by Brian de Lore
Published 5th June 2020
If you have a successful business you’re looking to run into the ground and send broke, the New Zealand TAB has almost completed writing the perfect blueprint, but don’t call its helpline for the recipe because it’s become famous for providing no help.
In fact, the helpline at the TAB has brought to light numerous recent stories of the phone ringing unanswered or operators arguing with disgruntled punters rather than appeasing them, and even hanging it in their ear.
Punters consulted to write this blog produced one who claimed eight of his previous ten calls to the helpline had gone unanswered.
An overabundance of stories about the poor treatment of customers and a reduction in services can only be a reflection of a leadership team that doesn’t care about the bottom-line result.
Rumblings about a toxic culture within the walls of the TAB from various disgruntled TAB employees…
It’s not a new thing. Rumblings about a toxic culture within the walls of the TAB from various disgruntled TAB employees have been audible most the way through the John Allen reign of terror, and since. Good people are known to have left voluntarily, and others who have expressed disagreement in policy direction have experienced the shove.
And now, the customer interface which is where any successful organisation meets its customers and keeps them happy, has been dismantled to save around five percent of the TAB’s annual cost. The reason offered to The Optimist: Executive Chair Dean McKenzie didn’t tackle the problem of redundancies himself but gave the cost-cutting assignment to his executive team, hence Stephen Henry addressing the staff at redundancy meetings and not McKenzie himself.
Any well-run organisation displaying strong leadership would have started with the executive team and worked its way down – not the other way around. The TAB has lost its way because it has focused on IT development with a strange, misguided and overblown self-belief they had the expertise to develop a FOB that would compete in the global wagering market.
Vanity overcame logic, however, and the customer became the casualty. Strange is it not, that of all the businesses that should require extra careful customer attention, The TAB NZs focus on its VIP and Elite Customers while ignoring all us ‘mug punters’ has surely backfired with the loss of 35 percent of its customer base. Don’t accept that COVID-19 was the cause.
John Allen: …the top 1.5 percent of our customers produce 56 percent of our turnover.
Two and a half years ago, the then CEO John Allen said the most accurate thing he ever said: “We need new customers otherwise we are vulnerable to that very small number of elite customers – the top 1.5 percent of our customers produce 56 percent of our turnover. And they are being sought by every betting agency in the world.”
Needing them and getting them were two separate destinations, but Allen never accepted that scale was against all his plans, and overseas IT development and massive marketing budgets were obstacles too big to conquer. Between Tabcorp and Australian betting operators, the spend on marketing is currently $300 million per annum.
Allen should have heeded his own advice, which in reality, was the advice of his executive team because he didn’t know the business. But his executive team was made up of several former associates at NZ Post/Kiwibank brought with him from his days of NZ Post and a couple of relatively inexperienced employees from Tom Waterhouse Bookmaking in Sydney.
Punters have never been loyal animals, and the depletion of customers has been across the board. Allen, at that time, also talked about his VIP customers: “the VIP customers who are very large punters – 20 or 30 of them around the world – they are betting on our products if we are competitive as long as they get all the data they require.”
Sportsbet in Australia offered the same man a free $1,500 bet if he deposited $1,000.
Offering substantial rebates to the biggest punters has proved a false economy, and it raises the question of how many of the VIPs remain? One of the Elite customers was this week offered a free $50 bet on the TAB NZ if he deposited $100 into his account. On the same day, Sportsbet in Australia offered the same man a free $1,500 bet if he deposited $1,000. Who’s winning that battle?
The so-called ‘mug punters’ now have no weekly printed formguide to purchase, no radio trackside interviews and talkback, a FOB platform that offers poor odds on a poorly designed website that continually gets ‘hung,’ the closure of more TAB retail outlets and the promise of no live betting operators on-course but instead ‘betting pods’ or self-service terminals that are cumbersome to use and don’t payout.
It’s hard to fathom why years ago the television exposure of racing to the general public was extinguished when Trackside went from free-to-air to pay-TV with the Sky package. How do you get new racegoers interested if the product isn’t free to view?
Then consider that all telephone betting has ceased, including the exempted special cases, and TAB NZ is the only betting operator that charges a debit/credit card fee of $2.15 regardless of whether you deposit $10 or $100, and you reach the conclusion it must now be really managed by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union which has set out to discourage all betting.
