This is my last gasp but I have some advantages that some (not all) commentators seem to be missing - I have been dealing for decades with governments, Ministers, Departments, unions and major businesses on matters concerning contracts and laws. I am not a lawyer but legal advice is always readily available if you need it.

Three truths are evident today:

1. The ICA can be changed when and if V'Landys agrees to do so. Not before.

2. Government cannot intervene in an otherwise legal agreement between consenting parties. To create such an environment would be to flout common sense, precedent and everyday business practice across the nation. My guess is that such intervention would be stopped by the High Court, if not before.

3. Successive greyhound boards over two decades have failed to understand or apply pressure sufficient to cause a change to the ICA (with a small exception for Percy Allan's FAIR SHARE campaign).

Specifically in relation to (3), the progressive increase from 500 meetings p.a., as agreed with TABCORP, to around 845 (TAB) and 251 (non-TAB) in FY 2017, was done in the full knowledge that all the extra meetings would be at a discounted rate in respect to TAB commissions. That also applied to extra races run during the equine influenza period.

Effectively, that failure endorsed the now 20 year old ICA. By its own actions, GRA/GRNSW deliberately donated to the gallops and harness codes.

At the very least, this amounts to managerial incompetence. (The poor drafting of the $1m race conditions and other issues add emphasis to that point).

In other words, the real problem now - as it was 20 years ago - is the lack of commercial nous together with the absence of any real accountability. The prime responsibility for that is the inappropriate nature and structure of the authority, for which - in turn - the NSW and other state governments are to blame.

Terry, so coming up with weird and wonderful ideas, such as your Equilization Tax, will serve no purpose because the government cannot intervene in that way. It can control the total deductions TABCORP makes from the betting dollar but not how those deductions are split up amongst the codes.

Note: In some ways I can understand greyhound people accepting the original 13% split because that appeared reasonable at the time. But there is no way I can excuse the failure to include reasonable review clauses or to agree to a 99 year life. Both those were nonsensical.

What of the Baird's Govt, 100 year lease on OUR Poles & Wires? Only one winner there Bruce! THE BLOODY BANKS.

Bruce: I'm not suggesting trying to change the ICA. But rather look at alternatives to raising more revenue for Grey Racing.

So what you are saying Bruce is

1. The agreement states V'Landys as the one who makes the decision, not the three codes? Any clause like this alone is breech of contract by LAW.

2. Government passed legislation for current contract laws, who else do you think can make amendments to these LAWS, V'Landys?? Just like our government and banks, big business is full of corruption, you could include the thoroughbred industry among them.

3. Past Boards and their failures have nothing to do with todays climate and more the reason to right the wrongs for the future.

More money for the sport dosent mean higher prizemoney, it could all be sucked up in admin fees.

So while chasing more income is great, its how its spent that really matters

No Dan, I am not saying that at all. Your three points are no more than wild assertions which ignore the facts. And point (2) is tantamount to defamation (of thoroughbreds).

You might try talking to your local solicitor about what you are claiming. It's pretty straightforward so you won't need a QC.

John Dumsney the Harness Racing representative needs to convince their Board to agree to the change as well

They would be less likely than the Thoroughbreds to give up their advantage, seeing Greyhound Racing is subsidizing their poor performance

All three need to be in agreement to change the ICA

Won't happen from their end and Governments don't want to touch it.

Not because of the unfairness.

It may be an unconscionable contract, but to succeed in challenging it, you have to be able to prove that the others oppressed the greyhound representatives, being the weakest party at the time.

As it stands, prima facie, its a commercial arrangement that was agreed to in good faith by the parties to the contract/agreement

Being a 99 year agreement, the projected revenue loss over the remaining term, due to the Government overturning a commercial agreement to which they weren't a direct party to, would see significant damages awarded to the plaintiffs, being Racing NSW and Harness Racing NSW when they decide to challenge it in court

At the end of the day, it all comes down to who is going to lose the most money out of the deal, and if it can be avoided, it will be.

