Ken Rutherford

[Happy Sunrise]

No disagreement from me with much of this article but I am sure the new leaders of RITA know what they are doing by boarding up the shop window.  ?

 

https://www.lincolnfarms.co.nz/stories/captain-ken-we-have-to-protect-our-industry-now-and-hit-the-overseas-bookies-for-a-six/

Captain Ken: We have to protect our industry now and hit the overseas bookies for a six

By Barry Lichter • 21 May 2020

One time head sports bookie Ken Rutherford never thought he’d see the day when he’d be advocating banning Kiwi punters from betting overseas.

But the former test cricket captain is used to going on a front foot attack and says the industry is in such a precarious state he believes it has no option.

Rutherford, who captained New Zealand in 18 tests and 38 one-day internationals, has more than a dozen years experience in wagering, first with the New Zealand TAB, where he became head of sports betting in 2004, and then five years in a similar role in Singapore.

So when he says the industry now has to “gang up” on the corporate bookies overseas, it’s with more experience than some of the people who have been running the TAB into the ground in recent years.

Ken Rutherford … former New Zealand test cricket captain.“If you’d asked me two years ago whether I would be in favour of stopping people from having overseas accounts I’d have disagreed strongly. I would have said we had to stand on our own two feet and compete.

“But things have got so bad we need to make sure we are now supporting the New Zealand industry.”

A $2.5 million slice of the Government’s $72.5 million bailout package announced last week has been set aside for the Department Of Internal Affairs to fast-track work on online gambling, including considering measures to mitigate the loss of millions through more and more New Zealanders gambling through offshore platforms.

Rutherford says he knows the idea of blocking the IP addresses of overseas operators will go down poorly with many people who will see limiting or denying competition as a retrograde step. He himself closed his New Zealand TAB account some time ago because of poor service.

“But I think punters need to take some short term pain for long term gain. And if we can get the industry back on track maybe any restriction could be eased.

“I just see our market shrinking so much. The new website didn’t function half as well as the old one and was so poor it drove away truckloads of punters, particularly the bigger ones.

“The TAB’s position is totally untenable unless we can stop so many punters betting offshore - the size of the internal market is not sufficient to allow a large portion of that market to wager offshore.”

Rutherford believes a lot of people simply don’t understand the way the industry is funded, and that overseas bookies contribute nothing to the local industry.

Rutherford spent five years in South Africa working in the equivalent of Trackside and marketing, advancing to CEO in 2012, and says the TAB there is collapsing because of a lack of contribution from bookies and support from Government .

“There needs to be a decent PR campaign to educate people that we need to be supporting our industry here – otherwise there won’t be an industry.

“Of course the onus will be on the TAB to up their game.”

Punters were more knowledgeable than 10 years ago and wouldn’t put up with poor service, worse odds and a lack of information.

Rutherford said he could never understand why a succession of TAB chiefs placed such an emphasis on promoting fixed odds betting when the product at best realised half of the 16.5% of tote betting income.

John Allen … wanted a Lamborghini betting engine.Allen naive about wagering

And he believes former CEO John Allen, under whose watch the disastrous fixed odds betting platform was born, was quite naive about wagering.

Rutherford, in his former role as Waikato Racing Club chief executive, attended a number of the road shows Allen put on when he promoted the need to spend lavish amounts on a Lamborghini engine to drive betting.

“He told everyone we could afford it, because it would generate all this extra money.”

Rutherford says he questioned Allen several times about where the extra growth was going to come from and pointed out that in his experience few punters would bet on the “frilly stuff” he was so desperate to provide.

“He was claiming if you gave punters 100 options on one rugby game you’d grow turnover exponentially.

“But, from the time I started bookmaking, the core options like head-to-head, points start, winning margin and first try always accounted for 85% to 90% of your turnover on a game. That will never change. The TAB was dreaming. Allen was delusional and just didn’t understand the business.”

Anecdotally, says Rutherford, many bookies would actually tell you turnover decreased with too many betting options per match. Too much choice confused punters.

Once integrated, the TAB would then have spent truckloads in marketing the new products for little net reward.

Rutherford says the growth figures spouted by successive CEOs (Andrew Brown, Chris Bayliss and Allen) were pure spin.

“They always talked about how well turnover was going at major sporting events, with no mention of the most important stat - net revenue.

A now familiar email from the TAB to thousands of punters.“And someone at the TAB has to tell us about the cost of the bonus bets that are handed out? Do these essentially promotional items get bundled up into total turnover figures (thus fudging the numbers).”

