home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Tattoo  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  
Login  |    |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  |  Ask the Vet    Help  print pedigree    
Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Library  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

    Sponsored by:-   Rapidvite

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.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

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.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingRetirementBettingTalkLogin to post
Do you have questions about greyhound racing?
Do you need advice on how to train a greyhound?

NSW Prizemoney increasespage  1 2 3 4 

Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1411
Dogs 0 / Races 0

26 Jun 2019 00:02


 (1)
 (0)


Sandro,

Agree, but the supposed breeding limit (2,000) was supported by Scott/Alliance at the time but apparently without any vote or agreement from industry members. The fact that it has not been implemented may be (hopefully) that it is a restraint of trade and therefore illegal.

(A background factor may well be that any such restraint would have to be applied to horses as well - the mind boggles at that - or to any animal breeding activity).

The same principle applies to a puppy bond, which would be a charge for which no service has been provided and therefore also illegal.

All these things should be challenged the second they pop their head up.


Mark Donohue
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2598
Dogs 6 / Races 0

26 Jun 2019 00:04


 (1)
 (0)


But youíre right Sandro with one thing. The regulators donít need to put conditions on participants when we are doing it ourselves.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

26 Jun 2019 02:49


 (1)
 (0)


Mark Donohue wrote:

You havenít been to non-TAB meetings lately have you? $270 is not good money ! People breed when there is a strong industry. From 2015 to 2018 wasnít a good time with fears of industry being closed down which it was temporarily. Limits were placed on broodies and whelpers, but sometimes for good reasons.

Slow dogs donít win races therefore donít take home prize money 99% of the time. The carrot is there yet we canít get starters all of the time e.g. Maitland.

Itís changing now, but slowly. However, pushing monies sideways and giving a modest increase when every other State is doing it too, is good but long overdue. Meanwhile, administration costs are ridiculously high.

Yes I have and I look at fields and results every day as I prepare my own stats

Country prizemoney has been woeful ever since I can remember.

When I trained I raced at Lithgow, Appin, Wyong and Moss Vale

The prizemoney was around $100 for the win back then, except in sponsored feature races

Maidens were $60 a win at Moss Vale

At least you could have a decent punt back then on Country tracks but now that's gone as well



Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

26 Jun 2019 02:58


 (2)
 (0)


Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

Agree, but the supposed breeding limit (2,000) was supported by Scott/Alliance at the time but apparently without any vote or agreement from industry members. The fact that it has not been implemented may be (hopefully) that it is a restraint of trade and therefore illegal.

(A background factor may well be that any such restraint would have to be applied to horses as well - the mind boggles at that - or to any animal breeding activity).

The same principle applies to a puppy bond, which would be a charge for which no service has been provided and therefore also illegal.

All these things should be challenged the second they pop their head up.

As you may remember back then no one else got a look in, it was a fight for survival, not a fight to work out how many dogs can be bred a per annum

Some committment had to be given by the sport to combat overbreeding if it rose its head again

It was agreed as a starting point. The legislation doesn't say that the figure is 2000 pups and doesn't state what the puppy bond figure is

The breeding restriction/puppy bond is available in the legislation in the event that it is required

Therefore, its not illegal, because it is already provided for in the legislation

The only reason it hasn't been implemented is because there aren't enough new dogs to race at the moment to fill the fields and the older dogs that were racing in Masters are slowly but surely retiring

Also the number of dogs being exported from Australia has dropped dramatically, which also affects the breeding numbers, due to slower dogs being kept locally

Therefore, breeding needs to increase before it ever gets restricted

Unless the powers decide to chop the number of races staged or reduce the fields to 6 dog minimum like SA have done

So far, there have been no noises from either GRNSW or GWIC regarding the puppy bond or breeding restrictions at this stage, suffice to say that any general discussion seems to revolve the figure around 4,000 pups, but if we breed that many, then the re-homing structure needs to improve and be more efficient and affordable for participants

Whatever ends up being done, I hope it is thought through with all the consequences covered