…two earn just under $300,000 while the other six earn over $300,000 and reputedly up to $620,000
But that was last week’s joke. This week we still have to consider that the people making these decisions are basically the same eight executives, of which two earn just under $300,000 while the other six earn over $300,000 and reputedly up to $620,000 (McKenzie).
McKenzie said in his Update on May 26th, “An independent review of the structure of the Executive Leadership team is underway with consultation on any proposed changes expected to start next week.”
Why an independent review? McKenzie is in the job and should by now have worked out how to run it on a shoestring, which he really should have had worked out a year ago. But if making a decision is the issue, then using a paid consultant is historically typical for this organisation.
One former employee passed the comment that if the entire executive team stayed in bed for a month, it would not be detrimental to the TABs performance. The inference was that if the computer was operational, the business would run itself – and as good a cash business as the TAB could be, it was only ever big enough to feed a few platoons, not an entire army.
Getting the customers back and revenue up to a sustainable level is problematic. COVID-19 has interrupted racing and changed habits, which may never result in a return to our former ways and, in particular relevance to racing, betting practices. Punters have generally concluded they are getting no service and a lousy deal from TAB NZ, and anecdotally the evidence suggests they are looking off-shore in greater numbers.
The saving grace could be the content of the legislation which will be tabled in parliament early next week
The saving grace could be the content of the legislation which will be tabled in parliament early next week and hopefully get its second reading soon after that. If the rewrite favours the consensus of the almost 1,000 submissions and is passed into law by July 1st as scheduled, racing gets its chance to see the early exit of RITA and the implementation of some positive changes.
A throng of stars needs to align for that rare possibility of hope to become a reality. But while Minister Peters did renew RITA for a further year in a statement he released on Wednesday, when the same announcement appeared on the RITA website later that same day, the caveat on the renewal of RITA appeared in a footnote.
The footnote stated: “The Directors’ terms will end on the enactment of the Racing Industry Bill or on 30 June 2021 – whichever comes first.” The enactment of the Bill is imminent if we are to get a second reading next week.
The Select Committee wasn’t available for comment this week because, under its protocols, it is inappropriate to make comments before the legislation comes up for its second reading. But in previous conversations with both National Select Committee members Andrew Bayly and Ian McKelvie (Shadow Minister for Racing), they are positive about the content.
All this means nothing, however, if an under-performing TAB on the top of RITAs $47 million debt to the ASB Bank trivialises racing in the coming season, because of NZRB/RITAs point-blank refusal to properly investigate the outsourcing/partnering of the TAB and restructuring as outlined in the Messara Review two years ago.
The Review clearly warned the Minister and all of New Zealand that it didn’t have the luxury of waiting, but that warning went unheeded, and today New Zealand racing is paying the price.
Surely it is over. Maybe best thing because then the people who understand racing, who love racing, could perhaps like a phoenix arise from the ashes. Let’s face it no one in the cockpit at the moment would know how to take off.
No one in the cockpit is qualified; they’re imposters
Thoroughly enjoy your articles. I would like to talk with you regarding a matter concerning the TAB Brian please?
The real solution is for the racing industry and the internal affairs dept to give up trying to run a betting platform and leave it those who can and the racing industry treat all betting platforms like bookies and get them to market their own services
That leaves the industry to produce a betable product and to market that with superb presentation. The “bookies” would pay for the race product and collect the taxes
More significantly the industry would not have to worry about sports betting and have to improve its act. Promote racing personalities on course interviews and probably most importantly have the racing ownership improved by better trainer communication etc. improvement of payments of winnings directly to racing owners not syndicate managers et et . Aussie has some good practices we could improve on
It would of course require a significant mind shift and legal upheaval and a real change to the type of employees required
Great points Tim, including the one on payments to owners. But you are dreaming if you think lazy Kiwi trainers will improve their communications.
Great article Brian. As always, it is the truth and nothing but the truth.
The decline in NZ Racing can be traced back to one event: the day TAB Trackside first went to air.
It was from that moment that the cart was effectively in front of the horse.
But, we as stakeholders have to take some blame. We let these succession of idiots take control
of NZ Racing by doing nothing when most of us knew that we were going down the wrong road.
What to do about it?
It is obvious that we can’t expect any help from the government. Successive governments have
shown that they don’t care about racing even though we are a big employer and generate a lot of
money.
