THIS web-site continues to listen to what our readers have to say and has introduced a ‘Wednesday Whinge’ where you can express your feelings on racing industry issues of the past week. Just e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Topics of e-mails received this week varied from a request for a report from the Estimates Committee on fees paid to directors of the newly-merged Racing Queensland Board to an interesting response from Premier Bligh’s office to the Townsville Turf Club and concerns over suggestions millions of dollars in fees will be set aside in a deal involving UNiTAB and Racing Queensland.

HERE is this week’s selection from the e-mail box:

‘I was wondering why we haven’t seen anything reported on questions asked of Racing Minister Lawlor in the Estimates Hearing recently concerning what fees are being paid to the newly-merged Racing Queensland Board?

One would have thought this was a newsworthy item especially after the Queensland Racing Board was controversially ‘self-appointed’ and some members did not even have to face re-election after too many years in the job.

Could you please ascertain how much these ‘jobs for the boys’ are worth for the Board members who appear to consult no-one and be answerable to no-one including the Labor Government? I understand it was Shadow Racing Minister Ray Stevens who asked the questions in the Estimates Hearing.’ – Albert Williams, Redcliffe.

EDITOR’S NOTE: On the ball as usual Albert. The best I can do for you is reproduce some of the dialogue from the Estimate Hearing below:

RAY STEVENS: How much are the chairman and directors of the new racing control body, Racing Queensland, being paid annually?

PETER LAWLOR: The remuneration levels recommended by the specialist remuneration consultancy firm, Godfrey Remuneration Group and approved by the Director-General of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation are the Chair on $135,000, the Deputy Chair on $90,000 and non-executive directors on $60,000.

The Racing Minister admitted that the chairmen of Racing NSW and Racing Victoria are currently paid $126,787 and $107,910 respectively.

“However, whilst the thoroughbred racing industries in these states are larger than Queensland’s, the responsibility for the strategic direction and overseeing the operations and performance of a company managing all three codes of racing would be greater and more complex than applies to one code of racing.

“The approved total Board fees for RQ amount to $525,000 compared to a total of $515,900 for all three former control Boards, a rise of 1.l7 per cent,” Lawlor said.

‘HAVING recently been privy to seeing a reply from the office of Premier Bligh to concerns raised by the Townsville Turf Club, I admit to being terribly confused.

My understanding was that the TTC committee wanted to sell a parcel of land at Cluden Park and invest the proceeds in improvements to the racetrack but Queensland Racing would not allow them to do so.

Yet the letter from the Premier indicates that amendments to the Act do not prevent the TTC committee from selling the land. Why then is QR not allowing them to do so and one might ask does the control body actually have the power to stop them when they own the property?’ – Vince G, Townsville.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I am confused as well Vince. Perhaps when it comes to the sale of racetrack property the new RQ Board has the final say. I have been able to obtain a copy of the letter from the Premier’s Department which has been run below:

RESPONSE from a Senior Policy Advisor to Premier Bligh:

‘I am aware of concerns raised by some sections of the racing industry regarding changes to the Act to clarify the powers of Racing Queensland to place conditions in relation to sale proceeds from the disposal of club assets.

Given that the State has transferred freehold title to racecourse land to clubs, and that significant investment of public and control body funds has been made in club infrastructure over many years, it is considered reasonable that the racing industry, as a whole, receives a fair return in the event these assets are sold.

The amendments to the Act do not prevent the Townsville Turf Club from selling parcels of land that are not required for the future operations of the club.

The Queensland Government has always been supportive of a viable racing industry in Townsville and has, over many years, provided assistance to the TTC through the transfer of the freehold of Cluden Park and financial assistance for the provision of training facilities through the Training Track Subsidy Scheme.’

‘IT is hard to feel sorry for these professional punters who continue to scream ‘victimization’ after being caught up in the Danny Nikolic probe.

I believe if they have nothing to hide, and wanted to convince everyone of their innocence, then why refuse to attend the inquiry and answer questions.

I guess it’s their right not to attend if they don’t want to but they have to face the consequences of not putting their sides of the story forward.

If at the end of the day they are warned off racetracks around the country, I feel they have no-one to blame but themselves. Even if an appeal is lodged they have to front up for that hearing.’ – Glen Johnston, Melbourne.

EDITOR'S NOTE: My only comment on the entire Nikolic situation and associated inquiries is that the racing industry in Victoria should be thankful it has the best stewards in the land and the best chairman of stewards at the helm.

‘Do you know anything about a story doing the rounds that an ‘arrangement’ has apparently been reached between UNiTAB and Racing Queensland which apparently will see millions of dollars in fees being set aside?

Could you confirm if this is correct and if so isn’t there some conflict of interest in the decision making process here with Bob Bentley chairman of RQ and on the Board of UNiTAB?’  - Glen Kennedy, Gold Coast.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The best I can do for you here Glen is to reproduce a report that appeared in the finance pages of the Brisbane Courier-Mail, which reads:

A Federal Court has just ruled against a similar deal in NSW. Justice Nye Perram even declared a conflict of interest existed there, as the local racing body wielded the power to levy fees while depending on funds from ‘the commercial fortunes of one of the taxpayers.’

