Has The Optimist become The Pessimist?

[Freda]

14 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Our Club had the land long before NZTR or the TAB was ever thought of.  Back in the 1800's.  I believe it was gifted to the RJC who then gifted one half to the Trotting Club

They are desperate and they have the backing of big business people who have sway with politicians(ie the Minister of Racing).  They are demanding their payback for past support.  Trouble is the big businessman doesn't keep this industry going as they are only in it to make a quid - it is the mug punters and the even bigger mug owners who are pouring the cash in(and of course by their behaviour and piss poor service the TAB are chasing the punters away from the sounds of things).  In the case of the mug owners well economics are sending them elsewhere to spend their dosh.

You'd probably be  surprised to realise who and how many  think that nicking land assets is the way to go....as well as swallowing the notion that small clubs are costing megadollars.

[Reefton]

21 minutes ago, Freda said:

You'd probably be  surprised to realise who and how many  think that nicking land assets is the way to go....as well as swallowing the notion that small clubs are costing megadollars.

Yeah well a lot of your training colleagues in the Waikato are fans of course(Tony Pike and Andrew Scott being two who spring to mind)

[Joe Bloggs]

13 minutes ago, Freda said:

You'd probably be  surprised to realise who and how many  think that nicking land assets is the way to go....as well as swallowing the notion that small clubs are costing megadollars.

Surely their lawyers would be advising them it's unconstitutional and a no win for them in court? No legislation would ever pass to 'steal' land, what buffoons they are and that's being kind......a class action would cripple them, but then their costs would be another burden on the already downtrodden and maligned stakeholders, what a sad and sorry affair this all is. Isn't it amazing what lengths people will go to to protect their obscene salaries.

As a byline, if by the sheer grace of God many of the decision makers are retrenched or for whatever reason, relieved of their positions, should they knock on your door looking for employment, would you employ them....any of them? or would you send them packing? 

[Freda]

23 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Yeah well a lot of your training colleagues in the Waikato are fans of course(Tony Pike and Andrew Scott being two who spring to mind)

And some here as well.

[Reefton]

19 minutes ago, Joe Bloggs said:

Surely their lawyers would be advising them it's unconstitutional and a no win for them in court? No legislation would ever pass to 'steal' land, what buffoons they are and that's being kind......a class action would cripple them, but then their costs would be another burden on the already downtrodden and maligned stakeholders, what a sad and sorry affair this all is. Isn't it amazing what lengths people will go to to protect their obscene salaries.

As a byline, if by the sheer grace of God many of the decision makers are retrenched or for whatever reason, relieved of their positions, should they knock on your door looking for employment, would you employ them....any of them? or would you send them packing? 

Don't know about that.  Our sister club got an informal(but from an exceptionally high up legal eagle) opinion that as it stands they could not take the assets but  if they change the law(Racing Act) to say that all Racing clubs are under the control of NZRB/RITA then I see no reason why NZRB/RITA could not control them in whatever manner they choose.

The response to a class action would be 'well you had the opportunity to submit when the bill was being debated'.  Of course small Clubs have limited time and resources to put in submissions and you can absolutely guarantee there will copious lengthy submission in favour from those with plenty of time and industry funds backing them(the Trainers association, NZTR, the big Clubs and the Breeders).  The Select committee will just announce that an overwhelming number of submissions were in favour and that is that.  Much as National is suddenly taking an interest in the racing industry it will be unlikely to be that desperate for votes that it does anything too radical  to upset big business(God knows the Breeders are probably already working on Bridges and co to make sure it goes through with out serious opposition).   

[Reefton]

7 minutes ago, Freda said:

And some here as well.

I imagine so.  What those people fail to take into account is that Riccarton cannot survive on its own(and whats more will probably never get an all weather).  Some of those Trainers think they are clever never supporting the smaller clubs and it will be hard to have any sympathy for them when the inevitable collapse of the industry happens.

