curious

It doesn't look like the DIA entirely agree with this and seriously question whether it is legal though they wrote the legislation. From the latest RIA: The property proposals are also largely based on the recommendations of the Messara report. The RIA notes that the proposals involve interference with the property rights of racing clubs. This raises issues under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, including whether such interference can be justified, and a risk of litigation. Time constraints have limited the ability to fully investigate the impacts on the clubs concerned and their associated communities. The limitations affect the assessment of likely benefits and the evidence certainty that net benefits will accrue. Cabinet has noted that care needs to be taken to shift the industry balance towards a commercial focus while still acknowledging its community underpinning and it is important that implementation of the reforms meets both these objectives. Stakeholders were consulted on similar proposals in the Messara report, which attracted widespread negative comment. The alternative proposals set out in this RIA have not been consulted on publicly and engaging openly with stakeholders throughout the process will be critical to the prospects of success for the reforms. This option addresses the problem of underutilised assets at clubs that do not race. However, the creation of a power for a code to wind up a club that does not race would be a significant incursion of a club’s rights of association and, due to the vesting of the assets, common law property rights 253. The proposals do not impinge on individual autonomy or responsibility. However, the preferred options have impacts on property rights of clubs, which have potential NZBORA implications given racing clubs’ status as legal persons. In addition, the proposals impact on a club’s right of association and right to peaceful assembly.

Don't 7/8 horse fields generate considerably more revenue per runner than 14/16 horse fields?

That thought has certainly crossed my mind and I wouldn't be greatly surprised to see a club or clubs which have been denied a tote licence in the current reshuffle going down that track.

Cui bono is a good question indeed.

Are you saying that those of us who subscribed should be getting ad free access?

Good idea. He definitely needs to get outta there b4 the s&%$ hits the fan.

Here's the JCA report hr. http://www.jca.org.nz/race-days/auckland-rc-thoroughbred-racing-30-11-2019/auckland-rc-30-november-2019-r-2-instigating-a-protest-chair-mr-a-dooley/?query={"portal_type": ["OldSiteHearing", "Hearing", "NonRaceDayHearing", "ProtestHearingDecision", "RequestRulingHearing"], "SearchableText": ""}

That's directly from the JCA report. You don't believe that?

I'm afraid you've got this one completely wrong Chief in the locked threads. Thomass is quite correct. Ellis over-ruled his trainer in proceeding with the protest and then spoke for his jockey advising she had nothing to say. That's a full stop. Atrocious in my view. Submissions For Decision: The Information indicated that the Protest had been instigated by Mr P Richards on behalf of the connections of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE. However, Mr Ellis the Principal of Te Akau Racing told the Committee that he did not wish to pursue the protest. At this juncture Mr Oatham advised the Committee that the Stipendiary Stewards would be the Informant and proceeded on that basis. Mr Ellis advised the Committee that he and Ms Collett, the rider of BORDEAUX LE ROUGE, had nothing to say in relation to the alleged incident.

What the hell does any of that have to do with me? More evidence that you should be sectioned I said (not merely sanctioned). How are the remedial reading classes going?

Ditto. If he behaves like this elsewhere in life I'm surprised he hasn't been sectioned under the MHA. Then again, maybe he has and they let him out now and then.

No, the research I posted suggested they DID improve with age MF.

I see you are replying on behalf of your brother now and as usual with nothing to do with the question I asked. If LFV chooses to sleep in till 5 am that's his business. Haven't invested on a maiden race in NZ for at least the last 6 or 7 years.

Across how many/what jurisdictions?

Used to do this all the time at the races, originally transparently. Wasn't a problem. Way better than sticking a hose in their mouth that you had no clue what was on. Eventually had to do it surreptitiously but shit happens and sometimes you have to do what helps the wellbeing of the horse and your own interests and pay the price if you get caught breaking a freekin' stupid rule.

We may be talking at cross-purposes here Joe. I was talking about Brian's reference and header in the blog I posted which referred to the Grant Thornton Five-Year Performance and Efficiency Audit as being a waste of time with which I don't agree. It has highlighted a number of things you say such as the lack of any revenue yet from the FOB expenditure and a range of other strategic initiatives, that most of the racefield's revenue is already on stream through voluntary initiatives etc.. It possibly could have taken a more critical and analytic approach to some of the data underlying those strategies that the NZRB relied on such as the anonymised credit card data to predict the likely POC charge revenue etc. which it described as "credible". I agree with pretty much everything else you say about the Petone dribble and have been saying that since day 1 and was initially in disagreement with Brian about the potential impact of the Messara report which he raved about. He now seems to have realised that he was sold down the river. I think the dribble you are talking about may be the RITA reports, AGM addresses etc., not the Thornton one? I pretty much agree with you on all those.

