Greyhound racing is nothing without passion and the people who decided to turn out at the recent GBGB offices last week clearly feel passionate about greyhound racing and corruption.
They are right to feel concerned. This industry has always been dogged (unfortunate expression) by allegations of wrongdoing throughout its history –and a small percentage was clearly deserved.
However GTA and Greyhoundscene are massively mistaken – in my opinion – about corruption at the GBGB.
I could be wrong of course. They may have a much greater understanding of the game than I do. Maybe they have evidence that I haven’t seen.
But I wonder. . . I talk to greyhound people every day, decent honest greyhound folk, and the vast majority don’t understand the issues. They are currently trying to work out whether there is any fire with all this smoke. Some are absolutely bewildered, not knowing their BGRF, from their GBGB, or UKAS. Indeed, I am not sure how many of my fellow journalists fully understand the administrative structure.
Who controls funds? Who makes decisions? For whose benefit? Who checks up that nothing untoward is taking place?
First though, let’s establish one thing, no matter what evidence, or logic, that I present in this article, it will not be accepted by the GTA committee or the people who fire up Greyhoundscene. That is simply how it works.
If you don’t agree with them, you are corrupt.
When the Star newspaper ran GBGB adverts in the form of news pages, they apparently ‘corrupted’ our views.
When GBGB withdrew their advertising, we became corrupted by accepting adverting from tracks.
Simply – if you don’t agree with GTA/Greyhoundscene, you are bent.
If the GBGB hold inquiries, the people giving evidence and the people hearing it are liars. The sport is entirely focused on cover-ups and conspiracy to screw owners and trainers. They allege.
We hear all sorts of allegations about corruption, let’s look at three that have been in widespread circulation. I can’t remember whether the source was the GTA or Greyhoundscene, the two seem virtually indistinguishable. I would gladly tackle more allegations, but this article would run into book form, and these appear to be three of the major ones.
First – it is claimed that administrators of the new greyhound facility at Towcester were told to use certain contractors to build their stadium including a company run by a grandson of GBGB director John Curran.
It is alleged that unless particular companies were used, Towcester might struggle to get a licence – nudge nudge wink wink.
In fact, the company in question, SSS were not contracted, they were sub-contractors and suffered six figure losses on the project. First error.
Second error, the GBGB Regulatory Board and the commercial arm are entirely separate organisation who just happen to share the same building. There is no leverage.
Think about it – it was THE PRIME ISSUE for Lord Donoughue when he created the GBGB was to make the regulatory arm entirely independent – which is why it is monitored by UKAS under the terms of self regulation.
So if the Regulatory Board is bendable, that must make the United Kingdom Arbitration Service either complicit in the corruption or incompetent to carry out its function.
No, seriously – which is it? Either or both?
While racecourse promoters have a significant presence on the GBGB Board, they have no influence at all on the Regulatory Board.
For older folk, it is a bit like thinking a track promoter could persuade the NGRC whether to licence another track or not. Bloody ludicrous!
But what of Towcester’s role?
The allegation continues that Towcester were told that they wouldn’t get any grants unless they played ball.
Does anybody seriously think that Lord Hesketh would lower himself to that kind of shenanigan? To be blackmailed into using certain contractors? Have you met the bloke?
They didn’t expect, or receive, any grants to build or equip their dog track anyway. Nobody gets capital or prize money grants in their first year of trading. Surely everyone knew that!
What else? Oh yes, SSS were employed at Newcastle when they entirely replaced the racing surface. Conspiracy 2.
So now Newcastle, and William Hill are part of the conspiracy, presumably because SSS were involved? How dare they spend £80K of their own money on sand and not justify it to the GTA?
There is an alternative theory, that Newcastle and Towcester were convinced that they could expect a top class service from people who understand greyhound racing.
The fact that so much work concerned with racing circuits goes to the same people is being construed as bent.
Isn’t it funny that the same people get the work? Nudge nudge, wink wink
Well, no actually, its common sense. It’s because they know what they are doing and the track management are confident that they will get a good safe racing circuit. Why take a chance when you have good proven people? The late great Mick Large, God bless him, traded on his reputation for producing good safe tracks for years.
There have been many cases where contractors with no connection with the greyhound industry have quoted for projects. But most have been clueless, not only in ability to do the job, but in timescales. If you are relaying a greyhound circuit, you work weekends and through the night. You cannot afford, for everybody’s sake, including the owners and trainers, to have a stadium out of action for a fortnight.
(BTW – Is anybody suggesting Newcastle wasn’t a complete success?)
But even when you consider using alternative ‘doggie’ contractors, there is no guarantee that they will get the job. For example, word on the grapevine is that the other ‘doggie’ bidder to build the Towcester circuit came in at almost twice the price.
