V'Landys Gets a Gong - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



V'Landys Gets a Gong - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: V'Landys Gets a Gong  (Read 111449 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16741
« 2014-Mar-16, 12:38 PM Reply #50 »
I wonder if the object of this thread subscribes to the theory that any publicity is good publicity......my recollection is that his persistence in getting the race fields legislation up resulted in a massive windfall to RacingNSW.......not that you would know that from reading the articles way back in 2010. :whistle:

Offline whispering

  • Group 2
  • User 1662
  • Posts: 2773
« 2014-Mar-16, 12:40 PM Reply #51 »
For his mates arsenal. What luck that IADD gets purchased right before announcement of a 4mil target in sydney for him

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-16, 01:42 PM Reply #52 »
I wonder if the object of this thread subscribes to the theory that any publicity is good publicity......my recollection is that his persistence in getting the race fields legislation up resulted in a massive windfall to RacingNSW.......not that you would know that from reading the articles way back in 2010. :whistle:
Given how important words might turn out to be in this saga, perhaps the accurate way to refer to V'landys is subject rather than object. Alternatively protagonist.

Anyway I did hunt down the latest Annual Report.

Made the mistake of not reading it back to front (as sceptics recommend), and got so confused with the glossies that about the only thing I gleaned is that if V'landys ever needs a double, Runway would be first cab off the rank.

Need to get more intoxicated before having another go.

But I suppose the loss of over $6 million is a good starting point.

http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00001099-source.pdf

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 21836
« 2014-Mar-16, 02:08 PM Reply #53 »
Given how important words might turn out to be in this saga, perhaps the accurate way to refer to V'landys is subject rather than object. Alternatively protagonist.

Anyway I did hunt down the latest Annual Report.

Made the mistake of not reading it back to front (as sceptics recommend), and got so confused with the glossies that about the only thing I gleaned is that if V'landys ever needs a double, Runway would be first cab off the rank.

Need to get more intoxicated before having another go.

But I suppose the loss of over $6 million is a good starting point.

http://www.racingnsw.com.au/site/_content/document/00001099-source.pdf

I got as far as page 2. I don't read documents that contain "Vision" and "Mission Statements".

What was it that Oscar Wilde said about the subject?

"Ambition is the refuge of the failure".   :lol:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-17, 06:30 PM Reply #54 »
I got as far as page 2. I don't read documents that contain "Vision" and "Mission Statements".

What was it that Oscar Wilde said about the subject?

"Ambition is the refuge of the failure".    :lol:  
I certainly paged away from the glossy sections pronto.

However part of that Vision Statement should be of interest to all
"

Vision

....
Maximise betting turnover on nsw
thoroughbred race meetings by
accommodating punters’ needs and
desires,
and work with Tabcorp to
promote new wagering products that
reflect changes in demand.
"


Feel free to search that document for punter to find how V'landys himself is planning to achieve that.

My bet is one punter operating out of the Isle Of Man considers his needs and desires kinda' accommodated, but I'd be surprised if he won't be demanding and needing more.

If anyone knows of any other punter who's experienced needs and desire being accommodated by V'landys' mission please clue all of us in.

