The announcement came in the form of a short email from his staff.
It could not be further away from the hype, fanfare and anticipation that built as Mr Peters released the report to the public for the first time, last month.
And there certainly was not the same noise over the announcement of the submission process as there has been at southern racetracks where Messara's venue plan has been hotly debated.
Some seem angry, some mystified and others reasonably happy.
Just where both codes should race in the South deserves to be debated strongly among participants. And generating debate is one thing the release of the Messara report has done, regardless of how anyone feels about its contents.
Hundreds of years of community and industry effort have gone into the maintenance of racecourses in Otago and Southland, and it is pleasing to see the passion the possible closure of some on them has evoked.
Which should go and which should stay for the benefit of racing is a complex question and not one I can answer in this short column.
But I do believe the answer will come from a collaborative approach.
Mr Peters, or whoever is involved, will not be the slightest bit interested in reading whining tales of woe from individual clubs. But a well-defined, all-on-board plan would be greeted much differently.
The good news is that a collaborative approach seems to be the way the industry is approaching the rationalising of southern tracks. Thoroughbred clubs are banding together to discuss the idea and harness racing clubs are being involved in the discussions as well.
Hopefully these talks will result in a collaborative approach to the submission process.
The best chance industry participants in the South have to get what they want from the rationalisation of tracks is by submitting a detailed plan that everyone agrees on.
Obviously, that is easier said than done. No club wants its course closed.
But few will disagree with the idea that rationalisation must happen to save the industry money.
A large part of the counter-argument to closing tracks comes in two forms. Firstly, many from affected clubs have told me their tracks do not cost much to run.
Again, the finer points of that concept would fill several of these columns.
The second is the loss of money to the racing industry should clubs hold meetings away from their home track.
Sponsors simply will not be interested in putting up money away from their home area, clubs have told me. They say the same about the local community and the once-a-year type of racegoers who support the meetings at some of the courses facing closure.
The massive question after that is which clubs or courses have the most to lose. And are those left at the bottom of the list going to take the hit and move away from racing at their home track?
This will truly test whether every club is working for the benefit of the industry or its self-interest.
When it comes crunch time, will that self-interest prove that Messara's method of making hard decisions for the clubs is the only way to make rationalisation a reality?
One would hope southern racing participants are better than that and a sensible and collaborative submission could be produced.
I look forward to the submissions that will be produced by southern thoroughbred and harness racing industry groups when they are made public.
Happy trails.