We can’t expect things to change from the these idiots running racing and the TAB.
We probably have take back Racing by starting from scratch.
Heaven help us.
We are a bread and butter pudding industry being run by those in Wellington like it’s Champagne and Diamonds.Let’s go back to the eighties when then the clubs controlled racing not Wellington. Clubs having their stake monies ,Club secretary doing noms , committee drawing fields. In those days there were only a dozen people in Wellington to do paper work for Stud book ownership etc.Back to basics
I agree that the clubs need to take back control of racing and the clubs appoint the governing body – let’s call it the New Zealand Racing Conference. We go back to district representation with a constitution that prevents non-racing professional Institute of Directors’ graduates from occupying positions of power. They have been abject failures – look where they have taken us.
It could work as long as the big clubs weren’t permitted to throw their weight around and dominate. A carefully written constitution that allows the best racing people to sit on NZRC and make decisions based on what’s best for racing – eliminate nepotism, government interference, unnecessary departmentalised layers of administration, the Minister of Racing, and all the other jerks we have seen come and go in the last 20 years. It’s worth a try and anything would be better than what exists today.
And so say all of us
I concur with that Adrian.
Sometimes turning back the clock is GOOD……thats why the Rolling Stones and ABBA are still getting more air time than these modern bands who sing jiggety boo music with jiggety boo lyrics that nobody can understand.
In the 60’s and 70’s we could sing all the songs word for word ….try doing that now ….my point being that old aint always bad ….and sometimes VERY good.
Graham B Petone….but not in the big white building thank god.
One of the reasons Avondale Jockey Club is in the state it’s in is 20 years ago when R I B was formed under the leadership I think it was Susan Mackin they did the A B C clubs rating and Avondale which was a wealthy and vibrant club rated C!!!! got the Wedensday nonsense with 5 maidens on the card plus and assortment of other rating races with stake money of 5k.These fields attracted no on or off course turnover and thus over the years their return from TAB was not enough to maintain track and stands.All that did over the years was weaken the quality of our racing with something like 18 maiden winners a week in the North Island most of which would not win another race.It was all hinged round the the TAB wanted to be open 7 days a a week turning the betting dollar over 7 times a week instead of in those days 3-4 and thus Clipping the ticket
That was their modus operandi Adrian ….clip clip clip the tickets ….sit back in their big fat leather reclining chairs and sing ….
Jumping Jack Flash its a GAS GAS GAS …..as they top up the whiskey decanter …..rub their bellies ….and adjust their comb overs.
Now look where we are.
Young blood please …or in fact ANY blood with a modicum of punting knowledge.
Adrian , your bread and butter comment is on the money . Any business model needs to be either a centralised or decentralised . Our racing industry is both centralised and decentralised which is expensive and difficult to determine who is in charge . I favour your decentralised view with a regional approach similar to rugby . Clubs, provincial unions (amalgamation of regional clubs ), Rugby Union ,(Racing Conference) . Seems to work well for rugby , cannot see why racing shouldn’t follow this model.
In Jan 2017 I wrote to the now defunct ‘Informant’ and said ‘The decision to pursue a fixed odds betting platform was another example of an ineffectual board eating thoroughbred racings lunch.’ This year I submitted a 5 page document to the select committee focusing on consolidation/asset transfer and governance,part 1 and betting platforms,part 2. My opinion is the NZ government owns the TAB. The recent bailout effectively makes that a reality.
Here is one paragraph from my submission. “A tote focused government TAB will generate more income via exotic bets. The TAB was set up to benefit racing, central government and the punters. It was also designed to keep bookmakers out of the industry. The downside is the NZ TAB has for some considerable time marketed fixed odds as the be all, end all.”
To get a better understanding of this statement please read Barry Lichters latest article on Lincoln Farms website ‘The numbers don’t lie’
Regarding asset transfer the government will not bail out the industry hence like it or not the need is to sell Avondale. Rather than being forced by legislation would it not be better for AJC to lead the proceedings with say 20% of the sale to the club and 80% to an industry maintenance fund. This is a must to enable track and infrastructure rebuilds throughout both Islands. We cannot continue successfully with tracks and amenities as they are today. To ensure there is no more salt on the Avondale wound, Ellerslie would be excluded from access to the fund as they can comfortably manage any ongoing requirements from their existing funds.
