Freda Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 17 minutes ago, curious said: That's only 26m. They still have the other 24m to patch the leak and right the ship. Yeah...but there is still the rest of the loan sitting there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I'm assuming the whole loan is sitting there and that is only for current bills and loan payments etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, curious said: I'm assuming the whole loan is sitting there and that is only for current bills and loan payments etc. oh. that's 45 mill then. Not much change. Maybe not immediately urgent, but won't go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Its obvious ,the only hope for racing is a National Govt ...they have always looked after racing...haven't they?? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: Poor old Winston rolled out that garbage about the loss of raceday revenue from abandonments. RITA and NZTR budgeted for abandonments because they didn't have enough cash to pay the stakes! Hence the lack of thought that went into plan B options. He is a bit like listening to the CEO of the TAB and NZTR over the years, tries to talk the talk but doesn't really understand what he is saying. I thought his answer about Avondale was nonsense and they are going to work with the clubs on finding a solution and if they have a good idea they will work with that, wtf have the clubs been trying to do with them since the M Report the problem for the clubs is no one would listen. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandpiper Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: That might be turnover but certainly not revenue. Even the DIA and RITA are in agreement about it not being "a few hundred million" in revenue. Do RITA include online casinos in their figures? Pokies in the cloud are a big thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 hours ago, Sandpiper said: Do RITA include online casinos in their figures? Pokies in the cloud are a big thing In what figures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 (edited) 239.To better understand the potential economic impacts of the offshore charges, the MAC requested financial estimates from the NZRB of the potential revenue that might be collected from offshore charges. The analysis that the NZRB provided estimated that over $30 million stood to be earned through offshore charges per annum (as compared to the $16 million estimated by the Offshore Working Group in 2015). The NZRB’s estimates for each charge were: •$6.6 million per annum for the information use charge; and •$24 million per annum for the POC charge. 240.To come up with these figures, the NZRB analysed anonymised credit card data from ANZ which categorises transactions (deposits) by New Zealanders through a gambling Merchant Code. Based on ANZ being roughly one-third of the New Zealand credit card market, and NZRB analysis of which deposits were with offshore betting organisations, the data showed that $139 million was deposited by New Zealanders into the top 10 offshore organisations in the 12 months ending 31 October 2018. This has grown 67 percent in last 18 months (annualised growth of 47 percent). 241.The Department has not been privy to the underlying data which the NZRB has used, so it is unable to provide any commentary regarding the quality of the data and the subsequent results. Edited May 12, 2020 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I note that it appears they failed to account for what may have been withdrawn from those accounts during that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 11 hours ago, curious said: I'm assuming the whole loan is sitting there and that is only for current bills and loan payments etc. The biggest loan is a revolving credit facility which expires early next year. The exact terms are not clear in the accounts but they are paying commercial interest rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 hours ago, curious said: The analysis that the NZRB provided estimated that over $30 million stood to be earned through offshore charges per annum (as compared to the $16 million estimated by the Offshore Working Group in 2015). The NZRB’s estimates for each charge were: •$6.6 million per annum for the information use charge; and •$24 million per annum for the POC charge. So NZRB/RITA estimates $30m a year. I believe the DIA estimated much less than that. The Offshore Working Group estimated half that amount at $16m. Some assumptions were made though but most importantly those estimates were based on the number of NZ race meeting and races that were occuring at the time. So you would expect a corresponding the drop in the annual revenue from the two charges. One of the big assumptions made is that those punting overseas from New Zealand are punting on NZ races - we know they are largely not doing that. They are also punting on Australian races - we all know the reasons why they do that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 36 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: So NZRB/RITA estimates $30m a year. I believe the DIA estimated much less than that. The Offshore Working Group estimated half that amount at $16m. Some assumptions were made though but most importantly those estimates were based on the number of NZ race meeting and races that were occuring at the time. So you would expect a corresponding the drop in the annual revenue from the two charges. One of the big assumptions made is that those punting overseas from New Zealand are punting on NZ races - we know they are largely not doing that. They are also punting on Australian races - we all know the reasons why they do that. Have you told RITA and Len why they 'do' that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 27 minutes ago, holy ravioli said: Have you told RITA and Len why they 'do' that. Bloody obvious isn't it? Better quality product at a cheaper price. But you wouldn't understand basic economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: Bloody obvious isn't it? Better quality product at a cheaper price. But you wouldn't understand basic economics. Thank goodness you're around to educate...the ignorant.