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16741
« 2014-Mar-18, 07:45 AM Reply #55 »
We have to give credit where credit is due on any measure V'Landys deserved his gong...God Save The Queen. :beer:
 From the CEO's report. :thumbsup:
The victory in the Race Fields’ case and accompanying
revenue enabled Racing NSW to increase prizemoney
from July 2012. This provided the most significant across
the board increase ever to prizemoney in NSW, with total
NSW prizemoney increasing by $28.8 million for 2012/13.
This increase enabled:
●● A 50% increase for Country racing with every race at
TAB meetings increasing from $10,000 to $15,000;
●● A 21% increase for Saturday Metropolitan meetings
taking races from $70,000 to $85,000;
●● Races at Metropolitan mid-week meetings increasing by
30% from $27,000 to $35,000. These were increased by
a further $5,000 to $40,000 per race from July 2013;
●● Races at public holiday Metropolitan meetings were
increased by $7,750 per race to $50,000 from July 2013;
●● Provincial races increasing by between 42% and 46%
to $22,000; and
●● Races at Country Sky2 race meetings increasing by
60% to $8,000 per race and races at Country non-TAB
meetings increasing by 71% to $6,000 per race.
In addition a new policy saw prizemoney paid down
to 10th place so as to offset costs incurred by owners in
having their horses presented for race meetings.
These prizemoney increases saw returns to owners in
2012/13 increase from $147.6 million to $173.3 million.
Also boosting returns to owners for 2012/13 was
another strong year for Racing NSW’s Breeder Owner
Bonus Scheme (BOBS). Total bonuses paid to winning
owners including BOBS Double Up were $10.6 million, with
BOBS continuing to be the most lucrative of any Australian
State bonus scheme.
Despite the increase in prizemoney that have taken
place from July 2012 and July 2013, racehorse owners in
NSW collectively bear deficits of $170 million in the costs
(this does not include the cost of acquiring the horse) of
having horses trained for competition compared to their
prizemoney return. The extent of this ‘subsidy’ from
owners continues to be the most pressing strategic issue
facing the industry and its longer term viability.
Racing NSW is working stridently to improve the
funding of the NSW Thoroughbred Racing Industry to reduce
the net costs for owners of participating in racing.

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6722
« 2014-Mar-18, 08:32 AM Reply #56 »
Arsenal,

Can't see why 'he' gets the gong.

Surely the legal teams advice was the key and they should get the gong if anyone does!

Handing out money is a relatively simple task any monkey can do!

Fours

Offline Arsenal

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 194
  • Posts: 16741
« 2014-Mar-18, 09:06 AM Reply #57 »
V'landys is the Man ...Fours ......has put NSW so far in front ...read the CEO report and see for yourself. :beer:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-18, 09:49 AM Reply #58 »
V'landys is the Man ...Fours ......has put NSW so far in front ...read the CEO report and see for yourself. :beer:
This pair of racehorse owners featuring in today's news surely won't knock back the prize money bonanza:
------
The inquiry also promises to show again that Mr Obeid saw government as a business.

“You need to sack that bitch,” Eddie is alleged to have said to former Labor minister Phil Costa after Sydney Water boss Kerry Schott would not settle the contract with Australian Water boss Nick Di Girolamo. Then he travelled 60km with his son and Mr Di ­Girolamo to Narellan to put his sales pitch to Mr Costa.

One thing that stands out after yesterday is despite all that has been said and written about corrupt politicians in NSW in the past few years, some of the senior public ­servants in the government bureaucracy did their job in protecting the public.

Ms Schott deserves a ­bravery award for the way she pushed back on Mr Di Girolamo and Mr Obeid, against all manner of pressure.

Mr Watson also told of how Mr Di Girolamo spent the more than $1 million a year he was paying himself.

One avenue was to “settle debts between he and John Rippon (a fellow AWH director) including money owed in relation to a racehorse”.

The horse’s name?

Partners in Crime”.

http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-assistant-treasurer-arthur-sinodinos-job-under-enormous-pressure-after-latest-icac-allegations/story-fncynjr2-1226857484729

Online arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2830
« 2014-Mar-18, 09:57 AM Reply #59 »
Three things you can say about a lot of people who make the news for all the wrong reasons . .

They have no shame

They have huge egos

And, they share a keen sense of humour   :lol:

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-18, 05:26 PM Reply #60 »
Accidentally stumbled on this cornucopia of gems.

Where in one of them we learn, according to V'landys.

Because the majority of punters who do not know takeout rate,

It follows that they don't know the difference between 4% and 14%!

http://ausrace.com/pipermail/ausrace/2008-December/004670.html



Note, I certainly confess to being on of those who doesn't know the takeout rates.

Might have something to do with Tabcorp not publishing Rake hikes!

And removing any trace of them wherever it can.


Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-19, 06:11 AM Reply #61 »
I had to manually transcribe the material below from the bizzarre non-text pdf.

Anyone, like me, unaware of Allen Windross, his apparent reputation or connection to V'landys or relevance to this matter can easily check for themselves.

------

16 percent average aggregate maximum take-out

The legislation change will see increased funding flow from TAB to NSW racing if Tabcorp can persuade punters to move away from bets such as Quinella that have rates set below 16 per cent towards bets such as Trifecta that have rates set above 16 per cent.

