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.
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.
Do you have a question about betting, totes, odds or recent racing result Then this is the place to ask them.
Bite the bullet...LET'S GO TO COURT
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 17 Feb 2017 06:35
(0)
(0)
I've just had a "Brain-Wave", or is it a "Hair-Brain"....Read on please.
Could we entice a party (or maybe a Lawyer who has the BALLS) with the following deal (or similar), regarding the "Intercode Agreement".
If a certain party, funded a court case to challenge the current "Intercode Agreement", AND WON....And the Greyhounds were awarded their yearly % which is $30,000,000 every year (I believe), then we would honour the following deal.
We would obviously pay for all the court costs accumulated over that period (maybe a million or 2).... PLUS as an incentive (a carrot) award that winning party $1,000,000 every year over the next 5 years, when the distribution of the funding is lodged.
If the party was to lose the court case, then they wear the bill.
Is this idea worth chasing....or is it a "Pie in the Sky" hair brain?
We've got nothing to lose accept $30,000,000 every year.
Opinions !!!!!!!
PS...Don't forget to place your WPK tips (Tipping Comp) ;-)
Ian Bradshaw Australia (Verified User) Posts 251 Dogs 6 / Races 0 17 Feb 2017 08:13
(0)
(0)
Good idea Steve!
But let's make it simpler.. find one of those "ambulance chasing" No win/No fee law firms, to take on the case.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 17 Feb 2017 10:04
(0)
(0)
ian bradshaw wrote:
Good idea Steve!
But let's make it simpler.. find one of those "ambulance chasing" No win/No fee law firms, to take on the case.
Hi Ian....I just think it's a "Win / Win".
Sure the party involve has to put the hard yards in & $$$$, but if the carrot for putting their hand up is big enough....why wouldn't you have a go.
Make the carrot for the brave, HALF of the first years 30 gees if need be.
Who cares what it cost....as where receiving ZERO of that amount now.
I reckon the idea it's worth consideration for the right 'Firm' that has the skills to bring this case to reality.
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4497 Dogs 70 / Races 14 17 Feb 2017 12:57
(0)
(0)
Can't see why the Alliance / GBOTA don't run with it ??? They already have a team of Lawyer's on the Payroll, then again it was the leader of the Alliance / GBOTA who signed off on the I.C.A.
Mick Thompson Australia (Verified User) Posts 634 Dogs 15 / Races 8 17 Feb 2017 18:13
(0)
(0)
Great idea Steve even if we gave who ever took it on & won we could even give them a Bonus payment of 1 mil for winning & we would still be 29mil better off. I do think all would agree we need to take the Horse industry on & Fight & Fight FKN HARD to get back what we deserve which is OUR FAIR SHARE.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 17 Feb 2017 19:57
(0)
(0)
Hi Mick....You'd only get ONE crack at this scenario so you need to encourage the BEST in the land.
ONE million won't cut it.
You need to offer BIG to get the best.
We've got nothing to lose.
Greg Russell Australia (Verified User) Posts 107 Dogs 0 / Races 0 17 Feb 2017 21:45
(0)
(0)
While it's a good idea I think the vested interests will ensure that any legal action on this front will be a long and tortuous road with a very uncertain outcome given the money and influence involved behind the scenes.
I think a political solution has to be tried first and the NSW Premier must now acknowledge that the focus on welfare has to be supported by the funding as outlined in the Iemma report. That is, that the new structure and welfare requirements are wholly contingent on gaining a fair share of funding from equivalent turnover. To continue to ignore this obvious and fair approach will continue to compromise welfare in the eyes of the Govt and others. This goes to the core of the issue that has been festering in NSW and the Govt must now intervene if it is truly concerned and focussed on improving welfare and supporting the sport. Other racing codes have had their day, it's now time to get serious about greyhound facilities, management and welfare and it starts with Govt leadership and GRNSW leadership with significant consultation and involvement from all participants esp. at the grass roots level.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 17 Feb 2017 22:10
(0)
(0)
Greg, well written. . Not only is it outlined in the Iemma Report, it has been our focus for 3-5 years now, but it's at the forefront of our argument and can't and won't be ignored. As I wrote on another thread, we should make it an election issue. . Perhaps the three major steps in the process of changing the inter-code agreement. 1. Consult with the other two codes; 2. If the first didn't work, formally ask the NSW Gov't to change it; and if they don't or won't, 3. Take it to Court.
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 17 Feb 2017 22:26
(0)
(0)
All good comments & agree....... But don't forget the Intercode agreement was also mentioned in the shonky "Magoo Report", & the only air-play that got was on 2GB & friends.
But since this thread is specifically about an idea....would that idea be worth pursuing should ALL else fail?
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 17 Feb 2017 22:48
(0)
(0)
Yes Steve. It was mentioned in the Parliamentary Enquiry two years before. . If I were the Judge, I'd ask the Plaintiff, if he/she had asked the other two codes about changing the ICA and received an unfavourable response, and the second thing I'd asked would be; correspondence from the Gov't indicated that they had no intention of changing it either. . The argument would have to be that it's a restriction of trade or some other reason that I'm really not sure of. First appointment is free ? I guess it would have to be associated with corporate or constitutional law.
