Requesting that a post be deleted if it breaches the forum rules or is offensive to the person reporting the post is something that should be embraced by all discussion forums but giving out personal information is something that should only be done when the request comes from a legal practitioner. I know that is the policy on Greyhounds Australia.

These outlets WERE a good way to voice an opinion but seems now that BIG BROTHER is watching us it doesnt seem worth it.

With the hot topics being QLD most of the time, doesnt it show there is a real problem in QLD. People are voting with their feet & leaving the sport. No light at the end of the tunnel and people are getting anxious as to where the sport is headed in QLD.
Mackay gone & now Cairns cut in half. Bundy got a letter yesterday saying a review will be done in 12 months. Havent heard from Rocky yet to see if they also got a letter.

Why shouldnt we all be pissed off with whats going on.
But dont say anything as you might get a holiday.
Or a phone call.

If Dan hasn't breached any (racing) rules he has nothing to worry about.

Edit: By the way, authorities don't HAVE to contact the site admin for information re the poster. There's nothing stopping them contacting you to ask if it was YOU that made the post.

If anyone feels confident that what they are posting on the internet is not defamatory or false and feel confident you would easily be able to defend any court action with facts then go ahead and post it with confidence.

Many of you weren't on the net years ago when a licencee published a lot of defamatory comments about the CEO in Victoria. He didn't receive a courtesy phone call and wasn't charged under the rule of bringing the industry into disrepute........he was taken to Court for Defamation and lost badly. Would you prefer Qld follow their lead?

Dan there you go again, making statements on behalf of others, to you and us that is just hearsay. If the person concerned has something to say let them say it.

It's people like that who get people like you into trouble Dan, it is you who are looking down the disqualified line, not them. Wake up and look after yourself if only for the sake of your dogs.

Can some one please answer me this......
Does a clubs full financial details need to be viewed by a controlling body on a regular basis? If a club is to stand on its own then why does all information about every detail of its business need to be shown to another company?
Is this a common thing amongst Incorporated Companies?

Whilst on QLD racing. The Bundaberg Club yesterday in the mail received a letter stating it will be under review in 12 months time. This years figures has shown a two race per program average increase up from 6.8% to 8.7 races per meeting in the last 12 months. Prizemoney paid has also increased by around 10% to that of the same period as last year. Hard to complain about that. Next year can expect a further increase in prizemoney & a similar amount of races per meeting if not slightly more.
An announcement regarding next years prizemoney increases will be made after the next Committee meeting. It has been a while coming but will definately be an increase next year.

Yep, cheers Ian.

As for obligations, other than Cronulla Park there have been nil. Developing the code in the north means closing tracks, thats a good one.

Mr STEVENS: I refer you to page 2-14 of the Service Delivery Statement and the reference to racing control bodies. Can the minister confirm he endorses the greyhound control boards decision to abolish the Gold Coast racing club considering that it has received $10 million compensation for the demise of the Gold Coast racing facility at Parklands on the Gold Coast?

Mr LAWLOR: Let me correct the misconception that it was the Gold Coast greyhound club that received $10 million. That is not the case at all.

Mr STEVENS: I never said that.

Mr LAWLOR: I misheard, sorry. The $10 million was paid as compensation to the greyhound control board.

In mid-2008 the Gold Coast Greyhound Racing Club was required to vacate the Parklands site due to the development of the Gold Coast Hospital, as you are aware. Since that time the club has been unable to race as it does not have a venue. As the club was only a tenant at Parklands, there was no legal obligation on the government to provide compensation to either the club or the greyhound control body. However, the government has committed $10 million to Greyhounds Queensland as compensation to the greyhound code for the loss of this important TAB racing venue.

As the control body for greyhound racing, Greyhounds Queensland has a responsibility under the Racing Act 2002 to make decisions about and allocating funds for venue development and other infrastructure relevant to the code. The $10 million compensation is conditional upon Greyhounds Queensland applying the funds to the development of a new greyhound racing facility. As is publicly known, Greyhounds Queensland has developed a proposal to develop a new stand-alone greyhound racing facility at Logan. The Logan site is crown land and the government has indicated to Greyhounds Queensland that, should its final investigation show that the Logan proposal is viable, the government is willing to consider transferring the land at no cost to the code. This provides the Logan proposal with a major advantage over any possible alternative sites that would need to be purchased. The Gold Coast Greyhound Racing Club has identified possible alternative sites, and discussions between the club and its control body are continuing. I have met with both the Gold Coast Greyhound Racing Club and the greyhound control board to discuss these issues.

Greyhounds Queensland has recently issued a show-cause notice to the Gold Coast Greyhound Racing Club as to why the clubs licence should not be renewed. The club has until 7 August 2009 to provide submissions to the control body. As a show-cause notice has been issued and we must follow due process, it is inappropriate for me to comment on this matter.

The loss of the use of the Parklands site is no doubt perceived as a blow by the club. However, I believe the $10 million compensation will provide the control body and the code an opportunity to develop a new racing facility that will help secure the codes future.

It is also no secret that the greyhound code wants to leave the Albion Park facility and establish its own stand-alone racing venue. Discussions are already underway and both parties have indicated a willingness to resolve this issue. Whilst the loss of Parklands is no doubt perceived as a blow by many, I believe the governments compensation of $10 million will provide the code with an opportunity to develop a new racing facility.

The shortlist of the Director Candidates will remain the same as the one distributed on 3 August 2009 and all of those shortlisted will be eligible to be elected as the Preferred Candidate. In effect, the process will simply recommence from that point.
As this is the first time that GQL has undertaken the complicated director selection process it is extremely important for GQL and its Members to have certainty regarding the process to be followed so as to ensure that any incoming director is validly appointed. GQL has been provided with detailed advice regarding the exact steps that must be undertaken in the appointment of a Preferred Candidate under the Constitution and details of these procedures has been prepared by the legal advisors and have been provided to all GQL Class A and B members, from now on, the director selection process will occur correctly and efficiently.

Darren Beavis
General Manager/Company Secretary

You should note that class A members had not been given due notice of this selection committee meeting, and to discuss with their members a prefered candidate. As per GQL constitution and the roles of a class A delegate. Those who were in attendance were obviously locals and those who werent, not sure if by proxy or other form.

One board member had no knowledge of the meeting agenda when asked earlier in the day who he would be voting for. And prior to the vote stated if JT is not voted in the class B members will elect him onto the board anyway. I think they best read their constitution again re the selection committee and the director selection process. We dont want another balls up and public appology.