It appears that no one is concerned with the dramatic drop off in racing stock numbers.

How is GRV going to pay for all its bullshit processes with no money coming in.

Extended Noms for this week: 12 races require 96 + 24 reserves

Ballarat (W) 40
Cranbourne (W) 67
Bendigo (W) 51
Meadows (W) 29
Geelong (T) Further extended they got 11 races
4 fields of 6, 4 fields of 7, 2 fields of 8(no Res) and 1 field of 8(1 res)

The whisper is the Racing Minister is aware of the reality of decisions made by the current board and administration. One can only hope that the truth of the matter will come to light and severe corrections made to the processes that have impacted on the industry.

The short answer is that there will still be enough mug money coming in to disguise the fact that - in real terms - costs are rising while income is not, or not much.

The dog shortage is much more serious and will need possibly five years to turn around.

You have to remember that with hardly anyone at the track now the general knowledge of the breed and racing is terrible. Fixing that is a twofold exercise - one to better inform the public and one to explain the technology of racing.

Everyone knows the underlying principle because GAP is seen to work. We just need a lot more of it and done in many different ways.

One example I have put up previously is Open Days at studs - or any training establishment for that matter. See all the gear as well as mum and the pups. This is a lot of hassle for the participant and it has integrity issues to watch out for - but it has to be done.

Similarly, a revival of the old Uncle Bens pet caravan doing a circuit of shopping centres would do wonders. It died for budget reasons so its return would be straightforward.

Another would be billboards on highways to feature a top sire/dam (also suggested previously but ignored - the last effort was Flying Amy pix on buses in Queensland in the 1990s).

Plus whatever some whizz kids can dream up.

The other main challenge is to better educate gamblers and turn them into regular punters. For that they need information and advice - via articles, brochures, videos etc - all related to how the track is set up and how the race is run.

To help reduce costs, get rid of all the complex grading systems and the myriad of restrictions, build a one size fits all system and have all the states salute the same flag. It worked well enough for 50 years or more so why not try it again?

To implement that, dump the bureaucrats and the managing boards and install genuine managers with associated marketing skills. If they fail, sack them and get someone who can make it work.

That's just for starters.

You might ask yourself why I keep bringing this to peoples awareness, well I see myself sitting in Alan Claytons office at the beginning of his tenure, doing something for the industry having been involved with Adam Wallish and looking for ways to improve the industry and support participants.

Listening to a person (AC) with no experience and believing the overbreeding myth which was created out of thin air by the then CEO of Greyhounds Australasia.

This is the result of that inexperience and political interference at the time and the bottom of the barrel has not been reached yet.

If the KNOW IT ALLS read G-Data forum on a regular basis, they'll get an in-sight into who they may believe-in or they may snub, but commonsense & decency would be an advantage to notice this quality.

I'm happy to offer my advise for FREE as I'm sure you would be too Charles, along with many other industry members that have had decades of experience..........but those at the top are from the LEFT & don't give a FCuk....until now (maybe), as their jobs are in jeopardy due to the shortage.

I'm not after going back to a FFA situation regarding breeding....but I am after QUALITY. In saying this still doesn't guarantee perfection....but if we look at some of the matings from the past, some have been questionable & should of earnt some sought of LEVEL for it to be approved as a litter.

Sorry....Probably a little off topic.

While several people/groups were moaning and groaning about excessive euthanasia, the major and formal arrival of "overbreeding" accusations came from the Victorian public servant tasked with the industry review in that state. GRV then blindly adopted that position, as did many others.

GA's "crime" was even worse in that, as a result, the notorious confidential memo to all state CEOs stupidly called for a reduction of one third in all Australian racing activity. That was a strategic corporate blunder of huge proportions.

Coincidentally, the same memo (badly worded) encouraged the McHugh Commission to highlight incorrect numbers of "wastage" - ie it forgot about all the pups/dogs that disappeared for various other normal reasons, including clerical errors. Primarily, that's what spurred Baird on to introducing the NSW ban.

Around the same period, GA had hired a consultant to review and recommend how many dogs each state should be entitled to breed. That report has never seen the light of day, nor info about what it cost. It was a ridiculous idea anyway and no state has ventured down that track - nor should they because it would be a legal nightmare.

In total, all the attention went to the breeding area when the real problem was not that but how to look after dogs once they had finished racing.

Basically, that's where we sit today. Unfortunately, along the way more and more bureaucrats have been empowered to "fix" the alleged problem. In turn, that's why we have all the new rules to follow and all kennels have to be surrounded by nicely painted white picket fences. It will stay that way as long as greyhound chiefs are followers and not leaders.

It's little wonder that breeding numbers have been steadily falling and empty boxes are the name of the game. The public feel no personal attachment to the game and have plenty of other ways of spending their time and using their spare cash.

As a minimum, the first thing that has to happen is for GA to be disbanded and replaced by a modern, authoritative organisation.

In the former case, the "overbreeding" conclusion emerged from a faulty and superficial examination of the history of breeding in this country by the reviewer (a Departmental CEO). It failed to check past or recent trends and instead just assumed that less breeding would produce less euthanasia.

In the latter case, the badly researched and badly worded memo from Parker/GA allowed several people to jump to the wrong conclusions.

Newson/GRNSW failed to doublecheck the data or even to read the memo correctly before tendering it to McHugh.

Clayton/GRV accepted both the latter and the former data without double checking what was going on.

McSporran (for the Qld gov.) did much the same.

McHugh/Commission wrongly assumed all the missing numbers of dogs were due to euthanasia. He failed to double check.

Baird/Premier (or his minders) lifted the conclusion from the Commission report, without checking, put it into newspaper headlines and canned the industry. Baird also erred in quoting the correct number of countries permitting racing, leading to criticism by the Auditor General. (The Grey2K website is more accurate).

We could then go back to Parker and ask why all those missing numbers were in the "unknown" category. It is GA's responsibility to collect all that data from the various states yet it was not happening. Of course, the states may well be responsible, too.

In every one of these cases a serious management error occurred. Of all of them, only Baird and mate Grant have been found out and sanctioned. Parker has subsequently quit while Newson got promoted after returning to the department.

In total, this makes greyhound racing look like an episode of Keystone Cops. We have a bad system run by the wrong sort of people.

PS: Note that full Australasian industry statistics have not been seen since 2015. GA has made no comment about the gap. Trying to add up what is happening in all the individual states is risky because they tend to use different presentations.

You can learn a lot from criticism if you can take what's constructive about it ...