You must be hard of hearing so I will have to repeat myself.

After first congratulating you on your initiative I later saw more detail about your plans. Consequently, I have then said I do not agree with your methodology. And I have explained why.

Badgering and abuse is rarely productive. This is supposed to be a discussion site, not a Dale Carnegie chapter.

Grant,

Your variable attitude is very confusing.

As I understand it, you want to put together a number of suggestions for change and send them to GRNSW. Fine and dandy, but I am pessimistic about the outcome on the ground that 75 years of history has shown it achieves little or nothing. "Tin ears" is the popular expression.

Hence my advice that I would not be bothering to contribute. I have been there and done that many times.

Additionally, you might note that everybody's hero, Robert Borsak, chaired a Parliamentary Inquiry which came up with a number of good points, all of which went nowhere. It's a rocky road, even for the skilled.

Alternatively, I suggested that the case has to be put to Minister/Government as that is where the real decisions are made. In which case I could contribute, albeit it would need a few thousand supporters to go with it (plus Borsak).

In short, you disband GRNSW and replace it with an independent group which is commercially structured and oriented and answerable to the industry and the public, not to the Minister.

There are a lot of possible options under that heading and it might well attract opponents from all the fuddy-duddies who are running the three codes of racing at the moment - all of which are losing ground as we speak.

However, I repeat, that is what all other major sporting organisations are doing, or have done, some dragged kicking and screaming to the altar. They include those with billion dollar TV contracts whereas greyhound racing actually has to pay to get SKY coverage!

We are being conned by short-sighted state Treasurers desperate to get their hands on cash by whatever methods and by the big gallops clubs (otherwise known as the Big End of town) which want to preserve the status quo, including their chardonnay lunches. The fact that they have made poor long term decisions seems not to matter.

Government's job is not to run businesses but to ensure laws are followed and to tax activity as justified.

So, where are we?

Breeding in every code is in decline. Betting is flat or in decline. Mugs in pubs dominate the market. Gambling market share has been falling for 25 years. Greyhound admin costs climb remorselessly while prize money goes in the opposite direction, as does the quantity of regulation. Efficiency is not in the vocabulary.

These trends are cancerous and can only grow under the present system. So change the system.

* * *

Fears are voiced that more commercialisation would radically reduce the number of clubs/tracks. Perhaps so, but already GRNSW has been investigating such plans for a few years - even warning the McHugh Commission of the likelihood. In any event, there are a number of ways of skinning the cat and it is a highly political subject. More discussion and review is warranted but it does not of itself preclude a major change in industry structure and governance.

* * *

I would value the views of trainers on a number of matters but never on long term strategic planning. Rarely would they have the experience, the background or the knowledge to contribute. We all have different strengths, which is why you would never ask me for training advice. If you have a broken leg you do not call a plumber.

* * *

Bob - please delete your last post; it belongs in the Neds thread.

Re "If private enterprise was running greyhound racing in NSW, it would be out of business by now, unless the razor gang was let loose. Are the PTB persisting with an outdated business model?? The corner stores are gone, banks are shutting branches, telephone boxes are disappearing, and so on and so on, times change.
Bruce, the PTB that you hope will save the day, need to move with the times".

First of all, on the contrary, I have no hope that PTB (ie state authorities) will save the day. Quite the opposite.

Second, I doubt that the PTB have a business model.

Third, the private enterprise question is too big to handle quickly here but it does warrant a look into the possible options, which are many and varied.

For example, I once wrote (in the QRA Journal) that a good exercise would be to imagine what might be done about some clubs if Murdoch or Packer were in charge. That envisaged that tests could be mounted to assess which were worthwhile and which were not, and why.

The key here is that greyhound racing (which involves a lot of elements) is inherently a good income generator and popular with many of the public. Therefore, the real question is how to best put all the pieces together to ensure profitability and sufficient rewards for the players as well as sustaining the breed.

Rugby League was formed because Union players could not manage family life after suffering injuries. Even more recently, players had a "proper" job and trained after finishing work (working for the Police was a help). Now, clubs are even more conscious of the need to ensure full-time players pay attention to future career possibilities, whether age or injury enforced. These are all huge structural changes in the same code.

Why should greyhound racing be any different?

As prompted indirectly by Ian, it seems a good idea to canvass the question of private enterprise being involved in greyhound racing. Even if the idea proves unworkable, it at least offers a comparison for the current system.

Leaving aside breeding for the moment, there are two levels of the industry warranting examination the club and the state authority.

For clubs, two approaches are possible

1. A complete takeover (sale) of each or several or all tracks by an investor, or
2. NFP (not-for-profit) Clubs to retain control of the actual racing for a fee - with an investor owning and running the business.

As an aside, to maintain and develop a dog track, heres a hint. First find a suitable working operation and stick a dog track in the middle of it. Dont try dog racing on its own.

Equally, states might be run by .

3. An investor owning and controlling the lot, or
4. An NFP or private corporation owned by and responsible to its members and/or the public.

Under any of these combinations, the sport would be bound to follow the laws of the land but would also be subject to its own operating rules.

Mechanical hare racing was launched in Australia by an American, Judge Roy Swindell, in 1927 at what became Harold Park. It was quickly followed by four ventures in the Hunter region by December of that year (two at Newcastle and one each at Maitland and Cessnock). All were essentially private ventures but were overtaken by the 1931 Royal Commission which required that NFP clubs were put in charge.

Victoria used various combinations of the above up to the 1950s, after which only NFP clubs were permitted and the government then appointed over-arching state boards. Other states, which started later, always went down the NFP Club road with strong government oversight.

Horse racing had a roughly comparable, albeit mixed, history until it evolved into the pattern you see today.

