Under-fire Thomas hits out at prize hikes

Published: 29/01/2003 (Greyhound News) JONATHAN KAY

BGRB chief executive Geoffrey Thomas yesterday hit out at what he terms as a "hollow gesture" by both Ladbrokes and William Hill to increase prize-money at the tracks they own, but came under fire himself from both former BGRB board member Terry Corden and UGO secretary Tim Gardner.
Corden, in a letter to the Racing Post (see page 66), said he was not hopeful of a New Deal settlement as things currently stand, remarking: "I do hope that common-sense will prevail but, in my opinion, until our negotiating team is changed I am afraid I am not very hopeful."
Gardner accused Thomas of "childish playground insults" in the chief executive's response to UGO's warning that owner support for New Deal is not unconditional.
"Are the BGRB unwilling to answer owners' questions or explain in reasonable detail how any money will be used and what `we' the greyhound industry hope to achieve in measurable terms?" asked Gardner.
However, Thomas concentrated his thoughts yesterday on the bookmaker promoters, as he said:. "I'd like to be able to say that we are pleased to see an increase in owners' prize-money. But such is the calculating nature of this transparent attempt to dilute the support of owners and trainers for the New Deal that all it really shows us are the lengths to which off-course bookmakers will go in order to maintain their stranglehold over our sport.
"The raising of prize-money by Ladbrokes and Hills in this way, which benefits only their own tracks, becomes an even more hollow gesture when you consider the profits the track's owners made from greyhound racing last year.
"Ladbrokes made more than pounds 132 million from betting on our sport, that is over pounds 360,000 a day, while Hills made more than pounds 99 million, over pounds 270,000 a day, and for both companies that is in their betting shops alone," Thomas claimed.
"It will come as no surprise to anyone that Brough Park have also announced prize-money increases, given that it is common knowledge that William Hill are known to be looking to buy another greyhound track.
"With this in mind, the fact that these increases come only now, when they wish to manipulate public opinion, says a great deal about the companies concerned. But the truth is no one has bought into this deceitful and ham-fisted confidence trick."

BROUGH Park is the latest track to make a significant increase in prize-money. From Saturday every race at the Newcastle track will have its winner's cheque increased by pounds 30 in a move that, according to promoter Alan Hutton, will cost pounds 90,000 a year, writes John Forbes.
Hutton said: "The increase is across the board and starts on February 1. From then all A1 winners will pick up pounds 130, while those at the bottom end, the A8 grade, will receive pounds 80.
"I had put the increase to our trainers and asked them to think about it, and we had another meeting at the weekend when it was approved.
"I didn't think that I had the right to jump in and make decisions for them so I let them decide what they wanted to do and they opted for an increase now.
"I have 20 trainers here at Brough Park and they were unanimous in their decision to accept this increase ahead of any New Deal."
The news comes a week after William Hill set the ball rolling with major increases at Sunderland, which was immediately followed by an announcement from Ladbrokes that they too were giving their prize-money structure a major boost at their two tracks.
nBrough Park's jackpot pool has a carryover of more than pounds 5,600 for tonight. Two of the three heats of the William Hill Puppy Cup feature in the six legs of the jackpot (races five to ten).

Thomas dismisses UGO's `zero contribution'

