curious

RITA obviously have a better plan than either he or Messara do. I'm curious to find out what it is.

I just don't understand their thinking here. The clear advice from Messara was to retain at least one track in each region. He said variously pretty much the same thing about these. Te Teko: Helps to retain racing in the Bay of Plenty. Gisborne: Retains racing in the Gisborne region. (and Wairoa is supposed to race there) Marlborough: Closing would deny the Marlborough region a racing venue and there is no nearby alternative. RITA seem to have ignored this advice. How the f&*K could they do that? They have a clear instruction from the Minister to operationalise the Messara report and retaining at least one track in each region was a key part of that. I sure hope the Minister will be asking some serious questions.

The Messara report did not recommend that they merge with ARC. It recommended they not be issued with a licence and that they should race either at Ellerslie or Pukekohe. It also recommended there assets be sold for the benefit of the industry which what they clearly are not keen on. There is very little sign of the powers that be following the venue or for that matter many of the recommendations in the Messara report.

Arrears List means the list of Arrears kept by NZTR in accordance with Rule 1201 GENERAL1201 An Arrears List shall be kept and, from time to time, published in whole or in part by NZTR. It shall include all Arrears, within the meaning of these Rules, that have been duly notified to NZTR for that purpose. Every entry in the Arrears List shall state: (a)the date on which such entry was made; (b)the amount of Arrears and the body or person to whom the Arrearsare owing and payable; and (c)unless NZTR considers the circumstances do not warrant it, the name of the body or person who is in Arrears and the name of the horse (if any) in respect of which such Arrears are payable. In the case of a Legal Ownership Entity, NZTR may choose to name solely the Racing Manager

No problem with the clubs merging or conducting their events at one venue if that makes economic sense but the assets of the other clubs are not required for that are they? They can mostly go back to their respective communities. Hokitika is a good example. Returned their primary asset to the community but retained enough funds to conduct meetings at another venue if they want to.

What? reinvest their assets in a declining industry? Smart. Hopefully racing won't follow the stupidity inherent in that model.

I think all that is pretty irrelevant anyway isn't it. I can't see RITA staying in business till the end of the year or making any substantive distributions to codes by then. They are insolvent and have nothing in place or pending to improve net revenue year on year. It will likely be half last year, if that. Arguing about club assets seems a bit moot to me in that environment.

The club do don't they?

I don't know whether they are talking or to whom. Maybe ARC? Maybe Counties? Maybe the Council about transferring the land? Maybe the politicians about the proposed legislation? Who knows?

It did but they can't be forced at this stage and clubs can then decide whether or not they want to race at other venues can they not?

Don't think those sort of negotiations are underway yet are they? We only have a draft calendar. Until that is finalised it seems it would be a bit pointless.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/121527841/coronavirus-party-at-auckland-bar-headquarters-despite-level-2-rules

Yes. On a per capita basis, equivalent to 300 new cases and 70 deaths in NZ in the last 24 hours.

Don't see the PM or government cited in that article?

To be more exact if we had the same rates per capita as Sweden we would have had 13,000 cases and 1600 deaths.

What? There is no significant difference in COVID deaths per capita between NZ and Oz.

Check the graph I posted above. The answer is yes. About 40-50 times more per capita.

Oh yeahh. I've given up on those. You wait 30 days for something that should be at their finger tips then they say it is commercially sensitive.

I meant a complete ban on all online gambling including racing and sports betting rather than a PoC on the latter.

They'll surely be deducted from any distribution to RITA though won't they?

Yes, that's a huge issue wrt Racefields fees, though it wouldn't apply to a PoC tax. I think they are probably already getting about as much as they are likely to from the Racefields voluntary agreements, so don't really see any sign of substantial additional revenue from the new legislation except the next phases of the duty relief. And they are still losing money. Guess we won't know the racefields revenue until the next annual report it seems.

They were also concerned about the cost/benefit due to compliance costs potentially exceeding the benefits.

Oddly, the DIA completed their review of online gambling last year and received submissions. Not sure where it is at now. Don't see how the proposed work is different. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Online-Gambling-Consultation/$file/Online-Gambling-in-New-Zealand-Quick-Read.pdf

Yes, I know. It is! So are you saying this is maybe an alternative and they write it out of the legislation?

Totally agree. As mardigras posted on another site, there are 4 options if they do this. 1) give up betting 2) leave NZ 3) find a work around 4) bet with NZ providers Some of us have had to do 3 for ages to even bet in other jurisdictions while resident here. It's not too difficult. The others are of course also options. I haven't seen the detail but I think the DIA work funded is to protect the pokies by trying to stop kiwis betting on online pokies, lotteries, card games etc., not to stop them betting overseas on sports and racing. That is covered by the PoC tax in the pending legislation.