In this Discussion
- Aquanita May 2016
- BenWolfenden January 2016
- bookielover March 2015
- brady March 2015
- buffy April 2016
- carey March 2016
- Carlosa March 2015
- Chris February 2016
- ColourfulRD March 2015
- CPL February 2016
- DamienWyer May 2016
- dungy May 2015
- DustyCarpet February 2015
- Fastmoney January 2017
- FreoHitman January 2016
- GaryH February 2016
- IntoIt November 2014
- JayJay February 2016
- lame March 2016
- Legless May 2016
- LuckyLongshots February 2016
- notapunta March 2016
- Pandora November 2014
- paraletic May 2016
- primemover May 2015
- Ridersonthestorm33 March 2015
- RIO May 2016
- Rodent March 2015
- SKIDS March 2015
- SuperSnoop April 2016
- TheDiva March 2016
- theduke February 2016
- thefalcon March 2016
- ThePunter April 2015
- TheSwooper February 2016
- Tivers March 2016
- tony April 2015
- TSS April 2015
- Voodoo March 2015
- watchingu April 2015
- Winsumlosesum March 2015
- youknowit March 2016
Who's Online
0 Members & 16 Non Members
Comments
From memory each $1 increase in price is worth $1B so that's $7B not sure where these other 100's of billions are coming from
Copy and pasted from a 2014 paper
It is worth noting that every $1 fall in the price of iron ore costs the budget $49 million
We know more than anyone else about more things than you can poke a stick at remember
:-@
RIO, thefalcon likes this post.
After chats early on i thought that the $100mil price-tag would have meant that it was an easy sale and would allow for contractual obligations for the purchasers for ongoing infrastructure funding..
If they sold around the $250mil mark i believe that the new owners wont chip in anything for long term development and i reckon we are all very confident that the Government (any Government) wont do that in the future either!!
Next year it will be worth less and the year after less again and so on and so on. I feel the government would do well to get rid of it now while it is worth something
Just a reduction of the value of their client list - undermined significantly already and the corporate raiders will continue
With TABTouches profit base becoming more and more based on east coast and sports betting, it also reduces the value of betting on the local product as the corporates already have access to all of them.
I reckon the Tabtouch will grow well, but not cos of its WA racing product. Also we don't set prices anyway and are basically totally underwritten for all our gambling by the very people who we are trying to sell to!?!!?!? Why pay a lot of money for something that you already own a fair share of?? And then to ask the purchaser to support an industry that does nothing but bleed money!?!?!!?
Oh and I'm not pro one or the other...Fence sitter, but i just cant see how they would get anymore than $100mil without compromising the financial support the industry needs now and into the future.
RIO likes this post.
Aquanita, that's why I'd rather it sell under commercial value but with contracted obligations from ongoing support of the 3 codes.
There has also been a reality check within Government and Department of RGL during the initial stages of this process, that RGL isn't as stand alone and self funded as everyone thought and assumed. There is a lot of infrastructure/compliance support that is already paid for by the government, so the advertised returns to the government coffers are not exactly a clear and exact fiscal benefit.
I've been told that if all the extra's that the government absorbs were paid by RGL then the net return to government is only in the millions. Yes it still wouldn't cost the government to run, but it also isn't creating a significant net return for the government.
Sell on the cheap side, have a good structured contract for funding and infrastructure and make it profitable and beneficial for all players.
RGL Govern RWWA..........there has been a perception that RWWA contribute a great deal to the government coffers. If you take out the RGL costs of governance that are attributed to managing RWWA and other governance costs associated through government to mange RWWA, then the true net value of any returns by TAB to RWWA to the Government is nowhere near what the gross figure that Tabtouch/RWWA record in their financials.
This has only been realised by the government in the past 12-18 months. When they started drilling down into how much it would cost the government to govern their part of the RWWA if the TAB was sold. I am very reliably informed that the true net financial value to the government is very small.........there fore the chance of any of the sell price being given back to the industry for infrastructure is about -10% chance of happening.
Also, lets not forget this situation is very liquid. And the joys of such a confusing financial recording situation that has been used and not understood for years, generally means that anyone can make the figures tell any story they want to. What I got told mid last year, may no longer be applicable. But the reality seems to be that the recent report is getting a lot closer to the real value of the TAB, and any cash windfall the industry thought they may get is not going to happen.
Oh and value and sell price are generally not the same. I recently bought a small farm that was valued by the bank for 480k, and I paid well under 400k for it. For something to realise its value you need at least 2 people who want it.
So am I not allowed to talk to government ministers and their assistants?? I find them a good source of information personally. There are many players involved in this process as you should well know, and a lot of them like to have a chat.
Sorry if I implied RGL was the only part of the government that contributes to the governance of RWWA, I should have made it clearer that I meant total government governance.
And if RWWA don't get governed via the Department of RGL, then could you let me know who governs them? I've had a long held belief that RGL is the department that manages RWWA. Maybe i's wrong. It wont be the first time, but I'd really like you to let me know who governs RWWA if it isn't RGL
As suggested I'm wrong...My apologise for that indiscretion it appears as though it is the Minister for Racing and Gaming that is responsible for RWWA, not the RGL. My apologies to those who scoffed at my suggesting, especially the poster who meets with them twice a month!?!?!?!!???
Gee we are in really good hands aren't we???????????
8-} X_XI like debating with you Aquanita. However I'm sure that feeling isn't mutual.
Some of the requirements for governance are absorbed by RWWA already, but if the funding and structure were to change due to the TAB being sold then those functions of governance that RWWA currently do, would go back into the Department of R & G (not RGL cos that is a different department !!!) And those costs are in the millions...this is based on a costing model done if there was no TAB funding provided...
I admit I'm not good at making myself really clear at times. That's just how I am, sorry about that. Maybe I shouldn't debate on here, so I'll finish by saying( I have to sign off soon) there are many current expenses that are either absorb by government or paid for by RWWA, that will need to be fully funded if the TAB is sold...IMO that is what will drive the Government to try to get the most out of the sale they can, and what will have a big impact on any guaranteed Government spending on any infrastructure.