When Rutherford first started at the TAB in 2001, setting odds on cricket, racing and football, he said it was a traditional Kiwi outfit, run by passionate people in it more for love of the game than money.

But gradually he detected a change and by the time he left in 2006 when Graeme Hansen was CEO it had become a “corporate monolithic bureaucracy.”

“All the CEOs seem to have done since is added layer upon layer of bureaucracy and management.

“I challenge the current crop to roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and prepare to fight.”

The synthetic track at Pakenham where remedial work was done last year to reduce kickback.Synthetic tracks a mistake?

Rutherford says with $26 million of the Government’s $50 million emergency package gone already on RITA’s outstanding bills, there isn’t a lot left to boost racing so he questions another $20 million being ring fenced to build two more synthetic tracks at Awapuni and Riccarton.

“Surely if you’re on a tight budget the money should be spent on strategies to grow the business. I can’t see two more polytracks doing that.

“I know by saying that I will get offside with trainers - and I get that they need good surfaces for their horses - but we won’t get all that money back.”

The tracks would also be a real burden for the clubs which will have to raise another $6 million each to build them and later more money to maintain them.

“If you’re so keen to shore up the infrastructure wouldn’t you be far better off getting your top six to eight tracks in the country spot on - like Ellerslie, Te Rapa, Awapuni, Hastings and Riccarton - so they can cope with the increased activity they’ll face with the closure of all these other tracks?”

Rutherford, now the CEO at the Hawkesbury Racing Club in New South Wales, says its synthetic track is used only for training and not racing and only Canberra combines the roles.

“They’re not a good wagering product - Pakenham in Victoria doesn’t do a lot of turnover - and many trainers don’t want to run their horses on them.

“I hope I’m wrong and in five years people are saying thank goodness we had these all weather tracks.”

Preserve media coverage

Rutherford says he believes the industry would benefit far more if say even $5 million was put into preserving, and improving, the media coverage of racing.

It was a monumental mistake for the industry to shut its window to the public.

“It’s mind boggling how quickly they’ve wound back their services. The cost to the industry will be far greater than the savings they’re making.

“I can’t fathom how they’ve cut back so much on the TV component and it makes no sense having no more radio.”

TV preview shows in Australia like ‘Get On’ were paid for by the TAB which recognised their value in driving betting.

And having experts like Grant Nisbett on half an hour before a rugby match, absolutely generated more interest.

As a punter who always had a Best Bets hanging out his back pocket and remembers the 8am scratching service on radio, Rutherford says form guides and racing in the newspapers are a complete must if you don’t want betting to drop.

“These decisions are being made by people who just don’t get it, all they’re doing is slashing and burning for the bottom line and blaming it all on COVID when we all know they were in trouble long before that.

“I don’t want to come across like a know-it-all but it’s absolute rubbish to say it’s a generational thing and only older punters want hard copies of form. It’s part of racing.

“I know how many racebooks we sell at Hawkesbury and it’s all to young guys. You don’t see everyone walking around with a phone in their hands, swiping the screen.

“It’s a death knell if you don’t do all you can to keep wagering going.”

 

 

[the galah]

"Allen was delusional and didn't understand the product."      I like that quote. So accurate as  are all his comments.

One thing is clear from Rutherfords comments. He actually understands punters.  

The sad thing is he,along with the rest of us who are punters,can see the cutbacks they currently are making ,will only lead to reduced  turnover and less customers.

John Allen was delusional,but given some of the proposed changes currently being made by RITA,they don't seem much better. 

I wish they had someone like Rutherford having influence on their decision making.

Edited May 21, 2020 by the galah

[Brodie]

Yes, Ken Rutherford is correct in Pretty much everything he says,

Who are the dropkicks that employ these people like Glenda Hughes and John Allen and Glen Saville?

They should be cleaning out these corporate losers who go from company to company throwing their weight around and thinking that they know how to run business!

Look at the dickheads that they have had at Fonterra who were on mega millions but were worth two fifths of eff all with their decisions.

Agree that the synthetic track is going to be a total lemon despite what trainers like Michael Pitman and co.say.

Racing would be in Receivership now if it had not been from the NZ taxpayer handout and that money is not going to be enough to save it!

There just is not enough people making sensible decisions at the TAB, as I have personally experienced.

The TAB were stopping punters from wagering and then putting others off by their actions, rather than encouraging punting.

Who is In charge of the NZ TABs wagering at the moment?

Is it still Glenn Saville?