Published: 28/01/2003 (Greyhound Features) Jonathan Kay

THE Union of Greyhound Owners has warned the BGRB that support from owners for the Board's New Deal campaign was not unconditional, but the Board's chief executive Geoffrey Thomas hit back to say that UGO's "contribution so far has been zero," writes Jonathan Kay.
The war of words started when UGO secretary Tim Gardner highlighted a comment made by Belle Vue general manager John Gilburn as illustrative of their concerns.
Quoted in Thursday's Racing Post about the ongoing row over owners at his track threatening to `mass-rest' greyhounds in pursuit of a prize-money increase, Gilburn said: "If the New Deal had come to fruition by now then I'm sure we wouldn't have found ourselves in this position."
UGO openly admits that it has a very small membership base, but feedback to the Racing Post suggests that their concerns are increasingly shared by many other owners, especially in light of last week's GRA threat to ban Belle Vue owners who rest their greyhounds as part of any protest.
Gardner said that such statements only serve to increase suspicion levels amongst owners about who will be the real beneficiaries of any New Deal.
He said: "Having seen prize-money rise rarely, it is inevitable that New Deal will see some promoters, especially those with the `sharing principles' of the GRA, look to reduce and certainly not increase their prize-money burden.
"While owners and trainers look forward to 50 per cent of any increased income, no doubt many promoters are also looking forward to their slice of this part of the pie by the backdoor mechanism of no more prize-money increases.
"UGO is coming under pressure from its members to withdraw support for the New Deal until the BGRB provide, in writing, a proper, detailed vision for our sport that is specific in how money will be spent, and measurable targets provided as to what it is expected to achieve."
Thomas is clearly growing tired of the debate and said: "At the risk of boring the people who have heard me say this on so many occasions during this campaign, let me make our position clear once again.
"The New Deal will see 50 per cent of all additional funding generated go straight into prize-money. Our aim is to increase greyhound racing's income to the point where every race run under NGRC rules will be worth pounds 200 or more.
"Quite frankly I find UGO's comments unbelievable. From nothing, we have launched a campaign on behalf of greyhound racing, with the primary aim to improve the lives of owners, trainers and greyhounds.
"I sometimes wonder whether the oxygen of publicity is more important to UGO than the actual issue itself. To be honest it is no surprise to me that UGO has seized on New Deal to give itself another platform for publicity, but if they withdraw their support we will continue as before unabated.
"Their contribution thus far has been zero. The removal of their support will have the same effect."

LADBROKES yesterday became the latest bookmaker-promoter to announce a significant prize-money increase when it was revealed that purses for graded races at their Crayford and Monmore stadia will be boosted to the tune of 33 per cent from next month.
Sunderland, now under the William Hill banner, on Tuesday announced that it would be the first track in the UK to offer a minimum first prize of pounds 100 in all graded races from February 1.
Much of the talk in the current round of negotiations between the greyhound and bookmaking industries over an increase in funding, i.e. the BGRB's `New Deal', has speculated that an owners' strike at a major BAGS track was one possible weapon for the greyhound side.
Now the operators of three of the five bookmaker-owned tracks appear to have placed large financial obstacles in that path. Coral, the other bookmaker-promoter, is yet to comment or act.
Both Crayford and Monmore had already been noted for paying prize-money levels towards the upper end of the scale in greyhound racing, and the timing of Ladbrokes' announcement could hardly be more astute, coming on the day it was revealed that owners at GRA Belle Vue are threatening to `mass-rest' their greyhounds.
This is a reaction to the news that they would not receive an increase in their prize-money this year ahead of any New Deal settlement.
Commenting on the increases, Ladbrokes' spokesman Balthazar Fabricius said: "These substantial increases bring a further benefit to the greyhound owners and trainers at our two tracks.
"We have increased prize-money across the entire range of race types, and in the coming year we have concentrated on the winners' purses.
"In the previous few years we have increased purses for greyhounds running in second place and below, but this year we have turned our attention back on to the winners.
"We anticipate, at current costs, these new levels of prize-money will enable an increasing number of owners to more than cover kennel bills."
Barry Stanton, general manager at Crayford, echoed those sentiments, saying: "We are going to increase win-money by pounds 50 across the board; for instance an A8 will now be worth pounds 100 to the winner, and a top grade E1 over 714m is up to pounds 200.
"There will be also be increased money for second place and also-rans in the upper graded echelons.
"In the last three years we have increased prize-money at Crayford by around pounds 160,000 and this is another big injection."
It is understood that the latest increase amounts to an additional outlay of some pounds 176,000.

