Raise The White Flag- You have to be kidding?

[Happy Sunrise]

56 minutes ago, JJ Flash said:

With the increase in taxes

Have taxes on the TAB gone up in New Zealand?

[mardigras]

16 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Have taxes on the TAB gone up in New Zealand?

Some have, they pay racefields fees for betting done on off-shore events, as part of their agreement with TABCORP.

And they/the industry are attempting to further increase taxes on off-shore operators - which will affect those punters betting on NZ events and also those NZ punters betting with off-shore operators. So whilst not the TAB, it is related to the revenue the NZ industry is likely to receive by way of those taxes.

[Happy Sunrise]

4 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Some have, they pay racefields fees for betting done on off-shore events, as part of their agreement with TABCORP.

And they/the industry are attempting to further increase taxes on off-shore operators - which will affect those punters betting on NZ events and also those NZ punters betting with off-shore operators. So whilst not the TAB, it is related to the revenue the NZ industry is likely to receive by way of those taxes.

Has that mean the odds offered by the TAB have got worse recently?

I read the full article the Chief put up. Would you agree it seems to support Brodie's position that serious punters won't take any odds offered and some give it away?

 

[Brodie]

Greg, you are totally incorrect!

NZ Bookies want certain punters to bet early when there is nothing at all being held by the Bookies.

Bookies will take $10k off known losing punters as soon as the final fields odds

come out, but if you are a restricted winning punter then doesn’t matter what you want to back, you are restricted.

Greg, you are clearly not a winning restricted punted by the TAB or you would know what actually does go on!!!

Even if there was plenty being held by the Bookies on race 5 at Addington, I couldn’t get much on!!!!!

Do not go quoting stuff that is written overseas as being gospel as to what treatment I have had to endure while I was trying to invest!!!!

You haven’t got a clue Greg!

 

’ 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Brodie

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Has that mean the odds offered by the TAB have got worse recently?

I read the full article the Chief put up. Would you agree it seems to support Brodie's position that serious punters won't take any odds offered and some give it away?

 

I couldn't say for sure, but I doubt it.

I would say that there are punters that will not take odds offered, and therefore give it away or bet less. That is not likely to be a major NZ TAB issue at this point since NZ TAB as a betting operator hasn't been subjected to most of the extra taxes the Australian operators have been facing.

If NZ starts increasing taxes on NZ based punters by way of the PoC tax, that could cause some NZ based punters to stop betting with those off-shore operators. If they stop betting with them, my view is that they are unlikely to then bet with NZ TAB - since NZ TAB odds wouldn't be expected to be better - as they likely subscribe to a set of data that incorporates price data across events, and then use that data to set and adjust odds as part of the automated fixed odds betting software.

These punters that give it away are likely to be your most price sensitive customers, not your day to day punter. The issue for NZ with what the Chief put up is whether any of that betting was on NZ events (and if any other higher volume punters also give up betting due to the taxes in Australia). With NZ trying to increase the taxes on betting operators that don't currently pay racefields fees to NZ on NZ events, those fees would not materialise since they are based on turnover.

[Happy Sunrise]

7 minutes ago, mardigras said:

These punters that give it away are likely to be your most price sensitive customers, not your day to day punter.

Some might say Brodie is sensitive ?

 

10 minutes ago, mardigras said:

If NZ starts increasing taxes on NZ based punters by way of the PoC tax,

Where would that tax revenue go if they did? 

Excuse my ignorance, but how do Australian gallops have such large stakes at their meetings? It makes NZ racing seem pathetic, especially the trots.

 

[mardigras]

Just now, Happy Sunrise said:

Where would that tax revenue go if they did? 

Excuse my ignorance, but how do Australian gallops have such large stakes at their meetings? It makes NZ racing seem pathetic, especially the trots.

 

The revenue would be collected as part of the racing industry/RITA income.

Australia stakes are higher because they are a far higher group of punters per capita (losses/turnover) than NZ punters. So the punters losses are enough to fund the industry there. Whereas the punter losses put through the NZ TAB are peanuts and leave NZ with what it gets.

So even though they have 5 times the population, 5 times the number of events, the level per event is a lot higher. Some of that comes about due to competition where there are more avenues for price sensitive punters to seek out the prices they are happy with, some of it is just the Australian culture regarding betting. NZ has no competition apart from that which is occurring off-shore.

[Happy Sunrise]

7 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Whereas the punter losses put through the NZ TAB are peanuts and leave NZ with what it gets.

Is there hope with RITA or are we stuffed?

[Brodie]

2 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Is there hope with RITA or are we stuffed?

There needs  to be major changes within the infrastructure of the Racing Board and TAB.

The overall costs need trimming significantly and turnover needs to be encouraged rather than discouraged.

The salaries being paid to many of the employees are grossly exorbitant for what they are doing as without the punter they have no job.

Blatantly ridiculous when employees are earning far more than thePrime Minister of NZ, not that she is doing a good job though!