If it is, where the hell  is he, apart from at the Bank withdrawing his exhorbitant salary that he is fraudulently getting for his ability.

Time these people were moved on big time because they have been the death knell for racing in Nz and will have cost so many people their lIvelihoods in the next year or so!

I need to say what I really think.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Brodie

[Newmarket]

Ooops, didnt see this. Just posted on gallops site. 

[Basil]

Rutherford is almost certainly right about the source of the problem, but his 'solution' is half-baked: if the answer is to give more monopoly power to the monopoly that caused the problem, then my name is John Allen! It makes as much sense as requiring us all to only buy Fisher and Paykel fridges, or Skellerup lobbying for a ban on imported gumboots, or Australian racing clubs insisting their CEO positions can only be filled by Australians.

The true solution is to increase competition, not reduce it. Remove the TAB's statutory monopoly, let other organisations and bookies set up in NZ, and may the best man win. If that doesn't force the TAB to lift its game, nothing will. 

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Basil said:

Rutherford is almost certainly right about the source of the problem, but his 'solution' is half-baked: if the answer is to give more monopoly power to the monopoly that caused the problem, then my name is John Allen! It makes as much sense as requiring us all to only buy Fisher and Paykel fridges, or Skellerup lobbying for a ban on imported gumboots, or Australian racing clubs insisting their CEO positions can only be filled by Australians.

The true solution is to increase competition, not reduce it. Remove the TAB's statutory monopoly, let other organisations and bookies set up in NZ, and may the best man win. If that doesn't force the TAB to lift its game, nothing will. 

Rutherfords solution doesn't seem half baked to me. The comparison to John Allen is a bit ridiculous.   

John Alllen had no understanding whatsoever of his customers,none whatsoever.  Did you ever watch him give those talks on how the new website was going to create all the extra turnover. I saw a video of one and just shook my head. I thought either this man is very clever or he  his is an absolute idiot.,because  he appeared to have no idea about punting,yet was making out he was an expert.

Rutherfords advice is simple. Put people in charge who know actually understand the business they are overseeing. How can anyone grow any business if they have no idea of their customers needs,as we have seen in the past..

you say to increase competition. I just don't know how that would work. Have you seen the size of some of the betting pools. How is diluting the pools size going to increase overall spending. And don't all those overseas bookies simply close a punters account if they win on the fixed odds. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, the galah said:

John Alllen had no understanding whatsoever of his customers,none whatsoever. 

Who was advising him?  Who has been the GM of Wagering and new Products for the last 5 years at most?

[the galah]

34 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Who was advising him?  Who has been the GM of Wagering and new Products for the last 5 years at most?

That's a good question. Hopefully they have moved on. Otherwise why would we expect anything to change. There has been no transparency as to accountability.

One thing that always bothered me when i watched them promoting the introduction of the  $50 million website. Why were they promoting sports betting at the expense of their core product,the racing industry? Why undermine your main revenue earner?

 I always got the impression they liked the image of the tab to be based around sports,not racing.  Who,when and why drove that focus? 

[Happy Sunrise]

On 21/05/2020 at 7:34 PM, Happy Sunrise said:

Rutherford says he questioned Allen several times about where the extra growth was going to come from and pointed out that in his experience few punters would bet on the “frilly stuff” he was so desperate to provide.

“He was claiming if you gave punters 100 options on one rugby game you’d grow turnover exponentially.

“But, from the time I started bookmaking, the core options like head-to-head, points start, winning margin and first try always accounted for 85% to 90% of your turnover on a game. That will never change. The TAB was dreaming. Allen was delusional and just didn’t understand the business.”

Anecdotally, says Rutherford, many bookies would actually tell you turnover decreased with too many betting options per match. Too much choice confused punters.

I very rarely bet on sports like rugby because the odds are so tiny. I might combine some 1.30 or 1.40 shots with a horse at odds just for fun when i am either off my tree or a bit tipsy. Normally, I would scroll through all the options and turn up my nose at 99% of them because the odds were so tight or the option was based on total luck that no one could predict.

19 hours ago, the galah said:

Rutherfords advice is simple. Put people in charge who know actually understand the business they are overseeing.

So true, TG. Rutherford seems like a genius in this article but all he is really doing is resonating with the punter.

By shutting down the radio, TV shows, on course presenters etc it is like the TAB is going is going fishing without any bait on the end of their line and that is almost more dangerous than refusing clubs racing dates.

[Basil]

21 hours ago, the galah said:

Rutherfords solution doesn't seem half baked to me. The comparison to John Allen is a bit ridiculous.   

