curious

Not imo if it can't be sustained because Entain doesn't generate the necessary revenue from 2028 which seems likely, and TABNZ have significantly reduced income to distribute.

Really? Guaranteed by who? NZTR forecasts are for stakes to be flat through 2028 aren't they? That's because they arranged with NZTAB taking the total 5 year increase partially in advance for the greater more immediate lift.

She does raise a few pertinent points in there though. E.g., the attempted muzzling of licence holders, which we've seen recent evidence of, and the simplicity of some welfare monitoring which would potentially allay (or otherwise) negative public perceptions.

Sorry, it was GRNZ that said the rehoming could be done in 2 years, not the SPCA. 55) Currently GRNZ estimates that registrations will have dropped to around 1,500 by the time racing ends. Even at the current rates of rehoming, it would be possible to rehome that number in around two years. Heightened awareness and consistent promotion may enable that time to be further reduced.

It appeared to be plucked out of thin air by the committee. No accounting was given. It's stated as being over 3 years but in the next breath they report the SPCA saying that at current rates the dogs could be re-homed in 2 years. 96) The total cost of the transition, over three years, is estimated to be up to $60 million, including rehoming, maintaining traceability, the establishment and operation of the Transition Agency, the implementation of its functions, and ensuring participants are supported through the transition.22 There may also be cost incurred by the RIB as they reduce staff numbers and drug testing volumes. 21 GRNZ annual report, 2024. Net assets of $15.821 m, including $5.971 m of cash and cash equivalents 22 Ex GST, inflation set at 2% p.a. and compounding

Well it was essentially a taxpayer decision wasn't it, made by their elected representatives. I know that it is recommended that the Transition Agency be funded by the TAB, which I think is fair enough, but I don't see why they should fund other costs, e.g. rehoming related, and I haven't seen where it has been suggested that they are expected to?

That figure was in the May 2025 report wasn't it? Where is the new report?

I'm still not clear why TABNZ should contribute?

What minorities? I think it's the same majorities that the 'racing bods' are facing.

Well they had to know it was probable. So, unless they put something in the contract for that eventuality, surely not entitled to compensation. Hardly likely to affect their business anyway. They can only conduct betting on events that are run. They can't control when or where or what.

Exactly. It's part of the business they bought isn't it?

Do you already know the outcome of any mediation or if that was even required? I haven't seen anything.

Happening I think but that's an Entain expense and doesn't really affect returns to racing except as it might affect service to punters?

Hard to know really isn't it? Handicapping, programming, stakes allocation, track safety (especially the polys), get the whip rules actually changed to match international standards? What do you think is most important? Probably nothing that's mentioned in the head post article?

Shouldn't be necessary. As I said, I'm confident that appropriate action has been taken - and continues to be taken - at the highest levels to remedy the situation. I expect evidence of that to emerge shortly.

Certainly won't be. If there has to be one, it needs to be at the general public and political level, not conducted in racing media.

Rest assured they have them!

I'm not aiming to bag any particular jockeys, rather those who are responsible for enforcing a rule that they brought in 6 months ago. There's no crusade yet. At the moment I'm hopeful, if not confident that action will be taken. However, if that doesn't happen, rest assured, there will be a crusade..

Are you really still living in an era that was 1/2 a century ago?

Of course it's a vote-counting decision. This is a democracy and 70% of the population support it. You can't be a politician and ignore the wishes of the majority of your electorate.

Why would they do that when after 5 years, they've finished paying for the business and thereafter get to keep their full 50% share of the profits. The question/suggestion is quite illogical?

Opposite I think. Keeps their head down. Head up with a shadow roll they couldn't see where they were going!