I don't see where the "crok of shit" is in this report, Perhaps you would point me to some examples. I've only read 67 pages of it so far. 20 to go, so may not have got to that yet.

Thanks Joe. I'm not quite clear what you are disagreeing with. Would you help me understand please?

Quite true and I disagree mostly with de Lore (again). I think this is way the most comprehensive, rigorous and detailed P&E report we have had since the NZRB came into existence and it is worth a read.

Getting more Optimistic? Anyone bother to read this? https://www.rita.org.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB_Performance and Efficiency Report_Final.pdf Performance and Efficiency Audit fails to flatter Dedicated this week to the memory of my long-time friend, confidant, and all-round good guy Bob Morris who passed away last Thursday one month short of his 92nd birthday. He was an outstanding stockman, the best horseman I ever met, an inspiration to scores of horse people, proud, humble, highly respected, and my mentor and source of strength for the past 40 years. Bob was courageous and lived and died by his own rules – the finest man I ever knew. RIP Bob, your memory will live long. by Brian de Lore Published 25 October 2019 Do the research, speak to reliable people, and gather trustworthy information, and it’s not that difficult to discover the truth. It takes time and common sense and a bringing together of facts to point you in the direction of sound conclusions. That’s all this blog is about. No delight is gained from a weekly barrage of hand-grenade tossing to administrative authorities to encourage them to act in the best interests of the industry stakeholders. Negativity is depressing in every language, but if you see something worthwhile slipping away that is salvageable, are you not morally obliged to do something about it. Every week that passes by, I want to give up writing this stuff and do something more fulfilling with happy outcomes, but every week I receive more and more phone and email encouragement to continue the penned fight to hold industry decision-making to account. One of the major problems is lack of industry awareness through want of a publication. Jonny Turner of the Otago Daily Times – the only major independent newspaper left in New Zealand – is perhaps the only writer left prepared to highlight these serious issues. The loss of The Informant has been catastrophic. NZRB/RITA’s Best Bet’s is hard to find and hardly worth finding, and showed its colours last week when published on Thursday with no Caulfield form. How low does it have to sink? Do these people not correlate the formguide’s potential to stimulate betting turnover. Boring it may be to bring back the Titanic analogy again, but this is a snapshot of New Zealand racing. The NZ First guy is on deck talking to the DIA guy, and both are oblivious to the third and fourth class passengers scurrying for lifeboats after the ship has struck the iceberg. One says to the other, “I hope this North Atlantic weather improves tomorrow so we can have that game of deck tennis.” On radio last week Racing Minister Winston Peters claimed he was spending far too much time on the racing portfolio which is in contrast to his Chief-of-Staff and political scientist Jon Johanassen’s revelation to The Optimist about five months ago when he said that if the Boss had to spend more than two hours a week on racing matters, then it was excessive and something was wrong. Well, something is wrong, drastically wrong. Perhaps the Minister needs to increase his input from two hours to two days a week, but we all know he won’t. That leaves his right-hand-man Johanssen at the helm and steering the course while only giving Winston the co-ordinates once a week during that two-hour session. It’s evident Johanssen is the man plotting the course. No skin in the game, no knowledge of racing, and no consequences for Johanssen when they blow the whistle for full-time on racing. On the other hand, Johanssen is the man who will advise and steer NZ-First policy or at least enact the policy, towards the supreme goal of NZ-First getting over the five percent threshold in the election next year, and retaining Winston’s position as power-broker for further coalition deals. That appears to be his prime focus. Racing, like it or not, will be a political football for the next 12 months and the outcome for our industry will be inconsequential to all political parties – only the election result will matter while racing gets a further battering – if by that time the bank hasn’t called in its loan. Aspirant National Party leader Judith Collins has already started, telling members of the Gore Racing Club a couple of weeks ago a vote for National will save their Club from being victimised in the venue closure plan. Shadow Minister for Racing Ian McKelvie has been talking about ‘nationalism’ and keeping the TAB for ourselves – a poorly conceived statement, Ian, showing you haven’t grasped the most crucial component of the Messara Report. McKelvie may not have remembered that Nathan Guy espoused identical sentiments during National’s nine-year reign during which racing received nothing in return – treated like a colony of lepers. During his five-year stint as Racing Minster, Guy paraphrased the McKelvie view and also appointed Glenda Hughes as Chair who, in turn, appointed John Allen as CEO in that John Key/Hughes sideways shift deal. Did racing ever thank you for that, Nathan? Well then, “thank you’ on behalf of racing. It was a minus $200 million decision for racing – we got the colony of lepers sidestep. No one is going to forget National’s nine-year treatment of racing in a hurry but, then again, we have to weigh it all up against the benefits racing has derived from NZ-First, the coalition, and Winston as our Minister over the past two years. Imagine a set of old-fashioned scales; the dish on both sides is empty. No weight