I wonder if its because they have too many staff who cant go to GWIC ? Remember, the Government created 60 new positions at GWIC n only about half a dozen to a dozen have left GRNSW yet, the 60 are going to do the work that GRNSW is doing now with what appears to be triple the number of staff !

Dont forget three Commissioners (1 and 2 x Deputies- p/t) a CEO n legal practitioner. Whoa ! They have $11 Million over five (5) years.

It reminds me of the Light Rail Project ($500 Million over budget in the first year and its been going for three years). What a fiasco!

Worth checking.

The Vic report is fairly recent and covers all aspects of greyhound racing's contribution to the state.

NSW had an earlier one done by IER but I don't have a quick reference. The more recent one, also by IER and covering three codes, specifically concerned assets only, and warned readers to be careful. Basically it told us that dog kennels were smaller than horse stables. Hardly exciting!

Grant lifted the end figure (10%) and applied it to tax parity - ie to a revenue measure - thereby abusing the purpose of the report and further increasing the subsidy from greys to the other two codes. Newson chimed in and said that was good enough for him, thereby failing in his duty to advance the interests of the greyhound code by seeking 13% (historical) or say 21% (current at the time).

Theoretically, that is interesting as the interim chief is equally as responsible as a permanent employee for adhering to the legal charter - possibly more so as he was both the board and the CEO.

Amongst other things,it highlights the folly of appointing a public servant - interim or otherwise - to a position charged with looking after a commercial business. (Newson subsequently got a promotion on his return).

Incidentally, have all you folks remembered that there is a trainer on the board now? Doesn't seem to have helped much, does it? Maybe he is just being outvoted? Who knows? Even so, it gives you a line on how much value there is on advisory or consultative committees.
Double that if they make deliberations confidential.

I PLACED A POST ON HERE a few days ago regarding another rally in sydney asking for anyone who would attend, I haven't seen one reply or name to my suggestion.

YOU HAVE ME BILL

"What you said - key concerns raised during the roadshow
Uncertainty about the future of the industry
Concern registration fees will increase significantly after 1 July 2018
The cost of a potential bond and its effect on breeders and owners
Requests made to update the Race Day Hydration and Water Policy, to align the policy to other states
Concerns that this industry is, or will be over regulated
Drug testing threshold levels and testing methods
Lack of consultation with industry participants
Low prize money levels in NSW
Operation of the grading system, with concerns greyhounds are being upgraded too quickly
Ability of participants to easily meet new enhanced registration requirements
Administrative processes
High turnover of vets, and a perception that vets and stewards lack greyhound specific experience
Restrictions on certain animals being housed with or near greyhounds"

Carly, we will soon know what is going to happen. Ist july gwic.meeting ,We should get some news after that date . Let's hope some of it will be beneficial to us,

Some of those items are for GRNSW.

However, both have a finger in the puppy bond which is an outrageous and irrelevant over-reaction.

I suggest a concerted campaign to squash the concept. It is no more than an insurance device to protect the regulator's interest in whole of life supervision. There is no direct connection between it and government policy or the administration of the industry. As such, an administrator cannot charge for a non-existing service. Allegations of helping with euthanasia problems are a furphy and should be shot down quickly.

The additional reason is that it is a forerunner to numerical breeding limits which are also capable of being challenged legally. Aside from that, it introduces dissention in deciding who or what sort of breeder gets a run and for how many.

The bond should go to the admin tribunal while any breeding limits will need an injunction and then consideration before a judge. Get advice.

Once action is commenced Hadley & co have something to get stuck into.

But how the hell can GBOTA let these go through? What are members paying for?

Members only pay $5 a year.

GWIC are not claiming responsibility or providing solutions for all of these, all they did there was state what the concerns were that participants brought up. I have to say I am at least impressed that they were honest enough to put what we actually said at the roadshows.

When GRNSW released their version of what people had said when meeting Tony Mestov and Dayle Brown, issues that I know many people brought up were not included.

It gives me hope that they are at least going to be much more transparent than GRNSW are. I also liked that they wrote in plain english and not the nonsensical rubbish that GRNSW has put out for their draft strategic plan.

