THE Gold Coast Turf Club wants Queensland Racing to answer a list of 25 questions before proceeding with any further discussions regarding the proposal to sell or develop their current complex.

In a circular to members, Chairman Andrew Eggleston, says the GCTC has asked that these questions are answered in writing so that the Board and members are provided with all available information to fully understand the impact this proposal would have on the future of the Club.

The questions asked by the GCTC of QR and comments from the Club on each are listed below:

• Will the GCTC race every Saturday? The club position is that it is essential for members.
• What is the lease fee proposed for both parties, i.e. how much will GCTC and QR have to pay?
• How is the lease fee amount to be measured?
• How many years will the proposed $72 million be paid over?
• Will the GCTC be able to race on a synthetic track to avoid washed out meetings after the proposed developments?
• It is essential that GCTC land is never to be sold, and must be retained as a race club, and that there be no further lease arrangements to other parties. GCTC or QR equity cannot be sold to any other party.
• Term of the lease? 99 years?
• If QR invest more capital at a later date that does not entitle QR to an increased percentage in the company.
• GCTC will have the rights to sell sponsorship and naming rights to all races plus all signage on course and in-field.
• GCTC looks the logical place to have night racing which would be well attended by the younger people on the Gold Coast – six to eight meetings per year.
• Land and facilities associated with the running of race meetings never to be sold by either party.
• Any monies borrowed or debts are to be serviced for new projects ($72 million) and are in the name of QR or the new Board of the three codes.
• How do we define what percentage of the tracks, tie-up stalls etc QR own and what percentage of facilities would the GCTC own?
• Naturally the Chairman of the new company will be held by the major shareholder.
• Number of Board members and voting rights of the new company will be in accordance with the percentage held in the new company.
• It is the clubs understanding that the only income derived from the current GCTC operations by QR is from training and track fees.
• Will trainers be compensated for major disruptions during construction time of the new tracks?
• Naturally the club would endeavor to build the synthetic track first so there would be little disruption to racing at the GCTC.
• GCTC would conduct 12 Saturday meetings with ‘Metropolitan’ prizemoney of $45,000 per race.
• GCTC would attain ‘Metropolitan’ status.
• All negotiations going smoothly, when would QR envisage the project starting and finishing?
• At start up time of the new company, GCTC will retain all their cash assets.
• Will the redevelopment of the GCTC site be exclusively for thoroughbred racing and training, in light of the amalgamation of the three codes?
• By which method and under what assumptions does QR propose to value the GCTC site?
• What is the dollar value of the current GCTC site using QR’s adopted valuation method and assumptions?

The assumed scenario, based on an initial meeting and media reports, are that there will be a new company or unit trust with share-holdings by the GCTC and QR and that $72 million will be available for redevelopment of the GCTC.

The GCTC Suggested Equity Arrangement and Structure would involve:

• GCTC 80 per cent without lights, 75 per cent with lights.
• QR 20 per cent without lights, 25 per cent with lights.
• GCTC would then pay a lease fee to the new company.
• QR would then pay a lease fee to the new company.

In his letter to members, Mr Eggleston said: “After the announcement by the Queensland Government of funding that was becoming available to the three codes, the club arranged a meeting between GCTC Advisor, Mr Brian Fletcher and Queensland Racing Limited to gain an understanding of the proposal surrounding the sale and redevelopment of the Gold Coast Turf Club.

“Mr Fletcher met with QR Chairman, Mr Bob Bentley and QR officials where a preliminary presentation was made regarding the planned sale and upgrade of the GCTC.

Mr Eggleston said the upgrade would include:

1. Major redevelopment of the grass course proper.
2. A new synthetic (cushion) track.
3. A new grass training track.
4. A new sand training track.
5. Pedestrian, equine and traffic tunnels.
6. Members’ areas upgrade, stewards’ area, tie-ups and corporate entertainment venues.

He said the ‘plans and financial detail presented to the club were very basic and lacked detail.

“Due to the sketchy information provided to the Club by QR, and in the absence of a formal Business Plan, the Board decided, considering the magnitude and scope of the project, that a transparent and professional business approach would be required to be followed. Therefore, the Board of the GCTC has put together a number of questions to QR in regard to the planned sale and upgrade of the Club.

“The Club has asked that before any further discussions take place that these questions are answered in writing so the Board and Members are provided with all available information to fully understand the impact this proposal would have on the future of the GCTC.”

Mr Eggleston told members: “You will be instrumental in the decision making of what will be the most important issue to face the club in its 50-plus year history at the Bundall site, that being the sale of the Club to an organization that includes the yet to be established Queensland Government entity.

“The only way that a decision can be considered is when all information is forthcoming to allow Members to have an independent view and fully understand the proposal. We don’t want another Palm Meadows debacle where media speculation and comments by various industry stakeholders and commentators had the Club sold-off and relocated before even the most basic of facts had been established.

“The Directors of the GCTC hold their position in high regard and understand their obligations under the Corporations Act and will always act in the best interests of the Club.”

Mr Eggleston said members had already approached him and fellow Directors concerned about the sale of the Club, which could see the Club lose ownership and become a tenant of its current asset.

“These concerns are understandable but it must be made clear that at this early stage the Board does not hold views as to whether the proposal is a good deal or bad deal in the interest of the Club.”

Mr Eggleston, in a letter to QR chairman Bentley on February 10, requested answers to the 25 questions prior to a meeting between the two parties. “Failing to have those answers to our Chief Executive by 9am Friday 19^th February 1010 will require the meeting to be postponed to allow QR more time to provide the answers.

“The Club is of the opinion that consideration of these questions and comments by QR would avoid unnecessary delays in preliminary meetings. It would also allow each party the opportunity to properly consider each others’ position in relation to key principles and be able to communicate responses in a timely and clear matter.”