[Joe Bloggs]

27 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Don't know about that.  Our sister club got an informal(but from an exceptionally high up legal eagle) opinion that as it stands they could not take the assets but  if they change the law(Racing Act) to say that all Racing clubs are under the control of NZRB/RITA then I see no reason why NZRB/RITA could not control them in whatever manner they choose.

The response to a class action would be 'well you had the opportunity to submit when the bill was being debated'.  Of course small Clubs have limited time and resources to put in submissions and you can absolutely guarantee there will copious lengthy submission in favour from those with plenty of time and industry funds backing them(the Trainers association, NZTR, the big Clubs and the Breeders).  The Select committee will just announce that an overwhelming number of submissions were in favour and that is that.  Much as National is suddenly taking an interest in the racing industry it will be unlikely to be that desperate for votes that it does anything too radical  to upset big business(God knows the Breeders are probably already working on Bridges and co to make sure it goes through with out serious opposition).   

You're much closer to it than I, so I'll bow to your better judgement. Once the grass roots people vote with their feet there'll be little left, how anyone in their right mind can accept a 10k stake at a TAB meeting is beyond me, and by the sounds of it those stakes wont last either. The transport costs are horrendous for those trainers that don't cart their own, the fact you have to pay for a jockey, no starters bonus/subsidy, why the hell bother, racing for the love of it......plaudits to those brave souls.

[curious]

4 hours ago, Freda said:

That is how I would interpret things.

The mantra is that ' assets have been accrued as a direct result of industry funds ' 

If that's the "mantra", I disagree with it, if you can disagree with a mantra. Any funds that have gone into clubs building assets were earned by the clubs as recompense for providing a venue and a product in the form of racedays FOR the industry.

That's leaving aside the fact that some of the funds earned by some clubs went to subsidise the earnings of others.

Such an argument frankly sucks and is untenable.

[Freda]

1 hour ago, curious said:

If that's the "mantra", I disagree with it, if you can disagree with a mantra. Any funds that have gone into clubs building assets were earned by the clubs as recompense for providing a venue and a product in the form of racedays FOR the industry.

That's leaving aside the fact that some of the funds earned by some clubs went to subsidise the earnings of others.

Such an argument frankly sucks and is untenable.

Agree absolutely.

That is,  however,  how the process will be justified.

[Kopia]

1 hour ago, Freda said:

Agree absolutely.

That is,  however,  how the process will be justified.

there is a precedent in New Zealand where land was 'taken'...its called the Treat of Waitangi.,and the Waitangi Tribunal. Look at where that has led, still not, and according to some participants, never will be settled. Racing authorities should be very careful about plans to 'take' land/and or assets that do not legally sit in their ownership.

[Freda]

2 minutes ago, Kopia said:

there is a precedent in New Zealand where land was 'taken'...its called the Treat of Waitangi.,and the Waitangi Tribunal. Look at where that has led, still not, and according to some participants, never will be settled. Racing authorities should be very careful about plans to 'take' land/and or assets that do not legally sit in their ownership.

That's the point though,  if the legislation to support that stance ( and I can't see how that will happen, but still. .) is enacted, it will be legal to take the land and assets.  Not moral or ethical,  but legal.

[Kopia]

Think about how this would impact on society at large. Even though I believe the present Govt is a shocker, led by a photo opportunity lightweight, I still cannot believe legislation enabling an entity to take another entities property, sell it, and keep the proceeds, would ever succeed. Just not going to happen. And Peters may have Labour and Ardern bent over a barrel waiting to insert you know what but what is proposed is ridiculous.

[Freda]

Yes,  of course it is..most of us concur there...but,  again,  as I pointed out to Reefton,  you'd be staggered if you knew who and how many think that course is perfectly reasonable.  A must-do,  in fact.

[Freda]

Many of the rural areas are National-held electorates,  I have spoken with Andrew Falloon for one,  I can't see how Winston will ever get the support for this.

And another thought just occurred to me;  if a racing club de-registered itself [ or whatever is the appropriate action ]  and then ceases to become a racing club,  NZTR /NZRB can whistle Dixie, they will have no authority over the land even IF the unthinkable legislative change occurs.

