EDITORS CHAIR: FOR GOD’S SAKE – VOTE!!

Plato is dead. Cats die. Plato must have been a cat.

The line comes from a book I was recently reading, ‘Freakonomics’. It is a brilliant study of analysis and the dangers of making unwise connections between different facts – an intellectual version of ‘two and two not necessarily making four’.

Greyhound racing is littered with these spurious connections. One of the most recent concerned the closure of Wimbledon. ‘Greyhound racing gone to the dogs’, claimed the national media.

We chuckled. What a clever headline! Why has nobody thought of it before?

They reasoned – there used to be a zillion people going greyhound racing at hundreds of tracks. There are now three old blokes in caps shuffling into the last place to close. Greyhound racing is as dead as a cat called Plato.

The reality? Wimbledon is worth probably £4m per acre, which makes it out of the bounds of all but two or three Premier League football clubs or any other leisure activity – except AFC Twobob. They are backed by a suss council who were prepared to burn London guidelines on social/affordable housing on behalf of a club that will never kick a ball in Plough Lane. (I can’t add ‘again’, because they were never there in the first place).

No – our ‘dying industry’ produces a £2.5bn product for the apparently healthy (but forever whining) betting industry! A sickly moggie still being fought over by broadcasters and media groups. An industry where a new stadium with a new strategy can stage eight races on a Saturday morning and earn more than any other venue trading that day – including those racing on BAGS! As for the number of tracks, it has barely changed in a decade.

 

There are plenty of Homer/cat stories in this industry. The connections tend to be made by people who base their industry knowledge on what they read on forums. . . or their knuckles.

If even a tiny percentage of the rumours, stories, innuendos, whispers and tip-offs had been true, most of the GBGB board of directors would have spent this morning smoking ganja on E Wing at Pentonville.

(The reality is, despite the ‘police raiding the GBGB offices’, no board member has been interviewed – let alone, charged – EVER!!!)

Perhaps the one connection that frustrates me the most is not based on one assumption, but a whole series. Like a line of train carriages joined together heading for the cliff edge. You know the one I mean . . . .

‘The promoters choose the greyhound board + so they control it + they will always look after themselves + they fiddle the fund + trainers are skint because of that + nothing will ever change’.

Each of those assumptions would need an entire article to consider in detail. However, since I am about to retire after inheriting $US74.6m, or so I am informed by Mr Michael JK Bolaji, President and Founder of the Central Bank of Nigeria, I will be brief.

I would like to concentrate on the first two and last part of the equation. The bit that suggests the ‘promoters makes the appointments’ and ‘nothing will change’.

Technically, at least, the promoters do not make appointments. Their appointed directors, and the other board members, are expected to approve the selection of the appointments committee.

(As an aside – nobody has ever explained how we once ended up with a chairman who didn’t even apply for the job . He was allegedly given the position over the course of a weekend. – I would love to name names but until Mr Bolaji comes through, I dare not risk the legals).

The Donoughue report, on which GBGB was created, originally stipulated that appointments committee should be manned by independent directors.

The problem has always been, the independent directors knew bugger-all about our industry, which has led to some shocking appointments and decisions. Which has led to promoters insisting on some input in the decision making. You can surely see the potential for it all to go tits-up.

IF you have a chairman who owes his job and allegiances to the promoters (I am not saying we have ever had one, of course) then you could, theoretically, end up with a promoter controlled board.

 

So what is the solution? Well how about the chairman and his independent directors being guided by the practitioners, as well as the promoters? Surely a much more rounded view?

The independent directors might not be greyhound industry savvy, but they are very bright people, and presumably 100% honest.

In the first instance, you need to find two practitioners who are shrewd, respected, understand greyhound racing’s issues and are capable of standing up to manipulation.

(Personally, I would have much preferred that the trainer’s role of GBGB be taken by the head of the Greyhound Trainers Association. Unfortunately, after three years of standing outside the room throwing slurry – none of which has stuck – and achieving nothing for their members – they have rightly lost their mandate.)

With new board appointments imminent, it is VITAL that trainers have a seat in the boardroom and a chance to influence the appointment of the new chairman, and possible CEO.

Step forward Pete Harnden, who I didn’t know personally prior to his appointment, but cannot rate highly enough having had various conversations with him. Peter won’t be bullied of fazed by promoters and understands the industry at grass roots level.

In fact, I don’t think I have met a person better able to represent trainers.

I did have grave reservations about a GBGB controlled short list for the ‘owner’ position on the Board. I was wrong. There were some outstanding candidates interviewed. I don’t know how they whittled it down to just two.

But we are where we are. Bob Boswell and Paul Ephremsen have different skill sets but are both engaging in the process for all the right reasons. They have also agreed that the ‘loser’ would be prepared to work with the winner. I love that!

Personally, I would edge towards Ephremsen, for practical, not personal reasons, based on his specialist knowledge of marketing and promotion. I have long argued that the failure to address commerciality is the single greatest area of failure of GBGB to date.

With Bob Boswell heading a welfare committee, on which he will excel, they really are the dream ticket, whoever comes out on top. I wish them both the best of luck.

GBGB have not deemed it worth informing the Star of the voting process. Thankfully, they felt able to brief Racing Post. – nothing new there. It seems all owners will shortly receive a voting form with a May 5 deadline.

I therefore urge all owners to give the candidates their full unconditional support and cast your votes. We need balance on the board and directors prepared to veto a promoter chosen chairman if necessary. Paul and Bob both need a good turnout, a strong mandate, to represent you guys.

As a group, the grass roots really are so much stronger pulling together. Look at what the New South Wales people achieved, and what the Irish still might.

It is not just my opinion. Some of the shrewdest people I know in this industry believe this is the best chance the owners and trainers have ever had. For God’s sake, don’t waste it.

This is not a dead industry!

Pete Harnden already has a slot as a regular columnist on this website. The owner’s representative will receive an identical offer.