The TAB wouldn’t worry if harness racing wasn’t around as the hierarchy are only concerned about yield.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Brodie

[mardigras]

9 hours ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Is there hope with RITA or are we stuffed?

I'd say they have damaged the profile of NZ racing to a non-repairable level. If they don't sell up and incorporate some minimum funding criteria into a deal, they will likely just continue in the same vein. Is that stuffed? Pretty close to it.

In my view, they should never have taken the focus off NZ racing. Which other jurisdiction in the world focusses more on racing from elsewhere than they do on their own. And as a state owned operator, they should have never gone with fixed odds. If they wanted fixed odds to be available, they should have sold rights for other operators to provide fixed odds and clip the ticket, rather than have the industry pay directly for providing that service.

Also, if you have a shop and you offer some 'product' at a price. And then you introduce a new product that you sell for the same price, but the customers think is superior. What happens to the old 'product'. People stop buying it. NZ thoroughbred racing is like the old 'product'. Off-shore racing is the new 'product'.

They should have incorporated a point of difference to keep the old 'product' attractive. Like a normal business would. Discount pricing etc. In the case of the TAB, reduced takeouts or similar.

Then when the new 'product' has got all the customers and you have no control of it, what do you have? You become exposed to the things they do with that product such as extra taxes or additional costs of supplying that product. But your customers have already moved away from the old 'product' - so you're stuck with continuing to pay the costs of providing the new 'product' and an ever increasing decline in interest in your old 'product'. The old 'product' being the very thing you are tasked with providing for. And your entire model is at the control of 3rd parties. You have little to no say in what they charge you or on what basis they charge you.

So for NZ TAB, every time they sell some new 'product', they pay fees off-shore. Something they don't do for selling the old 'product'. S net yields are affected as the swing away from the old 'product' to the new 'product' occurs. You don't see that in the annual reports because they hide them by way of 'turnover related expenses'. So the gross yields look similar, but the turnover related expenses go up.

And the expense of provisioning the massive amount of off-shore racing (broadcast costs, racefields fees, operational costs of providing fixed odds on tens of thousands of additional races), goes up. Extra staff, extra agreement costs. All because you decided to focus on racing from elsewhere. 

12 years ago, NZ racing was largely self sufficient from the revenue earned from its own racing. Now it is totally dependent on the revenue it earns from off-shore racing, sports and pokies. Stupid people making stupid decisions.

[Happy Sunrise]

57 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I'd say they have damaged the profile of NZ racing to a non-repairable level. If they don't sell up and incorporate some minimum funding criteria into a deal, they will likely just continue in the same vein. Is that stuffed? Pretty close to it.

In my view, they should never have taken the focus off NZ racing. Which other jurisdiction in the world focusses more on racing from elsewhere than they do on their own. And as a state owned operator, they should have never gone with fixed odds. If they wanted fixed odds to be available, they should have sold rights for other operators to provide fixed odds and clip the ticket, rather than have the industry pay directly for providing that service.

Also, if you have a shop and you offer some 'product' at a price. And then you introduce a new product that you sell for the same price, but the customers think is superior. What happens to the old 'product'. People stop buying it. NZ thoroughbred racing is like the old 'product'. Off-shore racing is the new 'product'.

They should have incorporated a point of difference to keep the old 'product' attractive. Like a normal business would. Discount pricing etc. In the case of the TAB, reduced takeouts or similar.

Then when the new 'product' has got all the customers and you have no control of it, what do you have? You become exposed to the things they do with that product such as extra taxes or additional costs of supplying that product. But your customers have already moved away from the old 'product' - so you're stuck with continuing to pay the costs of providing the new 'product' and an ever increasing decline in interest in your old 'product'. The old 'product' being the very thing you are tasked with providing for. And your entire model is at the control of 3rd parties. You have little to no say in what they charge you or on what basis they charge you.

So for NZ TAB, every time they sell some new 'product', they pay fees off-shore. Something they don't do for selling the old 'product'. S net yields are affected as the swing away from the old 'product' to the new 'product' occurs. You don't see that in the annual reports because they hide them by way of 'turnover related expenses'. So the gross yields look similar, but the turnover related expenses go up.

And the expense of provisioning the massive amount of off-shore racing (broadcast costs, racefields fees, operational costs of providing fixed odds on tens of thousands of additional races), goes up. Extra staff, extra agreement costs. All because you decided to focus on racing from elsewhere. 

12 years ago, NZ racing was largely self sufficient from the revenue earned from its own racing. Now it is totally dependent on the revenue it earns from off-shore racing, sports and pokies. Stupid people making stupid decisions.

Enlightening.

So, you are the new boss of NZ racing, what are 5 things things you would do to reverse the situation?

[mardigras]

If that is the betting side of things (as opposed to the code side of things)

1. Get out of commingling and all associated agreements with TABCORP.

2. Reduce the event schedule to be only NZ racing plus say 20 - 30 premium events off-shore per week.

3. Change the laws to allow betting operators in NZ to offer fixed odds (don't allow them to offer tote derivative based options). Set up race field fees on profit to charge them for making money from NZ racing information.