John Alllen had no understanding whatsoever of his customers,none whatsoever.  Did you ever watch him give those talks on how the new website was going to create all the extra turnover. I saw a video of one and just shook my head. I thought either this man is very clever or he  his is an absolute idiot.,because  he appeared to have no idea about punting,yet was making out he was an expert.

Rutherfords advice is simple. Put people in charge who know actually understand the business they are overseeing. How can anyone grow any business if they have no idea of their customers needs,as we have seen in the past..

you say to increase competition. I just don't know how that would work. Have you seen the size of some of the betting pools. How is diluting the pools size going to increase overall spending. And don't all those overseas bookies simply close a punters account if they win on the fixed odds. 

Yes, I'm afraid this misunderstands how competition works. It doesn't just split existing customer demand among more providers, but instead *grows* customer demand by offering more attractive prices, better options, and an all-round superior quality of service. By contrast, advocating for the protection of a monopoly that, by all accounts, has already spectacularly failed, makes as much sense as continuing to whip a horse 200 metres after the winning post.

The power grid is a natural monopoly; gambling is not. Set our punters free!

   

[the galah]

3 hours ago, Basil said:

Yes, I'm afraid this misunderstands how competition works. It doesn't just split existing customer demand among more providers, but instead *grows* customer demand by offering more attractive prices, better options, and an all-round superior quality of service. By contrast, advocating for the protection of a monopoly that, by all accounts, has already spectacularly failed, makes as much sense as continuing to whip a horse 200 metres after the winning post.

The power grid is a natural monopoly; gambling is not. Set our punters free!

   

I fully understand how competition works. 

You say  "grows customer demand by offering more attractive prices,better options and all round superior quality of service". Sounds like that came straight from a John Allen seminar.

The point rutherford has made,and i endorse ,Is the business is failing because they have alienated customers,provided inferior product  and still seem to lack understanding of what  customer services/product are necessary to maintain turnover,let alone increase it.

So instead  of you saying rutherfords ideas are "half baked"   you first need to acknowledge that the bulk of what he said related to why the  tab/rita has come to be in its current financial trouble. 

The most pertinent point at this point in time is how can the most income be generated for the racing industry,and that is the approach rutherford was addressing.

If we were to introduce the free market approach you advocate then obviously the nz tab would no longer be viable.

Simply put,the timing is wrong for the approach you advocate. 

So using your approach would immediately inflict even more pain on the already strained nz racing income streams. Quite simply the racing industry may no longer be sustainable, and the free market  approach would become irrelevant as nobody would have any product to sell.

It really comes down to choosing between two unpalatable options. 

And the best of those is to stick with the one betting operator in the expectation that  they will have increased revenue and therefor increased return to the industry.  What other industry  provides a product  with no return like nz racing does to overseas operators. 

Of course the big if,and its a very big one,is will it make any difference to rita/tab when they keep making decisions that  have a negative impact future revenue. Its certainly not good.   

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by the galah

[Newmarket]

So if they stop nz punters betting with aussie operators, will other punters from overseas be banned betting with the nz tab???

If this was the case, they would be far worse off? NZ punters are betting less each year with nz racing & sport, if it wasnt overseas racing & events, they would be worse off. 
We all know they will never stop nz punters from betting overseas, easy to set up vpn for this, no biggie. 

[the galah]

2 hours ago, Newmarket said:

So if they stop nz punters betting with aussie operators, will other punters from overseas be banned betting with the nz tab???

If this was the case, they would be far worse off? NZ punters are betting less each year with nz racing & sport, if it wasnt overseas racing & events, they would be worse off. 
We all know they will never stop nz punters from betting overseas, easy to set up vpn for this, no biggie. 

In 2017 there was a law passed  in australia that stopped betting on the nz tab. I assume that is still the case. 

No one is suggesting nz punters can't bet on overseas racing or sports,just that it should be done through the  nz tab.

Its only a suggestion at this stage.  Nz racing currently gets nothing from the overseas operators even though they supply the product.

Edited May 23, 2020 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, the galah said:

Its only a suggestion at this stage.  Nz racing currently gets nothing from the overseas operators even though they supply the product.

Wrong.

[Chief Stipe]

20 December 2019

The Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) has entered into a deal with international sports betting and gaming company, GVC Holdings, who trade under the Ladbrokes and Neds brands to show New Zealand thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing on its digital platforms across Australia.

“Ladbrokes are one of the world's biggest gambling organisations and have a significant presence across Australia, providing great opportunity to showcase New Zealand racing.