Brett Tooth
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 87
Dogs 10 / Races 0

26 Jun 2019 13:12


 (6)
 (0)


I remember Baird saying after the ďbackflipĒ that the decision was right (to closure industry in NSW) but we went the wrong way about it. Now itís death by starvation.
Lack of money, dogs, trainers,owners etc.
Shortly we will find out how many have walked away from what was a great sport to be involved in up until 5 yrs ago, when renewals are finished.
If they are waiting for mine, they better look at Nambucca tip


Valerie Glover
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 160
Dogs 2 / Races 0

26 Jun 2019 23:20


 (2)
 (0)


I hope there is plenty of room in that tip for all that will be thrown , I can tell you that there are going to be alarming figures , Bob Glover Hi Brett


Valerie Glover
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 160
Dogs 2 / Races 0

26 Jun 2019 23:36


 (2)
 (0)


Sandro What about the days we paid $5 nom fee and raced for $40 total for 1st place , maiden heats, Dapto/Bulli/Moss Vale used to have 20 odd races in those days, I used to drive over the bridge to GPO Martin Place, or even send nom,s out to Liverpool P.O. to be sure they would get down to those areas by nom time ?? Bob


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1411
Dogs 0 / Races 0

27 Jun 2019 00:45


 (1)
 (0)


Sandro,

RE "Therefore, its not illegal, because it is already provided for in the legislation".

I am not sure whether that is so. However, the existence of something in legislation does not mean that it is necessarily legal. That is, it can be challenged and chucked out by courts if governments act beyond their bounds of authority. It has happened many times.

Can you name another commodity where the government has stopped production beyond a certain level? They can stop something altogether (mining, oil, etc) but to do that they need specific reasons, usually environmental. Odd abuses by live baiters do not cut that mustard. They are simply breaches of the law, like speeding or shoplifting or whatever.

As for the alleged need to "give a commitment", that is nonsense, partly because our representative should be battling to obtain an advantage and partly because the facts were wrong - overbreeding never existed. As I keep saying, breeding numbers had been on a gradual decline for 10-15 years.

Indeed, the fact that any numbers were being batted around tells us that our negotiators were not competent. They were not helped by the really dumb confidential memo from GA or by Newsom passing it on unchecked to McHugh.




Terry Jordan
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 3671
Dogs 0 / Races 0

27 Jun 2019 00:54


 (4)
 (0)


Valerie Glover wrote:

Sandro What about the days we paid $5 nom fee and raced for $40 total for 1st place , maiden heats, Dapto/Bulli/Moss Vale used to have 20 odd races in those days, I used to drive over the bridge to GPO Martin Place, or even send nom,s out to Liverpool P.O. to be sure they would get down to those areas by nom time ?? Bob


I think Sandro may have been in the pram during those days Bob.
I can remember putting Nom's into a box attached to the gate at some of these country tracks. (for other Trainers, I wasn't licenced back then). Many races then were Stake races, and you paid a fee to enter. They lived off the "Punt" lived by their wits.

What is missing today is the Bookies, the Atmosphere, the noise, the crowds, the buzz of a betting coup. Never to return!


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 01:38


 (1)
 (0)


Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

RE "Therefore, its not illegal, because it is already provided for in the legislation".

I am not sure whether that is so. However, the existence of something in legislation does not mean that it is necessarily legal. That is, it can be challenged and chucked out by courts if governments act beyond their bounds of authority. It has happened many times.

Can you name another commodity where the government has stopped production beyond a certain level? They can stop something altogether (mining, oil, etc) but to do that they need specific reasons, usually environmental. Odd abuses by live baiters do not cut that mustard. They are simply breaches of the law, like speeding or shoplifting or whatever.

For the time being, its legal because it has been enacted in the legislation.