Dan,

I see you have not been to your solicitor yet.

That statement is mine, based on V'Landys' published word that he will not alter his decision on a review. Quite rude, too, as is his custom.

I would guess that in 90% of cases a contract ends up benefitting one party over another. Tough luck or good luck? But that has nothing to do with the validity of the contract. It's just life.

Can BHP renege on its contract because the price of iron ore changes for the better? Can the Chinese buyer pull out because the world price went down? In either case one gains and the other loses. Tough - that's life.

If you bet on the tote at $4 you can't complain when it pays only $3. If you bet F/O or with a bookie at $4, you can't complain when they later offer $5. Those are contracts which would be enforceable.

If the ARL does better or worse than the AFL, or v.v., can one go back to the broadcaster and demand a change? Hardly.

If you want to bring in coercion, torture, unconscionable conduct, lying, misleading claims, etc then go for your life. Unfortunately, a stack of lawyers of all shapes and sizes cannot find such a loophole.

Meantime, the ICA was signed off by GRA willingly and knowingly after careful consideration and consultation with GBOTA and NCA - as attested under oath. That might be dumb, un-commercial and short-sighted but it is still a fact.

Government can and does make laws about contracts - opting out following a door to door sale is one, dealing with minors is another, but none of that is applicable in this case. And, as I said previously, GRA/GRNSW has effectively endorsed the original decision by continuing to abide by it for 20 years - mostly without protest.

What government cannot do is force a change to a valid private contract to which it is not a party. It cannot pass another law to invalidate an otherwise reasonable private contract. The courts would chuck out such an attempt in seconds.

Borsak, for whom I have a lot of time, can't do it either, irrespective of the balance of power, and irrespective of which party is in government.

Shaming V'Landys publicly might do it. Bludging by the gallops might be a help. My personal favourite would be to publish monthly the notional amount donated to the gallops and trots. Bankrupting GRNSW and forming a new controlling authority might be a chance, although I doubt you could bankrupt a government instrumentality. The Poms have two systems running - normal and BAGS - albeit with crook prize money. But that's under their laws and is not helpful here. The Americans let private enterprise control everything, though with conditions in many cases (you get a casino license only if you also sponsor greyhound racing) but I can't see that happening here.

But, otherwise, none of the above will work unless V'Landys gives up.

Sandro i knew that the three parties or four have to agree, not just V'Landys.
And what about revenue lose to GRNSW?? At the end of the day its a typical rort.

The industry at the time led by the NCA, GBOTA & GRCB ended up rorting themselves by agreeing to the harsh terms of the contract

13% at the time was a reasonable cut, but the length of the contract without proper review provisions based on turnover were not well thought out by the people that represented NSW Greyhound Racing participants at the time

Steve

There were more people present than those reps who helped make the decision

They were all equally responsible

The saddest thing I find is that they didn't have the belief and vision that greyhound racing could grow its appeal to future generations

And that's part of the argument for a fair and just contract between the four parties, as well as whatever else they can dig up.

It's not really any help but I have spoken to a greyhound person who was there at the time (no names as I don't have his permission).

To this day he is emphatic that they did the right thing AT THE TIME. They voted for certainty rather than hopefulness.

At that stage, the dogs were low men on the totem pole and were often rubbished by all and sundry. They were not "go-getters" (and nor are they now). They had little prestige in public. The trots were then doing fairly well - HP and Inter Dominions were a big deal for the public, while the gallops had all the history of the world behind them.

As I have said previously, I can accept the decision in respect to the 13% but not to the review and duration clauses. Nor can I accept the subsequent decisions to increase race numbers without first renegotiating the agreement. That is probably the bigger fault as they knew what the odds were by then. But we are crying over spilt milk and there is no future in that.

Does anyone know if the entity that agreed and signed the ICA still exists?

Does anyone know why V'Landys rushed out to buy incontinence pads and spare dummies when the push was on to change the ICA?