THE WEDNESDAY WHINGE has a new look but won’t be dispensing with the theme and focus on the THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY side of what is happening in racing. The Whinge will continue to provide an opportunity for The Cynics to Have Their Say. Thanks again for your support for the most read column on this website and one of the most read on racing websites in the country. Our popularity continues to grow despite the bagging it cops from some high profile officials, especially in Queensland, who cannot cope with constructive criticism of any kind. We encourage supporters – and critics – to continue to contribute but plan to restrict the Whinge to less than 10 of the best items each week. Our message to those who continually bag us is simple: IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT YOU READ, THEN DON’T REVISIT THE WHINGE.
‘ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYONE AGREES THAT RQ IS THE JOKE OF OZ RACING’ 
EDITOR’S NOTE: I would just like to make a point at the start of this week's column, without appearing to be a smart arse, concerning the current financial woes confronting racing in Queensland.
All of a sudden – after the release of the ‘smokes and mirrors figures’ and the ‘Sustainability Plan’ for the three codes to survive in the future, we have almost every section of the racing industry and many stakeholder groups describing Racing Queensland as the ‘standing joke of Australian racing’.
When letsgohorseracing raised serious issues concerning the future up to a year ago we were bagged mercilessly and accused of negativity. The box-head bloggers went ballistic, the pen pals of former RQ Chairman Kevin Dixon were quick to defend their mate and his Board, how dare we question the terrific 30-year deal they did with the TAB, let alone suggest they should have got a few ‘I’s’ dotted and ‘T’s’ crossed before proceeding with the Eagle Farm redevelopment? Then, of course, we criticized the handout to Gerry Harvey for this farcical $10 million Magic Millions race day when the circus comes to town on the Gold Coast in January while the battlers in the bush struggle to afford a coldie.
We wish we were wrong. All of a sudden we are right. Everyone agrees. The blame game has begun. Come on fellas, how about trying a few answers instead of just joining the train that left the station a year ago and reporting a story that is old news.
SUSTAINABILITY PLAN PAINTS A GLOOMY FUTURE FOR QUEENSLAND RACING 
WE have had so many requests from stakeholders for an explanation of the Sustainability Plan released by Racing Queensland that we asked a highly respected authority (he has no agenda, political or otherwise, but wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) to write a report for us. Here it is:
‘THE chips are down and we now have some clarification of the state of the financial outcomes of the racing industry in Queensland.
It is not a pretty picture going forward.
Sustainability is the key, but on reading the 98 page report one wonders how the policy setting and prizemoney direction will sustain the industry.
Most stakeholders have not bothered to go past the summary or the glossy media releases with comparisons of things past.
The future is what matters. The devil is always in the detail. The study of the full document should be compulsory reading for those who have a serious financial stake in the industry.
The prizemoney on offer for all classes of racing from April 2016 is dependent on the operating performance of Racing Queensland. For the first three months the prizemoney under the plan is a given. The big sleeper however, if the performance does not match predictions, is that it then appears more cuts will be forthcoming.
There seems to be an over emphasis on the ‘kicker’ that when racing returns to Eagle Farm all will be well. There is no doubt there will be a considerable lift in turnover when racing recommences at headquarters, but it will obviously level out as time progresses and the inferior prizemoney has the inevitable effect of the better horses and racing quality migrating south.
The revenue being factored into the Sustainability Plan is, in my opinion, most ambitious. Figures are set out on Page 54. A quick analysis leads one to suspect this key performance figure will be difficult to achieve considering all facts both physical and financial.
Racing revenue return on average from UBET (Tattersall’s) and corporate bookmakers (the lower return on fixed odds) can be averaged out at five cents in the dollar. So to realize revenue return of $3.8 million the industry requires an additional $76 million of turnover to be produced from the 45 meetings scheduled in the plan for Eagle Farm. This equates to a race day increase of $680,000 in turnover per meeting. It should be considered that all 45 meetings will not necessarily be Saturdays as a new track could or should not be subjected to week in week out racing.
It’s a big ask under the current restraints and lower prizemoney with the majority of punters having a clear preference for wagering on Sydney and Melbourne racing. This migration of wagering preference to southern racing comes at an added cost to Racing Queensland not UBET.
Country racing now has a security blanket for four years of $21 million (which was made a big deal of as part of the financial austerity measures implemented by RQ and the Government in the past week).
Does this figure sound familiar? It should. This is a continuation of the wagering tax redirection negotiated by the Bentley Board and – in the opinion of many close observers of racing in Queensland, myself included – squandered by Kevin Dixon (and his Board) on his popularity quest over the last three years.
The Government is contributing nothing. This $21 million is old money redirected – not new funding.
The Sustainability Plan makes reference to integrity but there are no figures of estimated cost as this function reverts to the Government Public Service.
I hope this makes things a little clearer. Unfortunately, however, it is not good news for racing in Queensland moving forward.’