“This means we have about 80 percent of the Australian online bookmaker market now contributing back to the New Zealand Racing industry,” says TAB General Manager, Media and International Andy Kydd.

“As with Sportsbet, the new deal will involve them taking live vision of all three codes of New Zealand racing, and the TAB’s long-term broadcast and wagering partner in Australia Tabcorp will facilitate the delivery of the vision.

“Once again, this is about us securing new revenues in the diverse Australian market through voluntary commercial agreements, and supports our ambition to expand the reach of live NZ racing vision across different, growing platforms in that market,” says Kydd.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

“This means we have about 80 percent of the Australian online bookmaker market now contributing back to the New Zealand Racing industry,” says TAB General Manager, Media and International Andy Kydd.

 

Would be great to see the half yearly report to see how much revenue was being generated.  You also have to understand that it cuts both ways.

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

new revenues in the diverse Australian market through voluntary commercial agreements,

Why do we need legislation?

Another question that I have is if there is such a big loss of revenue why hasn't the Lotteries Commission got onto it?

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, the galah said:

In 2017 there was a law passed  in australia that stopped betting on the nz tab. I assume that is still the case. 

 

Not entirely correct either.  Any overseas operator can take bets from Australia but they have to have a license to do so.  I suppose the NZ TAB could set up a company in Australia but then they would have to pay tax which they don't do in NZ.

The other aspect to this is that in our arrogance we believe that Australian Punters want to bet on our product...... 

[Basil]

20 hours ago, the galah said:

I fully understand how competition works. 

You say  "grows customer demand by offering more attractive prices,better options and all round superior quality of service". Sounds like that came straight from a John Allen seminar.

The point rutherford has made,and i endorse ,Is the business is failing because they have alienated customers,provided inferior product  and still seem to lack understanding of what  customer services/product are necessary to maintain turnover,let alone increase it.

So instead  of you saying rutherfords ideas are "half baked"   you first need to acknowledge that the bulk of what he said related to why the  tab/rita has come to be in its current financial trouble. 

The most pertinent point at this point in time is how can the most income be generated for the racing industry,and that is the approach rutherford was addressing.

If we were to introduce the free market approach you advocate then obviously the nz tab would no longer be viable.

Simply put,the timing is wrong for the approach you advocate. 

So using your approach would immediately inflict even more pain on the already strained nz racing income streams. Quite simply the racing industry may no longer be sustainable, and the free market  approach would become irrelevant as nobody would have any product to sell.

It really comes down to choosing between two unpalatable options. 

And the best of those is to stick with the one betting operator in the expectation that  they will have increased revenue and therefor increased return to the industry.  What other industry  provides a product  with no return like nz racing does to overseas operators. 

Of course the big if,and its a very big one,is will it make any difference to rita/tab when they keep making decisions that  have a negative impact future revenue. Its certainly not good.   

 

It might be a good idea to think about why the TAB has "alienated customers" etc. Answer: because they're a fat, lazy monopoly that has faced essentially no competition. Responding to this situation by continuing with the same protectionist structure is is a classic example of the dictum sometimes attributed to Einstein: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome".   

"The timing is wrong" argument was loudly trotted out by the farming industry in response to the elimination of SMPs and other subsidies in the 1980s. But today that industry is far more profitable, efficient and innovative than it ever was under protection. It's *always* the right time to promote competition, and the TAB is no exception.

[the galah]

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not entirely correct either.  Any overseas operator can take bets from Australia but they have to have a license to do so.  I suppose the NZ TAB could set up a company in Australia but then they would have to pay tax which they don't do in NZ.

The other aspect to this is that in our arrogance we believe that Australian Punters want to bet on our product...... 

Splitting hairs. I said a law was passed in 2017 to stop people in australia betting on the nz tab. Yes they could set something up in australia to allow it,but they haven't so far.

If the australians thought it worthwhile to pass such a law,you would think they believed they had reason to. According to the nz tab ,at the time there were around 800 customers in australia effected and they had a turnover of about 1 million.

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, the galah said:

I said a law was passed in 2017 to stop people in australia betting on the nz tab.

They didn't pass the law to stop little old NZ - they had bigger fish to fry!  We were just the little fry caught up with the big fish.

 

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

800 customers in australia effected and they had a turnover of about 1 million.

Surely you mean revenue?  If it was turnover then it was only worth about $150k to NZ in revenue terms.  If it was $1m in revenue then losing that is hardly going to break the bank when it 6 weeks they were $26m behind in paying suppliers!

