curious

I generally agree. The likes of Betfair suggested 20-30% on racing and 10% on sports. The likes of Ladbrokes suggested that any charges be calculated on the same basis as GST for simplicity and efficiency. That makes sense to me. What do you think about somehow prohibiting 'best tote' type offerings? And what about allowing complying operators the right to advertise in NZ? In other words remove the core tote business competition as far as possible but encourage legitimate betting exchange and FO operators to build revenue for NZ racing via the IUC.

No they don't and I didn't think that Reefton's question was about publications but about betting operators. Of course there is an arrangement with the respective TABs in each country where those operators do pay. But for example Betfair Australia arranges bets on NZ racing but pays nothing for racefields information (even though they offered to 10 years ago but the NZRB didn't want their money). The likes of Sportsbet and Crownbet who also take bets on NZ racing don't either, although the latter have a commercial arrangement with NZ Rugby where they do pay them directly for relevant sporting information on NZ events which they offer a market on.

Costs might be being generated to a fair extent by trying to garner that revenue too.

Yes, that's true for the TABs. NZTab pay a fee to Oz for bets taken on Australian product and vice-versa.

No.

That's because the gambling legislative structures are quite different in both countries Reefton. Oz licenses operators who then pay Australian taxes etc. The NZ TAB was taking bets directly from Australian customers at an unfair competitive advantage to those licensed operators. The NZTAB can obtain a licence to operate in Australia on a level playing field with Australian licensed operators if they choose. NZ on the other hand does not allow OZ operators to be licensed and therefore advertise here. However, NZ customers may bet with Oz operators which currently have an unfair competitive advantage as they do not pay NZ betting duty, fees for the use of NZ racing and sports information, problem gambling fees etc. The intention of the Amendment Bill is to level that playing field by charging either an information use charge and/or another consumption charge (they already pay NZ GST), for bets taken from NZ customers. Hope that makes sense.

I replied to the above in the Messara thread but perhaps somewhat glibly. I thought the subject may be worthy of its own thread. The above Bill which had its first reading last August is currently in select committee with the Primary Production Committee due to report back to parliament in July 2018. Interestingly that is immediately subsequent to the due date for John Messara's report. The bill proposes two charges for overseas operators, a consumption charge and an information use charge. There seems little issue with the latter except how and at what level the minister sets fees for that. Currently, it would generate only a small amount of revenue which I think operators will be happy to pay assuming the fees are fairly set. The consumption charge however, is way more complicated. In direct response to your question, estimates of the quantum of that vary widely and as I noted the DIA itself is not convinced of the NZRB figures and rightly so in my view. The legality of such a tax has also been called into question. Sportsbet's submission for example says: The Bill, if enacted in its present form, will : (a) Have an overall detrimental impact on the New Zealand racing industry; and (b) Violate New Zealand’s international trade agreement obligations, including the New Zealand–Australia Closer Economic Relations Agreement, Protocol on Trade in Services (CER Services Protocol). Sportsbet is concerned that the provisions contained in the Bill are anti-competitive and protectionist in nature. We believe they constitute arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination against offshore betting operators and therefore breach New Zealand’s obligations in the CER Services Protocol. With respect to the quantum of that and your question though Chief Stipe, The DIA Regulatory Impact Statement concludes: Conversely, the proposal that offshore gambling operators pay a charge when they take bets from people in New Zealand is not recommended. This option is considered to carry a higher risk of non-compliance than the information use charge. The projections for the possible revenue from this charge, while based on the best available information, are subject to large margins for error. This means that there is a chance that the returns could vary significantly from what has been predicted and could end up being lower than the cost of administering the charge. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Racing-Amendment-Bill-Regulatory-Impact-Statement/$file/Regulatory-Impact-Statement-Offshore-racing-and-sports-betting.pdf Of course the likes of Dillo who it seems can not only not count or multiply but also can't read or can't be bothered to, blithely continue, along with NZTR and the NZRB, to bandy about ridiculous and unfounded figures like the million a month without considering or reporting any kind of balanced view. Meanwhile, the NZRB are happily and quite irresponsibly spending that money in advance at this stage. I assume it will be part of Messara's brief to consider, comment on and make recommendations in relation to the Bill. I'm pretty confident he will come to a more sensible conclusion.

Yep, quite likely. He has been spruiking those figures for a while Turny. When I questioned him a couple of years ago at a road show, he would not or could not elaborate on their basis, so I gave up going to those. Subsequently, the DIA have questioned them and reading between the lines from Peters' recent comments, so does he. They are miles out of line with the published peer reviewed data from AUT on the matter. Simply not believable.

I've said many times that I've no idea where they get those figures from and they won't make the detail of the analysis available. The DIA don't agree either. My best guess is they are out by an order of magnitude of about 1, i.e., 10x the best estimate. I don't think Dillo can count, let alone multiply. Just reports what he hears without any investigation.

I prefer to believe de Lore over the Herald because he actually talks to Messara before he writes stuff. And he quotes Messara in the article you posted above: "I have been retained by the government". There is no cost to the racing industry though.

lol.....did Dillo write that?

Really? Where did you hear that? I think you might be out by about a quarter of a mil.

You might be right TC but would you please point me to where in the Act that provision applies to free competitions for prizes of alcohol. The only thing I see in it is the following: 237 Irresponsible promotion of alcohol (1) A person commits an offence if, in the course of carrying on a business, that person— ..... (e) offers (otherwise than by means of an offer made only on licensed premises, and made only in relation to the buying of alcohol on those premises) any goods or services, or the opportunity to obtain any goods or services, or the opportunity to win a prize, on the condition that alcohol is bought; And that clearly only applies where the prize is linked to purchase.

Thanks TC. Yes, I read that opinion but don't see anything in the The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 where that applies otherwise than when the prize is offered on the condition that alcohol is bought. It's a lengthy piece of legislation and I'm not a lawyer and although familiar with Gambling Act not so with the above and I may have missed it. Perhaps you or someone here would be kind enough to point me to where in the Act it says it applies to competitions where no purchase is required for entry?

You might want to check your facts there TC. I think you'll find it is the Gambling Act that you are referring to. The Gambling Act 2003 prohibits alcohol being given away as a prize in competitions where entrants have to pay or purchase a product to enter and if the outcome of the competition depends on luck. On that basis, there is nothing illegal about the RC comps is there? Maybe I have missed something?

While that may be right mardigras, it seems to me similar to saying that if I pay 10k a year in income tax and get a $300 refund, and you pay 100k and get a 10k refund, that I am hard done by and deserve more "support" from the state, closer to what you got. I don't see how I could ask for that when I am already getting the benefit of payments to government at a much lower rate. Messara's job is to review the current model and make recommendations, not implement anything. He is a competent, successful and smart cookie with significant hands on experience in the industry. I don't think his "blank sheet of paper" comment means overturning anything major necessarily. To me it means first a focus on establishing what a more effective and efficient model should look like and maybe then suggest how we might get from here to there. Peters is already publicly questioning the proposed amendments to the Racing Act, so those will presumably be on hold at least until Messsara reports. We also have growing moves in the political mix to limit or abolish Class 4 gambling in due course. Racing needs to prepare for that eventuality with a plan leading back to self-sufficiency in my view.

Yes, I'm not sure where they get that illusion (or should that be delusion?) mardigras. Every time I've asked, no evidence has been forthcoming, so I've given up.

Because it's been downgraded from GI to GII.

Yes. They bought them, primarily for trials and perhaps jumpouts. Who else would use them?

shared with who?

I posted this on Cafe today but when I went to see if anyone had commented just now the site was shut down so I'll try it here