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 Well it's classic Econ 101. There's an ice-cream stall on the beach where do you set yours up? The answer isn't what most naturally assume. To maximise profits you put it right next door. Unless you have something that is unique to your stall that no one else can copy. Even then because the other stall owner is innovative they will come up with something to counter your uniqueness. So the TAB puts their poorer racing product on the market and charges a higher price than their competitors e.g. the % on their fixed odds books and a higher takeout on their tote product. They even make it harder to buy the product e.g. their new betting app and system. Now they expect the Government to put a special tax on the other icecream stall and force customers to buy off them. The latter they can't do without some pretty heavy legislation and some technical wizardry they haven't got a hope hell of working out. Bit like trying to stop people from buying their books from Amazon. Even you Holey have admitted you punt largely on "Australian Metroplitan race meetings through Betfair." So much for your social conscious and helping out New Zealanders. So Holey the benefit of doing a Science Degree at Lincoln is you HAVE to pass ECON 101, Foreign Trade and Statistcs (Biometrics 101 and 102). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: The biggest loan is a revolving credit facility which expires early next year. The exact terms are not clear in the accounts but they are paying commercial interest rates. Yes expires in April 2021. Don't think they will be doing any more than minimum servicing of that right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said: Well it's classic Econ 101. There's an ice-cream stall on the beach where do you set yours up? The answer isn't what most naturally assume. To maximise profits you put it right next door. Unless you have something that is unique to your stall that no one else can copy. Even then because the other stall owner is innovative they will come up with something to counter your uniqueness. So the TAB puts their poorer racing product on the market and charges a higher price than their competitors e.g. the % on their fixed odds books and a higher takeout on their tote product. They even make it harder to buy the product e.g. their new betting app and system. Now they expect the Government to put a special tax on the other icecream stall and force customers to buy off them. The latter they can't do without some pretty heavy legislation and some technical wizardry they haven't got a hope hell of working out. Bit like trying to stop people from buying their books from Amazon. Even you Holey have admitted you punt largely on "Australian Metroplitan race meetings through Betfair." So much for your social conscious and helping out New Zealanders. So Holey the benefit of doing a Science Degree at Lincoln is you HAVE to pass ECON 101, Foreign Trade and Statistcs (Biometrics 101 and 102). Totally agree. As mardigras posted on another site, there are 4 options if they do this. 1) give up betting 2) leave NZ 3) find a work around 4) bet with NZ providers Some of us have had to do 3 for ages to even bet in other jurisdictions while resident here. It's not too difficult. The others are of course also options. I haven't seen the detail but I think the DIA work funded is to protect the pokies by trying to stop kiwis betting on online pokies, lotteries, card games etc., not to stop them betting overseas on sports and racing. That is covered by the PoC tax in the pending legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, curious said: Some of us have had to do 3 for ages to even bet in other jurisdictions while resident here. It's not too difficult. The others are of course also options. I haven't seen the detail but I think the DIA work funded is to protect the pokies by trying to stop kiwis betting on online pokies, lotteries, card games etc., not to stop them betting overseas on sports and racing. That is covered by the PoC tax in the pending legislation. The DIA doesn't support the POC charge as they view it as inequitable. ria-dia-may19.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Yes, I know. It is! So are you saying this is maybe an alternative and they write it out of the legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, curious said: So are you saying this is maybe an alternative and they write it out of the legislation? I don't understand your question. Raising another point for debate - I note that Winston didn't remind the general public when he handed out the extra cash that RITA is exempt from paying Income Tax? In contrast TABCORP Australia pays Income Tax AND a Dividend to its Shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Oddly, the DIA completed their review of online gambling last year and received submissions. Not sure where it is at now. Don't see how the proposed work is different. https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Online-Gambling-Consultation/$file/Online-Gambling-in-New-Zealand-Quick-Read.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 17 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: The DIA doesn't support the POC charge as they view it as inequitable. ria-dia-may19.pdf 767.51 kB · 0 downloads They were also concerned about the cost/benefit due to compliance costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted May 12, 2020 Author Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, curious said: They were also concerned about the cost/benefit due to compliance costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Of course the DIA was. RITA isn't because they wouldn't be paying for those compliance costs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: One of the big assumptions made is that those punting overseas from New Zealand are punting on NZ races - we know they are largely not doing that. They are also punting on Australian races - we all know the reasons why they do that. Yes, that's a huge issue wrt Racefields fees, though it wouldn't apply to a PoC tax. I think they are probably already getting about as much as they are likely to from the Racefields voluntary agreements, so don't really see any sign of substantial additional revenue from the new legislation except the next phases of the duty relief. And they are still losing money. Guess we won't know the racefields revenue until the next annual report it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Of course the DIA was. RITA isn't because they wouldn't be paying for those compliance costs! They'll surely be deducted from any distribution to RITA though won't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.