[the galah]

11 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

They didn't pass the law to stop little old NZ - they had bigger fish to fry!  We were just the little fry caught up with the big fish.

 

Surely you mean revenue?  If it was turnover then it was only worth about $150k to NZ in revenue terms.  If it was $1m in revenue then losing that is hardly going to break the bank when it 6 weeks they were $26m behind in paying suppliers!

I know nz was only a little fish as you put it. Still effected the 800 punters that bet here regularly.

I agree the turnover does'nt seem much. John allens figures in a news article,mind you we know he exaggerates a bit or in this case probably underestimate..

Really the point is about generating income for nz racing ,and how much profit  is lost to overseas bookmakers.

Edited May 23, 2020 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

11 minutes ago, the galah said:

I agree the turnover does'nt seem much. John allens figures in a news article,mind you we know he exaggerates a bit or in this case probably underestimate..

 

Definitely NOT an underestimate.  The DIA figures of potential revenue were substantially lower than the TAB's.  The point is it is, and always has been, a smokescreen to excuse the poor management.  

16 minutes ago, the galah said:

Really the point is about generating income for nz racing ,and how much profit  is lost to overseas bookmakers.

No where near as much as we are led to believe.  Easily fixed anyway and that is provide a more attractive and easily accessible product.  The NZ TAB has done the opposite and now want further monopoly powers to force us to use their lower quality product at higher prices than their competitors.

[the galah]

O.k. i stand corrected there in respect of overseas bookmakers. Obviously things have changed in the last 12 months. 

I'm a bit sceptical of the 80% australian on line  claim. And besides 80% of what? It may be next to nothing if they are getting say 3 c in every dollar invested whereas they could make at least 12c if the betting was done on the nz tab. 

RITA always talk about the racing industry in press releases like that.   My point there is there PR often seems to be trying to placate the racing industry by making out it is the sole focus of such deals,yet we know the sports betting side of that would be  a major part,and what % percentage actually goes to racing and not sport.  

And the other thing about that is.  Why are we still being told that it is the leakage to overseas operators that is  hurting the returns to the racing industry. Is that a fabrication if they have these deals in place,or are the deals not what they are made out to be.

Edited May 23, 2020 by the galah

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Basil said:

It might be a good idea to think about why the TAB has "alienated customers" etc. Answer: because they're a fat, lazy monopoly that has faced essentially no competition. Responding to this situation by continuing with the same protectionist structure is is a classic example of the dictum sometimes attributed to Einstein: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome".   

"The timing is wrong" argument was loudly trotted out by the farming industry in response to the elimination of SMPs and other subsidies in the 1980s. But today that industry is far more profitable, efficient and innovative than it ever was under protection. It's *always* the right time to promote competition, and the TAB is no exception.

 What i am saying is you are describing our tab/rita as a lazy fat monopoly. 

I don't agree that is the reason for their failing. I believe they have tried to remain relevant. They are not doing things over and over.   

The reason they have failed is simple. They have made incredibly dumb decisions. The people who made the changes had the best intentions but weren't up to the job. In an attempt to stay relevant they made changes that destroyed their customer base and drove their customers away.

Taking away their monopoly or not,either way they will fail unless they make the smart decisions,and not the dumb ones.

Now rita has new leadership. They have to look to the future.The government with the bailout simply put a band aid on the problem,as evidenced by the cuts announced that are sure to hurt the racing industries income in the future. I think they need a cash injection from government greater than they received. Without it they will limp to a slow death. The government is far better off getting revenue and tax from the betting and employment with such an investment. Unfortunately the idiots who ran the tab in recent years undermined the merit of such an investment,nevertheless it is needed..

You give the farming subsidy  in the 1980's as an example. Fair enough.I will give you an example of a small business i am familiar with. That business ,in a large part because of their own poor decision making,got a competitor in a market that could only sustain enough income for 1. So they fought it out,eventually 1 succeeded,the other failed. But while that scrap went on for customers the income of the 2 competitors was significantly impacted.  So really its a no win situation in a lot of ways if you are the racing industry. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

Here is the 2015 Offshore Sports and Racing Betting Working Group report.  A lazy read on a wet Sunday - 67 pages.  If you want to cut to the chase then flick through to page 40.

Note a lot of the assumptions are based on the estimate that NZer's bet in excess of $1b per annum overseas with overseas operators.  I find that hard to believe as it would be roughly 50% more than what the NZ TAB turnover was in 2015.

Working Group - Final Report October 2015.pdf