As many of us have stated before the reasons the Reform Panel gave for the bond was to stop over-breeding and reduce unnecessary euthanasia. There is no over-breeding and the Euthanasia Policy reduces unnecessary euthanasia so there is no need.

I'm guessing that's why GRNSW keeps quoting estimates from the Special Commission of Inquiry. They have the actual figures but these most likely do not support the bond so they instead quote estimates from a flawed report to support it. Not sure why when it is the responsibility of GWIC not GRNSW, but supports the theory that GRNSW are really just working for the Greens and other anti's at the moment and not participants.

Judy Lind did say at the roadshow they were willing to look at it and take the issue back to the government but it appears that the government has the final say.

I have heard from a few people that GWIC need to implement the bond because it is in the Act but I can't find it in there. It is mentioned in section 101 that the Governor may make regulations on things and the puppy bond is included there but there seem to be no regulations for the Act. (When I click on the regulations button for the Act it says "No principal regulations, rules or other instruments are available for this Act.") So until regulations are made I would think it is not something they have to do.

I think the best option at the moment is to continue to lobby politicians, as many have done, and to continue to get the correct information to the GWIC so they can make informed decisions. (I have no confidence that GRNSW will be providing accurate information). This can be done by individuals or through organisations like the GBOTA and the AWU. (Bruce, I am aware that any mention of the AWU will send you into overdrive with your hatred of them but as they represent many participants in the industry you will just have to accept that those who have joined want and expect them to play a role.)

If, when or how the puppy bond is made official and irrespective of false or accurate backing numbers are not the point. They are not the critical issues.

The thing is to first create the foundation for an attack on this particular administrative device on the grounds that it is unsound and exceeds the authority's power. That may or may not succeed.

IF it does get published you then go to the ombudsman, tribunal or whoever to get it scrubbed. Your case is stronger for having tried to get it stopped in the first place. Ask your lawyer.

AWU - the subject has nothing to do with overdrive or hatred. Your words are misplaced. In fact, I have said individuals are perfectly entitled to do whatever they like with regard to unions or political parties but that attaching your cause to one or the other risks weakening the approach to government.

I simply offered my two cents worth that using them will not help your case and may well harm it. I also note that some participants cannot or do not want to join the AWU and I seriously doubt your "many participants" claim. You have to pick a team that will best challenge the opponents of the day.

Just ask Freddy Fittler. For example, he was correct to omit Fifita but not for the popular reason. He might help you win you 1 in 20 matches but he is lazy in defense and crabs all over the field in attack. OK for the club perhaps but not in SOO. Do you see a similarity?

I like brown sugar on my porridge, not for sweetness but for the taste. I would never use it on cornflakes.

Such is life.

Sorry Tony, NOTHING NEW & EXCITING in that package if you OWN/TRAIN GREYHOUNDS. Job opportunities with GRNSW look rosy though.

Fundamentally, it is not the people who are the problem but the system in which they are asked to perform.

But let me argue against myself. In the last 20 or so years, with minor exceptions, I have yet to see anyone who is competent enough to do a good job - board, CEOs or staff. If they were on the ball we would not be in the pickle we have today with rampant antis, badly designed tracks, trainers with disgraceful habits, an unusable form/results system and long term customers disappearing into the ether.

Why so?

In turn, you have to go back to basics and note that they are asked to achieve neat paperwork (there is even a prize for clubs that do that) and not rock the boat. There is no incentive to build a flourishing industry so all you get are people who are satisfied with doing what they did last year.

Once that happens you do not stay still. Inevitably, things go backwards, especially given the competitive world we live in.

Here's the secret. It's not a matter of giving jobs to people who know dogs. It's a matter of giving jobs to managers who know where and how to find that dog knowledge and to use it in their decision-making. BHP's boss doesn't dig up iron ore - he gets people who know how to do that to work for him.

Boards (ie committees) should approve big money investments and hire and fire the CEO - finish. Otherwise, leave managing to the managers. If they don't shape up, fire them.