RACING websites are reporting on the outcome of the Racing NSW v Australian Turf Club court battle.
This headline on The Straight echoes what the majority are reporting:
RACING NSW wins appeal over bid to put ATC into administration……with the ATC to bear the substantial costs of the appeal.
Here’s the take on what has happened from our man at the coalface of the industry in Sydney, PETER MAIR:
‘JUST pause here for a moment: The costs, some $400,000 all up, have been paid by the punters that fund both the ATC and RNSW.
These costs could have been avoided if the NSW Government had ‘governed’, as it should have, and rained out this lawyers’ picnic.
Ask yourself: Would parents let a sibling quarrel be resolved by the courts with the costs, paid by the parents, eroding family funds?
Whatever, the hardball way this game was played hardly reflects well on the NSW Government.
The original ruling, now overturned, could have been read as a judicial observation that the NSW Government should intervene to clarify the position as to the ATC being subordinate to RNSW, or not.
This dispute, now decided, has been akin to the madness of a SPY v.SPY parody.
Some $400,000 all-up for having legal entourages in court for four days on top of preparatory work – to say nothing of the associated waste of executive time that should have been avoided.
The possible ‘long-game’ implications of this decision may see the ‘Sale of Rosehill’ back on the NSW Government’s agenda.’
LET’S GET A FEW THINGS STRAIGHT
AND here’s another interesting observation from PETER MAIR:
‘PLAYERS on the edges of the Australian racing media have mixed emotions when weighing the interests of punters, the interests of the wider-community and the commercial interests of racing administrators and the major breeding and racing stables.
RACING GAMBLING TAXES
CUTTING to the chase, if most of racing betting turnover across the States and Territories is on racing in Sydney and Melbourne, the probabilities are that Governments elsewhere would be well advised to set their POCT at a high rate.
The clearest illustration is the ACT. Punters in the ACT, hardly wedded to the local racing product, would bet most on races run elsewhere. It likely makes sense for the ACT Government to have the highest, 25%, POCT – to give ACT racing only a modest, fixed funding allocation, and keep the rest for the wider ACT community.
……….the Governments of South Australia, Western Australia and, possibly, Queensland might take note.
If so, scepticism in the newsletter The Straight may be off-beam:
Speaking of POCT, Australia’s highest-taxed jurisdiction, the ACT, still feels it can grow its tax returns from punters.
Unless ACT punters are paid lower dividends they would be indifferent.
FIELD SIZES
LOCAL TABs can now cope with 24-starters in the Melbourne Cup.
Most punters, would be wary of administrators having the discretion to accept fields of more than 24 as The Straight seems inclined:
Australian tote punters were unable to bet on the King Charles III Stakes, while World Pool punters were. The reason was the old ‘more than 24 runners’ issue. You wonder if there might be a solution in the works for that one.
I hope not!’