UNiTAB, a division of the stock market listed Tatts Group, is examining the ruling’s implications on its own agreement with Racing Queensland.

“If the agreement has to be changed to recognize the additional fee…the agreement will be changed by mutual agreement,” Barrie Fletton, chief executive of UNiTAB’s wagering unit told The Courier-Mail.

Since 2008, RQ has charged a levy on betting operations for race information.

But the Racing Act also says RQ must ‘take into account any other fees payable to it’ by a gaming company – the only one affected is UNiTAB – in considering this race information levy. The levy is roughly 1.5 per cent of turnover.

UNiTAB had already been paying a 39 per cent revenue fee under a 1999 ‘product and program agreement.’

Tatts’ last annual report showed it paid $124.9 million in fees in fiscal 2009. No declaration was made for any race information levy.

Mr Fletton said UNiTAB incurred a 1.5 per cent race information levy. “But we offset that. In total, we’re paying 39 per cent (in levies).”

The offset deal has never been detailed.

“There’s no need for it to be,” he argued, giving they were already detailing paying 39 per cent.

RQ, which said there was no reason the arrangement had not been declared in its own report, estimated the offset accounted for up to $6 million a year.

Justice Perram ruled last month that Racing NSW had to repay $2.1 million to Northern Territory based online gambling venture SportsBet. The money had been accumulated through a similar 1.5 per cent levy.

He found NSW racing bodies had refunded such levies to main gambling entity TAB, which had already paid massive fees under an earlier arrangement.

Justice Perram found an arrangement to require a levy on interstate business while not hitting up local businesses was ‘inherently protectionist.’

“Discriminatory protectionism is established,” he said.

He also inferred Racing NSW’s Board was ‘well aware that it will be constitutionally impermissible – illegal – to impose the fee in a discriminatory manner.’

RQ chief executive Malcolm Tuttle, asked if his organization had ever considered the UNiTAB deal a constitutional breach, said his (the QR) Board had taken ‘advice in relation to constitutional issues at the time.’

“But we also had regard to that particular provision with the (Queensland) legislation,” he said, referring to the compulsion to take into account other fees.

Mr Tuttle also said his organization had a long history of handling conflicts of interest, such as scheduling race days and allocating prizemoney.

A potential conflict of interest lies with RQ chairman Bob Bentley also being a Tatts director. But Mr Tuttle said Mr Bentley had exercised ethical corporate governance.

“He certainly doesn’t take any part in deliberations around race information,” Mr Tuttle said.

Justice Perram had ruled the power of NSW racing bodies to impose fees on operators ‘where they themselves have a substantial commercial interest in the largest operator in the market, erects an unavoidable conflict of interest.’

Mr Tuttle said RQ was taking into account this ruling and another Federal Court decision, and a similar law suit was under way in Queensland.’

‘RACING doesn't get much coverage in Melbourne newspapers (apart from the Spring Carnival), yet when a jumper has a fatal fall, plenty of space suddenly becomes available – even at bush tracks that most racing journalists wouldn't know existed.

There's even less coverage of Adelaide racing in Melbourne's media (for good reason, the racing is terrible), yet both Sunday papers found space for a fatal fall last Saturday.

Yet there was no mention of a horse dying (from a heart attack) at the Sydney race meeting.

Why the coverage of one death and not the other?

Of course RVL wouldn't be encouraging the anti-jumps publicity, would they?’ – Ross Morrison.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Valid point Ross. You won’t find much coverage of anything controversial on the track from the Sydney racing media. There is plenty of racing media folk passionate about jumps racing and its survival in Melbourne. Space unfortunately is determined by editors and sub editors with agendas and when it comes to fatal falls and controversy they command headlines more than simple coverage of what we want to read about the racing itself.

‘WOULD you be able to follow up on a report that Telstra could become a major partner in TVN and that a bid will be made to takeover Sky Channel?

Will this mean that we won’t have as many channels and that Sky and TVN will eventually combine to reduce the high costs confronting both organizations at present?

Does it also mean that punters who prefer to watch the races from the comfort of their own homes can expect to be asked to pay more in subscriptions for this service in the future? – Sam Kingston, Sydney.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I’m not sure if a merger would mean an extra cost for off-course punters Sam but there is a lot of duplication at present. My hope is that TVN survives in its current format as there is a groundswell of opinion that it provides the best service. Below is a report on what you have heard from The Australian Financial Review:

A formal tie-up would significantly strengthen the five-year-old racing channel and could help to fund a possible bid for rival Sky Channel, owned by gambling giant Tabcorp.

At stake is one of the most important levers in the $2.5 billion-a-year wagering sector, its TV broadcast rights. The early-stage talks between TVN and senior Telstra executives have centred on the telco giant taking as much as a quarter stake in the racing channel - already a joint-venture partner in mobile & internet coverage.