‘BATTLERS PAY PRICE FOR FINANCIAL WOES WHILE GERRY GETS MORE MILLIONS’ 
‘BARRY BONES’, of CAPALABA, a regular contributor on greyhound racing, questions why Magic Millions should profit while battlers have to pay the price for the financial woes confronting Racing Queensland:
‘AS an investor in the Queensland racing industry for some 20 years as an owner I am trying desperately to come to terms with the present situation of this once vibrant industry.
I am perplexed to say the least to see a 20 per cent cut in prize-money. when in most other States their racing industry is booming with prize money increases, new tracks and several on course building projects to better enhance the public’s enjoyment of racing.
I can understand the – for the sake of debate I’ll call it perceived – mismanagement over the past few years by Mr Kevin Dixon and his fellow Board members has led to the year on year losses.
This has resulted in the present CEO, a chartered accountant with no knowledge of racing yet earns a reported $20,000 a week for his racing inexperience, cutting $18 million from prize-money across the board.
So in times of dire financial straits how can the drowning racing industry afford to pay one of Australia’s richest families $5 million a year for the next seven years to fund their own private commercial identity?
I refer of course to the Magic Millions Company owned by Gerry and Kate Harvey. This is a private company and as everyone knows stages the horse sales at Gold Coast, Tasmania and Perth. It also stages race meetings at the same three venues.
I would be certain that a chartered accountant, such as the present RQ CEO Ian Hall would have completed a cost-return analysis prior to committing the racing industry to donate $35 million to the MM Company.
But I am at a loss to see what return the racing industry in Queensland gets from this massive investment while the rest of the industry has to suffer a 20 per cent prize money reduction.
Do we assume that the Harvey’s might be giving a percent of the sales revenue back to the State? Never!
As one of Australia’s richest families and biggest horse owners do we assume that the Harvey’s will be sending the majority of their horses to Queensland to be trained and thereby support the local industry? No!
Could we assume that the Harvey’s might set up a thoroughbred stud in Queensland? They already own three or four in NSW, Victoria and New Zealand. Hardly likely!
Surely the ‘nobs’ at RQ don’t think for one minute that the returns to Queensland racing from the tote turnover on Magic Millions day will justify the $5 million donation. For heaven’s sake it’s a closed race meeting with the only horses eligible to race those that were sold by the Magic Millions Company.
Perhaps there is a kick-back from boosted tourist numbers. Hardly likely when one considers the Magic Millions is smack bang in the middle of the holiday season and the MM sales and races only adds to the already congested Gold Coast precinct. Even if this was a reason surely the $5 million annual donation would come from the tourism portfolio and not racing.
Mr Hall obviously has the reasons behind why he has allowed the Harvey’s to take this $5 million annual handout for the next seven years. It would be refreshing if he could give the racing industry an insight behind his thinking. Especially when he has just announced an $18 million cut back on prize money.
You have to hand it to Gerry Harvey, a brilliant businessman. Who else on this planet could extract $5 million on a seven-year basis from an industry struggling to make ends meet and in dire financial straits?
While the rest of the racing industry throughout Queensland will be eating the paint off the proverbial wall trying to survive, Gerry and his elite racing mates will be enjoying the champagne and caviar down at the Gold Coast with thanks from the Queensland racing industry.
And he doesn’t have to repay one solitary cent in return. Nice work if you can get it!’
A COMPARISON ON THE POSITIVES AND NEGATIVES OF BENTLEY AND DIXON 
BILL WHITEHOUSE, a regular commentator on the RACING QUEENSLAND scene, makes some interesting comparisons between the eras and the success or failures of the Bob Bentley and Kevin Dixon Boards. It makes interesting reading:
‘I have been reading with interest the Racing Queensland ‘Tracking Towards Sustainability’ report.
During my review of this documentation I have been conscious to consider the different business models and approaches applied by (former RQ Chairmen) Bob Bentley and Kevin Dixon, both of whom I feel should take some responsibility for the position the industry is currently in.
Firstly, let me critique the Bentley era, and the positive and negative outcomes that I believe were delivered during this period.
Positives
· The Bentley Board sourced $100 million from the Government to upgrade industry infrastructure.
· They took decisions to assume responsibility for industry assets, not to leave this to the discretion of race clubs, who have historically preferred to invest in member and public facilities in preference to racing and training infrastructure.
· Bentley reduced country racing to sustainable levels and implemented tiered funding levels to assist major country clubs, whilst encouraging smaller country clubs to contribute back to the industry.
· The Bentley Boar d increased metropolitan and provincial prizemoney levels to sustainable levels that could be fully funded.
· They delivered breeding schemes that were sustainable and that didn’t over-reward Queensland bred stock and still encouraged investment in better quality interstate stock.
· The Bentley Board reduced the industry contribution to Magic Millions to less than $1million and encouraged Magic Millions to pursue Events Queensland for additional funding.
· They removed reliance on Eagle Farm and Doomben via investment in the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.
· Bentley developed a racing schedule that provided continuity and utilized the best facilities on the optimum wagering days.