----------------------------------------------------------

legislate

1.
make or enact laws, make laws, pass laws, enact laws, formulate laws, establish laws, codify laws, ratify laws, constitutionalize, put laws in force;

----------------------------------------------------
If it gets challenged by the Court as being unconscionable or unfair, then thats up to an Advocacy Body like the GBOTA or similar body to initiate the action on behalf of the industry

Bruce Teague wrote:

As for the alleged need to "give a commitment", that is nonsense, partly because our representative should be battling to obtain an advantage and partly because the facts were wrong - overbreeding never existed. As I keep saying, breeding numbers had been on a gradual decline for 10-15 years.

Indeed, the fact that any numbers were being batted around tells us that our negotiators were not competent. They were not helped by the really dumb confidential memo from GA or by Newsom passing it on unchecked to McHugh.

They were dealing with an explosive situation that was not being helped by the constant negativity from certain media & social media sources that continually spread the misinformation through to the general public

A ball park figure had to be agreed upon for things to move on.

Maybe they werent good enough, maybe they were, but bottom line, you weren't there Bruce, nor was I, so playing a blame game now doesn;t make any sense

What does make sense and what matters is that even though these measures are legislated, there is no number of pups mentioned the Act and these measures regarding limits and bonds have not been enforced because breeding then fell dramatically from the levels you speak about

At the moment we haven't got enough dogs to field full fields, before McHugh, we did, and there was a thriving export trade to China, Macau, Vietnam etc etc

Before McHugh, owners and trainers could pick and choose which they would race and make that decision at the end of the break in procedure ánd the breeding farms would churn out more and more to meet that demand for the faster dog

Now they have to be more careful to ensure that every dog gets its proper chance and be placed in a competiitve environment, whatever its level is, and to ensure that they have a retirement plan for it that doesnt consider euthanasia as a first option, but a last option.

I believe the industry is headed to a point where we dont say overbreeding or underbreeding, but more so ''responsible breeding''

It's a culture change and that doesn't happen overnight


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 01:44


 (2)
 (0)


Terry Jordan wrote:

Valerie Glover wrote:

Sandro What about the days we paid $5 nom fee and raced for $40 total for 1st place , maiden heats, Dapto/Bulli/Moss Vale used to have 20 odd races in those days, I used to drive over the bridge to GPO Martin Place, or even send nom,s out to Liverpool P.O. to be sure they would get down to those areas by nom time ?? Bob


I think Sandro may have been in the pram during those days Bob.
I can remember putting Nom's into a box attached to the gate at some of these country tracks. (for other Trainers, I wasn't licenced back then). Many races then were Stake races, and you paid a fee to enter. They lived off the "Punt" lived by their wits.

What is missing today is the Bookies, the Atmosphere, the noise, the crowds, the buzz of a betting coup. Never to return!

That's very true because both you and Bob are much older than me, granddads LOL

But also true is, as you say, the the atmosphere of country tracks, the bookies, the punters and the rorts that would occasionally occur

Even old Wenty had that feel about it

I guess you have to travel to Coonamble these days to experience what it used to be like

It was a very colourful and exciting time to grow up in, but in the end it came with its problems as well.



Simon Moore
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2204
Dogs 32 / Races 393

27 Jun 2019 02:29


 (5)
 (0)


Sandro Bechini wrote:

Bruce Teague wrote:

Sandro,

Agree, but the supposed breeding limit (2,000) was supported by Scott/Alliance at the time but apparently without any vote or agreement from industry members. The fact that it has not been implemented may be (hopefully) that it is a restraint of trade and therefore illegal.

(A background factor may well be that any such restraint would have to be applied to horses as well - the mind boggles at that - or to any animal breeding activity).

The same principle applies to a puppy bond, which would be a charge for which no service has been provided and therefore also illegal.

All these things should be challenged the second they pop their head up.

