Messara Report link plus 17 key recommendations

[Newmarket]

6 hours ago, Ashley said:

Its good to see some mature and reasoned debate on this issue thanks to this website, without the garbage from the foul mouthed village idiot PFP on the other channel who is about to be made look a bigger fool that he is already.

Not even looked over there for couple weeks, last time i did look , nobody had posted for hours. And that includes scoobs made up posters! 

[hesi]

17 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

Not even looked over there for couple weeks, last time i did look , nobody had posted for hours. And that includes scoobs made up posters! 

Being objective(that was a struggle), and doing a bit of basic maths, they have had about 300 posts on threads relating to the Messara report and BOAY has had about 280, but spread over more threads and including threads as well in Harness and Dogs.

As Ashley said though, the debate on BOAY has been a lot more reasoned and mature, in general of course.  Many good posts on both channels.

Unexpectedly I might add, that that is pretty good for the new kid on the block, don't you think?

Edited September 2, 2018 by hesi

[Hedley]

How much does NZTR and the R.B. give to the upkeep of tracks and their  super structures?

 

i can't recall ever reading anywhere.. an actual amount., this is very important..i need a 'trainspotter' like Curious to hunt this out for me please . . .Cheers Champ :)

[hesi]

Have a look at the Annual reports, financial summary on the NZTR website

nztr.bmp

That's a screenshot of 16/17

Edited September 4, 2018 by hesi

[hesi]

Also found this in the 2016/17 Annual Report

The infrastructure projects reserve was set up in 2010/2011 to fund critical projects at strategic and significant venues. Since 2011 NZTR has set aside $4,566,951 to help fund these projects

[Hedley]

Yes, so 'buggar all' in the big scheme of things..a catalytical amount so as to show that some funds are there and that they're doing something that should be their earnest role.

Their claim that there's 20 odd tracks that need closing down because they've been costing the industry critical amounts of funds to keep them buoyant..is just bullshit.

[hesi]

49 minutes ago, Hedley said:

Yes, so 'buggar all' in the big scheme of things..a catalytical amount so as to show that some funds are there and that they're doing something that should be their earnest role.

Their claim that there's 20 odd tracks that need closing down because they've been costing the industry critical amounts of funds to keep them buoyant..is just bullshit.

I think the claim is, that to bring all tracks/facilities up to standard, would cost another 104 mil, so 294 vs 190 mil.

 

[Freda]

9 hours ago, hesi said:

I think the claim is, that to bring all tracks/facilities up to standard, would cost another 104 mil, so 294 vs 190 mil.

 

For twenty years or more, smaller clubs have been selectively deprived of an equitable portion of turnover percentage payments....those funds channeled to some larger clubs because of their 'importance' .

No argument with providing some extra funding for the black type races these clubs host - although as mardigras has been pointing out for years, funding beyond a race's capacity to earn is just not sustainable.

These smaller clubs have been squeezed and squeezed yet with local effort and hours of community and volunteer work, have managed to hang in- so far .

I would imagine if these clubs had had the same income opportunities as their larger cousins, there would have been ample to maintain their tracks and facilities.

Looking at the superb- not- management of the racing surfaces of Ellerslie, Pukekohe and Te Rapa just to mention a few, that extra funding has been absolutely wasted.

They're been sucking the tit for years....for what?

[Mark D]

When you're right you're right Freda (still)

[Freda]

You mean I'm ever wrong..?  ?

[Mark D]

You're not often wrong but you're right this time

[hesi]

Can't help thinking, that if there was something more definitive in the report(as below), it may have helped ameliorate the concerns on some of the more unpalatable stuff, that people realise has to happen, but just don't like the way it has been done, namely the land grab.

"An immediate review of RB costs, both operating and turnover related, and including outsourcing the TAB, with a target of effecting savings of 25%

This money($55 mil), to be specifically used per annum to

Fund increased stake money - $30 mil

Set up a separate racecourse infrastructure fund - $20 mil

Set up a specific marketing and promotion fund for racing - $5 mil"

 

[curious]

That makes sense and I don't know why Peters did not insist that be underway alongside the Messara review. They are supposed to be done every 5 years and the last one was dated April 2014, so it's already well overdue. I'm not clear why this has not yet been initiated. It ends up being one of JM's recommendations anyway and the the Minister determines the ToRs, so they could be as you say.

4. Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB

Would you include the betting levy removal in your above plan? Another $13m?

[von Smallhaussen]

1 hour ago, curious said:

 They are supposed to be done every 5 years and the last one was dated April 2014, so it's already well overdue. 

did you spend all day at school eating your lunch? ?

[hesi]

3 hours ago, curious said:

That makes sense and I don't know why Peters did not insist that be underway alongside the Messara review. They are supposed to be done every 5 years and the last one was dated April 2014, so it's already well overdue. I'm not clear why this has not yet been initiated. It ends up being one of JM's recommendations anyway and the the Minister determines the ToRs, so they could be as you say.

4. Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB

Would you include the betting levy removal in your above plan? Another $13m?

For the uninitiated, can you explain what it is, but if it is money that can be legitimately saved, then along with the $30mil from a review, you are starting to get up there with respect to doubling stakes

I think also, as far as the racecourse/asset closure and sale thing goes, how much more palatable would it have been, if it was worded, bearing in mind the ownership issue.

"With the need to generate capital for racecourse upgrading, initiate a review of all 52 racecourses in NZ, with a view to reducing numbers by half within 5 years."

From reading many of the posts, it appears very little time was spent at some venues, and that recommendations may have been garnered from another report??

