Rosehill rejection: Why did ATC members look a gift horse in the mouth?
The prospect of 25,000 new homes on a site situated in the heart of Australia's fastest-growing region were stakes Premier Chris Minns had no option to mount. Under the National Housing Accord he has committed to delivering 377,000 new homes across NSW by 2029. Weigh up the racecourse's adjacency to a newly-constructed light rail network, a coming metro line and a surging jobs hub in Parramatta, and the odds looked impossible to ignore.
The NSW government has made no secret of the centrality of housing supply to its agenda. From its establishment last year of the Housing Delivery Authority, through to its pursuit of its Transport Oriented Development initiative, its colours were clear and unambiguous.
Recent measures by the premier to upscale the state's production of modular homes – and the contingent manufacturing jobs boost – only upped the stakes. As did the commitment from Peter V'landys, chief executive and board member of Racing NSW, to 'ensure the revenue derived from the [Rosehill] proposal is reinvested to benefit the racing industry as a whole'.
Even these assurances couldn't get the proposal over the line. Nor did the prospect of around $2 billion in upgrades to other racetracks, or the sweetener of food, beverage and membership fee concessions. If I know punters' logic, the reason might lie in sentiment, rather than logic. Let me tell you why.
Loading
My grandpop, Harry, was a veteran of the 1945 New Guinea campaign. He would forlornly recall he was 'too tall' to be a jockey. Still, he remained a lifelong horseracing devotee. He lived in a fibro housing commission house in Granville, due to the state's last great housing shortage post-World War II. It was only five minutes from Rosehill racetrack, where he would periodically venture to, 'see a man about a dog'.
Normally unassuming, Harry would harshly shush all of us grandkids when the races came on his 'transistor'. Either that, or he'd send us to the corner shop to buy him a packet of Rothmans Extra Mild cigarettes. 'Get some lollies' with the change he would add.
When I was older, I asked Harry in gambling parlance what the 'tells' were in backing a horse trackside. 'Form be damned', he would rail. 'If you see a horse in the mounting yard sweating too much on a chilly day, give it a miss', he advised. 'Ears up, ears up!' That was his favoured sign. An alert, edgy horse was a sure bet, pop assured me.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
8 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Wolf in cashmere': Billionaire luxury king tries to avoid a crisis
LVMH's market value has fallen by more than a quarter over the past year, to less than €250 billion. Hermes, a luxury brand Arnault tried and failed to buy, and has eyed with envy ever since, has taken LVMH's crown as the most valuable company in the industry, despite generating only €15 billion in sales last year. Adding insult to injury, the Arnault family, which has topped France's rich list since 2017, has also been dethroned by the Hermes clan. Can Arnault turn the ship around? Loading LVMH can't blame the economic environment for all its woes. It raised prices enormously in the post-COVID 'revenge shopping' boom, irking some customers. The price of Louis Vuitton's Speedy 30 canvas tote bag has more than doubled since 2019, for example, while the average price of personal luxury goods in Europe has increased by just over 50 per cent, according to HSBC, a bank. Only a handful of designers, including Chanel and Gucci, have raised prices more. A series of scandals have also damaged the image of some of its brands. Moet Hennessy, LVMH's drinks division, has recently faced accusations of sexual harassment, bullying and unfair dismissal by former employees (which it denies). On July 14, an Italian court placed Loro Piana, an LVMH label that sells cashmere sweaters for more than $US1000 ($1500) a piece, under judicial administration for using suppliers that allegedly violate labour rights. Dior faced similar investigations last year. LVMH's response has been half-hearted: 'Transparency, control and management of this whole ecosystem can sometimes prove a bit difficult,' it said recently. Arnault is attempting to steer towards calmer waters. New bosses have been put in charge of the booze, watches and retailing units. The appointment of Jonathan Anderson as the new creative director of Dior has been cheered by fashionistas. Some investors, however, worry that the companies' problems are deeply rooted. One concern is that decades of pushing fancy clothing and accessories not just to the super-rich but also the merely well-off has made LVMH's brands more vulnerable to economic cycles and dented their image of exclusivity. Even Louis Vuitton, the company's crown jewel, has not been immune. Analysts at HSBC term the brand 