The £1m Donoughue report that led to the creation of the GBGB laid out the responsibilities of the new body:

  • To develop a commercial strategy for the greyhound racing industry.
  • To promote the interests of greyhound racing.
  • To approve proposals for additions or amendments to the Rules of Racing as submitted by the Greyhound Regulatory Board
  • To formulate industry policy on welfare and other common-interest issues.
  • To manage Government and inter-industry relations including public relations and media liaison.
  • To approve the annual budget.
  • To establish and maintain a common database covering all licensed greyhounds (active and, in due course, recently retired), personnel and premises.
  • To develop and implement industry training policy.

How many ticks do GBGB deserve after seven years? I would suggest less than half.

Ideas like the resumption of permit racing – which would encompass at least three of the above aims – should have been the board’s responsibility to devise, not the job of a maverick journalist.

With tracks now queuing up to partake, I am convinced that there is no turning back on that particular venture which is a great example of the industry working together.

I retrieved the idea from the long grass from where GBGB had kicked it and fed it to the scrum of readers who signed our petition. Racing Post’s Jonathan Kay hooked it out to the forums who then ran with it before handing onto the promoter front row heavyweights Billy King and John Curran who forced it over the line.

We all know that permit racing will not save greyhound racing in itself but it will help ease the runner crisis. If there was a silver bullet for all greyhound racing’s issues, I believe we would have discovered it already. But if you buy into the philosophy that ‘if you do 100 things 1% better’ you are 100% more likely to succeed’, maybe it is a sound ‘one-percenter’

So, for the next few days, I would like to present a series of possible ‘one per centers’. I accept that they are much less likely to be powered through than the permit plan because there is less in them to directly benefit the promoters.

Some ideas will require additional funding.

Most will require alternative thinking – but maybe we are on a roll. . .?

If you would like to comment or add your views http://greyhoundstar.co.uk/contact

 

1) A complete overhaul of open racing to include central funding

GRA have been at the forefront of criticism for being prepared to sacrifice staging major competitions if they were not able to find sponsors.

The response from the masses when the Oaks and Laurels looked possible casualties was ‘they should fund them themselves for the sake of the industry’.

We all know that no greyhound was ever born to run A5 at Crayford. Every pup was a potential Derby or Oaks winner. Without the glory competitions, the SKY meetings, the trophies and publicity, an industry funded on dreams, not profits, is in big trouble.

Now imagine it from the track’s perspective. That £30K additional prize money might as well be burned. There is no longer a travelling open race following to descend on the betting ring for the big events.

In fact, crowds are depleted with every televised meeting. Throw in trophies, jackets and hospitality for finalists, and the host track is massively out of pocket. And since the track’s prize money budget is finite, it would be the local graded runners who miss out.

Yet who are the single biggest beneficiaries of the big nights? The betting industry!

All the leading firms trade on SKY meetings. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are turned over. Yet when it comes to funding, the tracks rely on a handful of sponsors or self-funding. As things stand, the BGRF only offers prize money grants for GRADED racing.

I propose that, should the bookies deliver on internet betting, a significant percentage of the estimated £3m – maybe £400,000 – be ring-fenced for open racing.

All category one/two events should be ceded to GBGB who would then ensure that every single track would stage at least one ‘Cat 1’ event which would be partially funded from the open race pool. Every participating track – they wouldn’t be forced to take part – would have to make a contribution to prize money – the scale of which would have to be determined.

Tracks could stage as many Cat 1s as they choose, but would get reduced additional grants.

Once the final prize money fund was agreed, a trainer’s representative would be consulted to help determine the split; what percentage goes to the qualifying rounds and final and how is that split in terms of winner’s and other prizes.

Also, as in Ireland, there should be an automatic deduction of 10% to the winning trainer.

We could resurrect traditional events lost to the industry like the Pall Mall and the Anglo-Irish International. I would also suggest – something of a loss-leader at first – that grants might also be targeted towards less popular distances. Over a period of time it would encourage more breeding of marathon and staying greyhounds – and that would benefit both open and graded racing.