Government interest was heightened in the 1930s when the oncourse-only totalisators were taxed, later followed by the offcourse TABs from the 1960s. The 1990s heralded the arrival of NT-based online bookies and SKY pictures, both of which caused consternation but also some once-off stimulation of betting turnover.

Today you are looking at a racing industry which is heavily influenced or controlled (take your pick) by TABCORP (which includes SKY) and, to a lesser but growing extent, by the NT bookies group. They decide the pecking order while clubs and state authorities gobble up whats left over. (Note: the clubs actually gave away their controlling rights for a few pieces of silver at the time TABs were privatised).

Unlike some sporting codes particularly AFL all racing is now financially dependent on state populations rather than the worth of the product (albeit one leads to the other). Bad luck for the small states.

Finally, more and more often, the rewards are going to greyhound bureaucracies in each state, all of which are growing in size and complexity and are more costly but which have first dip into the cookie jar. Product providers owners and trainers get the leftovers. This is the heritage of government-controlled ventures. Nobody has the faintest idea of what is fair and what isnt. No referees are present.

Indeed, surely that is the nub of the problem. If organisations cannot be held to account, how can their performance be judged?

State authorities are audited but clearly those efforts do no more than count what is in the till. They do not (and maybe cannot) measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation. Theoretically, the Minister should assess their performance and has the hire and fire weapon to use.

Ministers did dump three lots after live baiting inquiries, installing new board members and effectively demanding CEO resignations. But has anything changed for the better? It appears not, judging by subsequent performances. Victoria weakly allowed the department looking after household pets to call the tune on greyhound kennels and related matters. Queensland increased numbers on a joint board but allowed only one member to come from the greyhound code. NSW, still with the impetus generated by the disgraced Baird/Grant combine, forced through a tougher set of rules for trainers and others and put a former politician in charge of GRNSW. Future costs will be greater as Integrity was hived off to what is no more than a pseudo government department (GWIC), albeit a remotely located one.

The industry has long since run out of dogs a problem exacerbated by live baiting sagas but more accurately just part of a long term trend. Race quality is therefore degraded. Finances are sustained by mugs in pubs.

I could go on but suffice to say that the industry is going nowhere and major reform is the only hope of renewal and growth.

Essentially, I suggest that reform must include a profit-making element which is answerable to its constituents. Exactly how this might be done is worth debating but the need for such a change is not. An illness must be treated or death will result.

There are very large political and practical barriers to a change like this. So be it. That will make victory more worthwhile.

As for the industry being privatised, it won't happen.

He has also stated that these 'mugs' roll on the floor laughing everytime a dog falls in a race.
The man is writing from inside a bubble.

Graeme,

I make it a practice not to tell trainers how to train their dogs. I am not competent to do that. One the other hand, I do spend 24/7 time analysing performance and betting (or I used to). I suspect you have neither the time or the resources to do that.

For your information, mugs in pubs, encouraged by TABs and new products, have served to destroy the odds for Trifectas and now First Fours. Mystery bets, Next Ups and tipsters advocating boxed Quinellas and Trifectas are the main contributors. Overbetting on Win totes or F/O is a related problem. Small pools make life even more difficult. The outcome is genuine punters run for the nearest exit.

That is a simple arithmetic result - if you can, feel free to do the sums yourself. Incidentally, it often affects the gallops as well although not to the same degree. If you know a pro - ask him.

Yes, the dollar is the same but today there are proportionally many more of them.

Jamie has apparently not been in a TAB outlet when the same mugs let out a roar when a dog cartwheels. I have - often. Some bubble!

Prove it.

BTW I'm retired and was a pretty big greyhound punter ($1000+ per bet) for a while. I have records, including racing results for Olympic Park and Sandown Park, going back to 1979. Now, where were we...

I've worked in TAB outlets Bruce. Does that count?

Simon,

Incorrect. I said I did not agree with his target or methodology so therefore I could not contribute.

Mr.Gallagher, someone disagreed with me.
I'm offended.

Re "For your information, mugs in pubs, encouraged by TABs and new products, have served to destroy the odds for Trifectas and now First Fours.
Prove it.

BTW I'm retired and was a pretty big greyhound punter ($1000+ per bet) for a while. I have records, including racing results for Olympic Park and Sandown Park, going back to 1979. Now, where were we..."

Whatever I say will probably make no difference as you simply reject my statements without showing why. For the last time I will therefore give you an extreme example of a pattern that would be clear to an experienced punter and might help others understand the position.

It concerns the horses Melb Cup won by Americain with fav So You Think in 3rd place. Many once a year fans and little old ladies would have put the fav into their Trifectas, either by choice, or via boxed Trifectas or Mystery Trifectas. That means that in most cases they were effectively going to lose before the race started - ie they were giving horses of different abilities and different prices the same chance in their bet.

From memory, it paid $360 when the true dividend - based on SP for each runner - should have been $680. If a favourite does not win but still runs a place this is the sort of thing that always happens.

In other words, the knowledgeable punter who carefully selects the right combination and order is dudded. Over time, that hurts. The mug pats himself on the back because he has not a clue what the "right" price should be.

I outlined this principle when previously mentioning the added degree of difficulty brought into play by such stuff as disruptive starts or lower standard and unpredictable dogs. Each negative factor raises the cost of doing business.

There is a long term pattern to this. Over many decades my observation is that big betting trainers place top value on the amount a bookie will accept - not on what its price is.

If you don't understand all that - I give up.

You have eyes but you don't use them.

I think it's about time you lost the 'I know everything and greyhound people are stupid' attitude. One of Baird's advisers had the same attitude and got into strife for it.

PS. Why do you assume everyone here is a trainer? I've never been one.