|simon moore wrote:|
Would be hilarious if the Treasurer named him when Ray asked the question.
The short term mess is one thing and belongs to GBOTA/Alliance.
The old mess is crystal clear and spoken under oath: the GRA Chairman asked the GBOTA and NCA reps what to do. They said sign, so he did.
I have since queried one of those "advisors" who still claims it was the best thing to do at the time. At a pinch you might accept that for the 13% but never in a million years should anyone have locked it in for 99 years.
Nonetheless, all subsequent boards and directors have allowed expansion to occur, knowing full well that they would not get the full dollar in return. That's called profitless prosperity. At the least, that amounts to poor business nous.
In parallel, the Auditor General, who does the greyhound books, has failed to comment on the worth of the way greyhound funds were employed or where the organisation was headed financially. (That contrasts with the way he rips into folks like the rail/transport mob where he showed they missed their targets or did not assess projects adequately).
To avoid future bankruptcy, GRNSW might well consider reducing races to around the 500 mark (the minimum as required by the TAB agreement). Financially, that might be the better of two evils. Of course, that would also prompt sharp reductions in staffing at both GRNSW and GWIC???? Operationally, that might be where we are headed anyway - we just don't know.
Either way, any directors plotting a course over the next few years would need to be very careful about approving a trading account. They are liable under law.
The $41m (or what's left of it) does not count because that is capital funding via grants, not for operational expenses. It's major purpose is for the government to say we did what we could, so it's not our fault the industry collapsed. That said, the current board is entitled to put in a claim for more than the measly 10% of the tax equalisation money. If it doesn't, it is not doing its job.
GRNSW just lost one accountant but gained another one to replace him. Lots of questions - few answers. (NB No good trying to blame an employee, it's the directors who are responsible).