mardigras

Not taking the piss at all. What I wrote was equally anecdotal. It is factual that the difference between the betting revenue from the TAB less the stakes paid out by way of the TAB will have a greater differential for this period than before the shut down. As for the issue of no returns, I think that is where the wage subsidy comes in, as it does for other industries unable to work. So if you compare racing with a restaurant. Racing is still earning revenues from elsewhere, without all the usual costs. And the participants are eligible for a wage subsidy. A restaurant is not earning revenues from elsewhere, without all the usual costs. And the participants are eligible for a wage subsidy. Who is better off?

It's anecdotal because it is information that doe not relate to the actual state of the industry. You are inferring it does. Anecdotal doesn't mean the statements in themselves are not true. But the inference certainly may not be true.

My eyes usually. But here is something from Bloomberg.

Why? My view is that the impact overall would have been largely the same. Some worse, some better, overall the same. Many people will be better off with the lockdown than otherwise, many will not.

I said the current gradient - at the current point in time. Over the entire period, the gradient is lower, as at this point, relative to the other countries, it is steeper.

Looks like they are still operating from what you write. And what you write is anecdotal in regards the state of the industry. But how about the contra. NZ TAB takes betting on all those same events. Higher turnover from NZ (nothing else to bet on). More revenue for NZ TAB. No outgoings on stakes. Better situation. Better industry in the future.

So do I. Most regard me as extremely pragmatic. I agree it will be yesterdays news. But my view is the impact to the economy was a given. And it is. And I will be equally proven right on that. And they will all recover as they do. So since the economy was going to be affected no matter what the government did, then they had a choice. Save lives and have the same economic impact, or not save lives and have the same impact. Pretty simple decision for me.

Is it. Maybe they need to do a new estimate. I think it is at around 8.9% now. And even with restaurants and bars open - the number of extra jobless over the last week, the largest group was in the hotel and restaurant area. An area of biggest loss where part of that industry was still fully open. As I've said, the economy was always going to be impacted, lock down or not.

Probably the same level of evidence you have relating to your statement about the relative racing industries. My evidence is from having lived in Australia for a long time and the information I get from my children that still live there - anecdotal. The same evidence you are relying on for your view on the racing industry. My view on the racing industry is that ours will be in no worse situation than it was before. Since ours was in the crap already.

I didn't mention how long it took, I mentioned the gradient the UK is at compared to those other two at the same relative point in time currently. The death rate of Italy includes outside hospitals. The death rate of the UK does not. Ergo, UK death rate higher than Spain's and higher than Italy's.

So it's just a cold. And you think Bob Jones is on the money. Can you give us a comparison maybe between NZ and Sweden. Can you tell us how many die in Sweden each year from what is just a cold to most people? Sweden seem to have followed Bob's advice. How's their economy. What sort of job losses did they have in the last week? It makes no difference whether the virus is no more than a cold to most people. Doing nothing or doing something was always going to have the same impact on a countries economy. Only the gullible couldn't see that. Clearly you couldn't see that. Nor could Bob. Shed some light on the impact of this cold to countries that have followed such advice. Compare with Sweden remoteness/accessibility population density population age profile city densities virus cases virus deaths virus serious/critical cases virus economic impact Feel free to compare anything else you feel relevant. And maybe you can tell us how much different what Sweden has done to what Bob suggests in dealing with this cold.

You must be reading different statistics. Have you seen the statistics of all three countries based on the days since they each had 100 cases? Which of the three has the highest gradient curve in relation to cases. And did you know that the UK has had only 55% of the number of reported cases of Spain? And had 70% of the number of deaths of Spain? So their case rate growth at the same time is higher than both Italy's and Spain's And their death rate is also far higher than Spain's. And did you also know, the deaths in the UK only count hospital deaths? No deaths in rest homes or anywhere else.

And more importantly, most of the things that will happen to the economy, were going to happen anyway, even if there had been no lockdown. Tourism etc (including restaurants/bars). The jobs haven't gone needlessly - they were going with or without the lockdown. And he talks of the fear factor and reinvestment. If he thinks the fear would be lessened by not having had the level of lockdown, then I'm not sure why he would think that. The fear is likely heightened if the virus spread to a greater degree, yet that is what would be likely under his suggestions.

Whilst I agree with some of his points - in relation to possibly going too far. However, I doubt going too far will have any variant impact on the economy overall. Shedding parts of an industry that was likely too top heavy anyway is not such a bad thing. Shedding complacency - a great thing if it happens. I disagree with his view on the impact. What does he think the impact will be on Australia - they haven't gone so far, and they are likely to face a longer recovery period - business wise. Perhaps when he talked about the plight of Italy and Spain, he should reflect that Britain is going down a path that surpasses both of those countries. One of my brothers lives there - he reckons it is in the toilet. And for the record, I am not a Jacinda fan. I have never voted labour and it is likely I never will.

