curious

But the proposed legislation wants them to collect the same punter losses from a much wider range of betting products which will surely require more staff and higher costs to operate, no?

The metaphor smoke and mirrors comes to mind for pretty much the whole thing. Maybe the independent review wasn't so dashing?

It also supports the 3 synthetic track recommendation and notes re the Greenfield project: Representatives from the committee met with NZTR and the Cambridge Jockey Club on site on 11 February 2019 to discuss the proposed NZTR/club synthetic track project plan. Final Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee 102 To help mitigate the risks associated with this project, the committee requested that NZTR and the Cambridge Jockey Club carry out a fully independent peer review of the synthetic track project plan and a review of the finances of the club. The committee has had no further direct involvement in the project, but is aware that the Provincial Growth Fund has approved part funding of a 16m-wide synthetic track at the Cambridge Training Centre for thoroughbred training, trialling and racing. The project is being co-ordinated between NZTR and the Cambridge Jockey Club.

I see this has appeared on the DIA website with no fanfare. Not even on the RITA website as far as I can see. I thought this bit was interesting but there is not one iota of evidence or discussion in the report to support or justify the claim of additional revenue and it seems that falling into line with Australian counterparts on this is not looking like a very good rationale. Recommendation 10 of Messara Report Introduce Betting Information Use Charge and Point of Consumption Charge legislation Introduce Race Fields and Point of Consumption Tax legislation expeditiously. These two measures will bring New Zealand’s racing industry into line with its Australian counterparts and provide much needed additional revenue.

Yes, transfer to a council or even a separate entity such as a trust would potentially nullify the effect of that part of the legislation wouldn't it?

Not sure it makes any difference as the bill stands. Perhaps a legal brain here would comment. It's only on dissolution of the club that there is a mandatory transfer of assets to the codes isn't it? If the venue becomes surplus for racing needs it may be transferred but any order to do so is subject to consideration of use by other codes and other community organisations. And while the club remains operational the members can do what they want with assets unless they have made an agreement to the contrary with the code body which can't be rescinded. That's my take anyway.

Any chance you could hold putting these up until Monday? They are ruining my weekends.

yep

You may be right Freda but I'm picking they will know within 12 months of the PoC tax being implemented.

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/pro-punter-dr-nick--exits-aussie-racing--huge-turnover-plunge-tipped-20191213 Waterhouse knows Dr Nick, whose identity is shrouded in secrecy, and says he has “closed down his Australian operation” which employed a large staff across many betting syndicates. Waterhouse blamed increased taxes on bookmakers, which in turn meant they were offering worse odds, for Dr Nick’s decision to abandon Australian racing. And he said the flow-on impact could be disastrous for the racing industry. “What I do know is that Dr Nick has closed down his Australian operation,” Waterhouse told Racenet. “I suspect he probably accounts for six percent of Australian (racing) turnover so you would lose that straight away. “I think his turnover through totes and pre-post and Betfair would be six percent (of total Australian turnover). “It must lead to a drop in prizemoney. “The real problem though is that it is a symptom of a disease, the taxes are just too high.

The mystery is with that clear evidence emerging in OZ, why on earth would they follow suit here? Even if they were too thick to figure out the predictable result, to implement here what is clearly failing there is completely nuts. We were in enough trouble beforehand.

Not so good here but still looked pretty good value and not a video sighted. Wing4 NO RUNNER odds No 1 Larrikin (5) 4.9 No 2 Outram (7) 8.8 No 3 Kandari (9) 15.7 No 4 Taieri Gem (2) 4.9 No 5 The Style (10) 8.8 No 6 Rosie Glow (3) 37.5 No 7 Crispin (8) 15.7 No 8 Lady Style (1) 11.7 No 9 Sure Is (4) 28.0 No 10 Golden Valkyrie (6) 15.7 No 11 Our Boy Baz (11) 37.5

Well done.

I think one or two of them may have said that but the industry's ears must have been blocked. They should be at least paying government a licence fee for the monopoly wagering business rights.

Isn't that the job of the codes and other members of the RITA board, not the Minister?

In other words, the NSW industry stands on its own feet AND contributes to government funds? If a Minister or Government here had any gumption they would insist on the same thing and then as you said, maybe racing would sort it's shit out instead of standing round with its hand out wanting an increase in their social welfare payments.

Because they have the most racedays and therefore the most votes at NZTR and that is their MO?

It does shift the debt and collection risk from trainers to clubs, so I can see why trainers would want one thing and clubs another.

Track fees have nothing to do with NZTR or the headpost of this thread which relates to the NZTR settlement account - that relates to payment of raceday expenses which NZTR collect. Track fees are a matter directly between clubs and their clients, the trainers and owners. I trained at Foxton for a number of years and they invoiced track fees directly to owners during that time. It's not difficult and there is no duplication.

I don't think so. Club staff have to note that anyway in order to charge for the horses' use of the track. It shouldn't make a difference who they charge for that.

me too

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.