curious

Pretty sure that the "interest" is a loan from the NC and Amberley clubs to the CJC. Didn't know you could sell stuff you borrow but don't own.

This from the annual report. Another stuff up? 8. INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATES AND JOINT VENTURES The Club holds interest in Rangiora Racecourse over which the Club exercises significant influence demonstrated by its ability to participate in, but not control, the financial and operating policy decisions of the investees

Wait...I just saw this? We assume that Wyndham racecourse (Council Lease) and Rangiora racecourse (7/12 owned by Canterbury JC) remain closed as racing venues and that the Canterbury JC’s interest in Rangiora is sold. Does the CJC own an interest in Rangiora?

Bugger.....completely missed that! Is he serious? Or desperate? 2. Seek the approval for the NZRB (Wagering NZ) to: Conduct virtual racing games; Remove legal restrictions in Section 33(3) of the Gambling Act that prevent the NZRB (Wagering NZ) from acquiring class 4 gaming licence venues; Conduct in-the-run race betting; Conduct betting on sports where there is no agreement with a national sports organisation.

Hadn't really heard much about it for about 10 years. Assume it's this: https://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-partner-projects/Housing-Infrastructure-Fund/Documents/HCC_HIF Executive Summary_FINAL_web.pdf But why would racing let alone community race clubs from other parts of the country be sponsoring it in some way? http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/business/2940378/Waikato-firm-secures-big-greenfield-project

Anything on this Chief? Nothing? Nil? Zippo? Zilch?

Priceless, Foxton was also marked as Training but also run a lot of trials. I think that's included in that designation. Will Canterbury trials be at Riccarton if this goes ahead?

Sure you don't want Thommo's too barryb?

Yeahh, Erin's a hero of mine. Pity Winnie didn't get someone independent like her to do the review. We might then be getting our head round some real solutions by now.

It would be interesting to know what informed the recommendations on track closures. I'm not opposed to that btw. However, much of it is not logical it seems and as a process, on its own, does nothing to provide sustainability. I agree on those 3 Freda thought it's a while since I've been at any of them. But round the country, I don't see a lot of sense in the recommendations. Kumara on the coast? sell Avondale, not Ellerslie? Why not sell all 3 Auckland tracks and all but one of the Waikato tracks and build one new Strathayr in the Waikato? In the CD why not sell Awapuni and develop a new facility either at Foxton or at a completely new venue, again a Strathayr?

He is confused Hesi. I don't know what legal consultation occurred on this. It appears none. Where were the DIA lawyers? That legislation only applies to dissolution of clubs. On the one hand, he says what you say. On the other, he says "It is not proposed that any Clubs cease to exist but that they race at a different nearby venue if their racecourse is to be closed." They can't not cease to exist and at the same time have the dissolution rules applied. And as the above advice from Bell Gully points out, if their hand is forced, they can simply de-register and relinquish their dates and thereby no-longer be subject to the provisions of the Act or the requirements of the code body. As Reefton have already indicated they will do, and I suspect Avondale will likely do the same. So, I think there will be no 190m asset grab to fund the proposed capital developments unless clubs are persuaded to do that voluntarily where their constitutions allow it. Like much of the rest of the report this is not well thought through but a rehash of an old idea that can't be implemented. 27 Dissolution of club (1) On the dissolution of a racing club, the assets of the club remaining after all legal claims on the club have been satisfied must be disposed of for racing, public, charitable, or other purposes in the manner that the club, with the approval of the racing code with which it is registered, determines. (2) The purposes for which the assets must be disposed of must be published by the racing code by notice in the Gazette. (3) If there is a dispute over the disposition of assets involving a racing club that is an incorporated society or a charitable trust, the dispute must be determined in accordance with section 27 of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 or section 27 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, as the case may be. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a racing club that is neither an incorporated society nor a charitable trust must be treated as if it were an incorporated society. (5) If 2 or more racing clubs propose to combine to form 1 club, the assets of any club that proposes to dissolve as a result of that combination may, with the approval of the racing code with which it is registered, be transferred (whether before or after dissolution) to the club with which it proposes to combine.

I'm sorry folk, but this is just another example of the sorry state of the due diligence informing the research upon which this report was supposed to be based.

If I am not right Reefton, NZTR would be ignoring their own advice. This is from a Bell Gully report addressed to one of your favourite people, Mr. Campbell Moncur, dated April 2009. Campbell Moncur New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Incorporated campbell.moncur@nzracing.co.nz Mike Colson / Mark Freeman / Kate Radka ATTER N O. 01-336-1988 DATE 24 April 2009 ..... Withdrawal from registration Finally, there is a risk that a disgruntled racing club could refuse to exercise its right to conduct race meetings at another racing club’s racecourse as required under a betting licence, and in the face of being required to do so, cancel its registration as a racing club with NZTR. Although there is no explicit right for a racing club to withdraw or cancel its registration as a racing club with NZTR we consider it likely that there is an implicit right to do so on reasonable notice. The effect of such cancellation of registration would be that the racing club would no longer be bound by NZTR’s constitution nor the Racing Act, and arguably could act in any manner it wished, provided it continued to be consistent with its own constitution. It would, however, have no right to run race meetings at any racecourse, nor to receive any funding from NZTR or NZRB.