'schizophrenic' for its attempt to peddle entry-level products like chocolate and make-up alongside ultra-pricey handbags and luggage. Loading The outlook for Moet Hennessy is more worrying still. As profits have shrunk, the division has announced thousands of job cuts. Analysts point out that young consumers aren't drinking as much as older generations, and when they do, they tend to shy away from spirits such as cognac, which make up a big chunk of LVMH's booze business. The wine and spirits division now contributes less than 10 per cent of LVMH's operating profits, down by roughly half over the past decade. By contrast, Hermes, which has remained focused on selling fashion to the exceedingly wealthy, has continued growing handsomely. Its market value as a multiple of its net profit is now more than twice as high as for LVMH. Brunello Cucinelli, another purveyor of ultra-luxe fashion, is valued at a similar multiple to Hermes. If Louis Vuitton were to be valued at such a multiple, it alone would be worth significantly more than the entirety of its parent company. That has led some to call for LVMH to break itself up. On July 25, reports emerged that it was exploring a sale of Marc Jacobs, a fashion label founded by a former creative director of Louis Vuitton. A bolder move would be jettisoning the troubled drinks business. Diageo, owner of tipples from Guinness to Johnny Walker, already controls a third of Moet Hennessy and has in the past expressed interest in taking the rest of it off LVMH's hands. The British company is currently grappling with its own slump in profits and recently parted ways with its chief executive, but analysts speculate that it could make a deal work by selling off its beer business at the same time. Arnault, aged 76, is navigating all this while making plans for a transition at the helm. He clearly intends to keep the enterprise under family management. All five of his children work in different corners of his empire under the tutelage of experienced executives. His daughter, Delphine, who has been tasked with turning around Dior, is his eldest and the only of his offspring on the executive committee of LVMH, making her the most likely candidate to succeed her father. Yet, there are other possibilities. In February, Alexandre was parachuted in as the deputy head of Moet Hennessy. In March Frederic was put in charge of Loro Piana.
The Age
8 hours ago
- The Age
‘Wolf in cashmere': Billionaire luxury king tries to avoid a crisis
LVMH's market value has fallen by more than a quarter over the past year, to less than €250 billion. Hermes, a luxury brand Arnault tried and failed to buy, and has eyed with envy ever since, has taken LVMH's crown as the most valuable company in the industry, despite generating only €15 billion in sales last year. Adding insult to injury, the Arnault family, which has topped France's rich list since 2017, has also been dethroned by the Hermes clan. Can Arnault turn the ship around? Loading LVMH can't blame the economic environment for all its woes. It raised prices enormously in the post-COVID 'revenge shopping' boom, irking some customers. The price of Louis Vuitton's Speedy 30 canvas tote bag has more than doubled since 2019, for example, while the average price of personal luxury goods in Europe has increased by just over 50 per cent, according to HSBC, a bank. Only a handful of designers, including Chanel and Gucci, have raised prices more. A series of scandals have also damaged the image of some of its brands. Moet Hennessy, LVMH's drinks division, has recently faced accusations of sexual harassment, bullying and unfair dismissal by former employees (which it denies). On July 14, an Italian court placed Loro Piana, an LVMH label that sells cashmere sweaters for more than $US1000 ($1500) a piece, under judicial administration for using suppliers that allegedly violate labour rights. Dior faced similar investigations last year. LVMH's response has been half-hearted: 'Transparency, control and management of this whole ecosystem can sometimes prove a bit difficult,' it said recently. Arnault is attempting to steer towards calmer waters. New bosses have been put in charge of the booze, watches and retailing units. The appointment of Jonathan Anderson as the new creative director of Dior has been cheered by fashionistas. Some investors, however, worry that the companies' problems are deeply rooted. One concern is that decades of pushing fancy clothing and accessories not just to the super-rich but also the merely well-off has made LVMH's brands more vulnerable to economic cycles and dented their image of exclusivity. Even Louis Vuitton, the company's crown jewel, has not been immune. Analysts at HSBC term the brand 'schizophrenic' for its attempt to peddle entry-level products like chocolate and make-up alongside ultra-pricey handbags and luggage. Loading The outlook for Moet Hennessy is