13% of $100 million (TAB turnover distribution) is $13 million

13% of $50 million ( as above) is $6.5 million

We (authorities) should continue to support staying races, but we have to sustain breeding to obtain full fields to maintain optimal betting choices to maintain or increase betting turnover and distribution, even though we only receive 13%.

Id prefer if the grader gave preference to stayers, middle distance, sprinters n shorts in that order with top to bottom grading factored into the equation.

You're basically right. The TAB contract and the 13% is effectively geared to 500-odd meetings yet we run around 900. The difference means we are feeding the gallops and trots - save only that the income from the corporates is under a different deal and will probably end up as half of the total (primarily due to mug betting). The commission is lower but we do get all of it.

The next ball game will start when or if GRNSW cuts tracks and therefore meetings (two different things) - that's an unknown but it would probably make little difference to total income - see above reasons.

The same rationale applies to race distance, grades, etc. Good bad or indifferent, we will still receive 13% of a roughly similar grand total figure.

When applied to decent punters the longer the trip and the greater the average number of starters per race, the more turnover will increase. For mugs, it probably does not matter. In either case, we are still working for the gallops.

So most of the arguments here are academic so far as TAB income is concerned.

In practical terms, it does matter because the racing product governs the sort of dog we breed. On that count, and in view of the rising importance of corporates, we must favour longer trips and therefore stronger dogs. If that means smaller fields, it is a cross we will have to bear - at least until some major change occurs.

Two other factors affect short and long term outcomes: the current dog shortage and the continuing fall in the proportion of decent punters serve to confuse the picture. Both demand attention but they are not getting it.

I do not speak to the fine detail of grading but the guiding principle should be to offer what customers value most. Having done that, you can then modify the product according to what is available.

However, the concept of changing the product to suit what is in trainers' kennels is a terrible prospect. The industry must optimise excellence; it must be fair and equitable but it does not owe anyone a living.

Sad to say, the industry profitability is now in the hands of the corporates, horrible though their business practices are.

The position in other states is entirely different as they are no longer lumbered with the 13%. (They used to be but they did not sign for 99 years).

You're basically right. The TAB contract and the 13% is effectively geared to 500-odd meetings yet we run around 900. The difference means we are feeding the gallops and trots - save only that the income from the corporates is under a different deal and will probably end up as half of the total (primarily due to mug betting). Their commission rate is lower but we do get all of it.

The next ball game will start when or if GRNSW cuts tracks and therefore meetings (two different things) - that's an unknown but it would probably make only a modest difference to total income - see above reasons - but it would make a big difference to dog owners and trainers.

The same rationale applies to race distance, grades, etc. Good bad or indifferent, we will still receive 13% of a roughly similar grand total figure.

When applied to decent punters the longer the trip and the greater the average number of starters per race, the more turnover will increase. For mugs, it probably does not matter. In either case, we are still working for the gallops.

So most of the arguments here are academic so far as TAB income is concerned.

In practical terms, it does matter because the racing product governs the sort of dog we breed. On that count, and in view of the rising importance of corporates, we must favour longer trips and therefore stronger dogs. If that means smaller fields, it is a cross we will have to bear - at least until some major change occurs.

But there is no point talking about what graders do. They have to follow rules set by managers and clubs to varying extents. Graders can't makeup their minds about distances because they have to deal with what trainers want to do.

What really influences the type of race on offer is prize money and any other incentives. Hence you now see differences between the primary and secondary meetings at Wenty (years ago I had advocated that for some time before it finally happened) or between 520m and 420m races at Lismore. In each case there is a fundamental difference in the style or quality of the dogs entered. Money does talk.

Even so, money does not, and cannot, work to turn ordinary dogs into stayers, as unsuccessful efforts in several states have shown. You still need the raw material to start with. Go to Plan B.

Two other factors affect short and long term outcomes: the current dog shortage and the continuing fall in the proportion of decent punters serve to confuse the picture. Both demand attention but they are not getting it.

I do not speak to the fine detail of grading but the guiding principle should be to offer what customers value most. Having done that, you can then modify the product according to what is available and hope for the best.

However, the concept of changing the product to suit what is in trainers' kennels is a terrible idea. The industry must optimise excellence; it must be fair and equitable but it does not owe anyone a living.

Sad to say, the industry profitability is now in the hands of the corporates, horrible though their business practices are.

The position in other states is entirely different as they are no longer lumbered with the 13%. (They used to be but they did not sign for 99 years).

I wouldve thought that to make informed comments about the draft grading policy we would need to know the prizemoney allocations.

How can we possibly comment on A1 and A2 being graded as the same and Provincial B and C the same, if we dont know whether the prizemoney is also going to reflect that they are the same?

There may be trainers but not Breeders and rearers, they are all mainly out of town now

Licensing is a GWIC function, prizemoney and grading is a GRNSW function

They may get together to discuss various aspects of either responsibility to try and foresee where their policies don't have an effect that isn't desired.

But ultimately each body looks after its own responsibility that was allocated to it under the Act

Thats right Carly. A greyhound might be penalised for a TAB C prize money win and it counts as one provincial win, the same as a TAB B provincial win. Programming and grading go hand in hand.

It's not so much that GRNSW is a "dictatorship", but that the book is doing the dictating and GRNSW follows that book. That happened in this order .....

1. Trainers goofed and thought they were better than everyone else.
2. Baird/Grant had a personal dislike of greyhound racing and so canned the industry.
3. The public rebelled and tossed out Baird/Grant.
4. The aftermath of Baird/Grant resulted in a punitive "book", endorsed by GBOTA.
5. Morris Iemma got put in charge but has not been heard of since.
6. To this day, nobody has bothered to find out why breeding or ownership has not recovered and therefore corrective action is impossible to mount.
7. To a minor extent, disaster has been delayed due to the presence of Fernando Bale, Barcia Bale and a few others and due to a few keen souls.
8. In the long haul, nothing much will change so long as bureaucracies run the show. They respond only to the "book", not to anyone else.
9. The solution is to chuck out the bureaucracies and install commercially oriented bodies responsible and accountable for their performance.

I offer a glimmer of hope. Toole has been kicked upstairs and replaced by NAT Kevin Anderson from Tamworth. Anderson has a PR/Marketing background so he might appreciate the need to push out a decent message to the public. He also plays guitar.

Curiously, the title of "Racing Minister" seems to have disappeared but the function is presumably still there.

Meantime - yes, encourage more Masters events and don't worry about short fields (we will have to wear that for a few years). But whatever else, maximise the proportion of quality races over 450m and up.