Probably right Hedley. The good thing is, I doubt it's going anywhere. The bad thing, nothing is going anywhere.

It might sound negative Hesi but I don't see the point. It's hard to see who was actually consulted or whether the report was reviewed by anyone. They have never accepted even well reasoned input before, even when it was invited. I thought the DIA was assisting with this and there are a number of smart cookies there so I would have thought they at least would have reviewed this before it was finalised. It doesn't look like it and appears to have been dictated by people who don't know what they are talking about. There are a number of sensible recommendations but most need a lot more work. A number are equally non-sensical. The terms of reference said the report was to be research based but mostly it seems to be hearsay based and is at best lacking any clear rationale in a number of areas. I can't be bothered commenting on all 17 recommendations, however as examples, while Racefields legislation seems like a no-brainer and probably should have been in place yonks ago, the PoC tax is very debatable, the DIA is not convinced it will even be revenue positive, the taxpayer must have a say whether that revenue should go to racing or government coffers etc. Much of the rationale in the report doesn't even make sense and is certainly not research based as it was supposed to be.. He uses Oz comparisons where convenient, e.g. the betting levy and PoC, but ignores income tax in making the tax comparisons. Then on the consolidation, he throws out comparisons with Oz because he says comparisons with Australia are not relevant as: .....Australia has too many racecourses but there has not been the economic raison d’etre to close many Australian tracks given the strong financial situation of the Australian thoroughbred racing industry, and particularly in NSW and Victoria, and there have been other priorities as well as political opposition. Hmmm... yet that same evidence correlates a high number of tracks in a similar environment with a strong financial situation. So he then decides to compare the NZ situation with Ireland, the UK and HK. This is gobbledygook. To make matters worse, even if all this was implemented and successful, no overall result can be achieved. Significant critical ingredients are ignored. To wit, the handicapping system. Doesn't even get a mention. As Mardi said, Shortland Street aside, the big bang looks like a fizzer. Frankly, I expected better, much better.

Same

The whole thing is poorly thought out and not well researched Hesi. That's just another stupid recommendation - #4. 4 Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB. That is already required by the Act and due. The Minister has oversight of the Terms of Reference under the Act. It can hardly be a recommendation when it's already a legislative requirement. Completely ridiculous and no help at all. Should already be done.

Not any longer but I guess we could put it back in, or clean out the river loop and barge them from Awapuni?

I think the asset grab issue is hopeless, but it will be interesting to hear the response of clubs racing on courses scheduled for close down. Obviously if a club is going to close down they can change the disbursement rule with a single Special General Meeting in most cases, so what it says in the constitution now is irrelevant. The only power NZTR has is issuing licences to clubs. I suspect that clubs required to race at other venues (where their own courses are to be closed) which have significant assets will probably just give up their race dates and no longer be under the control of the Racing Act or NZTR etc. so that the community assets can be retained in the community. I don't see anything in the Messara plan likely to increase revenue though the restructuring may reduce costs and duty relief will generate more money for the codes. However, as far as I can see, the aim is to continue to waste all that on stakes. I support the consolidation of tracks in principle, but if no money is allocated to maintaining them properly when the fact is that almost all the remaining tracks are long since stuffed. If they don't raise the capital they expect from the closed courses, where is the money coming from to fix them so they can conduct more racing and training than they already can't cope with? I'm also skeptical about the synthetic tracks even if the taxpayers agree to fund them. I still don't see any feasibility plan or rationale suggesting any economic benefit. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Probably not even a Tom Thumb Mardi, more like a damp sparkler.

True but the codes can do that now can't they and possibly should have a decade ago.

What a complete waste of time and money. Aside from stating the obvious and things that will never happen, the industry should get a review from someone that understands wagering and that makes recommendations that will enhance revenue. I doubt that things like synthetic tracks will do that. Probably the reverse. Improving prizemoney in recommendation 17 is a great idea, but no genuine suggestions where the money will come from for that except from the taxpayer. It's a joke.

anyone found it?

Yeahhh sure is a confidence thing that should be factored into your pricing. If you click on the runner, then gear and scroll to the right you should see the undie colour. Not sure how the stipes check the declaration is being complied with. They probably do it like they check for weight bags and just flip up the saddle cloth.

Probably certain that industry structural change will be called for and is essential. That's a no brainer. What form do you think that might or should take Peter?

I don't yet grasp how you can price one horse or a few horses without pricing the rest of the field. Surely you have to price to 100% market or similar. Something definitely doesn't add up and I'm still trying to figure out what that is.