Thomas: We will back Zoo owners

Published: 24/01/2003 (Greyhound News) Jonathan Kay

BGRB chief executive Geoffrey Thomas yesterday stepped into the row between the GRA and the Belle Vue owners over the `mass-resting' of runners at the track.
The owners' association's threat in pursuit of a prize-money increase brought a counter-threat from the GRA that any owners doing so faced being banned from having runners at the track.
Thomas, aware that the GRA's inflammatory comments, delivered by Belle Vue general manager John Gilburn at a meeting with owners last weekend, are a big threat to unity in the New Deal negotiations, said: "I do not agree with intimidation of any kind, whatever the circumstances.
"As long as their dogs' interests are not compromised and the rules of racing are obeyed, owners have the right to do whatever they wish with their greyhounds without the fear of reprisal.
"Personally, I think that the GRA has been heavy-handed in their attitude . . . . and I really would urge them to reconsider."
And Thomas said the Belle Vue owners would receive BGRB support in the event of any sanctions being taken. "We hope that this dispute will be resolved quickly and reasonably, but let me make our position very clear. Should the GRA suspend any owner from any of its tracks, I will ask the Board to offer those owners its unequivocal support.
"No doubt those in the sport who buy into the myth that the BGRB is controlled by the big promoters will be surprised that I have taken this stance. But the Board should always be able to take an independent view, and should only be concerned with what is fair, equitable and in the interests of greyhound racing.
"I will be doing everything possible to ensure that no owner at any track is bullied or intimidated, whatever the circumstances."
However, Thomas requested patience from all concerned, questioning whether owners were aiming at the right target. "At this vital time for our industry I appeal for patience and temperance, because the days when greyhounds race for a fraction of their worth are coming to an end.
"Promoters make money from greyhound racing, but they are running commercial enterprises, which provide us with an arena for the sport we love, and they are entitled to make a profit.
"Meanwhile, other organisations take our racing, make millions of pounds a year from betting on it, and exploit our industry on a daily basis. I do not condemn owners for taking action, but I would strongly suggest that they consider very carefully who their real target should be."
GRA publicity director Mike Raper yesterday clarified how the warning to owners over mass-resting of greyhounds had come about. "Contrary to the original report, this was a GRA decision taken with the backing of the Wembley plc board," he said.
"And I should also point out that any decision to ban an owner from racing greyhounds in the event of resting them in these circumstances would only apply to the track concerned, not across the whole GRA group.
"I can understand Geoffrey Thomas' point of view, but the fact remains that we cannot run a business with a gun held to our head."

THE BGRB has added to its New Deal negotiating team with the off-course bookmaking industry, bringing Shawfield's Billy King and Professional Trainers' Association chairman John Haynes to a panel that also includes Clarke Osborne (Stadia UK), Jarvis Astaire (GRA) and BGRB chief executive Geoffrey Thomas.
Thomas said: "It is recognised that we are negotiating for the good of the whole of greyhound racing and these further appointments agreed by the Board reflect that."
Thomas is currently in the process of arranging a further meeting with bookmaker representatives ahead of the February 1 deadline over copyright rights - a deadline which has already seen Ladbrokes-owned Crayford make provisions for staging its Golden Jacket as a non-BAGS competition for the first time.

Greyhounds: Lower class graders in clover with Sunderland cash boost

Published: 23/01/2003 (Greyhound News) Jonathan Kay

KEVIN WILDE, William Hill's director of stadia, said yesterday that he "expects other tracks will follow suit" following his announcement in the Sky Sports broadcast from the track on Tuesday that all races at Sunderland will carry a minimum first prize of pounds 100 from February 1, writes Jonathan Kay.
"The timing of the announcement was nothing to do with the New Deal negotiations," said Wilde, "it just seemed right to tie it in with the Regal Gold Cup meeting when the Sky cameras were here. But I do expect other tracks will follow suit and make similar announcements in the near future whilst there is so much going on in the background.
"Our decision, though, was made in the light of our figures being slightly ahead of schedule since William Hill bought the track; I went to the board and they agreed this package to reward our owners and trainers."
There will now be a much tighter prize range at the track, with bottom grade A6 winners receiving pounds 100 and A1 winners pounds 110. "That equates to a 67 per cent increase for A6 and 20 per cent for A1," said Wilde.
"So while it is true that some grades have done better in percentage terms than others, there is a healthy increase across the board. All in all, it will cost us pounds 84,000, but we're pleased to be in the position to do it."