Edited September 6, 2018 by hesi

[Mark D]

14 hours ago, hesi said:

Can't help thinking, that if there was something more definitive in the report(as below), it may have helped ameliorate the concerns on some of the more unpalatable stuff, that people realise has to happen, but just don't like the way it has been done, namely the land grab.

"An immediate review of RB costs, both operating and turnover related, and including outsourcing the TAB, with a target of effecting savings of 25%

This money($55 mil), to be specifically used per annum to

Fund increased stake money - $30 mil

Set up a separate racecourse infrastructure fund - $20 mil

Set up a specific marketing and promotion fund for racing - $5 mil"

 

IMO Hesi nothing can ameliorate the "land grab".  It violates something that a democracy normally considers to be sacrosanct.  Property rights are quite often put above human rights but not in this case.  This will be legalised theft if it goes through which I hope it doesn't.  If there were another regime proposing this (NZ First) it would be regarded, quite properly in my view, communism or facism.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Mark D

[curious]

1 hour ago, von Smallhaussen said:

did you spend all day at school eating your lunch? ?

oops...make that due to be implemented at least...the first one was July 2008, that second one should have been July 2013, and this one July 2018. I left that bit out. It's supposed to be "at least once every five years".

[hesi]

38 minutes ago, Mark D said:

IMO Hesi nothing can ameliorate the "land grab".  It violates something that a democracy normally considers to be sacrosanct.  Property rights are quite often put above human rights but not in this case.  This will be legalised theft if it goes through which I hope it doesn't.  If there were another regime proposing this (NZ First) it would be regarded, quite properly in my view, communism or facism.

Affected clubs may be convinced to go along with it, for the sake of the industry, without embarking on a legal fight, if all cards were laid on the table.

Namely, an open and transparent review of all 52 clubs, and a absolute indication that top heavy costs weighing the industry down, were going to be addressed.  In other words, if we are going to bleed then you are going to bleed as well

[curious]

37 minutes ago, hesi said:

For the uninitiated, can you explain what it is, but if it is something money that can be legitimately saved, then along with the $30mil from a review, you are starting to get up there with respect to doubling stakes

Sorry, it's what is more correctly called totalisator duty, payable under The Gaming Duties Act. It is what was reduced from 20% to 4% in 2003, to align it with the rate paid by casinos. A matter ignored by the Messara report is that presumably, if it is removed for Racing, the Casinos will make the same argument.

Of course the now $50m a year savings from that duty reduction was supposed to go, similarly to your suggestions, to a mix of stakes, infrastructure and to cover the costs of reducing takeouts. We all know what has happened there.

[Mark D]

5 minutes ago, hesi said:

Affected clubs may be convinced to go along with it, for the sake of the industry, without embarking on a legal fight, if all cards were laid on the table.

Namely, an open and transparent review of all 52 clubs, and a absolute indication that top heavy costs weighing the industry down, were going to be addressed.  In other words, if we are going to bleed then you are going to bleed as well

If all the cards were laid on the table, as you put it, it would show that it costs next to nothing to sustain these racecourses that they want to close down and the amounts of (industry) money (mis)spent on racecourses such as Ellerslie,Te Rapa, Ruakaka, Awapuni etc is enormous in comparison.  BUT either way is is TOTALLY wrong by any standards.

[curious]

4 minutes ago, hesi said:

Affected clubs may be convinced to go along with it, for the sake of the industry, without embarking on a legal fight, if all cards were laid on the table.

Namely, an open and transparent review of all 52 clubs, and a absolute indication that top heavy costs weighing the industry down, were going to be addressed.  In other words, if we are going to bleed then you are going to bleed as well

Yes, an independent review, aimed at an orderly reduction in track numbers would make sense. A financial model that has worked OK in the past is where funds from sale of tracks are retained by the club but used to purchase a pro-rata share of the track they are going to race at, so their funds are protected. The idea of handing assets over say from Gore, to spend on say an all weather at Cambridge is reprehensible.

[hesi]

12 minutes ago, Mark D said:

If all the cards were laid on the table, as you put it, it would show that it costs next to nothing to sustain these racecourses that they want to close down and the amounts of (industry) money (mis)spent on racecourses such as Ellerslie,Te Rapa, Ruakaka, Awapuni etc is enormous in comparison.  BUT either way is is TOTALLY wrong by any standards.

They want to close them down so they can generate capital from the sale of land and assets.

The report also says, that to bring these 20 courses up to standard would cost a further 104 mil(294 vs 190), and therefore that money would be saved.  

Can't save something you were never going to spend in the first place 

[Mark D]

Further in some cases (Foxton and Waipukarau are examples I know of) the land that the racecourses are on are not owned by the Clubs so the legislation would be taking proceeds from some other body.

 

[Thomass]

1 hour ago, curious said:

oops...make that due to be implemented at least...the first one was July 2008, that second one should have been July 2013, and this one July 2018. I left that bit out. It's supposed to be "at least once every five years".

Moi believes you're 'so onto it' ...that you should be given the honorary title of Chief Ameliorator...

You know John well....put his f ups down point by point and let him peruse...his f ups...best

jmessara@arrowfield.com.au 

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Moi believes you're 'so onto it' ...that you should be given the honorary title of Chief Ameliorator...

You know John well....put his f ups down point by point and let him peruse...his f ups...best

jmessara@arrowfield.com.au 

I'm agreeing with JM. I'm saying that Winnie should have initiated the review, so that the outcome was known by now, although it may have been decided to wait for the review before deciding the terms of reference and there's some argument for that.