Bernard deferred

[curious]

 

IMPORTANT | The FB Live session with Bernard Saundry has been postponed to Friday 1 May at 10am; where we will provide you with more information and answer any further questions you have.

 

[Hesi]

The 3 codes are meeting with RITA today, so there would have been no answers anyway

[curious]

NZ Trainers' Association We have been advised we will be receiving correspondence today

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Hesi said:

The 3 codes are meeting with RITA today, so there would have been no answers anyway

Exactly. All we would have got is "it depends".

[curious]

 

[curious]

On 4/30/2020 at 10:02 AM, curious said:

Exactly. All we would have got is "it depends".

That's all we did get despite yesterday's meeting between the codes and RITA. None of the questions I sent were raised although Pitty got his all addressed though maybe not answered. Waste of time. Won't be bothering again.

Edited April 30, 2020 by curious

[mardigras]

Just now, curious said:

That's all we did get despite yesterday's meeting between the codes and RITA. None of the questions I sent were raised although Pitty got his all adressed though maybe not answered. Waste of time. Won't be bothering again.

What was the point in asking for questions? FFS

[curious]

12 minutes ago, mardigras said:

What was the point in asking for questions? FFS

Good question and they've suddenly decided they can cut expenses by 20% across the board at RITA and NZTR? How did they suddenly come up with that idea?

Edited April 30, 2020 by curious

[curious]

Job cuts imminent at TAB as “cash flow challenges” bite with revenue down 40%

By Barry Lichter • 1 May 2020

An announcement is imminent on significant staff cuts at the TAB.

All staff were told on April 20 that a deeper review of the business was underway and jobs would be lost.

The revelation comes along with confirmation by the Racing Industry Transition Agency that while it has undertaken significant cost cutting to help lessen a dramatic loss of revenue through COVID-19, it had also approached the Government about options for supporting the racing industry.

In replying to questions from New Zealand Trainers’ Association president Tony Pike, RITA executive chair Dean McKenzie said the TAB had cash flow challenges with product availability down 80%, revenue down 40% and customer numbers down about 35%.

“Thankfully, we have managed to weather the first wave of financial pressure but significant work remains to be done.”

The trainers’ association quizzed RITA why redundancies and wage reductions had not been made when many other organisations had done so, its sole response seemingly to announce 3400 leave days would be taken through to the end of 2020. RITA had received Government subsidies of $4,075,087 to pay its 595 staff.

But in his reply McKenzie said the use of non-essential contractors and casuals had stopped and “a deeper review of the business was underway, which the industry would hear about in the near future.”

RITA boss Dean McKenzie … “We have managed to weather the first wave of financial pressure.”McKenzie revealed that because no class four gaming (pokie machines) had been allowed under alert level 4 and 3, the ongoing funding of integrity - Racing Integrity Unit, Judicial Control Authority and the Racing Laboratory - had become an additional expense that must be funded via betting revenue.

$1 million in savings

“In the last few weeks, these organisations have taken steps to reduce their costs and revised budgets have been prepared with significant changes, with forecasted savings of approximately $1 million through the remainder of the 2019-20 season.”

Challenged on what RITA planned to do about a bloated and inefficient organisation like the RIU, McKenzie said it would continue to work with the organisation to become as efficient as possible.

While RITA was yesterday able to confirm funding for the tail of the 2019-20 season, it was very difficult to accurately model how much it will be able to distribute to the industry in the new season, starting August 1.

“But once a calendar has been approved for 2020-21, which we hope will be in place before harness racing resumes at the end of May, we will be in the position to indicate funding levels for next season.”

In response to a question on where RIA stood on finding a joint venture partner to unlock the value left in the business, McKenzie said work had been on hold for the last six weeks while everyone had been dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.

“But as late as mid-March the board advanced discussions to further consider potential partnering opportunities and we continue to work under the direction of the Minister.

“Any progress to actively move this forward is dependent on the progression of the Racing Industry Bill.”

The Bill previously had a proposed enactment date of July 1, 2020, but with Parliament unable to conduct normal business, the Select Committee’s original date for reporting back to the House of April 17 had been extended to June 1.

“But we understand that the passing of this Bill remains a priority for the Government.”

On the subject of ownership of the TAB, McKenzie said he had not seen any formal proposals from the Government to resolve it.