· His Board understood that the Brisbane Racing Club was allocated the premium race dates, which delivered better revenue generating opportunities with regards to on-course spend, sponsorship and Sky Channel returns. They therefore reduced their industry subsidies and directed these towards those clubs allocated the worst days (ie. mid-week clubs).
· Bentley positioned the control body to transition across to new executive staff and directors following the 2012 State election loss. He did not hang around and argue. He left without issue. I must be honest, when the executives received their payouts, I, like most in the industry, was perplexed and disappointed. It is only now that I look back after witnessing the seamless transition that occurred and I feel it was probably the best thing for the industry as it saved disruption and any potential unfair dismissal issues, although I do not believe that this amount of knowledge should have been permitted to leave the organization at one point in time.
· The Bentley Board left the industry in a sound financial position, where it could manage its financial responsibilities, as were in place at the time of his departure.
· He understood that the control body couldn’t be popular if it was truly giving effect to its obligations and wasn’t concerned with popularity, which enabled him to make decisions without fear of offending his allies or detractors.
· The Bentley Board was able to collectively negotiate a Sky Racing deal that delivered a +50% increase for clubs.
· Over a long period of time Bentley agitated to increase Queensland’s Black Type standing.
Negatives
· The Bentley Board initiated the merger of the three codes. This had a detrimental impact on the thoroughbred code due to distractions with the other two codes, particularly the association with the greyhound ‘live baiting’ issue.
His Board’s decision to install a Cushion Track in Toowoomba as the primary track was certainly a negative. This should have been placed on the inside of the course proper, or he should have better sold the value associated with synthetic track racing, as has been successfully implemented in Victoria and other countries.
· Bentley eroded the relationship with the QTC/BRC, which has had a very detrimental impact on the broader industry over a long period of time.
· He eroded the relationship with the LNP which had broad ranging implications for the industry following the change of Government in 2012.
‘WAS KEVIN DIXON AN OVERRATED ADMINISTRATOR IN QLD RACING?’ 
AFTER reading the ‘Tracking Towards Sustainability’ document, I feel that Kevin Dixon is the most overrated administrator in the history of racing in Queensland.
Positives
· Kevin Dixon tried to embrace a culture of the three codes working together as ‘we run as one’, which unfortunately was never embraced by each of the codes.
He fostered a strong relationship with the Government of the day, which ultimately enhanced the outcomes of the Tatt’s agreement.
Negatives
· Kevin wanted to be everyone’s friend and didn’t want to make hard decisions.
· His Board reinstated the BRC subsidy that cost the industry around $1 million each year.
· Dixon spearheaded his Board’s decision to sign up for a 30-year deal with Tatt’s, which most concede was too long, and with a company that was lagging behind Tabcorp in regards to innovation and technological advancements.
· His Board signed industry assets back over to race clubs.
· Kevin Dixon reportedly invested $750,000 into assisting on-course bookmakers.
· His Board purchased marquees and super screens that were not supported by the clubs and in addition to the initial capital investment, cost the industry around $150,000 per year in maintenance and storage expenditure.
· His Board took the Awards Nights from a cost neutral event to something that cost the industry $180,000 per year.
· The Dixon Board increased investment in country racing to a level that was not sustainable.
· They increased metropolitan and provincial prizemoney to levels that were not sustainable.
· Kevin Dixon and his Board (obviously with the Government support) was rumored to have increased the contribution to Magic Millions to $5 million plus per year (at least that’s what an official of the MM company was quoted as saying in a newspaper article).
· His Board increased the Queensland breeding schemes to unsustainable levels.
· They delivered a financial model for the broader industry that was not sustainable and now via its correction is having a dire impact on all three codes of racing.
· Dixon presided over Racing Queensland during the ‘live baiting’ fiasco at the greyhounds.
· His Board reportedly allowed Eagle Farm to be closed for racing when funding had not been sourced to finalize the project, resulting in the closure of Eagle Farm for nearly two years. This has had a major impact on the revenue streams of the industry, something that is potentially irreversible.
· There are strong suggestions that Kevin Dixon worked with the LNP Government to initiate the White Racing Inquiry, which delivered, in the opinion of most commentators, next to nothing and is reported to have cost Racing Queensland upwards of $3 million.
I am not biased. I do not particularly like Bob Bentley and his mode of operation either. But based on the above I doubt you could concede that Bentley didn’t deliver better outcomes for the industry than Dixon. I therefore feel it unfair that Bentley is being mentioned in the same breath as Dixon.
Let’s hope whoever is next appointed, is positioned to supersede the outcomes delivered by his or her predecessors. They will be starting from a very poor base, so I wish them luck.
As you will note from my previous posts I no longer have an interest in racing in Queensland. I moved my interests interstate long ago and I think my decision has been well and truly justified. I pity my many friends and colleagues who continue to maintain an interest in racing in this State, as I cannot see a very bright future.’
‘WHEN IT COMES TO THE ‘BLAME GAME’ DON’T LOOK TOO FAR OUTSIDE THE SQUARE’ 
THIS email, another involving the situation at racing in Queensland, was sent by a long term follower of racing in this state in PETER OAKHILL:
‘MY name is Peter Oakhill and I have enjoyed over 50 years in the thoroughbred industry in Queensland. I have held every licence in the industry and have served as a committee member on two race clubs and also as an honorary steward.