either side! That’s not to say our Minister in this two-year-old stint hasn’t made an effort and put in place a multitude of things such as reviews, committees, meetings, boards, legislation, working streams, etc, etc. But the tangible benefits for the industry, so far, is zero. Anyone adding up the benefits accrued over the past 11 years from either side of the political spectrum, may elect not to vote at all at the next election. Or as an alternative, find some obscure party with no hope, but with a leader who makes a real-time contribution by going racing or just having a punt. The aforementioned notion of seeking the truth in a world full of fake news was further dented this week when perusing the Grant Thornton five-year Racing Board Performance and Efficiency Audit. I would describe it as shallow, soppy, non-investigative, friendly to NZRB, and a complete waste of effort and, more importantly, money. It’s not worth reading. If a non-racing person read it independently and bereft of industry knowledge, he/she would be lulled into believing that with some minor tweaking, the racing industry is going along okay. Here’s an excerpt that demonstrates its shallowness: “The Fixed Odds Betting Platform cost $1.1m more than in the original business case (3% overrun) and was delivered 5 months later than planned. The cost was reported as $40.8m by the CEO to the industry and to the NZRB Board (sources: RITA website “June 2019 – Industry Update” and 29 January 2019 FOB Board Update).” Grant Thornton used the RITA website as it’s ‘source’ on claiming the FOB exceeded budget by only three percent. Yet I can produce a recording of CEO John Allen claiming at one of his industry conversation meetings at Riccarton that the cost of the FOB would be $25 million. Later, in the letter from Glenda Hughes to the Trainers’ Association, the former Chair said it was $30 million. Over time it crept up to $40 million as the overruns became more evident – why don’t we just make it up as we go? And then the exorbitant costs of the 125 or so contract IT people that was not capitalised, hiding the actual cost of something in the vicinity of $50 million. Grant Thornton has accepted the fake news on the website just as we are all supposed to accept it. Isn’t it disrespectful of these people to think the racing participants could believe it Why didn’t they engage Deloitte who have extensive subject knowledge, and would have produced a credible document? Here’s another example of some soppiness in fake efficiency and performance reporting: “Other than investments in the key strategic initiatives, the NZRB maintained a strict approach to cost management. Excluding strategic initiatives and turnover related expenses, operating expenses have reduced over the last 5 years from $127.8 million in FY15 to $126.5 million in FY19 (unaudited).” No further need to quote from this painful, drawn-out poorly presented document. It needs binning rather than reading, the same bin the RIU Review should be in after its release in July. The RIU review recommended the RIU should have autonomy and its own board – the exact opposite of what we need. The Messara Report says the codes should manage themselves, control their own finances and determine their own future. The Burgess RIU Review, written by an ex-policeman, is recommending the integrity component of racing be disenfranchised from the thoroughbred code which flies in the face of the devolvement of power to the codes, and ultimately would prove unworkable and costly. Racing needs fewer boards, not more. In last week’s blog, I quoted from the last RITA update which included this excerpt: “We expect DIA-led workshops to get underway with the Codes and betting operators later this month.” Information received this week suggests that meeting will occur today, Friday 25th. It’s the meeting that could have taken place a long time ago, and it’s only about getting the DIA workshops underway and likely to be about setting the rates and collecting the levies which under DIA direction is almost sure to be a tortoise-like journey. DIA is also writing the legislation for the Racing Reform Bill No.2 which will have to be completed anytime soon if it’s to have chance becoming law before the year is out. Information gathered suggests it’s being rushed to get it ready for a first reading – not an ideal situation if National is prepared and waiting to disrupt the process for political gain. And not ideal if you want something good set in concrete. RITA is probably powerless when it comes to expediting the process, but on other matters, it played a part in the appointment of Malcolm Burgess to do the RIU Review, was party to engaging Grant Thornton for the Five-Year Performance and Efficiency Audit, and failed to take the opportunity to clear out all the NZRB executives including CEO John Allen on Day One, July 1st. But back to the subject of net tangible assets. When a company’s net tangible assets in the business world are less than its level of debt, it’s called insolvency. Perhaps, in racing it’s called something else because no one else has mentioned the word. Racing is in a negative state to the tune of around $20 million on that score. Betting Information User Charges and Point of Consumption may be coming next year, but how about the present? This industry is closer to the cliff’s edge that most would realise, and no one is talking about it.

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion but could you explain the above in a bit more detail please? I tried 111 but they didn't seem to know much about it.

Do some homework. I'm not going to feed you anymore.

Yep after 5 or 6 years, we are definitely very excited and waiting for you to report your next win. Don't worry about trying to do it before the race. After will be fine.

How long ago was that remind me? The post has expired from my archives. Is that the last decent win you had?

Like the entire BP?