I am confident the new board post RITA will rectify some of the more bizarre recent cost cutting decisions. They would also, hopefully, dissolve RIU and forensically account the outrageous $17 million per annum platform service fee. Finally I will close with the last paragraph I wrote on Governance to the select committee.
“This leads me to my major concern of the proposed changes to the racing act. Clause 46 gives the Minister sole right to appoint board and chair. This clause must be more specific regarding betting and racing experience. The appointees can come from outside the industry but must have very strong racing and betting exposure and knowledge. This means they are regular bettors, have raced/do race horses and have a comprehensive understanding of both the New Zealand and Australian racing calendars. They will be aware of the NZ calendars history, what worked, still works, what did not/has not and most importantly…WHY? Put simply the clause should state career Directors/CEO’s without the prerequisite racing experience will not be considered. To not do so will put the Industry back to where they were prior to RITA, defeating the purpose of the new bill.
Tim Parry
A note to the reader..
Peter Johnstone is a keen follower of racing but able to analyse it from an arms length free of any vested interest.
Challenging him to a game of Scrabble for high stakes spells defeat for any pretender!
Follow The Money to find where the TAB went wrong
By Barry Lichter • 6 June 2020
An accountant who worked at the TAB for 16 years has crunched the numbers, pinpointed where it all went wrong, and concluded only further Government support can keep the racing industry alive.
Peter Johnstone, who was manager of strategic planning for the TAB, did a lot of data analysis and acted as secretary of John Falloon’s Ministerial Committee in 1991, says if you “follow the money” you can better understand the sad decline of an organisation he once proudly worked for.
“The best way to do this in my experience is to look at an organisation’s cash flow statements which I view as superior to all other financial statements for a firm.
“The single factor that really struck me is that over the last 10 years, cash flow from operations increased by only $6 million (just under 4%), despite turnover increasing by $1.183 billion (up 33.7%).
“This is the key to understanding how it has all gone so wrong.
“Many commentators say that costs are out of control, pointing to the increase in payroll costs, yet compared with turnover, they are lower as a percentage than they were 10 years ago, and are actually an identical percentage to 2001 (2.2%).”
Lincoln Farms’ May 9 feature moved Johnstone to delve a little deeper into the published financial information of the New Zealand Racing Board and Racing Industry Transition Agency.
Johnstone says while Lincoln Farms’ feature story ‘An A to Z of what brought racing to its knees’ explains a great deal about what went wrong in the current century – particularly the high turnover of chief executives and some of the disastrous decisions they made – cash flow from operations shows the real health of an organisation.
“Strong operational cash flows allow a firm to fund capital projects and distribute funds to stakeholders such as shareholders (or in the case of the TAB, to the racing industry and latterly sports bodies). They also minimise the need for any borrowing and consequent interest costs.”
In 2010, cash flow from operations was $155.8 million, or 9.8% of turnover (and even better in 2011 at 10%). By 2019, this was down to 5.8% which equated to $161.8 million.
41% decline
“This is a decline in the rate of return of almost 41% in a decade. Put another way, had the TAB been able to maintain the 9.8% proportion, operational cash flow last year on the same turnover would have been $271.1 million, roughly $110 million more than it actually was.
“And in that case, very few of the current problems would be apparent. Racing industry returns could have been hugely improved, and capital expenditure may have been funded without the borrowing and asset sales the TAB has had to fall back on.”
Johnstone says Lincoln Farms’ recent interview with Ken Rutherford helped explain the drastic decline.
“Rutherford said he could never understand why a succession of TAB chiefs placed such an emphasis on promoting fixed odds betting when the product at best realised half of the 16.5% of tote betting income.”
In 10 years the TAB’s cash flow from operations increased by only $6 million (just under 4%), despite turnover increasing by $1.183 billion (up 33.7%).
In his analysis of the cash flows for the last 10 years (see chart above) Johnstone discovered clearly the biggest change has been in dividends from betting and gaming.
The dividends the TAB paid out in 2010 were 82.4% of turnover and last year that had grown to 86.6%.
“The change doesn’t look that bad on the face of it, but when you consider that is a deterioration of 4.2 cents from every dollar the TAB has handled, it is hugely significant.
Bonus bets have contributed to a reduction of the TAB’s profit margin.