[Reefton]

3 hours ago, Freda said:

Many of the rural areas are National-held electorates,  I have spoken with Andrew Falloon for one,  I can't see how Winston will ever get the support for this.

And another thought just occurred to me;  if a racing club de-registered itself [ or whatever is the appropriate action ]  and then ceases to become a racing club,  NZTR /NZRB can whistle Dixie, they will have no authority over the land even IF the unthinkable legislative change occurs.

They will tie in all entities holding permits to race to the direct authority of the NZRB or whatever body is filling its role.

bear in mind Plunket Head Office recently grabbed all the land that their various voluntary committees all around the land had worked their butts off to purchase, build and maintain.  That is one reason I will no longer donate to Plunket fundraising.  And of course the CEO's and admin staff of Plunket were receiving nice fat salaries while the mugs raised the funds.  St John is another example where the volunteers on the local committees are struggling to meet the demands of the National Body(well it is split into about four or five regions) in terms of the accommodation(Ambulance Stations) they are expected to provide(and maintain) and the levies they are forced to pay from fundraising while the regional organisations pay big fat salaries as well.

Do those two stories invite any comparisons in any of your minds?

All this Racing Act needs to do is say that to hold a racing permit one must be affiliated to the National Body and that to be affiliated to the National Body one must acknowledge that the National Body controls the ownership of all assets and the administration of the entity(so they will let you sail along doing a heap of voluntary work no problem until the shiite hits the fan).

Has anyone ever heard the story of the Little Red Hen?

 

[curious]

8 hours ago, Reefton said:

They will tie in all entities holding permits to race to the direct authority of the NZRB or whatever body is filling its role.

bear in mind Plunket Head Office recently grabbed all the land that their various voluntary committees all around the land had worked their butts off to purchase, build and maintain.  That is one reason I will no longer donate to Plunket fundraising.  And of course the CEO's and admin staff of Plunket were receiving nice fat salaries while the mugs raised the funds.  St John is another example where the volunteers on the local committees are struggling to meet the demands of the National Body(well it is split into about four or five regions) in terms of the accommodation(Ambulance Stations) they are expected to provide(and maintain) and the levies they are forced to pay from fundraising while the regional organisations pay big fat salaries as well.

Do those two stories invite any comparisons in any of your minds?

All this Racing Act needs to do is say that to hold a racing permit one must be affiliated to the National Body and that to be affiliated to the National Body one must acknowledge that the National Body controls the ownership of all assets and the administration of the entity(so they will let you sail along doing a heap of voluntary work no problem until the shiite hits the fan).

Has anyone ever heard the story of the Little Red Hen?

 

Yes, they can probably do that if a club has a betting licence, but if a club's race dates are taken away, surely they can bugger off and do what they like within the limitations of their constitution which can be altered by members at any general meeting?

[Freda]

12 hours ago, curious said:

Yes, they can probably do that if a club has a betting licence, but if a club's race dates are taken away, surely they can bugger off and do what they like within the limitations of their constitution which can be altered by members at any general meeting?

That's pretty much what I meant,  but obviously didn't express it very well.

If a club hands its licence in,  surely,  in that case, it's assets would be unable to be touched?

...and sadly, yes,  I'm aware of the Plunket scenario described above..

Edited October 11, 2019 by Freda

[Huey]

Can't they just back date the legislation,  I'd have thought that will be the approach. 

[Reefton]

17 hours ago, curious said:

Yes, they can probably do that if a club has a betting licence, but if a club's race dates are taken away, surely they can bugger off and do what they like within the limitations of their constitution which can be altered by members at any general meeting?

Well I have said all the way this will come down to which act holds precedence the Incorporated Societies Act or the Racing Act.  But if they put a section into the Racing Act saying something along the lines of 'notwithstanding the provisions of the Incorporated Societies Act any Racing Club or organisation holding a permit to run race meetings which chooses to relinquish such a permit will be required to ensure that the racing assets of the Club be disbursed in consultation with the NZ Racing Board and for the benefit of the NZ Racing Industry'.

