The United Kingdom voted themselves into EU expulsion. The USA went for presidential change. Is the time now ripe for a complete overhaul of the UK greyhound racing industry?
Fundamental change, like an earthquake, is only shocking to those who fail to see the build up of pressure. Established assumptions ignore shifts in events and attitudes and before you know it – revolution.
Like the Americans who think the world ends at their state border, greyhound supporters are particularly bad at monitoring change outside their immediate world. And why should they? They enjoy their dogs . . . . so to hell with politics. Sadly, that lethargy allows events to tick by unchallenged. Greyhound racing continues on its downward spiral and eventually there was an eruption.
Ricky Holloway’s appointment as chairman of the GTA was a result of massive disenchantment with ‘the institution’.
Now I fundamentally disagree with so much that Ricky stood for. I think putting his name to the EFRA submission into the greyhound industry was unforgiveable. He has made accusations that he couldn’t substantiate and which tarnished a whole industry, including his members. Politically, he failed to engage potential allies who would have supported his organisation and profession.
One of his greatest foes, board member John Haynes, bit his tongue and agreed to support Holloway’s application for a seat on GBGB – but Ricky cocked it up. Basically, he has held back the cause of his membership when they so badly needed it.
All that said, there are also things about Ricky that I admire. First and foremost, he put his hand up when volunteers were needed. The world is full of ‘somebody shoulds’. Ricky gave up time and money to give it a shot.
Ricky was also one of the first to call into question GBGB chairman Tom Kelly’s ability to deliver a voluntary payment from the betting industry for their internet based betting. Maybe he was astute, maybe it was guesswork.
Certainly the feeling among the track promoters seems to have hardened some 18 months into Kelly’s appointment and no sign of the cash.
There is a belief among several key players that a personality clash with one of the key players within the betting industry is a factor. I know that that opinion exists, I don’t know whether it is justified.
However, I do believe the internet cash will come sooner rather than later. I understand the annual figure will be between £3-£4m but it won’t be as a direct result of Kelly’s effort with the ABB or Government. It will come as part of a bigger picture with a key player possibly prepared to break ranks and sort horses (and dogs), in a trade-off over FOBTs (the big jackpot fruit machines in the betting shops- though its not just betting shops that have a problem with them – check out the BBC story about bingo halls.) Government have announced plans to reign them in,and they account for 58% of betting shop profits
The point is this – whether Tom Kelly delivers or not is almost irrelevant. If he does, mission accomplished, thank you and goodbye. If not, then you’ve had two years, clear your desk and go. (The Racing Post will surely give you a good send off)
Tom Kelly’s self-professed remit upon appointment was to ‘attempt to’ deliver the cash – there were never any guarantees. Beyond that, does a semi retired septuagenarian have a major role going forward for the greyhound industry?
Kelly’s contract ends in May and I understand that there is considerable opposition among track promoters to it being renewed. He certainly won’t be challenged by anyone from the board’s trainers and owners seats which are currently unoccupied. I don’t think it is going to far to suggest that Haynes was always Kelly’s biggest critic.
If the promoters representatives on the board of directors indicate that Kelly does not have their support, I would expect him to go, and possibly announce his decision as early as February to give the board a three month period to appoint a successor.
Personally, I would love to see Ian Lavery in Kelly’s role. The Wansbeck MP and greyhound owner indicated that he was prepared to consider the position prior to Kelly’s appointment.
However, the recruiting process coincided with the last general election and the former miner refused to apply during that sensitive period.
The Board’s Chief Executive Barry Faulkner is another individual who does not enjoy the support of the majority of track promoters, nor did he enjoy the confidence of either Haynes or Holloway.
However, Faulkner, effectively, cannot be sacked. The only people who would be able to bring that about would be the independent directors, and thereby lays the bigger problem at GBGB – an absolute abortion of an organisation.
It was created like an aircraft where the chief executive was secured into a sealed cockpit protected by the independent directors (who had no idea where the plane is going or how to fly it), to prevent the passengers, (owners, trainers, promoters) from storming in and taking control.
If you were trying to create an organisation whereby the chairman and chief executive were fire proof, you could not have done a better job. That can’t be by accident – and it only cost a million pounds to create!
The chief executive ‘runs greyhound racing’ and is accused by his detractors of not taking it forward. But there are a couple of important issues in Faulkner’s defence. In the first instance, he is the man most directly responsible for achieving and keeping UKAS accreditation.
Secondly, prior to his appointment, various promoters insisted that they did not want a ‘thrusting executive, the power should come from the committees’. They wanted ‘an office manager’ having previously come to blows with their first chief exec, Ian Taylor. They got their wish.
So – unlike Kelly, Faulkner is not on a fixed term contract and can pretty much stay as long as he chooses.
Does Faulkner have the ambition to reform GBGB? To create a financial blueprint to take the industry forward? To bring to heel those within the regulatory board who still think they are employed by a 1950s NGRC?
If not – how long does he plan on not doing any of those things?
The greatest problem with GBGB is not its staff but its construction and funding, particularly in in the commercial sector.
It was set-up when the BGRF annual income was around £12m, almost double what it is today.
Everything was about welfare, nothing about commerciality. The number of tracks declines yet the board still costs over £2m to run (paid for by the tracks though special licence fees), plus a huge additional grant from BGRF for drug sampling etc.
While there are some fine foot soldiers at GBGB, much of the work at committee level is carried out free and gratis by unpaid directors and committee appointees. (On the board, the Chief Exec, Chairman and independent directors all get paid, the ‘greyhound industry’ side do not.)
The board has no money beyond its running costs. It is skint and relies on volunteers to carry out its most important duties.
Contrary to Holloway’s and the forums accusations, GBGB is not corrupt. It is badly conceived, poorly governed, and severely underfunded.
However – sadly – even if the ‘internet’ money does arrive, there is no guarantee that we have an organisation fit for handling it.
