For his mates arsenal. What luck that IADD gets purchased right before announcement of a 4mil target in sydney for him

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".   

We have to give credit where credit is due on any measure V'Landys deserved his gong...God Save The Queen.
 From the CEO's report.
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.

V'landys is the Man ...Fours ......has put NSW so far in front ...read the CEO report and see for yourself.

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   

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

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)

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.

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:

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.
 

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.

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