curious

Partly to hold and partly to prepare for but they still lost that income because of Covid so that would count. They will also have saved some expenses but the wage subsidy was based on lost gross revenue, not net profit.

Not just the stakes but the meeting payments from NZTR would also have been lost along with training related revenue, track fees etc.

They can't be contractors or would have to have applied themselves. Presumably casual employees. The club could apply for them even if not working at the time and only had to pay them out for the days they would have worked and keep the rest.

No training revenue.

The PBTC significantly improved its financial position when it sold the Makaraka course in 2010 and obtained a long-term lease. The club’s investment portfolio has suffered a hit recently but still has a value of more than $1.5 million.

It was sold to a winery which is why it has a vineyard in the middle and yes, that's where they got the 2 mil.

Because they sold the track and had to rent it back?

Why is it a different matter? It's about the long term benefit of the industry. Saving money on a meeting to meeting basis may not contribute to the longer term big picture.

A report on what?

OK. You must have read a different Bill. I thought that only potentially occured on dissolution of the club which doesn't seem to be happening in this case and even then, only after community interests are considered.

Transferred where and why? It's the club's money. The club is not being dissolved.

The club will retain it but I understand it's down to $1.5m due to current investment markets.

I suppose it depends how much owner and punter business the industry loses from the area as a result compared with the cost of the industry properly funding those meetings so they are nor run at a loss by the club.

Be interesting to see what Wairoa decide. I still don't see why NZTR have over-ridden the Messara recommendation to maintain one club/course racing in each region. I'd like to know their rationale for that and why the RITA which is supposed to be implementing those recommendations have gone along with closing down these regional tracks.

I don't get why it is a BS decision by the club. What else could they do? Nor do I get what is BS about what Barton wrote?

Why is that BS. Is it not true?

What's the BS?

I know. I want one!

I think it comes under the Rules and is clearly within the stewards jurisdiction. 62.OFFENCES 62.1 Any person (including an Official) commits an offence if he/she: (cc) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Rules made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules; 1.4 Subject to these Rules theStewards shall have the power to investigate any matter or thing relating to these Rules including (without limitation) the following: (a)To enter and inspect any land, track, building, vehicle or other place in, or about which such Meeting, Race, or Trialsare being held, or is about to be held, or has been conducted by any Club. (b)To enter and inspect any land, track, building, vehicle or other place in which a Greyhound is being kept.

No. There is a statutory requirement to produce audited annual financial reports and present them to the minister who must present them to the house. No statutory requirement for a six monthly report. That said, the Minister's Letter of Expectation to Mr. McKenzie said: Reporting RITA is to provide written financial and non-financial reports to the Minister for Racing and the Department not later than 4 weeks following the end of each quarter. I may alter this frequency depending on RITA's performance and risks. The Department will specify the requirements for these reports. In addition, there is a "no surprises" expectation, under which RITA is required to inform my office and the Department of any material matter that arises and respond promptly to information requests received from the Department or my office. I made an OIA request to the DIA for the second and third quarter reports. However, the DIA responded saying these were not held by the DIA. Presumably, that means RITA have not submitted them as required by the Minister.

Where is it a statutory requirement? I don't think so.

That's the board. Not the CEO if I'm reading correctly. It will be up to the board to decide on the CEO won't it?

That's the board as well as the CEO?

Nice bloke actually. Always got on well with him. Worked with him a bit when he was at Blandford and again at NZTR. He's done well at Wyong. The new RB could do worse I'd say and it doesn't seem clear what he is going to do. The RITA CEO position closed in February but I haven't heard a dickey bird so was just wondering.