Irish income has fallen dramatically over the last several years as punters found other outlets to patronise.

English owners and trainers reckon it is impossible to make a quid due to reduced prize money.

American tracks have rarely ever been profitable and those remaining are now totally dependent on subsidies from associated casinos.

Happily, the Australian business model has long been a sound one, primarily due to lots of races and a reliable wagering structure.

But that's history. Race numbers are holding up for the moment but empty boxes are more common, thereby threatening exotic betting. Wagering integrity has been destroyed by the fragmentation caused by multiple corporate "bookies" - and the resultant drop in TAB turnover. Prices are worse and more volatile while the corporates generally return less commission to the industry than TABs.

In parallel, unit costs are on the rise as more stringent regulations affect participants and more bodies appear at administration offices.

That's a squeeze play that demands lots of attention to finding fresh customers. I can't see anywhere that is happening. GAP programs - where they exist - are nice but are not designed to do that job so we cannot expect them to be revenue raisers.

It's about time we went out to flog the product.

Hope to see a few more come your way Bruce ...

Impressive Bruce no Dislikes ...

How do you get the PTB to go on a promotional blitz to the masses?
I don't think you can while they still have damage control attitude and hell bent on restricting growth.

The reason why there are no "dislikes/disagrees" Kevvy, is because for once old mate Bruce has decided to write a positive and constructive post...therefore positive response.

About bloody time, Brucey!
Keep it up old chap, good to see.
Don't know how long it will last, but...

"How do you get the PTB to go on a promotional blitz to the masses?"

Racing administrations are bureaucracies overseen by a managing committee. Neither are accountable in the normal sense of the word. Government auditors simply check the additions, not the successful use of the funds. Examples are plentiful but try the millions spent on tracks without achieving any improvements - Dapto, Richmond, Casino, Bathurst, etc etc.

By definition, bureaucracies are geared to process paper, not to create fresh opportunities for the business. Your "damage control" comment is correct, which is why welfare and live baiting moves came only after the event. A good business anticipates "damage" and has a plan to address it before it becomes a cancer.

A better example is that AFL and ARL (whatever their other shortcomings) got stuck into the need to better cater for females and families. Cricket opened up a whole new world of fans, especially kids, with T20 games and all the hoopla that goes with that. V8s have virtually disappeared off the scene (although GM and Ford nearly went broke before they woke up) to be replaced by smarter performing and better equipped small cars which the public love.

Greyhound racing has made only one substantive change since the 1950s and that is to switch from grass to loam - but then they frequently stuffed that up because they are concerned only with process, not outcomes.

The direct answer to your question is to turn racing administrations into lively, transparent and accountable commercial corporations where failure to achieve progress means sackings. There is simply no other option - that's how the rest of the world exists.

PS: All my posts contain positive suggestions. Whether you agree or not is a different subject. However, it is hard to talk positively about an industry where most things are done badly.

**Stare**

Now Brucey: Like Banks, Health Ins, Supermarkets etc When you become Highly Successful as the aforementioned. So does the SALARIES. You Brucey could become head of the Commonwealth Bank and make huge profits. Licence to print money it's called. Dosen't mean you have the Best, most suitable Candidate.
Brucey: We Greyhound Racing will never climb of the canvass under Political interferences & a unhealthy protection at all costs to wards the Thoroughbreds.

PS. Loved your last jibe Brucey! Quote: All my posts contain positive suggestions. WHEATHER YOU AGREE OR NOT! Classic!
Brucey YOU CAN COMMENT ON ANYTHING GREYHOUND RACING! FREELY! As NONE of it EFFECTS you in anyway. Dont: Train, Dont: Breed, Dont: Rear, Dont: Participate. WE on the other hand Brucey can be CHARGED with bringing the Sport into Disrepute with our comments.
Keep swinging Freely Brucey. 1 last thing Brucey, are you on a retainer from RSPCA, ANIMAL RIGHTS AUST, GREENS etc? To keep mentioning 'LB" It's becoming monotonous and boring Brucey.

This thread is about incomes. As you have noting to contribute, silence would be the best policy.l

Do you have any evidence of your assertions - most of which are way off topic?

And ignore history at your peril.

PS We are all subject to defamation actions. They could be much more costly than being flayed with a lettuce leaf by GRNSW.

"Do you have a problem with Corporates Brucey?"

Yes, as I have explained many times. Funny thing, originally I welcomed them as they had the effect of stirring up a moribund wagering sector. I also opposed the abuse they got from V'Landys and company. In the end, he was right (but for the wrong reasons) and I was wrong. They are neither totes nor bookmakers but simply financial manipulators. That's well illustrated by the fact that Crownbet is now under the spell of a Canadian outfit whose sole purpose in life is online gambling - poker etc. Would not have a clue about racing.

Ladbrokes are not "doing more" anyway - you are. It's their customers that are paying for those "donations".

But I would wear all that, were it not for the fact that they have effectively destroyed the integrity of the wagering market. Pricing is now a farce. Rip-offs are normal due to their prices and punitive conditions and rules. No sensible punter can participate any more.

I agree with much of what you have just said.

Some differences, though. Selling off TABs did have problems, largely because they chose the highest bidder, and those bidders paid more because they got offered lots of protection against bookmaker competition (oncourse only at that time).

But never did they "encourage" the corporates. Quite the opposite - they opposed them, spurred on by TABs and gallops organisations who liked the higher commissions from TABs - and partly also due to opposition to Betfair and "betting to lose".

Indeed, it was the TAB-inspired barriers to bookmaker operations that caused the original move to the NT (by Sydney bookie Mark Read). Others followed suit - from Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Stage 2 came about when those bookies had made their millions and sold out to pommies who had long experience dealing with UK rules and who had therefore decamped to Spain and Malta.

By this time, these corporates were playing nice guys and succeeded in getting southern state governments and their respective codes to accept commissions much lower than the TABs were legally bound to. For the life of me I cannot work out why that happened in that way. All that was in exchange for legal access to the field lists. (IT technology allowed interstate entities to take bets from local punters but it also allowed local authorities to torpedo any access to field lists).

But none of those southern governments wanted to, or were able to, negotiate the conditions the corporates applied to betting. Hence the use of restrictions on winners' accounts, amounts bet and payout rules. Only the NT could have managed that but chose not to.

Essentially, the corporates were able to work with minimal expenses and bung rules. The huge cost differences between them and the TABs enabled the corporates to start offering sign-on bonuses as well as incentives or naming rights to clubs.

Those sign-on deals are once only, don't forget.

Re "Tote prices are not being updated continually and Punters are feeling ripped of" - Totes update according to a defined process which is a function of the time available prior to jump. It might starts at a minute and end up at 15 sec. The volatility is a function on late betting by dog punters and small pool sizes - all affected by running races and meetings close together.

I don't have a problem with the principle of a consumption tax (as in SA) but the twits decided to base it on the corporates' surpluses rather than on turnover. Heaven knows why. So a bad (losing) bookie will pay nothing. RV went down that road until RNSW demonstrated they were losing millions by using that option (see High Court case).

Anyway, some of the corporates are not making profits and considering getting out - too much competition? But none of them act like bookmakers. They are simply financial manipulators, like money changers in a side street.

Either way, the system is now out of control because a substantial part of the market is virtually unregulated. TABCORP/Tatts merger will help a bit by raising pool sizes but it will not fix the problem. Only national controls can do that - providing NT agrees.