curious

Who got the DCM?

The Victorian POCT is: Point of Consumption Tax The POCT will apply at a rate of 8 per cent of the net wagering revenue derived from all wagering and betting activity by customers located in Victoria. The NZ POCT is a different bird. The POCC applies to bets taken by offshore betting providers on racing and sporting events from persons resident in New Zealand The NZ tax is set at 10 per cent of an offshore operators Gross Betting Revenue (GBR)

Imagine if the NZTAB had to pay tax of 15% of every dollar bet to the government and taxpayer. The latter may then be more interested in giving something back to racing.

Right. He's had heaps including at national organisation level.

Yep. And like Jelly said, I'd still probably rather have him on down there than riding against us.

Yeahh but they might never have charged home al all if they'd been ridden handier or made their run sooner, eh?

Specifically and consistently, money from other sources to subsidise TR stakes. Though he seems to be anti the TAB promoting sports betting when that funding is a key source for the former objective.

And a key driver of the 2003 Act from memory? Still advocating increased stakes as a primary goal with no thought given to the factors that might make the industry viable again. 20 years on and wants to do more of what hasn't worked for 2 decades.

About what?

Of course the RTC still hold meetings as they did at Riccarton last Saturday. Though it was nominally the Riccarton Turf Club @ Riccarton Park meeting, it was officially a CJC meeting run under their tote licence. I wonder if the 80s meetrings were the same or if the RTC actually held their own tote licence at that time.

You may be right Doomed but it would have been contrary to their own rules.

They filed an annual financial statement in November last year showing equity of $66,645 in the form of a loan to the CJC.

As far as I know, they were never licensed to run an on course only tote meeting, only an equalisator one which certainly wouldn't do 250k.

No. According to a RTC committee member that rang me last night they met last week. AGM? That person is also still doing the trial timekeeping as a volunteer.

I thought the Riccarton Turf Club was a trial only operation back in the day before the CJC "acquired" it? They now have one race day at Riccarton but don't run trials though their volunteers are still key contributors to the current trials. Don't think they ever held race meetings back in the day did they? Anyway, of course when betting was on course only, the on course turnover was higher. These days most turnover is off course. Understandably, many do not want to waste 6 hours of their time dealing with crap food and facilities in order to enjoy betting on 8 races when they can sit in comfort with select food and drink to do so and have plenty of time to do other things and bet elsewhere as well.

It was stuffed 25 years ago. Another 25 will just stuff it more by the look of this deal.

The only decent analysis that I recall was following the termination of Nelson as a galloping venue. When was that? I had that report at one time but can no longer find it. Of course there was no asset sale there either and harness continue to race there. Anyway, a few years later I'm sure an analysis was published which showed a significant decline in TAB turnover originating from that area. At the time I thought that might put a stop to removing licences from smaller self sufficient clubs. Boy did I get that wrong.

Wouldn't clubs still need a national or international platform through which punters could bet on their events? It would make me very nervous clubs operating a betting platform. Many have already paid the price of venturing into business areas where they have little or no expertise or experience. A lot can't even perform their core business like producing suitable tracks for the events they are conducting.

Withholding times are only a guideline anyway in an attempt to avoid positives from drugs being used therapeutically. I don't see why you wouldn't want them.

I think most punters and other participants as well.

Do you think the stake for the race should affect the penalty for any breach? Is that what you are saying?

Well in hindsight it would have saved a lot of grief but there's probably other ways to mitigate the risk of this type of error.

Seem to be more questions than answers emerging from the TA reporting to date.I think if they are going to reverse themselves and say anything after saying they wouldn't, I think they could be more transparent. Also Chief, I don't get that small stables are not subject to close scrutiny. My guess is it is greater.

Definitely were.