Reefton

Yes well Garry Chittick talked all that crap in the late 1990's(the last time they tried this 'shut down all the courses' trick - and when Laurie and I had plenty of interaction) about how the big Clubs subsidised the small. Surprising for a man who was as successful as he was that he had no idea what a subsidy was because in those days the situation was just as bad as now - I had a heap of spreadsheets on the reality of the situation back then similar to what Laurie is talking about now/.

Laurie(nice work Laurie - long time since I have heard from you) has done the research that verifies exactly what I have been saying all along - the big clubs suck this industry dry. For the value of their assets they should be the first ones wound up and the money invested in the places people want to go to the races(and where in general the tracks are decent) I might add we would have been a lot higher but we took on about four extra races that year to compensate the stakeholders who missed out at Kumara

Bad as owners with horses that like dry tracks ringing you to say you 'will be enjoying this rain' Pitty!

Grubbing was the word I intended there

Shit so I am! Just downloaded the doc from the DIA website based on the original link at the start of the thread. Didn’t look at the date. They are bloody tiresome these reports - I don’t know why they just cannot be clear and concise in what they are saying(and I acknowledge that the accounting profession is the worst exponent of them all in that regard)

Too late to edit that but that ‘great’ word in the middle of the last line first para should be ‘greasy’. Effing spell check!

Page 20 and pages 101 to 105. If you haven’t picked it up I hope to hell I have misinterpreted what they are saying. It sickens me because my only hope when the Messara report came out was that the big Clubs would have to turn over their assets as well on the basis of consistency and that the kickback from that would stop the idea in its tracks.

Westland was exactly the Club that worried me. I understand they have $400k in the bank and still own the course which will be worth some money depending how they elect to dispense with it. A real decent boot fair in the guts for a bunch or tireless workers on that committee to not only close their course but then NZTR stick their hand out for everything they have accumulated. How in God’s name anyone could say that is fair is totally beyond me. McKenzie and his cohorts should be hanging their heads in shame at even suggesting it but great behaviour seems to be the norm these days. Having said that this legislation will not be through by Christmas and by the time it is Westland may have given up(they tell me morale is pretty low among what is a geriatric committee) and carried out a special meeting to change their status. But in five years time we will be staring down the same barrel though we don’t have any money so not the same potential for money grubbing.

And to be fair about the GST they pay if the Aussie (and I assume most of them are Aussie gaming outlets) GST legislation is like ours - and I believe it is - then they will not be paying GST over there. That is the income will be being treated(in Aussie) as export income upon which GST is zero rated. So while yes they are paying GST on NZ wagering to the NZ IRD they are almost certainly not paying GST on that income to the Aussie IRS. So at the end of the day it would balance out.

Curious thanks for the analysis and obviously a lot of hard work has gone into digesting the report. I have finally had my first decent look today and am pretty concerned at their plans to get around the course and assets seizure issue. From what I read they plan to put any club which loses its venue into administration and effectively seize these assets so they can use them to prop up the deadbeat big clubs and their failing infrastructure. Am I right in reading it that way? I must say I no longer have the concentration to go through the entire thing but obviously have a close interest in that part. If I am right it is a particularly slimey way around the obvious issue I dined out out on over the Messara report - in that the original proposal had to mean all clubs had all their assets vested into the control of the governing authority. Now they are saying once the relevant authority decided a club are no longer allowed to race at their venue the assets are effectively grabbed at that point. And no point in taking legal action(unless the Committee or Members fund it themselves) because the ‘administrator’ is going to to knock that on the head quick smart. It will be interesting to see how the Incorporated Societies Act is to be overridden to allow an outside party to gain control of a Society’s assets when it is still(in most cases) a going concern. Or are racing clubs to be taken out of the Incorporated Societies Act umbrella and given their own Act to facilitate this? One of the major planks of Reefton DIA submission was a question as to how the overriding of the Incorporated Societies Act(pretty much a core piece of NZ law) by the Racing Act was to be tolerated. Just on the GST Act question(which to be fair I had not thought of but which of course would hook outside gaming agencies turning over more than $60000 in NZ) they will be paying GST on their net revenue not the gross of course(and that info, if the IRD provides it of course, would indicate pretty much exactly how much is being wagered by NZ punters with offshore agencies). interested in your comments

Insofar as I am aware there are no complaints about Walker's ride on her. I thought he was very kind to her when she was obviously beaten and that probably contributed to her drifting out to last rather than perhaps midfield. Last year when she ran in the QEII Jason Collett remarked that she over raced then too and you certainly cannot afford to be over racing when you have Winx to contend with at the end of the race. Still she is past the stage where teaching her to race in a different manner is an option so I suspect, if(and that is a big if) she runs again, she will be following a somewhat similar pattern. Time will tell but for her the clock is ticking and the broodmare paddock beckons.