I have earned my living for the last 30 + years as a Management Consultant and I feel competent to offer my opinion on the problems that the industry (all three codes) faces at the moment.
Whenever I have worked on an organization in crisis I have noticed that the first reaction is to blame factors outside the organization for the crisis. “The Government has lost its way!”......."the Market has changed"...."Customers don't know what they want".....
"Competitors have an unfair advantage".
This is seldom the major problem. It is more often internal inefficiencies and loss of direction that has the organisation in crisis. The first step to solution is for the organisation to take responsibility for its own failings and to set about making the changes in goals and resources that will enable it to thrive again in the market that now exists.
I see this same syndrome in the current crisis for the racing industry.
There is no doubt all three codes are in the worst position I have seen in 50 years.
Why?
Harness Racing was booming in the 70's – huge Saturday crowds, Silks Restaurant and a great profile, particularly with the younger racegoer. What happened?
Well all of you know in the harness business why you were called the ‘Red Hots’. You first chased the bookies away and later the punters (they are a hardier lot). You know they have not come back and harness racing has a great struggle ahead of it to rebuild an image that attracts punters back.
The Government did not do this.....you did it to yourself! You have the obligation to fix it yourself!
The Government did not use live animals as lures in the greyhound industry. It was licensed persons in this industry that did it. That action caused your problems. It is not up to the Government or Racing Queensland to solve your problem. You caused it.
Take responsibility and fix it yourself.
And thoroughbred racing is the same. The Government, Bob the Builder or Kevin Dixon are not the cause of your ills. You are! Decades of profligate mismanagement have led inevitably to today's crisis. You, owners, trainers, bookies, jockeys, stable hands, punters, vets, farriers, feed merchants, breeders and anyone else who enjoys this great industry are responsible.
Accept that responsibility for the solution and work together to build an efficient organization that deserves its place in the complex and changing world it now finds itself in. This will mean changes in which there will be winners and losers and we all need to accept that this may be necessary for the long term good.
Clubs are not efficient and there is much waste. Club committees have a ‘Cargo Cult’ mentality and wait for handouts rather than seek innovative changes to their operation. Bad debts are at epidemic proportions throughout the industry. There are too many under-utilized racetracks. Stewards suffer undue influence from club presidents and their employers.
Trainers....It wasn't the Government that doped your horses.
Vets.......Why are you resisting being licensed. If you didn't provide illegal drugs where would trainers get them?
Owners.....Pay your bills. Why should you not be licensed?
Jockeys.........When you don't turn up to ride work how do think that horse will be fit for you on Saturday? When you don't give the horse an honest ride how many people suffer? When you bet, at least bet on the horse you are riding, not a competitor in the same race. You get 5 per cent of prize money – why do some of you allegedly need to sell information to pro punters?
It seems to me that instead of whinging about the Government or Racing Queensland we should all accept responsibility for our part in the crisis and seek to work together professionally for a solution.’
‘RQ WAS HEADING FOR A TRAIN WRECK AND CHAIRMAN WAS NEVER A KINGMAKER’ 
MARK UNDERWOOD of BRISBANE sent this email:
‘I have been sitting on the sidelines watching the circus. While I must say a lot of presentations in the Wednesday Whinge have been on the money, why don’t you racing folk know the truth or more to the point speak it?
Like a drug addict all I hear is denial and justification in order to maintain getting your fix.
Racing revenue has been in decline since the seventies and there is no comeback. The gaming dollar has many options these days and by and large racing is driven by people who are living in the glory days of rivers of gold.
Go to any mainstream news website and you will find racing buried somewhere in the back as this relates to its relevance in Australia today. The mainstream public notice it only a few days a year and when the industry has its hand out for more Government money.
The current wreck and the joke of Australian Racing is Queensland Racing. It was heading in this direction for quite some time and Kevin Dixon was never the king maker. He had as much power as was given him and fortunately the kingmaker is dead. All I will say about the past is that I hope an investigative journalist writes a book and then you will see (**editor’s omission for legal reasons**) what has taken place.
As for the future a new business model must be pursued devoid of emotionalism.
Personally, I believe that there should be one club, Racing Queensland, eight tracks and possibly the multi-function facility that (former RQ Chairman Bob) Bentley put forward for the lesser codes.
There needs to be an abolition of all club committees and existing management structures. Each course should have a Tracks and Facilities Manager and necessary staff. All other functions would be centralized under the control of executive officers.
This is how modern organizations operate and with technology the need for duplication of rolls is an absurdity. This would produce a saving probably in the million dollar area or more.
Centralized control would also produce the benefit of bulk purchasing and control.
The sale of redundant land that is unnecessary under this plan and this money could be used to balance the books and modernize infrastructure.
Integrity services should be under the control of a new Queensland Police Department unit.