more worrying still. As profits have shrunk, the division has announced thousands of job cuts. Analysts point out that young consumers aren't drinking as much as older generations, and when they do, they tend to shy away from spirits such as cognac, which make up a big chunk of LVMH's booze business. The wine and spirits division now contributes less than 10 per cent of LVMH's operating profits, down by roughly half over the past decade. By contrast, Hermes, which has remained focused on selling fashion to the exceedingly wealthy, has continued growing handsomely. Its market value as a multiple of its net profit is now more than twice as high as for LVMH. Brunello Cucinelli, another purveyor of ultra-luxe fashion, is valued at a similar multiple to Hermes. If Louis Vuitton were to be valued at such a multiple, it alone would be worth significantly more than the entirety of its parent company. That has led some to call for LVMH to break itself up. On July 25, reports emerged that it was exploring a sale of Marc Jacobs, a fashion label founded by a former creative director of Louis Vuitton. A bolder move would be jettisoning the troubled drinks business. Diageo, owner of tipples from Guinness to Johnny Walker, already controls a third of Moet Hennessy and has in the past expressed interest in taking the rest of it off LVMH's hands. The British company is currently grappling with its own slump in profits and recently parted ways with its chief executive, but analysts speculate that it could make a deal work by selling off its beer business at the same time. Arnault, aged 76, is navigating all this while making plans for a transition at the helm. He clearly intends to keep the enterprise under family management. All five of his children work in different corners of his empire under the tutelage of experienced executives. His daughter, Delphine, who has been tasked with turning around Dior, is his eldest and the only of his offspring on the executive committee of LVMH, making her the most likely candidate to succeed her father. Yet, there are other possibilities. In February, Alexandre was parachuted in as the deputy head of Moet Hennessy. In March Frederic was put in charge of Loro Piana. Loading Arnault refuses to answer questions on the topic of succession. Having raised the age limit for his job from 75 to 80 three years ago, he raised it again to 85 earlier this year. That may mean he will wait until he has steadied the ship before relinquishing control. Even then, some investors question whether it is possible to replace the man who created the modern luxury industry. Arnault still has plenty to do before he hangs up his hat.
Sky News AU
10 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Meghan Markle eyeing new ‘gold mine' but Sussexes could still be forced to cut staff at Archewell production company
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's new 'first look' deal with Netflix could end up netting the Sussexes more money than their original contract, an insider has claimed. The Sussexes signed a five-year, $100 million content partnership with the streaming giant through their Archewell company in the heady days of 2020. The deal produced the massively successful docu-series Harry and Meghan, where the Sussexes dished royal secrets, but subsequent projects have come and gone with little fanfare. Infamously, Harry's Drive To Survive-style series on Polo attracted less than 500,000 viewers around the world. Only Markle's cooking series With Love, Meghan, is set to return to the streamer for a 'second season'. It is understood the Sussexes will transition on to a 'first look' deal at Netflix within months, which gives the streamer first dibs on optioning any new Sussex projects. According to royal insider Alison Boshoff, the deal could end up being highly lucrative if Netflix opts to purchase several programs or expand the With, Love Meghan universe. 'There are options on the table for other lifestyle shows from the Duchess, tied to hosting gatherings at Thanksgiving or Christmas,' she wrote in the Daily Mail on Thursday. 'The idea is to announce those in September when the second series (already shot) of With Love, Meghan drops.' While standalone specials could be a 'goldmine' for Meghan, Ms Boshoff claimed that the Sussexes may struggle to cover the payroll at Archewell without the Netflix deal. 'It's bad news for their own large team at Archewell Productions, which has been funded up to now by the Netflix exclusive deal,' she wrote. 'Insiders suggest that running the team and the office costs around $3 million USD a year.' Meanwhile a source close to the couple expressed concerns that without the guiding hand of Netflix the Sussexes are 'horrible' at managing their business affairs. 'They are horrible at making decisions,' the source told the same outlet. 'They ask everyone, then don't take their advice.'