Will the do gooders kick up about it?  Well most of them hold the racing industry in contempt anyway and are out saving the world.  From Jacinda's perspective yes it might rankle but hey she has to appease Winston to keep him happy and at the end of the day they are assets owned by the wider racing industry so it's not like she is robbing Peter to pay Paul(in her eyes).  AND Winston needs a bloody lot of dosh and if she gives it to him from the public purse there will be major grief from the aforementioned do gooders.  Plus as I said there are no votes in Reefton(and history says what there are will crawl into the polling booth and vote for her anyway) so who cares?

[Reefton]

For all  that Winston would want to get his A into G wouldn't he? It is only a year from the election and as it stands he and his party are getting the boot from Parliament.  If Jacinda and the Greens get in alone I doubt there is going to be too much concern for Winston baby the racing industry and if the Nats re there well again not too much empathy for witless Win one wouldn't think?  Getting this legislation passed is not that rapid a process is it?  God knows there has been a year plus since Messara and f all has happened so far ( other than the idiot venue review)

[Joe Bloggs]

1 hour ago, Reefton said:

For all  that Winston would want to get his A into G wouldn't he? It is only a year from the election and as it stands he and his party are getting the boot from Parliament.  If Jacinda and the Greens get in alone I doubt there is going to be too much concern for Winston baby the racing industry and if the Nats re there well again not too much empathy for witless Win one wouldn't think?  Getting this legislation passed is not that rapid a process is it?  God knows there has been a year plus since Messara and f all has happened so far ( other than the idiot venue review)

If Jacinda gets in again Reefton I'll personally cut the trans Tasman cable and NZ can drift off Into the Pacific......promise!

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

And to those who want to close down Timaru I hope you enjoyed yesterday.

11 races, many with 20 Acceptances and a perfect track.

Unlike most of the City Race Meetings

[curious]

Getting more Optimistic? Anyone bother to read this? https://www.rita.org.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB_Performance and Efficiency Report_Final.pdf

Performance and Efficiency Audit fails to flatter

Dedicated this week to the memory of my long-time friend, confidant, and all-round good guy Bob Morris who passed away last Thursday one month short of his 92^nd birthday.  He was an outstanding stockman, the best horseman I ever met, an inspiration to scores of horse people, proud, humble, highly respected, and my mentor and source of strength for the past 40 years. Bob was courageous and lived and died by his own rules – the finest man I ever knew. RIP Bob, your memory will live long.

 

by Brian de Lore
Published 25 October 2019

Do the research, speak to reliable people, and gather trustworthy information, and it’s not that difficult to discover the truth. It takes time and common sense and a bringing together of facts to point you in the direction of sound conclusions.

That’s all this blog is about. No delight is gained from a weekly barrage of hand-grenade tossing to administrative authorities to encourage them to act in the best interests of the industry stakeholders. Negativity is depressing in every language, but if you see something worthwhile slipping away that is salvageable, are you not morally obliged to do something about it.

Every week that passes by, I want to give up writing this stuff and do something more fulfilling with happy outcomes, but every week I receive more and more phone and email encouragement to continue the penned fight to hold industry decision-making to account.

One of the major problems is lack of industry awareness through want of a publication. Jonny Turner of the Otago Daily Times – the only major independent newspaper left in New Zealand – is perhaps the only writer left prepared to highlight these serious issues.

The loss of The Informant has been catastrophic. NZRB/RITA’s Best Bet’s is hard to find and hardly worth finding, and showed its colours last week when published on Thursday with no Caulfield form. How low does it have to sink? Do these people not correlate the formguide’s potential to stimulate betting turnover.

Boring it may be to bring back the Titanic analogy again, but this is a snapshot of  New Zealand racing. The NZ First guy is on deck talking to the DIA guy, and both are oblivious to the third and fourth class passengers scurrying for lifeboats after the ship has struck the iceberg. One says to the other, “I hope this North Atlantic weather improves tomorrow so we can have that game of deck tennis.”