4. Remove fixed odds from NZ TAB racing

5. Offer reduced takeouts - especially on NZ racing

[mardigras]

Of course 1 - 5 means they are operating a tote business. So that would allow them to get rid of 80% of their staff.

[JJ Flash]

8 hours ago, Brodie said:

There needs  to be major changes within the infrastructure of the Racing Board and TAB.

Keep up Brodie , there is no such thing as the Racing board anymore and has not been for some time. It has been replaced by RITA and  cost cutting is already well underway under the general direction of the Board

Im sure that will please you just as it does to those with an interest in all things NZ racing.

Come in Ranga, i can see why you tease him all the time?

 

Greg

[Happy Sunrise]

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

Of course 1 - 5 means they are operating a tote business. So that would allow them to get rid of 80% of their staff.

Would they ever consider being a tote business? Surely not? Self preservation of jobs would take priority wouldn't it?

I like number 2. The amount of races from unknown places is sickening.

[JJ Flash]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

If they wanted fixed odds to be available, they should have sold rights for other operators to provide fixed odds and clip the ticket, rather than have the industry pay directly for providing that service.

Great point but if you ever dealt with NZRB on a commercial matter  you would understand that such an idea would be well beyond their comprehension from the chair to the tea lady?

 

Greg

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, JJ Flash said:

Great point but if you ever dealt with NZRB on a commercial matter  you would understand that such an idea would be well beyond their comprehension from the chair to the tea lady?

 

Greg

They wouldn't agree with any of those points I expect. They think things like offering more races automatically makes them more money. They aren't the sharpest.

[mardigras]

6 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said:

Would they ever consider being a tote business? Surely not? Self preservation of jobs would take priority wouldn't it?

I like number 2. The amount of races from unknown places is sickening.

The problem now, is that is has likely reached the point where recovering things is not possible. The pain from trying to correct things would take time. And they don't think long term, they're only thinking about the next meeting with the sausage rolls.

[Happy Sunrise]

Just now, mardigras said:

They think things like offering more races automatically makes them more money.

The 'more is better' approach is usually the laziest option.

[curious]

18 minutes ago, mardigras said:

If that is the betting side of things (as opposed to the code side of things)

1. Get out of commingling and all associated agreements with TABCORP.

2. Reduce the event schedule to be only NZ racing plus say 20 - 30 premium events off-shore per week.

3. Change the laws to allow betting operators in NZ to offer fixed odds (don't allow them to offer tote derivative based options). Set up race field fees on profit to charge them for making money from NZ racing information.

4. Remove fixed odds from NZ TAB racing

5. Offer reduced takeouts - especially on NZ racing

It is probably now too late, but a little bit of me still thinks that this approach could still save the day at the wagering level if it were effected alongside necessary changes at code level. This is what RITA should be doing over their 12 month term. Unfortunately, even if they could figure that out and do it, they are handcuffed by the Minister and the Messara report and forced into implementing a range of strategies that cannot help and will almost certainly make things worse.

[Brodie]

50 minutes ago, JJ Flash said:

Great point but if you ever dealt with NZRB on a commercial matter  you would understand that such an idea would be well beyond their comprehension from the chair to the tea lady?

 

Greg

Greg,  I thought you said earlier that there was no Racing Board now, and yet you have just quoted it????

Racing Board, RITA, don’t care what you call it, whatever needs major changes to make racing viable going forward.

Keep up!

Edited December 16, 2019 by Brodie

[JJ Flash]

1 minute ago, Brodie said:

thought you said earlier that there was no Racing Board now

Are you completely thick or just not flash as comprehension. Read what i said , it was obviously in the past that i dealt with them because the NZRB are no longer in existence.

This is obviously above your level based on your replies

 

Greg

[JJ Flash]

54 minutes ago, mardigras said:

They wouldn't agree with any of those points I expect. They think things like offering more races automatically makes them more money. They aren't the sharpest.

Im not so sure with the current lot. McKenzie is miles ahead of Hughes and the previous lot at NZRB. He has inherited a mess but taken control of things until June to  to sort RITA out. Given how he turned around WRC and NZMTC lets wait and see

The next 6 months will be about change management and looking forward not backwards as they cant turn back the clock

 

Greg

[Brodie]

23 minutes ago, JJ Flash said:

Are you completely thick or just not flash as comprehension. Read what i said , it was obviously in the past that i dealt with them because the NZRB are no longer in existence.

This is obviously above your level based on your replies

 

Greg

Same bloody thing Greg.

Being pedantic is not becoming of you.

 

[Flagship uberalles]

34 minutes ago, Brodie said:

Same bloody thing Greg.

Being pedantic is not becoming of you.

 

You have to understand o.j. makes things up as he goes along......just like his constant names change!