THE Belle Vue owners' association and the GRA are on a collision course that threatens to spread throughout the group's racecourses.
The owners and Belle Vue general manager John Gilburn have been holding discussions about prize-money for many months, but the negotiations degenerated to confrontation at a heated meeting at the weekend.
The owners were told there would be no extra cash this year, and they responded with a threat to start `resting' greyhounds, a move that could result in serious disruption to racing in Manchester.
They also indicated that they would be holding talks with owners associations at the GRA's other tracks.
That is something that will cause concern not only in the GRA boardroom but also at the BGRB headquarters, where they are trying to display a united front in the battle for the `New Deal' with the bookmakers.
Around 40 owners attended Sunday's meeting, and the association later released a statement: "The meeting voted by a huge majority (it is believed that there was just one dissenting voice) to recommend the resting of dogs in the wake of the GRA's decision not to award an increase in prize-money for 2003.
"The stadium manager, John Gilburn, then interjected to pass on a decision by Wembley plc, the GRA's parent company, that any owner who rested their greyhounds in pursuit of the claim for a prize-money increase would be barred from running their dogs at any of the company's tracks in future.
"This brought an angry reaction from the meeting which had already expressed disappointment and dismay that the promised increase for 2003 had not materialised."
Gilburn commented: "Yes, there was some hostility at the meeting, but I think and hope that some people saw sense at the end of it.
"I don't think that everyone fully understood the implications of the `New Deal' and how important it is to continue to show a united front.
"I had to warn that anyone resting a dog because of the prize-money situation wouldn't race at a GRA track again.
"It is a very difficult situation for everyone concerned and I was pleased to see that, while they still passed a resolution about resting dogs, three members of the committee would be meeting with owners at our other tracks. So there is still some talking going on.
"If the New Deal had come to fruition by now then I'm sure we wouldn't have found ourselves in this position."
The two sides reached the same situation 18 months ago when GRA managing director Clive Feltham stepped in at the last minute to resolve the dispute with an award of almost 14 per cent for 2002, plus the promise of future talks.
However, it would appear that the Wembley board is determined to resist the owners at all costs this time round.
Since the 2002 settlement, the Greyhound Owners Association GRA has emerged to give added weight to owners' demands, and the Belle Vue negotiators will now meet with them to decide on what course to take.
There has been increasing criticism in recent weeks of the GRA from owners at all their racecourses, and the companycould well find itself fighting `a war' on many fronts.
Trevor Hocking, an owner in Manchester for more than 30 years, has one of the biggest strings of greyhounds at Belle Vue and he was in favour of action.
He commented: "We went ten years without any rise until last year and it is impossible to get anywhere near to the cost of keeping a dog simply in prize-money.
"I believe the GRA are being very unreasonable in their dealings with owners and that we may have to take action. Their threat to stop owners from racing at their tracks for resting greyhounds was like a red rag to a bull.
"However I still hope that we can find a solution without having to resort to any action. We are always willing to talk."
The owners will be giving the company no advance notice of any resting policy as they seek to achieve the maximum effect if they are forced to go on the offensive.
However, the racing strength at Belle Vue is currently around the 370 mark, many of which are owned by contracted trainers who would find themselves in the extremely uncomfortable position of being caught between the two sides. It will be interesting to see how many open races are advertised for Belle Vue in the next edition of the Calendar.
"We will continue to race, have no doubt about that," added Gilburn. "We will drop to ten or eight races a meeting if necessary, or even one meeting a week if we have to.
"That is the GRA stance on the matter, not mine. We feel we are in a position that we cannot tolerate."
The situation cannot surely rest easily on the shoulders of BGRB chief executive Geoffrey Thomas.
Just a couple of weeks ago he stood in Wimbledon's Diamond Room vowing to back trainers "both legally and financially" to ensure nobody was bullied out of a job at BAGS tracks as he appealed for unity within the sport in the New Deal battle with the bookmakers.
Now the GRA men who sat round that table look as though they may use similar tactics as those being employed by the bookmakers to bring owners into line.
As a public relations exercise it has all the hallmarks of a disaster.