On radio last week Racing Minister Winston Peters claimed he was spending far too much time on the racing portfolio which is in contrast to his Chief-of-Staff and political scientist Jon Johanassen’s revelation to The Optimist about five months ago when he said that if the Boss had to spend more than two hours a week on racing matters, then it was excessive and something was wrong.

Well, something is wrong, drastically wrong. Perhaps the Minister needs to increase his input from two hours to two days a week, but we all know he won’t. That leaves his right-hand-man Johanssen at the helm and steering the course while only giving Winston the co-ordinates once a week during that two-hour session. It’s evident Johanssen is the man plotting the course.

No skin in the game, no knowledge of racing, and no consequences for Johanssen when they blow the whistle for full-time on racing. On the other hand, Johanssen is the man who will advise and steer NZ-First policy or at least enact the policy, towards the supreme goal of NZ-First getting over the five percent threshold in the election next year, and retaining Winston’s position as power-broker for further coalition deals. That appears to be his prime focus.

Racing, like it or not, will be a political football for the next 12 months and the outcome for our industry will be inconsequential to all political parties – only the election result will matter while racing gets a further battering – if by that time the bank hasn’t called in its loan.

Aspirant National Party leader Judith Collins has already started, telling members of the Gore Racing Club a couple of weeks ago a vote for National will save their Club from being victimised in the venue closure plan. Shadow Minister for Racing Ian McKelvie has been talking about ‘nationalism’ and keeping the TAB for ourselves – a poorly conceived statement, Ian, showing you haven’t grasped the most crucial component of the Messara Report.

McKelvie may not have remembered that Nathan Guy espoused identical sentiments during National’s nine-year reign during which racing received nothing in return – treated like a colony of lepers. During his five-year stint as Racing Minster, Guy paraphrased the McKelvie view and also appointed Glenda Hughes as Chair who, in turn, appointed John Allen as CEO in that John Key/Hughes sideways shift deal.

Did racing ever thank you for that, Nathan? Well then, “thank you’ on behalf of racing. It was a minus $200 million decision for racing – we got the colony of lepers sidestep. No one is going to forget National’s nine-year treatment of racing in a hurry but, then again, we have to weigh it all up against the benefits racing has derived from NZ-First, the coalition, and Winston as our Minister over the past two years.

Imagine a set of old-fashioned scales; the dish on both sides is empty. No weight either side! That’s not to say our Minister in this two-year-old stint hasn’t made an effort and put in place a multitude of things such as reviews, committees, meetings, boards, legislation, working streams, etc, etc. But the tangible benefits for the industry, so far, is zero.

Anyone adding up the benefits accrued over the past 11 years from either side of the political spectrum, may elect not to vote at all at the next election. Or as an alternative, find some obscure party with no hope, but with a leader who makes a real-time contribution by going racing or just having a punt.

The aforementioned notion of seeking the truth in a world full of fake news was further dented this week when perusing the Grant Thornton five-year Racing Board Performance and Efficiency Audit. I would describe it as shallow, soppy, non-investigative, friendly to NZRB, and a complete waste of effort and, more importantly, money.

It’s not worth reading. If a non-racing person read it independently and bereft of industry knowledge, he/she would be lulled into believing that with some minor tweaking, the racing industry is going along okay.

Here’s an excerpt that demonstrates its shallowness: “The Fixed Odds Betting Platform cost $1.1m more than in the original business case (3% overrun) and was delivered 5 months later than planned. The cost was reported as $40.8m by the CEO to the industry and to the NZRB Board (sources: RITA website “June 2019 – Industry Update” and 29 January 2019 FOB Board Update).”

Grant Thornton used the RITA website as it’s ‘source’ on claiming the FOB exceeded budget by only three percent. Yet I can produce a recording of CEO John Allen claiming at one of his industry conversation meetings at Riccarton that the cost of the FOB would be $25 million. Later, in the letter from Glenda Hughes to the Trainers’ Association, the former Chair said it was $30 million. Over time it crept up to $40 million as the overruns became more evident – why don’t we just make it up as we go?

