However, thats all trumped now by the quest for a new Chair of Greyhounds Australasia. A brief obviously prepared by some public service mandarin describes what the position needs. In four and a bit pages it lists 2 authority levels, 21 responsibilities, 11 key relationships (that means who you talk to), 13 essential selection criteria, 4 desirable selection criteria, and 12 key performance indicators. All that will be up for grabs after six months in a performance review a little daunting for a three year part-time appointment.

Of those two Authority Levels, one isnt its just a warning that the position has no control over any of the states. The other is to speak on behalf of GA, which itself has virtually no authority anyway. All authority rests with the individual states. Even then, the Chair can speak only on matters approved by the GA board.

The lucky winner will be providing mentoring, leadership and direction to GA staff even though he does not have to perform duties at the (Sandown office) location nor reside in Victoria. Ah, the wonders of the internet and Skype!

Experience leading a board in the not-for-profit sector will be well regarded, which is consistent with the fact that GA has voted itself no power whatever over commercial matters. Once again, the states do that.

Also important is to understand the challenges and opportunities of greyhound racing despite coming from the not-for-profit area and having no jurisdiction over events which dictate whether racing makes a dollar. The mind boggles!

However, he must be competent in the use of Microsoft programs. Wow! No doubt this will help with GAs main task, which is to process paperwork, get your picture taken with Grey2K representatives, prepare misleading confidential memos which will immediately be passed on to the McHugh Commission and others, call for a one third reduction in industry activity, and hire expensive consultants to work out how many races each state should run (forgotten that one, had you?).

The odd thing about that list of jobs is that GA claims it has to facilitate a uniform and responsive process that maximises returns to the greyhound industry. Yet those items are plainly outside its own charter of enhancing only welfare and integrity. That will surely confuse the new appointee, as much as it does all of us.

Incidentally, Racing Australia (thoroughbreds) manages to get by without hiring an outside chairman. It simply rotates the job amongst the state chiefs. Much cheaper.

Full details are on the GA or GRV websites.

I must say the staff there are very good and over the years i have dealt with them registering Stud dogs and semen i have had nothing but help and good advice from all of them and they do a very good job .

I also believe that GA is a waste of our money and with the amount of staff at the GRV these days you would think they could handle the job ..

GA is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, where the members are the state bodies plus NZ. The board of directors is a body of appointed representatives of each member.

The Board responsibilities are to jointly oversee the activities of the company, as determined by the powers, duties, and responsibilities conferred under the Constitution and in accordance with the Corporations Act. including establishing policies for corporate management and making decisions on major company issues.

The CEO is ultimately responsible for all day-to-day management decisions and for implementing the Company's long and short term plans set by the Board. The CEO acts as a direct liaison between the Board and management of the Company and communicates to the Board on behalf of management.

The chair holds the most power and authority on the board of directors and provides guidance to the Board. The chair of the board ensures that duties to members are being fulfilled by acting as a link between the board and the CEO.

That said, what does it really mean?

It should mean that the Chairman manages all Board meetings, provides guidance to all Directors appointed by State bodies in respect of meeting the objectives of GA, and liaises with the CEO & sub-committees to ensure that Board decisions are enacted.

There are areas that do warrant a uniform national approach rather than a fragmented State approach. The greyhound export issue and public syndication (governed by the Corporations Act) spring to mind. There are no State competencies in these areas. And in respect of the latter, it would be useful for State regulators to get some assurance that there is industry compliance with federal laws in this area.

There are also opportunities to take advantage of economies of scale and simultaneously ensure national consistency - if the GA Board is so inclined to consider them.

But agreement is always going to be an issue. As an example, when GRNSW mandates water in racing kennels, and all other states mandate none, we have diametrically opposing views on animal welfare.

But wouldn't it be logical to avoid such ludicrous situations?

A drawback of the rotation system are that most Board members lack the skillset required of a Chair, whereas an independent Chair might provide more impartial guidance (and God forbid, even some real industry experience).

Your theory is all very fine, if not necessarily practical.

The key issue is that GA is a farcical concept from every possible angle. It has no authority of any consequence. It makes no decisions - only recommendations. It acts in secret. It is answerable only to its own members. Its competence is questionable. Even its rules are a waste of space - ie "state rules will take precedence over national rules".

Classically, the switch from a brown to a green rug was "approved" by GA but then each state went home and asked its stewards to conduct an investigation into the pros and cons. Why stewards, you might ask? Are they colour experts? No way. What was wrong with the initial investigation? But, in total it took over nine months for the change to filter through the system, one state at a time. And this was in an area where, nominally, GA held sway.

Any prospect of modernisation falls foul of chest thumping and jealousy amongst individual states. Statesmen are needed but not encouraged. For example, even a brilliant and highly experienced Chair still has to preside over a motley mix of players, each of which has the power to take his bat and ball and go home - and often does. What sort of person would take a job like that?

I mentioned elsewhere that one answer to the wagering mess now in place was to create a national body to control the lot. That obviously requires the states to cede authority to the new body, as has occurred in other fields and as was recommended by the Productivity Commission. The same principle should apply to the management of the industry at large.

Fanciful? Perhaps, but it is what all other major sports have done. Never perfect, but much better. Only racing remains in the dark ages.

(PS: Your plea for a Chair with "some real industry experience" is effectively impossible if the person is to conform to most of the other requirements).

The risk is that someone gets the chair role for the wrong reasons or motives, and just goes with the flow.

Exactly. But what is often not realised or accepted is that the entire industry is bound to the "goes with the flow" syndrome - whether club, association, state or GA.

Naturally enough, it's genesis is in the animal kingdom where the Alpha male runs the show, periodically beating off challengers to the kingdom and thereby getting all the girls.

Check around and see how often effective control is in the hands of a single person - whether chairman, board member, CEO or someone else - who sets the stage and the culture. In such an environment the force of the bureaucracy then becomes dominant. That may occur directly or by its support of the Alpha male.

Personnel changes have little influence as newcomers also have to "go with the flow" or be sidelined. Indeed, such changes can have the opposite effect as the newcomer does not know what skeletons are in the closet and must rely on the advice of the incumbent bureaucracy. Witness the wholesale games of musical chairs played out in the three eastern states since 2015 - but to what end?

The missing element is accountability - for what, to whom and how measured? Nobody knows. Clubs can't be responsible as they get told when to race and what they can spend on prize money or maintenance. Associations quickly get absorbed into the mainstream push, thereby becoming part of the problem. State authorities will kowtow to governments which, in turn, react only to what the headlines of the day dictate. Ministers keep saying they are at arm's length from the racing authority - until it suits them to poke their noses in. Besides, they effectively control all the finances that matter.

In that environment, greyhound racing has created a national body which has little or no power in order to do not much (names and stud book excepted). But it wants it to be run well, whether from a holiday house in Noosa, a fishing hut in Tassie or a mansion in Toorak. Frankly, it does not matter because nothing much will change anyway. The flow will continue. Guarantee it.

Of course, you could chuck out the lot and start again with a modern, sophisticated, independent and all-powerful corporate entity returning many more millions to the players, the public and the Treasury. Maybe next year?