especially when most of the fields were reduced in numbers. Simply put agree to get out of Wentworth park, please a lot of politicians while doing so and put money that would've otherwise been used on the lease to improve Richmond and Goulburn like planned.

No one likes to see track closures but people would understand if wenty, lismore, Maitland and dapto are closed (like rumour has it) if other facilities near by are improved and run meetings often enough

why..????

I guess the poor patronage of Wednesdays meeting at Wenty is due to (a) the overall shortage of race-ready dogs and (b) the current penchant favouring short course racing. This is true of most meetings, of course. In fact, its worth noting that Richmonds secondary meeting on Wednesday (run concurrently with Wenty) presented only 330m and 400m races nothing else.

On the deletion of tracks fine, but I would dispute the proposed inclusion of Maitland in that list. Together with Bulli, they are the only two substantive one-turn tracks available in NSW (no, I cannot rate Goulbourn in that category). It may have its problems but the very structure of greyhound racing in this state needs both Maitland and Bulli to prosper one to the north, one to the south of the capital.

Rather, as both are surrounded by heavy population areas, the code would benefit by going in the opposite direction and building for future growth. The huge Maitland complex in particular is ripe for major development into a multi-sport facility, of which greyhound racing is just one thread.

Yanks Show A Way Ahead

Thursday 6th June 2013 6:42 am.
by Bruce Teague

I think I have said before that if you havent got a good idea yourself, then pinch one from somewhere else. Roy Masters of the Sydney Morning Herald has helped us there when he reported on a visit to American football headquarters by AFL people.

A key issue was the NFLs unique method of distributing the codes income amongst its 32 clubs. The principle is that most of the cash is spread equally amongst all of them with the minority accruing directly to the local club.

What happens is that broadcast fees (about half the total) and 34% of ticket sales, all national merchandise sales and corporate sponsorship are pooled and shared equally. The home team gets the remaining 66% of ticket sales as well as game-day income from local sponsors, parking and concessions. In some cases the latter items may be shared with the body that owns the stadium which is usually not the football club.

In passing, lets note that NFL teams are all privately owned so profitability, or a break even result, is of some importance. Failing sufficient local support, franchises can move to another city, and have often done so. Many inhabit big cities but some are at the opposite end of the scale. For example, The Green Bay Packers in upstate Wisconsin are four-time Super Bowl winners, the town has a population of just over 100,000, yet the stadium often hosts crowds of 70,000 and never mind the snow.

Greyhound racing may have plenty to gain from going down this road. Not identically, but by utilising some of the principles involved.

For example, many of the codes existing practices are artificial in nature, not market driven.

◦Revenue attributable to individual clubs has more to do with when it races than anything else, especially today when mug gamblers are becoming more influential, and race scheduling is overcrowded and conflicting.

◦Race dates and times are assigned more or less arbitrarily, often with grandfather rights dominating.

◦Except for a few races at city clubs, field quality does not determine income any old races will do.

◦Patronage is less important, mostly because few fans want to go to the track any more.

◦There is less incentive for clubs to better promote the sport because they gain little extra income by doing so (in contrast to pre-SKY times when attendances were vital).

◦Major funding for prize money, heavy maintenance and track development is already in the hands of the state authority, not the club.

◦The greyhound code receives no fees from broadcasters, rather clubs have to foot the bill for necessary equipment and expenses. Its efforts pay dividends to TAB shareholders, with only a small proportion ending back with authorities and then individual clubs.

◦There is an imbalance between states in the quality of racing stock and therefore in the attractiveness of the product to what is now a national or international audience.

◦Participants operating costs are much the same everywhere but income is governed by significantly different prize money levels from state to state.

◦There is an inbuilt incentive for owners to shift good dogs away from less profitable states to Victoria and, to a lesser extent, NSW. In particular, SA and WA fortunes are underpinned not just by their own efforts, but by the diversion of lesser dogs from the eastern states and by policy decisions from the Wheeler camp (without which SA would be in terrible strife).

The broad outcome is that we have two states NSW and Victoria sitting on top of the pile with most of the good dogs (and sires) and the lions share of the population to bet on them. Naturally, their turnover and prize money is much higher and quite a bit of it is generated from interstate.

The other states and territories are therefore handicapped before the race is started. At the moment, SA and WA are just getting by while Tasmania and Queensland are battling financially.

