I recently returned home from a trip back east only to find a deepening rift between two rival groups, a posting of financial numbers on the GPEB website that beg many questions and a very uncertain future.
In the record of Decisions dated July 27, 2011 and posted on the GPEB website I read the following.
“an overpayment of $750,000 made in government’s grant to industry in 2010 must be deducted from the $10.0 million commitment in 2012”
Please explain the above. I cannot find any reference to any overpayment in any posting on the GPEB website that talks to the above. I did find in a November 24, 2010 posting the following………
“as of September 30th 2010 industry finances were $725,000 ahead of the$44.41 million forecast, of which $260,000 must be used to offset corresponding operating costs. The small surplus has not yet been committed for any specific use”.
I also read the February 08, 2011 Financial Review of the 2010 year but again there is no mention anywhere of an overpayment of any kind. So in view of the above how do you explain that we now have to pay back an overpayment of $750,000? I do feel that an explanation on the accounting indicated above is in order.
I also found in the same record of decisions the following…….
“The Committee considered the cost implications of the extended standardbred season which GCGC presented and was confident with those costs”
I am pleased that the committee is confident with the costs that are attributed to the extended Standardbred season for 2012. I am certain that Great Canadian would have made sure that these extra costs would be manageable and kept to a minimum.
However………. please note that if any of these extra costs needed to run the 10 month standardbred meet are passed on to the Thoroughbred sector through the allocations, I can assure this committee that there will be many, many very unhappy people. In fact I can with a very high degree of certainty state to the committee that every owner, breeder and trainer will be highly insulted. This is in view of the fact that it is the Standardbred sector that this committee has identified as the main source of losses attributed to the industry in 2011. It is the same committee that granted a 10 month 82 day meet to the Standardbred sector while at present have indicated that no increase in days or any lengthening of the meet is in store for the thoroughbred sector. Asking the thoroughbred sector to pay even $1 towards the extra costs of running the standardbred meet would be highly insulting.
And finally these items also appeared in the same record of decisions.
“the 800,000 marketing fund managed by the BCLC will be continued in 2012, but will include the salary costs of the Director of Racing Sustainability”
So when you really think about it……..If our budget is 46 million dollars for 2012 of which $10,000,000 in revenue comes from the government grant/casino slot revenue, one could say that a percentage of the Director of Racing’s salary now comes from our slot revenue.
Was this the original intent of the slot revenue?
Can you please advise me who the new Director of Racing will be and what will be the salary?
“The Committee considered the possibility of establishing a float fund to facilitate the management of the industry account in 2012 and beyond; and establishing a contingency fund to protect against continued revenue declines throughout the 2012 calendar year and limit the requirement to reduce allocations during the year”
And so the question I ask is this………If these two items come to be, if the industry will have to pay the salary of the “Director of Racing” and if we now need to come up with $750,000 for the above announced overpayment……….what’s left?
As posted August 18, 2011 on the GPEB Website.
“This adjustment will bring total revenue projections from $48.05 million (as projected at the beginning of the year) down to $46.09 million. This reflects a total decline of $1,964,000. While this adjustment has been caused primarily due to a decline in wagering at Fraser Downs, it reflects a decline in betting on both thoroughbred and standardbred racing”.
I will further add that in Glen Todd’s "Derby" newsletter this morning September 09th he points out that with regards to live betting at both tracks which is $3,000,000, Fraser Downs only produces $500,000.
And so the question begs………why are the allotment percentages not adjusted to reflect the above numbers? Why are not the allotment percentages more in line such as 35% and 15%?
One further point somewhat related to my first comments at the top of this posting. In searching for information related to the $750,000 that needs to be paid back, this thought came up.
Derek Sturko wrote on November 24th the following.
“As of September 30th 2010 industry finances were $725,000 ahead of the $44.41 million forecast, of which $260,000 must be used to offset corresponding operating costs. The small surplus has not yet been committed for any specific use”.
So using simple arithmetic that means that the net on September 30, 2010 was ahead by $725,000 minus $260,000 or $465,000.
This appeared In the Derby Bar and Grill newsletter dated October 02, 2010.
“There are only 3 racing days left after this weekend as next weekend is Thanksgiving and Hastings will run Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The CTHS has dropped the BC Bred Bonus on all four stakes races scheduled for next weekend. The Jack and Sadie Diamond Futurity’s, The Ballerina has been cut back to $80,000 with $20,000 extra available for Breeders Cup eligible fillies and mares which still keeps as a Grade 3 Stake race and Premiers Championship all will not have the BC Bred Bonus attached. The Pacific Customs Brokers Ltd. Marathon #5 has been cut already to use the funds for overnite races on the final weekend. Management has to cover a shortfall of approximately $164,000 on the final weekend to stay within our purse allocation for 2010. After this weekend’s races and total purse pool for this weekend is tallied, management will have to make some more decisions on the number of races for closing weekend and the more changes can be expected."
So my question to the committee is this. If we were ahead as of September 30, 2010 as evidenced by Derek Sturko’s letter why did we have to have a purse cut because of a $164,000 shortfall. What shortfall? If my memory serves me correctly did we not run every overnight for the same purse amount because we were desperate to conserve funds from the purse account?
Is it possible that at the end of September we just did not have a proper set of numbers but by November we had a much better picture where we stood? If indeed this was the case, would it not be appropriate to pay back to all those who ran on October 09, 10 and October 11, 2010 money they should have made before the purse cut? It seems to me the fair thing to do considering that maybe we were never behind.
And finally……..
Why has there not been an informational meeting scheduled for this year? Was it not mandated in the original agreement that at least once a year the Committee would hold a forum for the industry to speak directly to the Committee and express our concerns. I strongly believe that in the next three weeks before the meet is over and many leave for tracks in southwest such a meeting be scheduled.
Now reaching over 590 owners, trainers, breeders, jockeys, jockey agents,
Hastings Management, BCLC, and the Management Racing Committee.
3650 site visits up to and including August 21, 2011.
Hastings Management, BCLC, and the Management Racing Committee.
3650 site visits up to and including August 21, 2011.