The third allegation concerns Nottingham and a plan for roof work. This doesn’t involve SSS but another promoter, Rachel Corden.
The angry mob would have you believe that because the work was furtively given to a company with a personal connection to the management. Another bit of ‘nudge, nudge, wink wink’ taking place.
The implications of that are scary in terms of company law, directors responsibilities, insider trading etc etc. In fact, raw criminality.
The reality is, board director Rachel Corden declared a personal interest when the application was admitted and the quote was viewed accordingly. On merit.
And yes – John Curran also declared a personal interest in his grandson’s involvement in SSS, even though the family relationship was far enough away for it to be deemed unnecessary in company law.
Still think a bit of ‘favours for the boys, and girls’ took place?
On what basis could it happen, because this fundamental area, so simple, yet so often misunderstood, is the single biggest flaw in the GTA’s muck raking. The GBGB do not offer grants.
Yes, they submit some proposals to ‘the Fund’ but they DO NOT control the Fund. Many capital grant applications never go near the GBGB.
It is true that the BGRF contains some directors of both, but it is a balanced board with 50% bookmakers and a bookmaker chairman. Why would they allow ‘their money’ to go unchallenged into track owners profits? It doesn’t make sense!
In fact, the bookies have a very different agenda. They have increasingly argued, ‘yes we will give money to welfare, but not to track owners.’ Hence the GBGB have cut the capital grants applications to shreds. With the Fund at 50% of what it should be, welfare, integrity and prize money take precedence, roughly in that order.
The view has already bitten Greyhound Star. Why are you whingeing about welfare when you pay for advertising in a greyhound newspaper?
The conspiracy theorists among you might be saying ‘sure, but when they get grants, look at how inflated the quotes are’.
To do so would be doing a massive disservice to Margaret Woodruff, the lady who runs the Fund on a day to day basis. If Margaret was to take up football, she would soon have Joe Hart’s shirt – nothing gets past her.
Many have tried, but they were mainly trainers, looking (allegedly) to inflate quotes for kennel improvements. £10K applications for fencing have (allegedly) been made . . .
(I always find it strange that whenever trainers moan about track grants, they never mention that hundreds of them have had grants for their kennels, and many more will in the next year. Have any of them ever had to bung for a grant? I’m listening).
If the GBGB have nothing to hide, why don’t they allow the GTA its ‘forensic audit’?
The answer to this is so mindnumbingly obvious it is mindblowing and another massive hole in the GTA argument. There cannot be anything to find, because the GBGB have no way of being corrupt.
They are a non-profit making organisation, FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED BY GREYHOUND TRACKS – NOT THE BGRF.
If anybody is being screwed by profligacy at the GBGB it is the tracks themselves! They fund the offices and the salaries by paying the special licence fees.
It is nobody’s else business how the Board spends its money other than the tracks.
If I was Chairman of the GBGB, I would also tell the GTA where to shove its forensic audit.
If the GBGB had nothing to hide, why don’t they take the GTA to court?
Well personally, I think it could still happen, almost be necessity. Some of the statements made and printed about individuals have been very personal and have alleged criminality.
The problem has been this. Take someone to court and you lay yourself open to massive financial loss – even if you win the case.
There is a growing trend for under-worked solicitors to take work on a ‘no foal, no fee’ basis. The Board could rack up massive costs knowing that even if they won, the other side couldn’t pay.
(The Mildenhall ‘noise’ case was a good example, notwithstanding, they lost in court. The original claim was £10K, but reached over £1m in legal fees before coming to conclusion)
The NGRC were famous for it. The fact that Special Licence Fees rose by £2 per race this year will coincide significantly with the High Court costs that the Board had to pay in its battle with Chris Cronin last year.
If the Board took the GTA to court, it would almost certainly cop for all costs even if it won. Can the greyhound industry afford it?
So does that mean the GTA are fireproof?
No, not really. In the first instance, if the GBGB fail to act to protect the reputation of its directors, they may end up being sued by those same board members for a failure of ‘duty of care’.
Secondly, the GBGB has another weapon in its armoury, its rule book. It can surely only be a matter or time before questions are asked about ‘bringing the game into disrepute’.
Finally, I must add, I don’t blame all those who stood outside the GBGB offices protesting last week, though I don’t accept that it was a ‘peaceful protest’. There were attempts to intimidate with one promoter, John Curran, retaliating.
Some individuals might have been there because they had a personal grievance with the organisation or individuals within the building. The ‘corruption card’ is just a handy one to play.
As for the others, there are surely some who genuinely believed in their heart of hearts that they were trying to defend a sport that they love. Hopefully they will at least now challenge some of those assumptions.
If they still have genuine grievances – not simply shouting ‘whitewash’ or ‘cover up’ when they don’t get the answer they want – they must produce that evidence.
They owe it to the sport they claim to love to either put up or shut up.
