I think Lord Lipsey has shown enormous cheek by having a pop at the GBGB in today’s Racing Post article by Jim Cremin “Lipsey warns GBGB over racing right”
Lipsey is concerned that the Board is to re-structure. Lipsey states: “There is growing concern at Westminster about the way the GBGB is functioning with the promoters holding too much sway. Clearly they forced out Maurice Watkins and they stopped Tom Shields from getting the job. UKAs are said to be uneasy and understandably so.”
REALLY!!!!
Firstly, the GBGB is currently laid out precisely to a structure that was created by former BGRB chaiman David Lipsey, his old chum Lord Donoughue and, among others, Jim Cremin, at a cost of around £1m.
That structure specifically included only one place for a ‘practitioner’ (owner OR trainer- something that the planned reform would change), but plenty of places for independent directors – all of whom are paid. The industry based directors are voluntary.
At the time the GBGB was conceived, the BGRF was bringing in £13m – roughly twice what it is now, six years later.
Donoughue and co. promised welfare reform and a thriving commercial industry. I think the new organisation has pretty much delivered on the first part.
It was delivered under a threat of blackmail by DEFRA (do it or go the local authority route), and at huge cost.
Some would argue that welfare hasn’t gone far enough. But many with that viewpoint would argue ‘as long a greyhound racing is still legal, there is still work to be done.’
But tell us, David, about the commerciality of the Board? Was that ever really thought through?
Was a thriving greyhound industry ever really a priority?
I would suggest that promises of bringing in fresh commercial impetus into the industry haven’t just failed – they have bombed!
Moving on, former chairman Maurice Watkin was a very decent man, though whether he was passionate about greyhound racing is another matter.
But he had reached the end of his contract and it wasn’t renewed. He wasn’t ‘got rid of’.
The same thing might happen, for similar reasons, to the manager of his beloved MUFC if the they don’t reach the Champions League.
My understanding of the Tom Shield case – yet another highly respected, honest and able individual – was that certain directors felt that Shields should apply for the position of chairman rather than being appointed ‘through the back door’ as was being suggested in some circles.
Overall what benefits or commercial genius did the independent directors bring to the greyhound industry?
We are skint David! And we are in a much much worse state than before the GBGB was created.
Everyone blames the promoters for the industry’s failure, yet Donoughue had carte blanche opportunities and failed to deliver.
So don’t whinge on about your precious GBGB as some kind of sacred cow.
If you had delivered a Government pledge to equality with horse racing, alongside threats, demands and more regulation, nobody would be moaning now.
The track promoters are looking for change because the industry will die without it.
Experience has taught us that ‘Donoughue’ was very far from perfect – hopefully it can now be improved upon.
