curious

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.

Yes expires in April 2021. Don't think they will be doing any more than minimum servicing of that right now.

I note that it appears they failed to account for what may have been withdrawn from those accounts during that period.

239.To better understand the potential economic impacts of the offshore charges, the MAC requested financial estimates from the NZRB of the potential revenue that might be collected from offshore charges. The analysis that the NZRB provided estimated that over $30 million stood to be earned through offshore charges per annum (as compared to the $16 million estimated by the Offshore Working Group in 2015). The NZRB’s estimates for each charge were: •$6.6 million per annum for the information use charge; and •$24 million per annum for the POC charge. 240.To come up with these figures, the NZRB analysed anonymised credit card data from ANZ which categorises transactions (deposits) by New Zealanders through a gambling Merchant Code. Based on ANZ being roughly one-third of the New Zealand credit card market, and NZRB analysis of which deposits were with offshore betting organisations, the data showed that $139 million was deposited by New Zealanders into the top 10 offshore organisations in the 12 months ending 31 October 2018. This has grown 67 percent in last 18 months (annualised growth of 47 percent). 241.The Department has not been privy to the underlying data which the NZRB has used, so it is unable to provide any commentary regarding the quality of the data and the subsequent results.

In what figures?