“This was not addressed in the Messara report and RITA has not been asked to consider the issue.

“However, under the existing Racing Act, it is clear that the racing industry is the ultimate recipient of profits of the TAB and this position is unchanged in the Racing Industry Bill.”

[curious]

14 minutes ago, curious said:

The trainers’ association quizzed RITA why redundancies and wage reductions had not been made when many other organisations had done so, its sole response seemingly to announce 3400 leave days would be taken through to the end of 2020. RITA had received Government subsidies of $4,075,087 to pay its 595 staff.

Annual leave being taken may help the balance sheet but won't do much for cashflow. Sounds like a lot of racehorses will be extending their annual leave as well.

[mardigras]

What's the difference between now and when RITA started (or NZRB before) in regards cutting unnecessary, superfluous staffing and other costs. Bloody ridiculous.

[Hesi]

37 minutes ago, curious said:

Good question and they've suddenly decided they can cut expenses by 20% across the board at RITA and NZTR? How did they suddenly come up with that idea?

If revenue is down 40%, then operational(variable) costs should be down 40%

[Hesi]

1 minute ago, mardigras said:

What's the difference between now and when RITA started (or NZRB before) in regards cutting unnecessary, superfluous staffing and other costs. Bloody ridiculous.

Revenue is down, not as much to do?

[mardigras]

23 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Revenue is down, not as much to do?

I read that they were talking about cutting these costs long term, not short term. Long term, it would be expected that there would be the same amount to do (or hopefully more).

Are you suggesting these cuts are short term only? If so, why didn't they happen at the start of the impact instead of in the middle or towards the end?

[curious]

4 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I read that they were talking about cutting these costs long term, not short term. Long term, it would be expected that there would be the same amount to do (or hopefully more).

Are you suggesting these cuts are short term only? If so, why didn't they happen at the start of the impact instead of in the middle or towards the end?

It's bloody hard to know because we don't know whether the 40% revenue decline is the last 6 months, last quarter, or the month of lockdown. You just can get no answers and no transparency at any level.

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, curious said:

It's bloody hard to know because we don't know whether the 40% revenue decline is the last 6 months, last quarter, or the month of lockdown. You just can get no answers and no transparency at any level.

And no half year report?

[Hesi]

9 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I read that they were talking about cutting these costs long term, not short term. Long term, it would be expected that there would be the same amount to do (or hopefully more).

Are you suggesting these cuts are short term only? If so, why didn't they happen at the start of the impact instead of in the middle or towards the end?

No.

I guess the only thing I am suggesting, is that they will use the Covid situation to cut costs, as they should, but it will be a smokescreen to allow them to do much of the cost cutting that should have been done ages ago and save face

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, Hesi said:

No.

I guess the only thing I am suggesting, is that they will use the Covid situation to cut costs, as they should, but it will be a smokescreen to allow them to do much of the cost cutting that should have been done ages ago and save face

I don't think there will me much face saving going on. Not unless you are gullible like ATA.

[Hesi]

I've been involved in a major cost cutting exercise for a large multinational, and if you use the expertise that is available in each of the different sectors of the business, then huge cost savings can be achieved.

It is not just about reducing staff, but doing everything a lot better and efficiently across the business.

As an example, one thing that has come out of Covid, is that you would expect to see a reduction in air travel and accommodation expenses, as remote communication has become the norm.  Even Bernard mentioned the benefit of communicating in such a manner, on his Q&A session

I always liked Trump's(on RC) approach, pull in all your heads of dept and ask them to submit their proposals within a month to effect a 20% cost saving within their sector

[curious]

1 hour ago, Hesi said:

I've been involved in a major cost cutting exercise for a large multinational, and if you use the expertise that is available in each of the different sectors of the business, then huge cost savings can be achieved.

It is not just about reducing staff, but doing everything a lot better and efficiently across the business.

As an example, one thing that has come out of Covid, is that you would expect to see a reduction in air travel and accommodation expenses, as remote communication has become the norm.  Even Bernard mentioned the benefit of communicating in such a manner, on his Q&A session

I always liked Trump's(on RC) approach, pull in all your heads of dept and ask them to submit their proposals within a month to effect a 20% cost saving within their sector

Except if revenue is down and likely to continue to be 40% then cost reductions need to be at least that, not half it?

[curious]