And then the exorbitant costs of the 125 or so contract IT people that was not capitalised, hiding the actual cost of something in the vicinity of $50 million. Grant Thornton has accepted the fake news on the website just as we are all supposed to accept it. Isn’t it disrespectful of these people to think the racing participants could believe it Why didn’t they engage Deloitte who have extensive subject knowledge, and would have produced a credible document?

Here’s another example of some soppiness in fake efficiency and performance reporting: “Other than investments in the key strategic initiatives, the NZRB maintained a strict approach to cost management. Excluding strategic initiatives and turnover related expenses, operating expenses have reduced over the last 5 years from $127.8 million in FY15 to $126.5 million in FY19 (unaudited).”

No further need to quote from this painful, drawn-out poorly presented document. It needs binning rather than reading, the same bin the RIU Review should be in after its release in July. The RIU review recommended the RIU should have autonomy and its own board – the exact opposite of what we need.

The Messara Report says the codes should manage themselves, control their own finances and determine their own future. The Burgess RIU Review, written by an ex-policeman, is recommending the integrity component of racing be disenfranchised from the thoroughbred code which flies in the face of the devolvement of power to the codes, and ultimately would prove unworkable and costly. Racing needs fewer boards, not more.

In last week’s blog, I quoted from the last RITA update which included this excerpt: “We expect DIA-led workshops to get underway with the Codes and betting operators later this month.”

Information received this week suggests that meeting will occur today, Friday 25^th. It’s the meeting that could have taken place a long time ago, and it’s only about getting the DIA workshops underway and likely to be about setting the rates and collecting the levies which under DIA direction is almost sure to be a tortoise-like journey.

DIA is also writing the legislation for the Racing Reform Bill No.2 which will have to be completed anytime soon if it’s to have chance becoming law before the year is out. Information gathered suggests it’s being rushed to get it ready for a first reading – not an ideal situation if National is prepared and waiting to disrupt the process for political gain. And not ideal if you want something good set in concrete.

RITA is probably powerless when it comes to expediting the process, but on other matters, it played a part in the appointment of Malcolm Burgess to do the RIU Review, was party to engaging Grant Thornton for the Five-Year Performance and Efficiency Audit, and failed to take the opportunity to clear out all the NZRB executives including CEO John Allen on Day One, July 1^st.

But back to the subject of net tangible assets. When a company’s net tangible assets in the business world are less than its level of debt, it’s called insolvency. Perhaps, in racing it’s called something else because no one else has mentioned the word.

Racing is in a negative state to the tune of around $20 million on that score. Betting Information User Charges and Point of Consumption may be coming next year, but how about the present? This industry is closer to the cliff’s edge that most would realise, and no one is talking about it.

[Freda]

" The Messara Report says the codes should manage themselves, control their own finances and determine their own future "

 

That,  to me,  is one of the major flaws in the Report.   I was pretty optimistic [ no pun intended ]  that a good shake-up might get some improvement started - although I have never agreed with the stealing of club assets.

But with the RB streamlined and operating efficiently [ ? ]   and the TAB outsourced,  light may shine..I hoped.

But it is all just a waste of time if the [mis]management of the codes remains unchanged.

[curious]

2 hours ago, Freda said:

" The Messara Report says the codes should manage themselves, control their own finances and determine their own future "

 

That,  to me,  is one of the major flaws in the Report.   I was pretty optimistic [ no pun intended ]  that a good shake-up might get some improvement started - although I have never agreed with the stealing of club assets.

But with the RB streamlined and operating efficiently [ ? ]   and the TAB outsourced,  light may shine..I hoped.

But it is all just a waste of time if the [mis]management of the codes remains unchanged.

Quite true and I disagree mostly with de Lore (again). I think this is way the most comprehensive, rigorous and detailed P&E report we have had since the NZRB came into existence and it is worth a read.

Edited November 23, 2019 by curious