All country racing should be repositioned as armature race clubs and they should form and finance their own affairs.
The true kingmaker and his cronies have led to this place and I don’t see why racing should be treated any differently to any other business just like the automotive industry – sink or swim.
This is the real situation the industry is in, welcome to the real world where emotional pleas have no place in running a successful business.’
‘BILL’S HOT LINE NEVER EVEN GOT TO RING BEFORE HE WAS SHOWN THE DOOR’ 
BARRY WITHERSPOON of the SUNSHINE COAST sent this contribution:
‘THE hot line to Racing Minister Bill Byrne hadn’t even started ringing when it stopped.
Normally when there is a new head of a portfolio as controversial as the racing industry you can count on any Minister securing the responsibility for controlling this poison chalice of having more new mates than he can handle.
That wasn’t the case with Bill Byrne. Of all the Racing Ministers that Queensland has had – and there have been some doozies over the years – the Rockhampton-based MP was far from a phone call away for some – for for that matter any – of the key stakeholders.
Now we have Grace Grace and the first question being asked is: Grace who?
Has she ever been to the races?
I guess we will soon find out.
Good luck to the lady – she’ll need it in barrow loads to handle the imposters and horse manure that is now heading her way.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to Wikipedia – Ignazia Graziella Grace, usually known as Grace Grace (born 12 August 1958) is an Australian politician who represents the electoral district of Brisbane Central and is a Member of the Labor Party.
She was born Ignazia Graziella Farfaglia, in Brisbane, the daughter of an Italian migrant cane cutter. She was an industrial relations advisor in the Paul Keating Government until 1995 when she was elected as assistant general secretary. In 2000 she became the first female general secretary of the Queensland Council of Unions.
Grace was elected to the Legislative Assembly at the 2007 Brisbane Central by-election following the resignation of Premier Peter Beattie. The Coalition did not field a candidate. She won the seat again in the 2009 State election despite an 8.4 percent swing to the newly merged LNP.
Grace was a notable supporter of the ALP Government's decision to legislate civil partnerships for homosexual couples in Queensland. New Farm and Fortitude Valley, the main centres for Brisbane's gay community, are both in her electorate and she has built close ties with gay rights organizations.
In the 2012 State election she lost her seat to the LNP's Robert Cavallucci. She regained it in this year’s election and was elected Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly under Peter Wellington and was given three Ministerial portfolios in a Cabinet reshuffle this week.
'NATIONAL COMMISSION WOLD PUT RACING IN STRONGER POSITION' 
BARRY CARSONS of MELBOURNE writes:
CHRIS ROOTS from FAIRFAX MEDIA got it right when he suggested racing needs a National Commission to place the industry in a stronger negotiating position.
Roots was also correct in his assertion that the current prime body, Racing Australia, has only a fraction of the power needed for racing to remain relevant in the future.
It sounds simple enough but those of us who have followed the politics and interstate rivalries of racing in this country will fear there is no way it will work.
How do you address the fragmented nature of racing in Australia and get the states to work as one not to mention the clubs within some states who seem hell-bent on destroying each other.
At the end of the day it will come down to Racing NSW trying to run the show. One suspects Peter V’landys will not sit idly by and let Racing Victoria have too much say. Therein lies the problem and the reason it won’t work. There is simply no way these two big states can effectively work as one – at least that’s the consensus of opinion among long-standing racing men that I have spoken to.
EDITOR’S NOTE: HERE is the story by CHRIS ROOTS from FAIRFAX MEDIA that the above email refers to:
RACING in Australia needs to follow the example of other major sports and move towards an independent national commission to make sure the sport thrives into the future. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
The difference between the haves and have-nots in Australian racing continues to grow. While NSW and Victoria announce prizemoney increases, Queensland is faced with cuts, while South Australia and Tasmania also struggle.
Victoria has become an island within Australia with an inward focus that has the aim of owning the tote in the next decade. NSW similarly wants to drive its product, as racing has become known, and the two compete rather than complement each other.
There is never a thought of a national approach.
The fragmented nature of Australian racing along state and even club lines needs to be addressed. The industry needs to start working as one rather than different parts pulling in different directions.
A national racing commission with independence would focus on making the sport better and growing its revenues. Racing Australia has only a fraction of the power needed for racing to remain relevant in the future.
A racing commission with power from all states would give the sport a stronger negotiating position.
The AFL and rugby league have billion-dollar broadcast deals, while a billion-dollar industry fights among itself about what is the best plan.
The traditional funding structure through the TAB has zero growth as punters move to fixed odds and corporate bookmakers that offer a better product.
Again there is competition and conflict.
The strongest racing jurisdictions in the world, Hong Kong and Japan, have one strong Parimutuel pool. Australia has three.
Tabcorp runs two of them because it suits its profit model better. What would better suit racing is a bigger pool encouraging more betting and growing the pie for a sport depending on gambling for its funding.
Yet no racing regulatory body wants to attempt to take on the TAB.
Racing in Australia needs to pull together as one or risk becoming further marginalized.
ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT THAT ‘DECLAN’ CAN SET HIS MIND TO
LANE ROGERS of BRISBANE sent this email:
‘THERE is no rhyme or reason to how or why they do things at Racing Queensland these days.
If you go to the RQ web page in the greyhounds section there is notification that the annual general meeting will be held on December 16. If you scroll further down on the page there is another notice which tells you it will be held on November 16.
Bit confusing you might say – not really – just par for the course at RQ these days. When those running the joint have no idea what is going on how can you expect the stakeholders to?
The actual AGM – I am reliably informed is on December 16. I always thought it had to be held within four months after June 30 (end of the financial year).
The ‘beat up’ in the media continues to bring the industry down. A small minority of culprits have ensured the ‘live baiting’ scandal will live on forever. Some are still to be dealt with on cruelty charges and I am not for one minute defending those who are found to be guilty of this.
But the way it has been dealt with in the racing media compared to the cobalt scandal where I even read one supposedly respected columnist write recently that there are so many positives these high profile identities cannot possibly be guilty of administering the drug. One could say the same about the ‘live baiting’ but it’s greyhound racing and we all know it’s fair game to kick the crap out of the code considered the lowest of the low even if it makes turnover on the trots look second rate.
You only have to look at how little harness racing suffered in the wash-up of the financial decisions made in the wake of the trouble allegedly confronting the industry. It fared better than any of the other codes. One might assume that the ‘silver haired fox’ has his fingers all over the decision making process in this.
The more things change in racing – the more they stay the same – especially when it comes to harness racing compared to the other codes. At least that’s what those of us who have followed the three sports for any amount of time have come to see and believe – regardless of what party is in power and running the Government of this State.
‘IAN HALL COPS PLENTY – BUT IN REALITY YOU HAVE TO FEEL SORRY FOR HIM’ 
GREG ANDREWS of BRISBANE writes:
‘EVERY time I read something about Ian Hall, the KPMG ‘guru’ catapulted into the difficult task of hauling racing in Queensland from the brink of financial disaster into a viable entity, I wonder how the hell he managed to inherit this thankless mission.
He admits to knowing very little about racing. He is obviously an expert at salvaging and restructuring businesses on the brink of financial collapse. Much has been made of what he is allegedly being paid per week ($20,000 is said to be the figure). In my opinion no amount of money is too much if he can succeed when many who knew much more than him about this fickle business of racing have failed. So I decided to do some research on the gentleman rather than join the growing list of typically racing-oriented followers who simply continue to bag him.
If you google LinkedIn this is the how the summary reads of Ian Hall, partner, restructuring services, KPMG, which I assume he wrote:
‘I am a chartered accountant with 31 years experience in corporate restructuring, including 25 years (17 years as partner) with PricewaterhouseCoopers and now with KPMG.
i have been extensively involved in reviewing, restructuring and managing businesses across a range of industries. My experience extends to government agencies, where I have been responsible for implementing governance arrangements, conducting viability reviews and implementing performance improvement strategies. I lead the KPMG Queensland Education client Service Team.
Having been a Director of a public company and currently sitting on boards, I understand the issues facing Directors.
I pride myself on being able to bring practical commercial experience across a wide variety of industries to assist when providing my advice.
Company directors facing stress or in need of performance improvement advice; Banks and financial institutions, Governments at both State and Federal levels have come to rely on my practical and commercially based advice.
I have operated within a diverse range of industries including mining, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, hospitality, property and construction, rural, transport, automotive, tourism and hotels, health insurance, indigenous and vocational education.
My experience has involved restructuring and project management, turnaround, business regeneration, pre-loan reviews, financial viability investigations, performance improvement, credit risk management, fraud investigations and reviews and formal insolvency administrations.
I use my experience in having seen a wide variety of underperforming businesses and as a company director to sit beside business owners and company directors and help move their businesses forward.
I am a chartered accountant with 31 years experience in corporate restructuring, including 25 years (17 years as partner) with PricewaterhouseCoopers and now with KPMG.
I have been extensively involved in reviewing, restructuring and managing businesses across a range of industries. My experience extends to government agencies, where I have been responsible for implementing governance arrangements, conducting viability reviews and implementing performance improvement strategies. I lead the KPMG Queensland Education client Service Team.
Having been a Director of a public company and currently sitting on boards, I understand the issues facing Directors.
I pride myself on being able to bring practical commercial experience across a wide variety of industries to assist when providing my advice.
Company directors facing stress or in need of performance improvement advice; Banks and financial institutions, Governments at both State and Federal levels have come to rely on my practical and commercially based advice.
I have operated within a diverse range of industries including mining, manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, hospitality, property and construction, rural, transport, automotive, tourism and hotels, health insurance, indigenous and vocational education.
My experience has involved restructuring and project management, turnaround, business regeneration, pre-loan reviews, financial viability investigations, performance improvement, credit risk management, fraud investigations and reviews and formal insolvency administrations.’
MR HALL is obviously one of the best in his field in this country. His credentials speak for themselves. In any normal business he is arguably the right man for the job. But racing is so different to any other business – even if you set aside the politics.
