curious

It's hard to know what they have and haven't done isn't it? The transparency that the MAC recommended for the RITA seems to have completely disappeared. We have worked effectively with what we already have The committee has focused on using existing industry resources and channels to drive our reform programme. These are the most effective vehicles to drive quick, cost-effective, inclusive and transparent reforms.

They were instructed by the Minister to sustain those distributions but also to ensure they did so without further negatively impacting the balance sheet. They were on track with that as of the October report.

Exactly. All the ground work, consultation with codes etc. had been done.

I thought the work of understanding the business had already been done by Messara and the MAC and that the boards job was to promptly implement those recommendations. Surely they should have been able to hit the ground running, not spend another 9 months assessing the options?

What do you think the woes of the industry are due to and therefore a priority to fix Greg?

Sooner or later, people have to understand that the industry can only be funded by what it earns. Continued delusion by participants about what the product is actually worth is part of the problem.

Mine's been in the rack for quite a few years. However, I've dusted it off, run my eye down it and chalked it back up. So look out.

He took a hospital pass with nothing on the table to improve net revenue and impossible constraints and instructions from the Minister. His mistake was catching the pass when he had to know he'd get flattened. From his silence, I'd say he's still unconscious.

What business are you talking about? RITA was in full operation with cashflow and substantially reduced outgoings and expenses the last 3 months wasn't it?

I have made an OIA request for them and am waiting. They have acknowledged the request. I initially made it to the DIA which is why I know they do not hold those reports. I don't understand why they haven't released them on the website like they did with the first quarter written report though to keep stakeholders informed.

So where are the second and third quarter reports that the Minister's Letter of Expectation required to be delivered to him and the DIA, yet the DIA tell me they don't have?

Of course it has to work like that and I don't see anything political about it. It's to help businesses retain employees rather than lay them off. And of course it works in layers. My employer claims the subsidy to keep paying me because the business can't operate and revenue is down. Then the local pub and Kmart claim the same because they can't operate and I'm not in there spending that money and so on. Call it double dipping if you like.

I'd say any month where they had at least one racemeeting last year to this year where it wasn't held would easily work. Yes. Foxton got a subsidy. No training/track fees and no trials. Actually I was told they did but maybe didn't. I can't see them listed.

I'm not clear what numbers you think don't add up. As far as I can see, for the lock down period, their year on year income is probably down close to 100%, certainly way above the 30% and I imagine they will likely be eligible for the 8 week subsidy extension now on a similar basis.

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.