Jump to content
The Race Place

and now the 'news'


Maximus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Betting levy repealed

Cambridge synthetic track, first cab off the rank

Use of funds from the PGF for racing infrastructure

Surprised there are no big donations in there from NZB and Te Akau, probably disguised somewhere.

Business and politics, the price of getting things done, might be ugly but that's the way of the world

I suppose we can't be too circumspect.  National did little for racing, John Key and Bill English both despised racing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then in the 2019 Budget the government repealed the betting levy. That meant that a 4 percent levy on betting profits - which previously netted the Crown about $14 million a year - would not be paid to the government, but would be redirected to the racing and sports sectors.

Peters signed off on the move despite the opposition of Treasury, which said in March 2019: "It is not clear whether this initiative represents effective use of taxpayer funds."

This is the problem with the entire industry. The entire model is funded by way of taxpayer funds. And yet people seem to think the government of the day should be giving them more. It's outrageous frankly.

If John Key and Bill English despised racing so much, perhaps ask them why they persisted with funding NZ racing to the tune of $150m+ of taxpayer funds every year?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget - every measure taken by the government to increase the handout to racing - has resulted in no improvements.

They've reduced the levies massively previously - providing $35m+ per year to racing (from government funds).

They provided a massive stake input of around $9m from memory (from government funds).

They are trying to change laws to tax the punter more (from punter funds)

So the punter gets screwed more, the government funds get screwed more - and what is the end result. Nothing. Brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Then in the 2019 Budget the government repealed the betting levy. That meant that a 4 percent levy on betting profits - which previously netted the Crown about $14 million a year - would not be paid to the government, but would be redirected to the racing and sports sectors.

Peters signed off on the move despite the opposition of Treasury, which said in March 2019: "It is not clear whether this initiative represents effective use of taxpayer funds."

This is the problem with the entire industry. The entire model is funded by way of taxpayer funds. And yet people seem to think the government of the day should be giving them more. It's outrageous frankly.

If John Key and Bill English despised racing so much, perhaps ask them why they persisted with funding NZ racing to the tune of $150m+ of taxpayer funds every year?

Yes I did notice in the Messara Report when it came out, a comment to the effect, that the Government let the Racing industry keep $150 mil each year.

I can't find it now, but it was definitely there.

Hard to for see what shape the industry will take in years to come.  The doomsayers will say it will collapse, but I think it is very much going to be a smaller size  hybrid of local racing, very much inter linked with Aus racing.

You can see now with the way things are happening, that the industry is moving towards this

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The industry can survive - but it needs shaking up. The costs etc are just one part of the betting side of things. But it will always struggle if they can't attract more punters to bet and cumulatively lose more money. So the racing needs to be made attractive, have integrity and be set at a price point that will invite punters to bet (compared to alternatives).

All doable, and then by running an efficient betting operation, those revenues aren't just pissed up against the wall. To me, that would be having NZ TAB run solely a tote operation and allow bookies to operate fixed odds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The industry can survive - but it needs shaking up. The costs etc are just one part of the betting side of things. But it will always struggle if they can't attract more punters to bet and cumulatively lose more money. So the racing needs to be made attractive, have integrity and be set at a price point that will invite punters to bet (compared to alternatives).

All doable, and then by running an efficient betting operation, those revenues aren't just pissed up against the wall. To me, that would be having NZ TAB run solely a tote operation and allow bookies to operate fixed odds.

Interesting suggestion, would certainly cut the costs in about half.

An old hobby horse of mine, and from where I came from, firstly you had to make sure you had a good product, something that was honed by market research.  Secondly, you had to tell people about it, people were not going to partake in your product unless they knew about it.  NZTR, does not even have a marketing and promotion budget.  NZRB promotes gambling, not racing, and in itself must eventually invite the negatives associated with doing this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Then in the 2019 Budget the government repealed the betting levy. That meant that a 4 percent levy on betting profits - which previously netted the Crown about $14 million a year - would not be paid to the government, but would be redirected to the racing and sports sectors.

Peters signed off on the move despite the opposition of Treasury, which said in March 2019: "It is not clear whether this initiative represents effective use of taxpayer funds."

This is the problem with the entire industry. The entire model is funded by way of taxpayer funds. And yet people seem to think the government of the day should be giving them more. It's outrageous frankly.

If John Key and Bill English despised racing so much, perhaps ask them why they persisted with funding NZ racing to the tune of $150m+ of taxpayer funds every year?

I read the article this morning as well and it was the line below that caught my eye.

The Treasury Budget documents, released under the Official Information Act, also questioned whether the policy aligned with the government's Wellbeing Budget goals. "The overall wellbeing impacts do not acknowledge the potential for increased gambling harm if the racing industry grow and gambling winnings increase," it wrote.

To my tiny brain that suggested that Treasury, under instruction from the government, doesn't want growth in the Industry as it goes against the government's (Greens and Labour) ethos that they know what is best for us all and gambling is bad so we don't do anything to encourage it - combined with this bullsh#t $1000 maximum winnings before you must provide registered account details  (When the legislation says it should be $10,000) and it starts to paint a picture for me.

Smacks of Nanny state to me but I could be putting 2 and 2 together to get 5!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blind Squirrel said:

I read the article this morning as well and it was the line below that caught my eye.

The Treasury Budget documents, released under the Official Information Act, also questioned whether the policy aligned with the government's Wellbeing Budget goals. "The overall wellbeing impacts do not acknowledge the potential for increased gambling harm if the racing industry grow and gambling winnings increase," it wrote.

To my tiny brain that suggested that Treasury, under instruction from the government, doesn't want growth in the Industry as it goes against the government's (Greens and Labour) ethos that they know what is best for us all and gambling is bad so we don't do anything to encourage it - combined with this bullsh#t $1000 maximum winnings before you must provide registered account details  (When the legislation says it should be $10,000) and it starts to paint a picture for me.

Smacks of Nanny state to me but I could be putting 2 and 2 together to get 5!!

I don't read it that way. I read it that giving the industry more money, will potentially have a negative impact on gambling related harm, but the giving of the money has no association with what it will cost to manage those issues - and therefore a further cost to NZ as a nation. 

To align with any wellbeing budget, surely any action that may have an impact to that, should cater for that in the decision. i.e. If reducing the levy to zero is likely to increase gambling harm spend, shouldn't the portion of levy required to address that increase, stay with the government so that they are able to maintain the status quo - at the very least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...