As you may remember back then no one else got a look in, it was a fight for survival, not a fight to work out how many dogs can be bred a per annum

Some committment had to be given by the sport to combat overbreeding if it rose its head again

It was agreed as a starting point. The legislation doesn't say that the figure is 2000 pups and doesn't state what the puppy bond figure is

The breeding restriction/puppy bond is available in the legislation in the event that it is required

Therefore, its not illegal, because it is already provided for in the legislation

The only reason it hasn't been implemented is because there aren't enough new dogs to race at the moment to fill the fields and the older dogs that were racing in Masters are slowly but surely retiring

Also the number of dogs being exported from Australia has dropped dramatically, which also affects the breeding numbers, due to slower dogs being kept locally

Therefore, breeding needs to increase before it ever gets restricted

Unless the powers decide to chop the number of races staged or reduce the fields to 6 dog minimum like SA have done

So far, there have been no noises from either GRNSW or GWIC regarding the puppy bond or breeding restrictions at this stage, suffice to say that any general discussion seems to revolve the figure around 4,000 pups, but if we breed that many, then the re-homing structure needs to improve and be more efficient and affordable for participants

Whatever ends up being done, I hope it is thought through with all the consequences covered


the 2000 figure was Scott and friends pathetic begging to Baird in his office to change his mind.

instead they should have marched in there and given him a gobfull and let him know he will not get away with it.

it was the same attitude from Scott when the backdown came that everyone is paying the price for now.

they had the liberal/national relationship on the brink of collapse and could have gone for the throat and got a deal for the industry way beyond the crumbs that they have given us.

so although you can say breeding hasn't been limited by anybody, its the rules and regulations and hurdles that has done it and a measly few dollars prizemoney increase will not make any difference to numbers imo.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 04:14


 (2)
 (0)


So Simon

What regulations and hurdles are those? C5 intead of C3 vaccinations? Slightly more expensive but better for the animal.

Why don;t you start with the vets who provide the frozen semen services and the transfer fees to move it around. Prior to the ban it didn;t cost anything to store frozen semen because the vets were raking it in, now they charge to store and release it.

I didn't see any changes to the broodbitch rules, they can still have 3 litters and more past that and 8 years of age if they are good producers. Nothing changed there.

There were any amount of decent broodbitches up for grabs during that time because no one wanted to breed anymore.

Straws for Frozen semen except for a couple of stud dogs stayed stagnant. You could have bought straws to frozen semen for good sires for vert good prices on the 2nd hand market on here, if you were so inclined.

It's simple Simon, the market for pups dried up, due to the uncertainty of the future of the sport and people did not want to be left with whole litters to rear on their own

And its the same reason that we have sires standing at $8.800. The market for racing dogs has returned.

That's the reason, it had F@rk all to the do with a breeding limit or a puppy bond because they were never introduced and they still haven;t been introduced

The old hip pocket nerve got a rattle during those times and now with some certainty people are venturing back into breeding of greyhounds

Do you think that the Alliance partners could have walked into that room and demanded whatever they felt like....if thats what you think...then you are living in a fairyland

It was a process of negotiation and I reckon Baird wouldn't have backed down if there wasn;t a reasonable deal/committment for reform put on the table by the industry

Really, you should be thankful that greyhound racing in NSW still exists today due to the efforts of that group of people

Basically, if you don;t like the new regulations, then whether you stay and work with them or refuse to do so, thats your choice pal


Simon Moore
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2204
Dogs 32 / Races 393

27 Jun 2019 04:59


 (3)
 (0)


Sandro Bechini wrote:

So Simon

What regulations and hurdles are those? C5 intead of C3 vaccinations? Slightly more expensive but better for the animal.

Why don;t you start with the vets who provide the frozen semen services and the transfer fees to move it around. Prior to the ban it didn;t cost anything to store frozen semen because the vets were raking it in, now they charge to store and release it.

I didn't see any changes to the broodbitch rules, they can still have 3 litters and more past that and 8 years of age if they are good producers. Nothing changed there.

There were any amount of decent broodbitches up for grabs during that time because no one wanted to breed anymore.

Straws for Frozen semen except for a couple of stud dogs stayed stagnant. You could have bought straws to frozen semen for good sires for vert good prices on the 2nd hand market on here, if you were so inclined.

It's simple Simon, the market for pups dried up, due to the uncertainty of the future of the sport and people did not want to be left with whole litters to rear on their own

And its the same reason that we have sires standing at $8.800. The market for racing dogs has returned.

