HAS Queensland Racing chairman Bob Bentley put the gun at the head of the Board of the Gold Coast Turf Club or do they deserve to have more information on the plans for the redevelopment of their complex before being forced to meet with QRL?

From the latest letter sent by Bentley to GCTC chairman, Andrew Eggleston, it appears that QRL is planning to side-step the Board and work up a proposal in consultation with other stakeholders.

This web-site has been inundated with e-mails claiming that these are ‘bully boy tactics’ by Bentley whilst others insist that there is a growing need for the GCTC to meet with QRL amid concerning rumors circulating about club finances.

Here is the letter sent by QRL chairman Bentley to GCTC chairman Eggleston on March 11:

Dear Andrew

I am in receipt of your letter dated March 9, 2010, advising of your Board’s unanimous decision to meet with Queensland Racing Limited (QRL), but only on your self-imposed conditions. Firstly, in respect of the decision being unanimous, it is understood that this was not the case and it is improper for you to claim otherwise.

This decision of the GCTC Board is irrational and is completely void of any commercial foresight. QRL has, on numerous occasions, sought a meeting with your Board to discuss the matter in an open and transparent manner. You have consistently refused to facilitate a meeting on the basis that you want questions answered before you received a presentation. As a result of your lack of preparedness to meet with QRL, unless we meet your pre-meeting conditions, you are advised that QRL will not continue to pursue a meeting with you and will work up a proposal in consultation with other stakeholders, who have an interest in being informed so that they can form a view as to QRL’s proposal. The future of racing on the Gold Coast should not be risked or delayed by the unrealistic demands of your Board. You are fully aware of our commitment to improve facilities at Bundall for those who hold a stake and we will work towards achieving this outcome with those who truly have industry interests top of mind.

It is indeed disappointing that the board of the GCTC continue to display intransient behavior in refusing to consider a meeting with QRL without pre-determined conditions. These actions by the board of the GCTC are both foolhardy and put at risk the Queensland industry’s most successful race meeting and also the Gold Coast’s premier tourist event, namely the Magic Millions.

I note that you continue to claim the GCTC is close to sealing a five year deal. This in fact is both false and misleading. There is no deal being agreed by Magic Millions for the 2012 year and certainly there is no possibility at this stage of the GCTC being capable of signing a five year deal. I quote Lucy Ardern of the Gold Coast Bulletin on March 4 2010, “Mr Eggleston said he was not worried about the Magic Millions leaving the Gold Coast with the Turf Club close to sealing a five-year deal on the event.”

QRL has continuously, since January 2010, been in contact with Queensland Events and the Magic Millions Company on the future of the Gold Coat Magic Millions Carnival. All parties are frustrated with the lack of commerciality being displayed by your board and the longer the impasse continues the less likely the Magic Millions carnival with be a fixture on the Gold Coast. Whilst this does not appear to be a concern of yours it certainly is to the Queensland industry.

I do not back away from the statement in my letter to Mr Brian Fletcher dated January 27, 2010, as quoted and reprinted in your letter.

that there is an initial principle that needs to be agreed from the outset in terms of an investment by QRL in the Bundall facility…….

…….QRL’s position is that the equity held in either a Trust or company be based around the value of the Bundall complex as a racing facility and the dollar equivalent of the investment made by QRL in the Bundall facility. This is a foundation principle that needs to be resolved.

The situation cannot be resolved unless your board is prepared to discuss all proposals with an open mind. You have clearly set out that you are not prepared to meet unless QRL meets your pre-meeting conditions. The time for rejection of a proposal is following discussion, not before. The proposal for the upgrade of Bundall may well be to your members’ advantage, both in a practical and financial sense, yet you give the impression in your correspondence that your board has a fear of the future and progress.

The upgrade is not solely for the members of the GCTC although they will be the major beneficiaries; this is an industry project that will benefit all stakeholders. The fact that you are asking for ‘finance arrangements’ is evidence that your board does not understand the basis of the proposal for discussion, yet are imposing conditions. The financial management of the industry and the GCTC, under your board’s stewardship, will come under scrutiny at year’s end, and from a preliminary appraisal of the club’s finances, it would seem that any proposal to help the GCTC’s future should be at least investigated.

The questions you seek to have answered prior to a meeting may not be relevant as we seek to resolve the issues to arrive at a quality outcome for the Bundall facility, and the club members. This upgrade can take many forms and QRL does not have a fixation on any one particular model.

At an appropriate time in the future, we will update you in respect of our progress.

Yours sincerely

R G BENTLEY, Chairman QRL.