Ken Rutherford

[the galah]

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

 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. 

Just as a footnote to that. It was the incumbent business that won out. How did they do it. They simply got rid of the people who had got them in mire with their poor decision making /leadership,and replaced them with people who made smart decisions. The core product never changed, just the new  people who made the decisions were smarter. 

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, the galah said:

 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.

They made those decisions, in my opinion, because they are an entity that has no accountability structure - checks and balances (see post on Gallops forum) and they operate in a protected market position in NZ.  Put it another way they are not subject to scrutiny of being either a Crown Entity or Corporation that has shareholders.

 

14 minutes ago, the galah said:

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.

This "new" leadership isn't NEW!  They have all been in and around racing administration for decades.  They were appointed in December 2018 on the Ministerial Advisory Committee and then created the jobs for themselves on the RITA Board.  That's 18 months!  WTF have they been doing?  It took a viral kick in the arse to get them doing something!  It seems they were winging it having brought into the Racefield's Legislation pot of gold that in reality doesn't exist and/or will take at least another 1 to 2 years to show any results!'

[Basil]

21 hours ago, the galah said:

Just as a footnote to that. It was the incumbent business that won out. How did they do it. They simply got rid of the people who had got them in mire with their poor decision making /leadership,and replaced them with people who made smart decisions. The core product never changed, just the new  people who made the decisions were smarter. 

This is a classic own goal — you've just vividly illustrated the benefits of competition!

Re your claim that the TAB made bad decisions not because they were a lazy fat monopoly but because they hired the wrong people, I'm afraid this confuses symptoms with causes. They were able to hire the wrong people precisely because they were a lazy fat monopoly whose protected status allowed them to take their eye off the ball and instead engage in empire-building.

Your example also confuses the TAB with the racing industry. If competitors come in and eat the TAB's lunch by offering better service, that's bad for the TAB but *good* for the industry.

Bottom line: the survival of any firm or industry requires a customer-centred focus. Monopolies are really, really bad at customer service because they have no incentive to provide it. Consequently, retaining (never mind extending a la Rutherford) the TAB's monopoly would certainly be good news for TAB management, but very bad news for its customers, punters, and the industry as a whole. QED.

[the galah]

4 hours ago, Basil said:

This is a classic own goal — you've just vividly illustrated the benefits of competition!

Re your claim that the TAB made bad decisions not because they were a lazy fat monopoly but because they hired the wrong people, I'm afraid this confuses symptoms with causes. They were able to hire the wrong people precisely because they were a lazy fat monopoly whose protected status allowed them to take their eye off the ball and instead engage in empire-building.

Your example also confuses the TAB with the racing industry. If competitors come in and eat the TAB's lunch by offering better service, that's bad for the TAB but *good* for the industry.

Bottom line: the survival of any firm or industry requires a customer-centred focus. Monopolies are really, really bad at customer service because they have no incentive to provide it. Consequently, retaining (never mind extending a la Rutherford) the TAB's monopoly would certainly be good news for TAB management, but very bad news for its customers, punters, and the industry as a whole. QED.

We will have to agree to disagree.

No own goal at all. The point i was making  in the example i gave was that both businesses suffered big time for a couple of years  as far as income went because there were not enough customers for 2 companies. One went  broke in the end.  

IF you think seeing the tab go broke is good for the industry then we will have to disagree.

I still don't understand why you can't see having the already small betting pools cut in half will only discourage betting. 

Edited May 25, 2020 by the galah

[the galah]

Basil,i have been thinking you appear to believe that having a monopoly has been the  major factor which has  lead to  the poor performance.

That's where we differ. 

If they had no monopoly/had a competitor they would still  have performed  just as bad .

Its the people who have been running it in recent years,making the stupid decisions who have been the problem. That is whats needed changed. That has been the problem.  Monopoly or no monopoly ,the cause is still the same.   We don't need a monopoly to recognize previous poor leadership and decision making.  You also seem to work on the assumption another competitor  would be better. That's not a given either.