“While it’s a little hard to isolate all the causes, we can surmise they include:
* Driving fixed odds betting at the expense of tote betting
* The fickleness of sports betting, the profitability of which can often depend on results going the TAB’s way.
* The impact of bonus bets – “which I never understood the rationale for, given the TAB was always a low margin business.”
* The loss in turnover of easybets – “a subject dear to my heart as along with Alan Mayo I developed the original spec for easybets, which attracted the most favourable rates of commission.”
Johnstone says the small gains from a much higher revenue is like the TAB baked a 40% bigger pie, but put only another 6% of steak in it.
“I find it absolutely incredible that the TAB increased turnover by so much for so little gain.
“What I believe they should have done was to focus on maintaining a healthy margin on every dollar bet, rather than growing turnover at minimum benefit to cash flow or the bottom line.
“You could conclude that had turnover not been increased so greatly there may have been less profit, but even on a $2 billion turnover, the old margins would still have increased operational cash flow by some $34 million, and presumably also produced lower costs.
“Of course, you can’t discount the issue of costs entirely – with increased automation and superior software tools, you’d expect improved productivity and lowered costs.
“However, in general the ratios suggest that the TAB have been effective in controlling costs – in the last 10 years staff and supplier payments fell from 7% of turnover to 6.5%, after reaching highs of 7.5%.”
The Jackson Street building was purpose built for the New Zealand Racing Board in 1989 but in August, 2014 it was syndicated by the Oyster Group and the TAB now leases its space.
Property sales
Johnson is critical of the TAB’s handling of its properties in the last 10 years – notes to the financial statements showing buildings in Petone, Christchurch and Auckland all being sold.
“Though I can’t identify all the assets that have been sold the cash flows indicate that $21.3 million was received from the sale of property, plant and equipment and the TAB no longer owns any buildings.
“Presumably, these facilities (or their replacements) are why the TAB’s lease/premises costs have gone from 2010’s $4.7 million to 2019’s $14.3 million.
“While there are costs associated with owning properties, in most commercial leases many of these costs are assumed by the tenant. The decision to divest these properties makes no sense, since it has exposed the TAB to incurring rentals in perpetuity, which must cost more than retaining them.”
The TAB spent $42 million building its new betting platform, to attract sports punters, and it has an annual ongoing cost of $17 million.
Capital spending
Johnstone says a further area of concern highlighted by the TAB’s cash flow statements is the level of capital spending.
Over 10 years this has amounted to almost $207 million, with almost $72 million in the 2018 and 2019 financial years.
“This has to be funded by cash flow from operations unless money is borrowed, which has been a necessity in the last two years.”
Johnstone says while he’d need access to much more information than is available publicly, you’d have to question the new $42 million betting platform, of which both Lincoln Farms and Rutherford have been outspoken critics.
“I was especially troubled by Lincoln Farms’ revelation that the TAB has locked itself into an annual licence fee of more than $17 million, in addition to the substantial capital cost.”
Johnstone says what is especially depressing about this is the TAB’s development team in the 1970s, 80s and 90s had exceptional skills.
“They developed a world class betting system largely in-house, with the assistance of a few key contractors. Under manager Mike Thornbury the team delivered great solutions and seemed capable of solving every issue they were confronted with. And the computing environment and tools they had to work with were primitive compared with today.
“I can’t help but wonder what happened to that level of expertise and skill, that an organisation that could build Jetbet now relies on external software providers at the cost of an arm and a leg.”
Like Ken Rutherford, pictured, Johnstone experienced an erosion of the TAB culture.
Erosion of culture
Johnstone said just as Rutherford described an erosion of the culture he experienced at the TAB when head of sports betting (in his interview with Lincoln Farms), he too experienced the change and was happy to move on during the first wave of redundancies in 1993.
“Rutherford talked of the external executives that have regularly come and gone, and their failure to truly understand the drivers of wagering.
“I can only conclude that the “old” TAB culture I revered was in many ways superior. People were well paid, yes, but not compared with the exorbitant packages of today.
“More importantly, I think, there was much less external recruiting – the majority of appointments were internal, and thus people in most roles were thoroughly conversant with the culture, they certainly understood wagering, and they knew the strengths and weaknesses of their colleagues.
“Maybe there was an element of “time serving” in some cases, but most of the people I worked with cared deeply about the industry and the role they played within it. I’m certainly not convinced that the change has been beneficial, and the financial evidence would seem to bear that out.”