Telstra's bid to make a bigger play in racing comes amid efforts to boost broadband sales through its T-Box internet-enabled digital video recorder. T-Box was launched in June & Telstra wants to increase its range of content. A tie-up with Telstra would give TVN extra cash to finance a bid for its bitter rival Sky Channel.

TVN had been in talks with Tabcorp about a merger in which TVN would hold 51% of Sky Channel, but those talks collapsed in April when the two failed to reach an agreement on price suggested by independent adviser PricewaterhouseCoopers.’

‘Where are the crowds that the Sunshine Coast Turf Club once attracted to its race meetings?

Twenty-five years ago in excess of 10,000 attended the opening day of the new track at Corbould Park. On Sunday for the anniversary they would have been lucky to attract 1,000 through the turnstiles and by the end of race six that crowd had diminished significantly.

Big Russ Hinze would be rolling over in his grave! Fortunately they didn’t build one of these huge stands, the like of which stand empty on most days at some of the bigger city tracks.

I attended the 25th Anniversary meeting last Sunday and was extremely disappointed at the lack of professionalism which went into the day's proceedings.

Despite a valiant attempt by the course announcer, Paul Dolan, to generate some club history and the pictorial cover on the race-book little was done to promote the event.

Obviously the SCTC is purely a social club and the celebrations seem to benefit those in-house. What a non-event!’- Percy Smith, Sunshine Coast.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A high profile RQ official recently admitted to me how disappointed he was with the promotion of the recent Caloundra Cup meeting, the club’s biggest of the year. We both agreed that there was no point trying simply to attract the locals. Many are retired and don’t go to the races. It might be a club matter but perhaps this is an area where RQ needs to get involved.

‘LET me confess at the outset that I backed Why Do You Ask at very nice odds each-way in the seventh at Moonee Valley last Saturday and was disappointed that the protest wasn’t upheld but fully accept the stewards’ decision.

What got my gander up was what I considered to be biased and irresponsible commentary from hosts on both TVN and Sky Channel in Bruce Clark and Jo MacKinnon.

Clark’s smug comments when the much more experienced and professional Shane Templeton suggested that Why Do You Ask had some chance in the protest hearing infuriated me to such a degree that I immediately switched to Sky Channel.

Low and behold Jo McKinnon was even worse, declaring that Dwayne Dunn should be charged with lodging a frivolous protest. The only way I can describe her comments are ill-informed and idiotic, but we got a lot of that on Sky Channel, which is why I rarely watch it.

I have no problem with objective commentary on protest hearings but why do I get the impression that some of these people are trying to sway the stewards during their deliberations?’ – Glen Jackson, Sydney.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Nothing that happens on Sky Channel would surprise me Glen and by the way they still can’t get the ‘Running Double’ Dividend up for the last two races anywhere. We’re still being subjected to ‘Others Quoted’ instead, which means ‘Too Hard’ or ‘Can’t be Bothered.’ I’d like to be running the joint for a week – but enough of that. Back to the state of play with the protest hearings and I have no problem with hosts commenting on the outcome but it would be nice if they declared before-hand if they had backed any of the horses involved. Richard Callander from TVN can be over-bearing at times but he always declares his hand and backs what he tips.

‘My friends and I have decided to use the Wednesday Whinge to let the racing industry know that a joint venture as they call it, or takeover as we prefer to describe it, is about to occur at the Toowoomba Turf Club.

We have it on good authority that RQ heavies Bob Bentley, Wayne Millner and Paul Brennan will come to the Downs on Saturday to put a proposition to the TTC to take-over responsibility for the track and training facilities at Clifford Park.

Apparently what they are after is a 50-50 arrangement with the club which would see a joint venture company established. No surprises for guessing that one Neville Stewart would be among the RQ-appointed representatives on that body.

Whilst we accept that club finances may determine the outcome our hope is that the committee – despite the obvious influence of the former chairman on many of its number – should delay any decision pending discussion with the members and the up-coming annual meeting when there are bound to be changes.

Is it correct that appointees to these joint venture companies that RQ is setting up at many major racetracks around the state are paid for their services? If so, it makes a bit of a mockery of all the hard work that honorary committeemen have performed over the years.' – Names and address with-held by request.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I understand that the Townsville Turf Club is facing a similar – but far more advanced – situation at a special meeting with RQ this Friday. Perhaps the Toowoomba Turf Club directors should delay a decision as important as this until after the AGM in September. Feedback from the racing fraternity on the Downs certainly suggests there could be widespread changes to committee then. As for the appointment of Mr Stewart, you can expect RQ to use his professional expertise at some time in the future.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the e-mails above should not be interpreted as those of the operators or owners of the letsgohorseracing web-site. That is why we have decided to add an ‘EDITOR’S NOTE’. Every endeavor is made to verify the authenticity of contributors. We welcome any reasonable and constructive responses from parties or individuals.