Historically this move has proven most difficult to achieve.

ftp://203.15.71.20/olgr/pdfs/Allen%20Windross%20submission.pdf

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-20, 04:28 AM Reply #62 »
If anyone can lead me to the actual V'landys paper that is at the heart of Max's bizarre article, I would certainly appreciate it, as I would not want to apportion blame to the wrong party. For reasons that probably need no explanation.

Anyway let's start with something resembling facts, considering their obvious source:

All Codes NSW Turnover $000

2013 4077
2012 4273
2011 4565
2010 4813

Not sure which year is being discussed, so let's assume 2011, and make simple adjustments if necessary to check validity.

Now V'landys is quoted as effectively claiming the the combination of Corporate and Professionals win 35% of $1 billion.

$350 million

and that is 6 - 7% of their turnover.

That range is close enough to 1/16.

So that turnover is ~$5.6 billion!

Or 123% of the 2011 Total!
116% of 2010!

Renowned mathematical genius Allen Windross gave that analysis the thumbs up.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/corporate-bookies-latch-on-to-mug-punters-gravy-train-20140220-333oc.html

Offline J.Glenoban

  • Listed
  • User 421
  • Posts: 413
« 2014-Mar-20, 01:57 PM Reply #63 »
A favourite Peter V'landys memory of mine is when he appeared at the Productivity Commission's gambling inquiry in 2009.

Old mate Pete took it upon himself to explain to the commissioners just how these funny things called betting exchanges worked.

Naturally hilarity ensued.

'The biggest illusion in my eyes is a betting exchange. In the court, I was stunned in the evidence to find that punters on a betting exchange only get 80 per cent back of their turnover.
So basically it means there's a margin on a betting exchange of 20 per cent, but that 20 per cent doesn't go the racing industry or Betfair, it goes to the person that's on the other side of the bet which is called the layer.

Now, the layer, from what we understand, is either a bookmaker or a professional punter, so basically any recreational punter that's going through a betting exchange is only getting 80 per cent back of his turnover.

To equate that to a corporate bookmaker who's got a 6 per cent margin, he would have got 94 per cent back if he went through the bookmaker, and if he bets through the tote, on a win bet which has got a 14 and a half per cent deduction, he would have got 86 per cent back or around that mark.

So you can see that a recreational punter who's using a betting exchange is actually paying the highest possible margin of 20 per cent.'



http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/93200/20091201-sydney.pdf (page 177)

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-20, 02:27 PM Reply #64 »
Thank you

That link has set me straight, just when I was beginning to think I'd scraped the bottom of the barrel.

I've started on that lengthy document and it did not take me long to have this quote excerpt from my former constant correspondent Chris Murphy resonate:

'Pig in Lipstick'

Just tried finding the originator whom I'd guess was around the Samuel Pepys era, but the spam circus has suffocated it.

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-20, 03:58 PM Reply #65 »
After struggling through various passages of that epic, I decided to check the Betfair screens.

In stark contrast to V'landys' choice it actually displays the Market %'s on the Betting page.

What do I find on a Thursday?

102.8%
101.9%

How on earth can you get those figures up to 125% (or 20% Rake) as V'landys is claiming!

At this rate he'll front the penal system before me.







Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-20, 05:32 PM Reply #66 »
A favourite Peter V'landys memory of mine is when he appeared at the Productivity Commission's gambling inquiry in 2009.


'The biggest illusion in my eyes is a betting exchange. In the court, I was stunned in the evidence to find that punters on a betting exchange only get 80 per cent back of their turnover.


I am having so much difficulty moving on from this.

Was our spin doctor formerly known as Praiseworthy asleep at the wheel, to let such a revelation get buried when there was so much highly successful anti Tabcorp ads aired in the media?

Or if this was false why is V'landys not joining Frank Hardy's great grand-daddy?

And why is Frank's Power without Glory impossible to dismiss from my perspective?



http://unionsong.com/u139.html

A song that deserves a youtube entry - but no cigar.



Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-20, 05:43 PM Reply #67 »
Correction

Thought John Williamson had the commercial version, still:

Gary makes a fair fist of it:



And here's my compatriot from the State of Excitement, the boy from Bassendean, Rolf:

Kudos for that:



Offline whispering

  • Group 2
  • User 1662
  • Posts: 2773
« 2014-Mar-20, 09:02 PM Reply #68 »
how can he have the top job in nsw
how does he get rewarded while not knowing anything about the industry.


really shocking he has a job. seems like no one cares if racing does well

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-21, 06:24 AM Reply #69 »
Easiest way to find the snippet is search for Powerplays, V'landys' bizarre mispronunciation of Tabcorp's offer.

I'm amazed that no one there picked him up on his apparent basic ignorance of key marketing techniques.

Obviously none of them shop at my local ALDI.

When it opened, the location was a ghost town on weekends.

Within a year I literally could not get near it, due to the overwhelming patronage.

Also you have to wonder what possessed Tabcorp to renew its NSW Tote agreement, with V'landys in charge of RNSW.

MR V'LANDYS (RNSW):
...

The big difference between Tabcorp's contractual obligation and
corporate bookmakers is that we do have control over Tabcorp's pricing because
Tabcorp has to ensure our total financial benefit out of the contract. If they reduce
the price, say, of a take of a win bet from 14 and a half to 5.9 per cent, we can sue
them,
because they've taken a commercial action which affects our income.

Now, I can tell you straight off the bat that the Powerplays, that they did, when
they reduced it from 14 and a half per cent down to 5.9 per cent take-out did increase
turnover, no doubt about that, but it drastically reduced revenue. Now, we're in the
throes of maybe now taking action against Tabcorp for reducing their price which
commercially has been to our detriment. So there are protections with our
contractual obligation on the gross profit.
 

Offline whispering

  • Group 2
  • User 1662
  • Posts: 2773
« 2014-Mar-21, 09:58 AM Reply #70 »
How does turnover increase but revenue decrease when they are pretty much the same thing

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-21, 10:48 AM Reply #71 »
How does turnover increase but revenue decrease when they are pretty much the same thing
It's hardly the same thing, but V'landys' claim that revenue decreased is not hard to challenge.

Prior to his reincarnation Runway challenged me about my theory, but my punting existence would be rapidly extinguished if I make too many mistakes in assessing punter behaviour, so I'll stand by this.

While initially it may seem insane for Tabcorp to make offers bordering on loss leaders, the wisdom behind that can be deduced once you consider the broader picture.

The overwhelming percentage of punters are net lifetime losers. I imagine 99% is erring on the side of kindness.

Anyway that leads to plenty of near dormant accounts.

Particularly as the reality check of having to refill your account, or endure another shellacking from your other half is far from pleasant.

So such Crazy Tabcorp offers will reinvigorate those dormant accounts.

Because even V'landys concedes that punters know the difference between 5.9% and 14%.

Say those punters feed $1000 into their accounts because they correctly understand it's a great deal.

Not all of them are going to blow all of that.

And nearly all of that retained money will be reinvested at the standard Rake.

So the weighted average of those investments might be close to 10% than the original 5.9%.

And 10% of something is vastly superior to:

14.5% of SFA

But, aw shucks, I never did get any of that there book learning that the productivity commissioners enjoyed.


Offline whispering

  • Group 2
  • User 1662
  • Posts: 2773
« 2014-Mar-21, 11:31 AM Reply #72 »
depends on what context but the terms are interchangeable in some countries and businesses

Online fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6722
« 2014-Mar-21, 01:12 PM Reply #73 »
Whispering,

You seem to be forgtting the role of rebates in the net figures.

The Tas tote was a disaster on turnver versus revenue relativities.....

Personaly I'd be wanting to have a very close look at the bonus clauses for those who approved the rebates for the Z man. Did they feather their own nest at the expense of 'shareholders'?

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7263
« 2014-Mar-21, 01:24 PM Reply #74 »
Personaly I'd be wanting to have a very close look at the bonus clauses for those who approved the rebates for the Z man. Did they feather their own nest at the expense of 'shareholders'?

Fours
Did the new Papal head of the economy give sermons sprinkled with AFL anecdotes when officiating at Miracle Mike's private chapel?

Also, I was intending to use the Tote Tasmania case study as a textbook slam dunk on the key distinction between turnover and revenue.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap