The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.
Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.
If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.
In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.
Gary Smith Australia (Verified User) Posts 3319 Dogs 6 / Races 14 30 Nov 2017 05:50
(0)
(0)
Bruce Teague wrote:
Terry,
Two points of principle on governing boards which should never be violated.
1. Avoid conflicts of interest. A trainer would have to leave the room on most points on the agenda. 2. History tells us that stacking a board with active insiders of whatever kind has proved a failure.
The last NSW board - which was sacked - had members who all had some sort of inside form. Every one of them. Insiders gave us the 99 year intercode agreement. Insiders on the Alliance fixed the ban only to let through a set of regulations that will probably cause a painful death over time. Insiders failed miserably to counter live baiting (including the last and the previous board). Insiders failed to identify and fix industry culture shortcomings.
In any event, racing's biggest problem is that the organisational structure is obsolete and inefficient no matter who you appoint. Management-by-committee is good only for the local tennis club. No-one knows what authority the CEO has as he is not covered by legislation.
ARU - not competent to comment but Shehadie was also a prominent businessman. Boring sport anyway. I played at school and later with a Fijian team (with, not against).
AFL - many ex-players involved but not current ones. And Goyder is a grocer anyway. While the board (Commission) is obviously influential the operation and the progress of the code is heavily dependent on the CEO and staff - as it should be - and as most of the clubs are. Essentially, the AFL board is concerned with major policy and the CEO with managing the sport - which is broadly the best (only) way to do it.
ARL - now under a long drawn out process of moving into the modern age. Many fiefdoms. Many international complications. However, clubs are starting to shift into the modern era as BUSNESSMEN take over. Broncos are the most profitable and most successful club.
Quayle, yes. Arthurson, no. Despite his experience he fought for dominance against Murdoch, one of the world's biggest businessmen. and lost - as did the code. He failed utterly to recognise that the world was changing around him and that he had to negotiate. He could have cut it all off at the pass but failed to do so. Fatty and Bozo were no help, either. All were dominated by emotion not business nous.
Hill - maybe. I don't know enough of the fine detail to comment properly. Besides, your language is a bit odd.
Barristers - very suspicious of them. They are trained to pin prick and tell porkies. Lawyers generally - needed but not in charge as was the case at GRNSW (and previously at QGRA).
Bankers - don't understand your point. One ran BHP for some time.
The thing is that all board members or CEOs will have some baggage. The trick is to make sure it's the baggage you need. For example, Iemma's baggage is very well known but I am not sure we need it. And he has no commercial experience which we do need. Mestrov is TBA as is his ex-RV offsider.
Basically - barristers excepted - I don't discount any profession from being involved in helping to run the industry. Even ex-trainers. But not current trainers - see my original two principles.
Accurate posts Bruce great reads Until this industry is run like a business by business people who can turn a dollar into 10 dollars then it is doomed to suffocate. Conflict of interest was also a great read and I agree with all you said. The business idea has been brought to leaders attention but they have scoffed at it, through we know what we are doing, well it certainly shows doesn't, we are still drowning in stupidity.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 11 Dec 2017 00:02
(0)
(0)
Wow ! It's alleged, $25k each to relocate. $400k n $300k p.a. respectively, not necessarily the right person for the job, hence the expensive help, and we might be receiving a prize money increase as a softener.
Nicholas Arena Australia (Verified User) Posts 233 Dogs 10 / Races 0 11 Dec 2017 01:01
(3)
(0)
Meanwhile it costs $80 to name a dog in NSW V only $35 in Victoria - costing participants out of existence to derail breeding has been an effective measure.
Every action creates a reaction - significantly less breeding and lack of dogs compounded by over zealous welfare and lure policies has been centric to the loss of participant support.
I hear some people talking up the resurgence of the NSW Industry - without addressing the fundamental policy failings any resurgence will be short lived if it in fact gains any traction in the first instance.
Bruce Teague Australia (Verified User) Posts 2092 Dogs 0 / Races 0 11 Dec 2017 06:20
(0)
(0)
Nicholas,
Exactly. Any operation that can deduct its own costs before distributing the rest is doomed to be less efficient. Even more so when it can define its own regulations, charges and staffing levels. As a bureaucracy, it sees no competition (as indicated by your comment on naming) and therefore has no pressure).
Consequently, you saw no fight from GRNSW or GRV to mediate or reduce the impact of all the new regulations, some quite crazy. GRV simply passed the burden over to trainers, telling them to "write in". NSW was cooked when the government shifted the author of the regulations over to the Chairman's spot at GRNSW.
This is the fundamental reason for three codes wagering market share dropping from 50% twenty or so years ago to 10% today. Marginally, greyhounds have been sheltered a little from that as it has kept adding races - but that option is no longer available.
The Victorian position needs watching as it lost $6m last year, with more to come, and is busy raising prize money and reducing some charges to combat the effect of lower breeding (despite earlier claiming there was "overbreeding"). It must have a sugar daddy or a magic wand in mind but time will tell.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 12 Dec 2017 21:20
(0)
(0)
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Raqh7ZKwBe3IZpF2nR_M-7sNas1H7b9xsUhsA-eZHC0j0pIdGt8m2-4GyqGtu6ElVdVNn4Hy0yhHzhV4oalBj7nfFjC3UjOu7sjnBUn6XB7wocFBdF4CCnkCz2CbAeG0ynhhAuvRJhxBiEolUFkxLl-zxavgb32xk7EACK4=s0-d-e1-ft EXTERNAL LINK .
The CEO will do what it takes. I know he has only been CEO for awhile, but a good briefing will show that this issue has been going on for some time.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 14 Dec 2017 02:44
(1)
(0)
Sandra Giles wrote:
Jack Gatty wrote:
There are some hard decisions that need to be made. When welfare is supposed to be at the forefront of every decision it is a conundrum. If country tracks close, where do the slower dogs race? Currently the slower dogs end up on these country tracks. Governance is a big one - until we get leaders that are passionate dog people who will stand up for the code we will just tread water. V'landys is a classic example - no matter how much I despise his arrogance, his passion for his code is unquestionable. I am told that that the average starts for a dog in Australia is 11. Whilst in the US it is around 40, this is the major issue in my book. What is their secret? Well it isn't a secret, their track surface and lure design ensures that dogs race alot longer and more often - they are not obsessed with times when selecting breeding stock but strength, number of starts and numbers of wins are the criteria. We need to get our dogs having longer careers and alot more starts. And as we all know if we recieved our fair share of the intercode and tax parity alot of the improvements needed could be funded.
Jack, I think you have hit one of the nails on the head with your comments on the US track surface and breeding for strength instead of the flavour of the month sire with the fastest time, most of our tracks here are prepared like concrete and EXTRA hard concrete when there just happens to be a GROUP race on, I don't think the punters give a dam about what times dogs run as long as they have picked the winner, so WHO is it and for WHO's benefit is it that wants to see the winner run a track record, when the following week it will most likely come out and run an ordinary time in an ordinary race when the track is back to normal. JMO
From page two of thread dated December 2015. It will always be relevant.
Geoffrey Monish Australia (Verified User) Posts 61 Dogs 0 / Races 0 15 Dec 2017 04:32
(0)
(0)
I noticed the Gardens metro meeting today 5th grade $2000 515 m.compare with WP Wednesday 5th $2500 where is the $500 Gone?
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 15 Dec 2017 05:30
(0)
(0)
They just make it up.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 15 Dec 2017 22:30
(0)
(0)
I read elsewhere that someone was blaming the defeat of Fanta Bale at Wenty Park last week, on the state of the track ! The damp track allegedly suited dogs `coming from behind'.
Apparently, with a few hours before the first race at Wenty Park, the track wasn't `well prepared' but upon further work and inspection the stewards deemed it to be safe enough for racing.
I haven't checked the meeting to see if all of the winners came from behind to win. If so, the `writer' may have a good argument, but if it weren't the case, Fanta Bale was beaten by a head `fair and square'. Fanta Bale would've won the race if it were a race over 719m, but it wasn't. I'm not suggesting that any of the connections were complaining. However, if she had won, the track wouldn't have been an issue for that race.
Fanta Bale is a million dollar prize winner so she'll bounce back. Well done to PAW and Robert Britton.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 15 Dec 2017 23:16
(0)
(0)
Mark Donohue wrote:
I read elsewhere that someone was blaming the defeat of Fanta Bale at Wenty Park last week, on the state of the track ! The damp track allegedly suited dogs `coming from behind'.
Boloney. If that was the case then BIG DADDY BEE wouldn't have finished 3rd.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 00:07
(0)
(0)
Where would it have finished ? Please explain ?
I just looked at dogs in the sectional running positions n most placegetters were handily placed near or in the lead.
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4497 Dogs 70 / Races 14 16 Dec 2017 00:18
(2)
(0)
ROFLMAO what makes you think the other Dogs liked the damp track ??? Being in front on the Lure is an advantage on any Track under any conditions.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 00:36
(0)
(0)
Exactly ! Especially Wenty.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 16 Dec 2017 02:08
(0)
(0)
Mark Donohue wrote:
Where would it have finished ? Please explain ?
I just looked at dogs in the sectional running positions n most placegetters were handily placed near or in the lead.
If the track was claimed to be damp, BBD would have faded & finished 4th (possibly 5th), like he did the week before on a wet track. Scott Keeping was simply to good on the day & well done to connection. End of story.
Terry Jordan Australia (Verified User) Posts 6013 Dogs 0 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 02:23
(1)
(0)
geoffrey monish wrote:
I noticed the Gardens metro meeting today 5th grade $2000 515 m.compare with WP Wednesday 5th $2500 where is the $500 Gone?
Lismore the same next Tuesday Geoff. Metropolitan Transition Prizemoney?????
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 03:09
(1)
(0)
Steve, I understand now. Your first comment could've gone either way. So, thank you. Your opinion supports my argument along with other evidence. The proof is in the pudding. There wasn't much in the result.
All good.
I'll see if I can bring up the article. It wasn't the author who suggested it, but some participants. Who they are, is not known. Maybe favourite backers.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 16 Dec 2017 05:23
(1)
(0)
No worries Mark ;-)
After seeing the box draw on the final, I had a good punt on the race and picked up handsomely gagging the trifecta a couple of times......But if the track was wet, all bets were off.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 07:30
(0)
(0)
I forgot to give the winning connections and big congratulations too ! Well done. It was a great race to watch.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Dec 2017 23:12
(1)
(0)
I heard (hearsay) that not all is well in paradise in The Gardens of Newcastle. After thousand of dollars was spent on the track, that is, the drainage and replacing the sand, it appears that the drainage system is so good that the track can't hold any water ! Also, the sand appears to be the wrong type. According to one source, Peter Yore has seen an increase in muscle strains since the `work' was completed.
Does anyone know any better ? Everyone has a right of reply.
Do the statistics support or defeat the argument ?
Some are blaming GRNSW for ordering and using the wrong type of sand/loam instead of using the Bungendore sand that people are `raving' about. The Gardens curator has allegedly created his own remedy to the drainage issue. Good for him/her.
Everything is `hearsay', but does anyone know any more ? I heard a whisper that some people don't like others speaking up. Remember, it's all about the welfare of our dogs.
I recommend that if there is a problem or you're concerned about the track or any track, then make your complaint to GRNSW because if there is no complaint, there is no problem.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 16 Jan 2018 03:59
There have been no Saturday / Sunday dates set for the industry forums. Not all of us can make it Monday to Friday. Who claimed the above dates were suitable ?
Sunday at the local track or club could have been more suitable than the days and dates that have been allocated.
In the past, I've been to most of the forums, so I politely ask if someone attending could ask on my behalf; where has the Parity Money gone, how much will it cost per annum to keep the Integrity Arm operating and where is the money coming from to pay for the sixty staff and two Commissioners at Bathurst, etc
I estimate that the new Integrity Unit will cost around $5 million on top of the administrative costs of $9 million that we already pay in the Welfare Unit. Yet, we are shrinking in numbers !!
I know the answer, but who decided that the Integrity Unit should be in Bathurst ?
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