In Consensus' case of course he had to push her to go forward and I guess once he pushed the go button there was no stopping her. Apparently the hood comes off next start(if she starts again that is). Reported that she never turned a hair and he certainly didn't punish her once she was beaten. She had beaten the horse who won it the previous start so we put it down to the glorious uncertainty of racing I suppose. Moonee Valley of course was not the first time she had worn a hood - Taranaki was - so it is not like the improvement was dramatic. More like being the right horse in the right race(class wise) at the right time. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but I would not put Saturday's effort down as the fault of the hood entirely - the draw and having to make use of her early was the principal issue. In regards He's Eminent well the class of the field was a bit higher on Saturday than in the Ranvet. That might have had something to do with it Danzdanzdance did not quite live up to expectations either. We know from experience that butting heads with Winx is not an easy task. As for Thomass's comments well the owners pay the bills and will take their advice from whoever they choose (but safe to say it will not be him).

Hope you're wrong but you are probably right

I don't really want more from the NZ taxpayer Curious(you can want it all you want anyway - you simply are not going to get it). But every time Aussie get a boost in stakes we hear that it is government money being poured in. I don't know how that is but it they continually say it. What I do want is the NZRB to get the shiite shaken out of it to generate more income(via reducing the overhead and improving returns)

With all due respect to Aussie racing lets get some perspective. Team Consensus pays $22k late entry to the Coolmore Legacy(unfortunately straight down the drain but anyway she has paid for it so we live with that...). What privileges would you expect for the day in return? Well ......... Free entry, a racebook and a drink voucher. No owners room, no owners area, not even discounted admission to one of the hospitality areas. Despite what everyone says Aussie racing is not the be all and end all in terms of the way owners are treated nor in respect of the returns to owners. Twice in the last couple of weeks I have heard of the horrendous(and I mean HORRENDOUS) costs of having a horse trained over there in the city and as we found out Saturday the standard is extremely high. I know it all looks good, the coverage is excellent and there is plenty of punting going on but it is not the racing utopia people make it out to be. And if NZ Racing doubles it stakes(as Big Dave is promising) watch the costs go through the roof(I am not denying the trainers right to a decent living just pointing out the reality). This is not a game for the (financially) faint hearted. I must admit I wasn't there at Randwick Saturday but I have been treated a bloody sight better at Riccarton(at times) than they offered there on Saturday.

Fair comment but for me it was the principle involved. I would NOT bend to their bullying ways. I had quite a scrap with my Club Secretary over it in a Committee meeting one night(he wanted to do it but I was adamant and my committee were behind me).

A lot of the Clubs including the other three here rolled over for the $2000 but for the RJC it would never happen on my watch. I would have resigned on the spot. Reminds me of the thirty pieces of silver story in the Bible.

The amendment to Club rules was the 'give us control of the disposition of your assets' clause they wanted in all our constitutions. I told them to get stuffed (basically in those words) so I think we missed out on that.

There are a lot of different payments they make to clubs outside of the stakes lump sum. When you produce your audited financial statements i think it is $10000, for a health and safety plan I think it might be $2000 and I think there is a dollop to help with raceday costs(outside stakes). I am sure it does not come to $37,500 though and my understanding is it is per club per year not per raceday(though I guess if it is in part for raceday costs then it might , to an extent, be per raceday) Don't know why they just don't make one payment per raceday and save the complication. That would squeeze the small clubs as well which I am sure they would enjoy

The $37,500(I didn't think it was that high but however) is paid on a per Club basis not on a per Course basis. So if we moved to Greymouth we would have presumably got that same amount. So closing courses would not have saved any of that money. Infuriatingly I cannot identify exactly how much we got, in addition to stakes funding, in the 2017/18 year because of the way the financial statements are put together(that is an accounting issue and,given I am one of them myself, I cannot blame NZTR for that). That information is simply not disclosed separately but I do know none of it was tagged for venue costs. We have NEVER, in my time or in my recollection, received a cent from NZTR for venue running costs. So to say all these venues cost the industry money is BS because the money would be paid out anyway. The only way to reduce it is to cut the number of Clubs(which they no doubt will given I am sure Westland and Stratford at least will not be persevering if this ultimately comes to pass).

As it stands it is for five years so by the time we have to fight again hopefully I will be long gone and forgotten from the joint. I have fought this battle twice and racing doesn't pay the mortgage(though if Consensus puts her best foot forward this weekend it might help!)

The latest draft of the venue review comes out and, on the basis of our submission, we have a reprieve(for the short term at least). Pretty thrilled but at the same time deeply saddened for the Westland Racing Club and the other NZ Clubs who have been arbitrarily terminated. A lot of hard work went into it(the Submission) and to be fair I was worried I was wasting my time but at the end of the day the message got through. Thanks to everyone on here for their support and encouragement

'You all poke the bear......'? Well tell the bear to stop talking shiite then If he want to talk drivel he shouldn't start whimpering when he someone attacks him Mind you it is a mistake to attack him because it invariably produces an avalanche of more drivel. He has chased away far too many sensible people from the site for my liking

Please don't encourage him Wally

Well he is not missed because he refuses (or is incapable) of using proper english and he resorts to talking utter tripe when someone contradicts him. The fact he posts stories might be down to the number of good people who refuse to post while he dominates the site. He might not be offensive(now he has got over his fetishes for young girl jockeys) but he is extremely irritating at times. Unfortunately he will be back though you can guarantee that