The resume of what Mr Hall has achieved appears to rely heavily on one thing – the advice that he provides to turn businesses around and that advice is provided it would appear to the directors of the business.
At Racing Queensland he has two major problems: Firstly there are no directors and secondly he is the Interim CEO relying on recommendations and information from a group of administrators who, with all due respects, according to many, haven’t got a clue.
If you know little about a business – as he admits about racing – and you rely heavily on those surrounding you in the decision-making process, the success or failure of your venture is only as good as the information you receive.
When that information is coming from people who it is said simply don’t know enough, or don’t understand the industry, then how, heaven forbid, can you set up a Sustainability Plan to lead the business back from the brink of disaster?
Might I suggest as well meaning and talented as he may be, if Mr Hall has based his decisions on recommendations of those surrounding him and consultations with politically and selfishily-motivated individuals from the various codes within the industry then he has little or no chance of success.
Racing is unique. It is different to any other business. What might work elsewhere will not work here. The crux of the situation is the success of UBET and the new contract that is locked in for 30 years. If it is a ‘dud’ – as some ‘experts’ claim – then the industry is stuffed. That’s it in a nutshell.
About the only chance of survival is a national tote and a new Board made up of racing – not non-racing people – who know what they are talking about. Not a bunch of ego-driven, over-paid, under-achieving advisors – both at RQ and in the Minister’s office who know next to nothing and certainly don’t understand the intricacies of an industry as different as racing.
WHAT DOES RACING IN VICTORIA STAND TO GAIN FROM A NATIONAL TOTE?
MAURIE CONNOR of CALOUNDRA writes:
‘It would appear that the call for a national tote to save Queensland racing and other states like South Australia and Tasmania is being fuelled in part by the under-performing joke that is now called UBET.
I have no idea if a national tote would save racing in this country. I will leave that to smarter men than I.
However, if you would allow me an opportunity to act as a ‘devil’s advocate’, so to speak on the matter, I am hoping I will become a little wiser for the exercise.
At the present time here in Queensland we have three industries wanting a larger share of the ‘punting leftovers’.
Harness racing wants a larger percentage of the pool than they contribute. The thoroughbreds and to a lesser degree the greyhounds are keeping harness racing operating.
Now if you put that scenario on a national level what benefit will there be in it for say Racing Victoria?
To keep all race clubs operating in Australia they would nearly have to double the present pool before Racing Victoria could recover what they would lose in the initial carve up.
It would appear that RVL haven’t jumped into bed with ‘the devil’ or sold their sole for the next 30 years.
It was during Kevin Dixon’s time at the helm of RQ that the racing industry in this State was sold was what many consider to be the biggest ‘pup’ possible – a 30-year deal that certainly seems to favor Tatt’s.
So the question remains what are the odds that RVL will look at the Queensland scene and say ‘yep, a national tote is the answer’.
“We can give out five or 10 per cent of our profits to the trots in Townsville and the dogs in a place called Mt Isa (if there are any). I am sure you will get my meaning.
I would hate to be leading a Government that tried to nationalize the totes.
Perhaps Mr (Peter) V’Landys (of Racing NSW) can solve the problem – he seems to have the answers to all other racing issues.’
IF THEY CAN'T INQUIRE INTO NAME CHANGE WHAT HOPE HAVE PUNTERS GOT? 
THIS is a letter sent by a highly respected, long-standing racing man to the new UBEAUT Racing Queensland Integrity Department that still awaits a reply. It reads:
Good Afternoon,
I would like the stewards or Integrity Department to consider the following complaint which concerns the horse Lord Coconuts having an undeclared change of name.
Yesterday Lord Coconuts raced at Doomben a horse’s name I had never heard of before. It was having its first start in Queensland. Its most recent starts were in Sydney in October where I only today discovered it raced under the name MARVELOUS CERAMIBO.
I only researched this after I heard Bjorn Baker, the horse's former trainer, today on Thoroughbred Central on SKY 521 attempting to make it a laughing matter when the horse's change of name was discussed.
He said words to the effect that "it's one way to do a ring in" while I expect he was joking the facts are the horse has had a change of name but no change of name as is required by AR21 was advised in the form guides available to punters in Queensland.
The horse is raced by the same owner according to Racing Australia records who Bjorn Baker said is his cousin..
None of these publications mentioned the name change: Courier Mail, Sportsman or Best Bets
As you are no doubt aware the relevant rule is AR21 which states:-
AR.21. In any case of change of name, the old name as well as the new name must be given in every entry until the horse has run in six races in the territory of one Principal Racing Authority or two races within its Metropolitan Area or Suburban Radius.
Obviously this was not done in the case of Lord Coconuts ( ex:MARVELOUS CERAMIBO).
I request there be an inquiry as to how this apparent breach of the rules occurred and who is responsible also to determine what changes if any need to be made to avoid any repeats in the future.
