told us all (and you quote him) that RITA wasn't insolvent yet less than a week later the Minister tells us all that RITA's creditors had said enough and wanted to be paid within 3 days! Haven't you been following anything concerning the industry over the last two years? The Ministerial Working Group and the commissioned Mesara Report came up with the Track closures scheme. Mesara even went as far as recommending which ones! RITA was tasked with implementing the Working Group/Messara Report recommendations! Don't shift the buck! You have unconsciously highlighted the biggest problem - NONE of the current RITA Board or Executive have ANY experience in corporate restructuring!!!!!!!! It didn't take Air New Zealand long to lay off 4,000 employees nor IMMEDIATELY restructure their business due to Covid-19. Even when they had a strong balance sheet!!!!