Along what curious said. I think the NZ economy will recover a lot quicker than Australia's, even though a lot more business have remained open in Australia. They have lacked clear decision making which will have a longer impact on recovery imo. And because of the clear decision making, I think our response is better in so far as the health and safety aspects. You mentioned you think the cure could be worse than the disease. I definitely disagree. If you didn't try the cure, the disease would have a far greater impact on the economy. That is already evident on what was happening to the economies of those countries that didn't do anything for longer. If you try the cure, and it doesn't work out, you'll just be in the same position as you would be without trying. In NZ, my view is the most important thing to do was ensure our health systems remained able to service the needs of the community. I think we will have done that, and our borders (outside of possibly Australia), won't be opening anytime soon, and unlikely before a vaccination - in order to limit the potential impact to our health system (and we simply don't have the infrastructure/facilities to quarantine the arrivals). I've stated many times, the virus isn't the biggest problem. It is the individual countries ability to continue to provide the level of health service the country requires. If you break your health system, you are going to break your economy. There are plenty of lessons to be learned. But societies will not learn them. Once this is all over and some form of normal life returns, people/business in countries like NZ will still continue to live week to week (even those that could do something to change that). For most, their behaviour will not change.

Being an Australian and a Kiwi, I know where I'd rather be. And it isn't there.

So that would mean they are based on turnover. WTF turnover has got to do with anything for the TAB, I have got no idea. Do they pay rebates on fixed odds based turnover also?

I disagree with anything based on turnover. Turnover has nothing to do with 'your best customers'. Losses - they are your best customers - the bigger the losses, the more you might want to look after them. Turnover isn't necessarily related to losses. This isn't a normal business of offering your big customers (on volume), a discount. In this business, your actual biggest customers (and in fact, likely your most important customers to retain) are your biggest losers. I'd have no issue with the TAB offering some form of rebate on losses - to keep those punters losing with you.

Odd - since I didn't think they paid rebates on fixed odds betting. And I don't think the off-shore TABs do either. I haven't seen them put a tote bet on. Clipping the ticket of an off-shore provider may be as profitable as taking their bets (and carries no risk). It all depends on their losses overall. NZ TAB doesn't need them, the industry still would have them - and that is what is more important I would have thought.

I sure didn't. For a horse to be at value, I have to give the horse around a 25% extra chance than what the betting provider does (in most cases). Eg. I had Etah James as a higher winning chance than the NZ TAB. But still wasn't at value.

Yes, they were betting from Wednesday from memory (Thursday at the latest). And in the words of Thomass, here are my prices on the Oaks. So I think Probabeel was poor odds. As was Shout The Bar.

Yep, the employment contract would (should) define what the employee is entitled to. In cases such as this though, many may take the approach of being a good corporate citizen and not just throw their staff out on the basis of their contract. But even if you paid staff out 4 weeks, that is still likely to be a lot better than keeping them, if they are surplus to requirements for 12+ weeks. (Of course you are not entitled to the full 12 weeks of wage subsidy for any weeks the employee is not still effectively employed). So terminating an employee after 4 weeks, when you've received 12 weeks of subsidy - you are required to pay back the 8 weeks they are not in your employment. Normal employment laws are still in effect.

I'd agree - I'd expect prudent management would assess the short to medium term requirements - and let that drive the decision of retention versus otherwise (and that would likely be a mixture of each in a lot of cases). When you have a business that is highly likely to be top heavy with staff such as RITA, I would have thought a perfect opportunity to remove many. Especially many that are dead wood where the position clearly doesn't currently exist. On problem with RITA, is that so many are likely to be dead wood.

I think in the example, the punter wagered $100k to win $5k. In the earlier example they wagered $70k to win $105k, i.e. a return of $175k on their bet and a loss in this example by the TAB (depending on what they did with that bet), of $105k. How did you come to the conclusion that a bet of $70k to win $105k is odds-on stacked in the TABs favour without knowing what the supposed chance of the runner is? I can only guess that in a 2 horse race, if the TAB lets me bet $70k to win $105k on one runner, and then lets me bet $70k to win $105k on the other runner, that is stacked in the TABs favour. If you think that, let me know next time you want to offer something similar. Thanks in advance.

Lucky we live in a world where people can have different views. Racing hasn't been the target of the very recent changes. And given the approach taken for NZ, I certainly agree therefore that racing should be stopped. Why treat racing any different to the local hairdresser?