The horse's current trainer Tony Gollan would have had to file a stable return and it appears necessary for him to be interviewed to determine what if any action he took to provide the correct particulars so as not to mislead the public.
I look forward to your attention to this complaint and your subsequent advice as to the outcome.
Name with-held but verified.
PS: I attempted to use the online contact form (on the appropriate official racing website) for Thoroughbreds but after putting the above info in and attempting to submit it an error message came up limiting it to 500 lines.
EDITOR'S NOTE: LETSGOHORSERACING has been contacted about a serious situation involving an on-going incident at Rockhampton, in which stewards and police are involved. We have complaints that stewards at RQ are dragging their heels on this - one of the identities involved is well-known to them and a race is the subject of certain allegations. If nothing is forthcoming concerning this inquiry in the next couple of weeks we will expose what has happened to date and ask the new Racing Minister to explain what RQ is doing about this extremely serious situation involving a high profile racing identity.
RACING NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
GREYHOUNDS AGAIN LOSERS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 
MEDIA RELEASE from BRENTON WILSON, President, Queensland Greyhound Breeders,, Owners & Trainers’ Association (QGBOTA)
THE Queensland Greyhound Breeders, Owners & Trainers’ Association accepts that the racing industry in Queensland has been operating at financially unacceptable levels.
The greyhound industry although initially excited by the largess of the prizemoney increases in late 2014 also argued and maintain that some of this increase should have been put to better use with regards to improvements to stadia, animal welfare, track safety, education and long term industry savings.
There is a common thread in the plan that relates to the ‘Governing Principles’ some of which are below:
- Share the upside and risks – All participants share in the upside and risks and therefore are linked to the success of the industry.
- Fair and reasonable – The plan should reflect what is fair and reasonable to each participant, between participants and to the industry as a whole.
- Whole of industry approach – The plan should deliver a whole of industry approach (i.e. not limited to individual stakeholders).
- Everyone is interconnected – The industry should be encouraged to work as one, rather than individual parts – everyone has a role to play.
- Reinvest in target growth areas – The plan should reinvest in targeted areas to promote industry participation.
- User pays system – Enables participants to appreciate the true cost of services provided.
The greyhound industry would be supportive of this type of structure. However, on face value, the greyhound industry appears to be the only code, outside of prize money decreases, that has to make allowances and concessions. The other codes are not being asked to contribute to cross subsidization.
We are led to believe that the racing industry is operating at unacceptable levels, yet it can still afford a $10 million one-off race day for Magic Millions. The Thoroughbred Industry has also been granted support for country racing. Why is there no Government support, as is policy in some other states, to subsidize the Harness code?
The QGBOTA, through their Strategic Plan, highlighted that the racing industry in Queensland would profit by supporting the greyhound code that continues to grow its wagering product. This plan put forward sensible and fiscally responsible arguments that would grow the greyhound wagering product by 25 to 30 per cent over the next five years.
Further, the other codes have infrastructure requirements met, or are in line to have new stadia built or upgraded, while the greyhound industry is ignored. The greyhound industry in Queensland came to the amalgamation with a 50% ownership of Albion Park, property at Slacks Creek, $10 million compensation from the closure of the Gold Coast track, and a percentage of infrastructure money. This is estimated in total of $75 million.
In 2008 the then Labor State Treasurer Andrew Fraser stated: “We believe that it’s a generous level of compensation, along with their holding of 50 per cent of Albion Park. That places the Greyhound Industry with the ability, the assets and the cash to be able to plan for their future as an industry by themselves”.
You cannot promote Governing Principles for racing in Queensland, if they only refer to one or two of those codes. To use the general public as an excuse for not building new stadia is fraudulent.
These are greyhound assets prior to amalgamation, and the greyhound industry who have put forward a professional capital works program, should be supported.
When the greyhound industry is under immense pressure to reform, improve welfare and safety standards of its canine athletes, it seems ludicrous that only the part that suits animal liberationists is supported by the State Government in Queensland.
Improvements to stadia, track safety initiatives, better lure design, is scientifically proven to significantly reduce injuries and improve the welfare of the canine athlete. What this proves, is the lack of understanding and bias by politicians and authorities towards an industry which has been calling for these changes for over a decade.
The QGBOTA finds it offensive that hobby trainers are treated with such contempt, that they cannot be trusted in how they spend $15 from unplaced prize money. How is the greyhound industry supposed to encourage new participants to the industry, when they cannot be trusted in how they spend such a nominal amount? It is a form of class warfare.
If the question is around a person or person’s ability to maintain an animal athlete in good health, then this should be a considered approach across all three codes.
The QGBOTA will continue to work with Racing Queensland, industry groups and stakeholders to make greyhound racing policies reflect best practice in all facets of the industry. But we are also concerned with the continued bias in policy towards the greyhound industry and its participants.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the above e-mails should not be interpreted as those of JOHN LINGARD, the owner-editor of the letsgohorseracing web-site. That is why he has added an ‘EDITOR’S NOTE’. Every endeavor is made to verify the authenticity of contributors. We welcome any reasonable and constructive responses from parties or individuals.