Most of the TAB’s half yearly reports in the last two decades have been delivered in March, and the latest was on May 1, in 2017. A $3.2 million blunder with bonus bets delayed this year’s report and it has still not been published. “It must be truly dreadful to remain hidden from public view,” says Johnstone.
COVID accelerator
Johnstone says rather than COVID-19 being responsible for the TAB’s current troubles, it has merely accelerated the day of reckoning.
“It had to be coming anyway. The 2019 annual report already showed an organisation that was technically insolvent, with $35 million of borrowings (after never being in a position where it showed end of year borrowings before 2018).
“For the third year in a row, total cash flow for the organisation was negative, and total equity had fallen to less than $25 million, whereas in the late 2000s it had exceeded $100 million.
“In this light it is notable that RITA’s website still has no six monthly report for the current year. It is now weeks overdue and my guess is that it must be truly dreadful to remain hidden from public view.
“The government recently “saved” the TAB and hence the racing industry with a multi-million dollar bailout.
“But in view of what I can see from the publicly available figures, I question whether this will be enough. With many of the TAB’s recently announced cost cutting measures potentially threatening to further erode the turnover base (especially in the biggest revenue generator of racing) the industry will remain in a parlous situation for the foreseeable future and it would seem that only continued government support will keep it alive.”
It’s a far cry from the days when Johnstone was responsible for investing the TAB’s profits in the money markets.
“There used to be a torrent of cash in those days and it was when we earned interest rates of 20% plus.”
Ends.
It’s good to see the Lincoln Farms website and Barry Lichter highlighting all these issues and showing up this inadequate administration of the TAB and racing. For too long The Optimist has been the ‘lone wolf’ but now the groundswell of support is gathering and the momentum for change is accelerating. The person who needs convincing is the Minister, and if he doesn’t wake up to it soon he can kiss the racing vote goodbye
The one thing never mentioned is the anomaly in the NZ having a legislated monopoly on betting. In Australia competition is fierce between bookies and they provide a superior product. Without competition the product becomes boring and uncompetitive. Why does no one ever ask why there is a monopoly and a ban on bookmakers?
I opened an account online with an Australian bookmaker and a few hours later I got a phone call from them welcoming me aboard. Would that happen in NZ if I opened an account with the TAB? I don’t think so.
Get rid of the monopoly, open up competition for the punters dollar and see things take off. Better still, go to any picnic meeting in Oz and see the colour and interest bookies add. Otherwise see the death of racing in NZ.
Mary …..the answer to your question is simple …’Because they can’!!
They only ever see one side on the coin.
Graham B.
The NEW racing industry bill submissions have assured those clubs the minister wants closed and assets given to the codes well the uproar now has him on the back foot as clubs just aint going to give up their turf that easily and can appeal to the high court if Winston tries to snatch it.
And what does this mean ….people here betting on our own product must pay a fee?? …..
****************************************************
Offshore charges.
The select committee recommended one change to part five of the bill which provides a framework under which offshore betting operators must pay a fee. That includes people who take bets on racing and sporting events held in New Zealand, as well as those whom people here place bets with.
****************************************************
Fat chance of that if I understand it correctly.
Graham B Petone.
One of the big issues is that everything seems to be centred around the T A B and offshore betting.My issue is the survival of your local clubs and their tracks.I did not see any thing in the Messara report that addressed this situation.All it suggested was to sell the clubs with valuable land holdings.You can only do that once and then when you have spent that money you are back
at square one.
Some formula needs to be set where each club gets monies for the maintenance of buildings and the track
The Rugby union is a classic example.With the advent of Television crowds at rugby games with the exception of International tests have been decimated.How have they survived?
The reason SKY TV has to pay mega bucks for the rights to broadcast Rugby
How much does Trackside a branch of the T A B pay the individual racing clubs for rights broadcast the races?.Absolutely zero.
Must be the only major sport in the world where the participants are not rewarded by television rights.
Owners and clubs are the losers here everybody else gets paid to go to the races.Trainers. Jockeys Carriers. Barrier staff.Swabbing officials Stipes. Etc Etc
Owners have to pay to race their horse and club officials turn up for the love of the game and every other dog and his auntie gets paid.Go figure!!!
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FRIDAY FLASH..?