Johnathon Campbell Australia (Verified User) Posts 4635 Dogs 5 / Races 2 17 Feb 2017 23:24
(0)
(0)
I'll represent you Steve for say one million a year for 15 years.
Mark Staines Australia (Verified User) Posts 4497 Dogs 70 / Races 14 18 Feb 2017 00:29
(0)
(0)
Johnathon campbell wrote:
I'll represent you Steve for say one million a year for 15 years.
It cost's a lot of $$$ to be a Thoroughbred Breeder lol.
Mark Donohue Australia (Verified User) Posts 3236 Dogs 6 / Races 0 18 Feb 2017 00:43
(0)
(0)
It was 'nice' that the T'Bred Industry received something like $240 million from the Govt (Grant) last year or the year before, to help their industry because they allegedly attracted people to NSW. Did they receive monies from the tax disparity as well ? Remember, they wanted to close down our industry so we got diddly squat ! Now, Foley is hesitant to change the ICA.
Rob Ingram Australia (Verified User) Posts 287 Dogs 13 / Races 0 18 Feb 2017 00:54
(0)
(0)
Steve good idea but could I make another suggestion. Could we not lobby the government to leave the ica as is but then change the tax parity so we get our fair share there but they could give us overs to cover what we are losing through the ica. Example we should get 15 mill in tax parity but they could give us an extra 20-30 mill and take this from the gee gee share. When the horse racing industry complain the government then say OK revisit the ica.
The government may just be the solution because they need greyhounds to disappear if they want any chance at the next election
Michael Geraghty Australia (Verified User) Posts 4138 Dogs 14 / Races 15 18 Feb 2017 01:20
(0)
(0)
Greg Russell wrote:
While it's a good idea I think the vested interests will ensure that any legal action on this front will be a long and tortuous road with a very uncertain outcome given the money and influence involved behind the scenes.
I think a political solution has to be tried first and the NSW Premier must now acknowledge that the focus on welfare has to be supported by the funding as outlined in the Iemma report. That is, that the new structure and welfare requirements are wholly contingent on gaining a fair share of funding from equivalent turnover. To continue to ignore this obvious and fair approach will continue to compromise welfare in the eyes of the Govt and others. This goes to the core of the issue that has been festering in NSW and the Govt must now intervene if it is truly concerned and focussed on improving welfare and supporting the sport. Other racing codes have had their day, it's now time to get serious about greyhound facilities, management and welfare and it starts with Govt leadership and GRNSW leadership with significant consultation and involvement from all participants esp. at the grass roots level.
I think you are spot on, Greg.
Rob Ingram..."Steve good idea but could I make another suggestion. Could we not lobby the government to leave the ica as is but then change the tax parity so we get our fair share there but they could give us overs to cover what we are losing through the ica. Example we should get 15 mill in tax parity but they could give us an extra 20-30 mill and take this from the gee gee share. When the horse racing industry complain the government then say OK revisit the ica. The government may just be the solution because they need greyhounds to disappear if they want any chance at the next election."
This fits in well with Greg's post...nice idea, Rob.
Steve, Legals are always messy, drawn out, and costly. I really believe that with Lemma's report there is a spark of hope but it needs to be capitalised on NOW and there needs to be pressure applied to change the ICA NOW! Having said that, I also like your idea and there is nothing in the rule book that says a one pronged attack is the only way. What is stopping a group from exploring your idea and seeking advice and if there is a genuine chance of success, use it in conjunction with putting pressure on the Govt?
Mick Thompson Australia (Verified User) Posts 634 Dogs 15 / Races 8 18 Feb 2017 01:25
(0)
(0)
Im saying give them a Bonus of a mill if they WIN the case not a Mill to fight it i know it would cost more than that for the best.
Rob Horne Australia (Verified User) Posts 522 Dogs 1 / Races 3 18 Feb 2017 03:32
(0)
(0)
Which Act outlines the revenue split?
Steven Martin Australia (Verified User) Posts 7681 Dogs 180 / Races 66 18 Feb 2017 07:45
(0)
(0)
Michael Geraghty wrote:
What is stopping a group from exploring your idea and seeking advice and if there is a genuine chance of success, use it in conjunction with putting pressure on the Govt?
Exactly Michael......The more we can add to our defence, the stronger our stance.
Mick Whyte Australia (Verified User) Posts 1109 Dogs 23 / Races 3 18 Feb 2017 09:06
(0)
(0)
Nothing wrong with this idea in my eyes, we will need our fair share of the Tab % if we are going to flourish in the future.
Dan Hollywood Australia (Verified User) Posts 4166 Dogs 3 / Races 3 18 Feb 2017 09:55
(0)
(0)
Mark Donohue wrote:
It was 'nice' that the T'Bred Industry received something like $240 million from the Govt (Grant) last year or the year before, to help their industry because they allegedly attracted people to NSW. Did they receive monies from the tax disparity as well ? Remember, they wanted to close down our industry so we got diddly squat ! Now, Foley is hesitant to change the ICA.
Racing Minister Paul Toole said it would be highly unusual for parliament to intervene in a commercial agreement.
Labor said it was up to the racing codes to renegotiate, but did not say if it would support legislation to force changes if negotiation was unsuccessful.
Do you have a question about betting, totes, odds or recent racing result