In any event, all jurisdictions are dependent on the whims of state governments for their fixed and variable incomes, mostly ex TABs. Victoria, for example, has been riding a gravy train for years due first to unearned income from the states poker machines and, more recently, a bigger allocation from racing taxes and commissions. Conversely, NSW is stuck with an enforced cross-subsidy of several millions a year to the other two codes due to poor business judgement from an earlier administration.

So, why re-examine all this?

The answer lies in whether one system or another will benefit the breed and the long term development of greyhound racing. Currently, a poor position in the pecking order can enforce low returns and a disincentive for both participants and customers. That has both local and national implications.

This is a principle long addressed by major Australian football codes, all of which regard themselves as national in nature and which are tightly controlled by national bodies. Competitions have not only spread to new regions but, while doing so, recognise that imbalances can occur due to no fault of a club. In the AFL, Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Port Adelaide have been battling financially and have therefore received extra support from head office. Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney gained huge initial and ongoing financing to get them started. Sydney Swans share of revenue acknowledges the higher living costs in the countrys largest city.

The ARL (and News Ltd) has sponsored expansion to Melbourne, North Queensland and Auckland. The Gold Coast rugby league team is now fighting its way out of financial difficulties and the Tigers are battling to break even in Western Sydney, but both will still get their share of broadcast revenue.

The aim everywhere is to equalise opportunities hence the salary caps and to assist where circumstances make life tough. As in the NFL, the view is that a strong whole comes about when you have strong parts. Indeed, the size of the TV contracts is a function of how good that national coverage is. (This is also why Channel 9 has been desperate to take control of TV stations in Adelaide and Perth).

Of course, racing is conducted at many different levels. Achieving an equitable national outcome would be practicable amongst major city and perhaps a few provincial clubs, leaving the other levels to be accommodated by local authorities. And it is not a coincidence that differentiation like that could also help authorities to create more attractive race options for customers ie premium and other, rather than the current motley mix.

It would also be logical to simultaneously embrace a national betting pool, something which has been pushed many times over recent years but never acted on. Taking that step would immediately improve the betting product and encourage more and bigger punters to take an interest, while everyone would be able to rely on more stable dividends. Tabcorp proposed just that four years ago and Tatts spokesmen have also made encouraging comments. Sadly, nothing has happened since. Governments have looked the other way.

Thats a pity because Tatts smaller pools already put SA, Queensland and Tasmania at a structural disadvantage. Local punters, in todays electronic world, find it far too easy to venture to bigger Tabcorp pools, thereby cutting rewards to those smaller states. And, physically, a few short steps take Queenslanders away from Coolangatta and Tatts to the Tweed Heads Services Club in NSW where Tabcorp rules. The same migration occurs at the popular betting auditorium at Border Park, just down the road.

A fully national approach has a lot going for it. Somewhere in this mix is the potential for a jump in national income of perhaps 25% to 50%. But can Racing Ministers and racing authorities find a way to do it? Only a concerted effort would have hope of success.

The do-nothing option leaves us with some tough questions can Tasmania and Queensland survive, at least in their present form? And how does that affect neighbouring states? How will existing trends pan out in five or ten years time, remembering that the big usually get bigger and the small are left with the scraps?

Its about time GRNSW started listening to participants as these are genuine issues

I agree that the track has been dressed up quite a bit but the problem is only 59 dogs turned up to race at the 2nd highest prizemoney meeting in NSW

I don;t know what you have against 600m+ dogs but its painfully obvious that NSW is falling far behind in the distance category because they refuse to reward the connections of those dogs for the extra time and effort required to produce a longer distance dog

They may all cost the same to feed, but the they aren't all trained the same way

You can please some of the people some of the times but you cant please all the people all the times.

Remember when Baird wanted to sell WENTY there was a big whinge now some of you want out of there.

ITS the city track

With country dogs

And now the Baird excuse is behind us...GRNSW now needs to cater for all distances with appropriate prizemoney as the distances and grades increase

Instead of worrying about where and what I am racing, why don't you stick to the topic

I agree with Malcolm .
And I think youll find that Wednesday will have larger noms in future.
My suggestion....for this meeting A2.....trial a novice grade (1 win) & if noms are low extend that to 720m but no 280m races. Thats not city racing. Agree with other to introduce (if possible ) a 600m start & I wouldnt mind seeing a regional final series held on a Wednesday there .