That's the reason, it had F@rk all to the do with a breeding limit or a puppy bond because they were never introduced and they still haven;t been introduced

The old hip pocket nerve got a rattle during those times and now with some certainty people are venturing back into breeding of greyhounds

Do you think that the Alliance partners could have walked into that room and demanded whatever they felt like....if thats what you think...then you are living in a fairyland

It was a process of negotiation and I reckon Baird wouldn't have backed down if there wasn;t a reasonable deal/committment for reform put on the table by the industry

Really, you should be thankful that greyhound racing in NSW still exists today due to the efforts of that group of people

Basically, if you don;t like the new regulations, then whether you stay and work with them or refuse to do so, thats your choice pal


settle down pettle, lol.

where did i say it was from the breeding limit or puppy bond? u r making up your own story now.
u need to read properly before flying off the handle next time.

and again i said they should have made it clear that the fight had only just started instead of getting down on their hands and knees and begging for another chance.
if it were peter vlandys i can be as sure as shit he wouldn't have begged like that.

when the liberals/national partnership was imploding and baird was forced to backflip it was time to go for the throat. if they didn't backflip they were gone, its as simple as that.

if u think things r fine then i'm afraid u r the one living in fairyland.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 05:10


 (0)
 (0)


Not that simple Simon

Vlandys has a lot more power behind him than we ever had

They would never have got to the position that our sport got to

His money for his sport was already assured before the 4 corners investigation. Tax Harmonization %'s were announced in the week 4 corners was broadcast. We got what 10%, not even the same as the ICA amount of 13%

All we got were investigations, inquisitions and the threat of a ban followed by a lot of bad publicity

Now who's putting words in who's mouth, I never said the industry was in a good position....tell me where I said that?

It's better....not good


Simon Moore
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2204
Dogs 32 / Races 393

27 Jun 2019 06:08


 (5)
 (0)


i didn't say the horse racing industry itself i'm talking about vlandys the man himself as an example.

the industry was banned based on many many lies and speculation and made up figures and evidence and these guys went in there and begged. baird and his team must have pissed themselves laughing when scott and co left the room.

they should have showed more pride in themselves and the sport and fought for real justice.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 06:25


 (1)
 (0)


Agree with the part about the lies which ended up being because of the lack of evidence provided by our own systems that couldn;t refute their figures fully

The previous GRNSW dropped the ball on many things

About the begging and them laughing about it...we will need to agree to disagree

The horse racing industry headed by Vlandys never had to beg for their existence regardless of the animal welfare issues that have transpired.

Even in Victoria & Queensland recently there were Jiggers and all sorts of cocktails given to horses...it makes news for 5 minutes and then everyone forgets about it...if you don;t think it happens in NSW because V'Landys is in charge....well....ok then!!

we don't get that luxury, the horses don;t need to beg to stay alive. They put their hand out and get more money....no worries



Simon Moore
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2204
Dogs 32 / Races 393

27 Jun 2019 08:23


 (3)
 (0)


can u read what i said properly please?

where on earth did i say that shit doesn't go on because vlandys is in charge?

we all know the hypocrisy and the victimisation Sandro, but they have a leader with balls and we had scott.


Sandro Bechini
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 17667
Dogs 14189 / Races 1802

27 Jun 2019 08:44


 (0)
 (0)


You think its all Vlandys?

Its the power, the politics and the money behind the horse racing industry that gives him the power you seem to idolise

There are other fairly significant players e.g. John Messara

Mate, get over it, we can;t beat them, we have to move on from there and play our game properly

Anyway, I'm done on this topic.

I can't stand thinking about it and its history now.

What's the point of going over it a million times. We just have to learn from it.


Simon Moore
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2204
Dogs 32 / Races 393

27 Jun 2019 08:51


 (3)
 (0)


Sandro Bechini wrote:

Mate, get over it, we have to move on from there


i think its only fair to pull u up for making wrong comments, don't u?



posts 69page  1 2 3 4