Peter Wilkins, a Hall Green owner, says he does hold rights, and the bookmakers should take heed of it
SO Tom Kelly and the Association of British Bookmakers have decided to question exactly what rights the BGRB claim to have with regard to the "intellectual property rights" in greyhound racing. Good question.
I have bought many greyhounds over the years and I can't recall ever passing any rights in my dogs to anyone else. I didn't pass any rights to the NGRC when my dogs were registered to run under their rules. I didn't pass any rights to my trainer when she took the dogs on, nor did I pass any rights to the promoters who operate the tracks they ran on. Yes, I have accepted that I, and my dogs have to comply with the rules under which they run, but I have never authorised anyone to use the details of the dogs, their photographs or any television, video or webcasting data.
The NGRC have decided to create a massive database, covering all greyhounds running at NGRC licenced tracks, plus relevant Irish data, with a view to doing away with the identity book, and have delegated the task of providing the raw data to the promoters. I think this is a real step forward, and applaud it, but nobody ever asked me about passing on the data relating to my dogs, nor have I, or any owners as far as I am aware, passed any legal rights to anyone in this context.
In the pre-technology era this was not of any great importance, but it is now becoming apparent that considerable value lies in this data. I think the time is right for the owners association, the FBGOA, to take this issue further. I know that the BGRB is suggesting that owners will benefit substantially from the New Deal, with large prize-money increases, but we have no guarantees, and the way the bookmakers are reacting at present suggests that, once again, they are intent on screwing us into the ground.
Perhaps Mr Kelly and the bookmakers should re-think their attitude. Do they really want to be fighting this issue on more than one front. If so, perhaps they should realise that for once the interests of the NGRC, the BGRB, the promoters, the owners and the trainers are all likely to be the same, and in conflict with theirs.
PETER WILKINS
Treasurer,
Hall Green Owners' Association

WE as owners have been given the task by certain other likeminded owners who are not so easily hoodwinked by the likes of Geoffrey Thomas, to raise certain issues that we feel need to be addressed.
In the first instance, let us make it clear that we do support the New Deal in principle, but with principle being the operative word.
We have on numerous occasions contacted Geoffrey requesting confirmation of how the proposed 50 per cent that is to go into prize-money will be distributed. He in turn seems unwilling or unable to reply to what we consider a fair and straightforward request. These are the main points upon which we require clarification:
1) Is the proposed 20 per cent to trainers to come off all prize-money or just from any new input from said `New Deal'?
2) The proposed pounds 200 per race - is this pounds 200 to the winner or pounds 200 total race prize-money?
3) Why are they creaming off 30 per cent of the 50 per cent prize-money for the `top' tracks?
As owners, we feel very aggrieved that once again we have been sidelined in favour of other interested parties. The fact that Geoffrey can happily arrange meetings to update trainers on the situation yet when it comes to owners he cannot even be bothered to reply to our emails, we feel is unacceptable.
Yet he has the audacity to merrily spout off about how there is complete unity over the New Deal. Well we have news for you Geoffrey, not from where we are sitting!
Many owners are of the opinion that we should wait until the New Deal is struck before taking any action. Unfortunately, this would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted! We can only judge the BGRB on their past performance and what have they ever done for the owners or the greyhounds?
The only tangible way in which our greyhounds could truly benefit from past Fund money would be for us owners to take them into the posh new restaurants and toilets funded by them! We all know that the BGRB is promoter-controlled so let us not be deceived into thinking that they will look after us once the dust settles. Let's face it, at many tracks we have to pay to get in and if we do get in free we are charged for our racecard. This should serve as a reminder of their benevolence.
If we look at the current structure, only a relatively small percentage of the Fund goes into prize-money. And ask yourselves the question. When you see a BGRF added prize-money race, does this extra amount actually get added at all times or is it sometimes used to subsidise the amount the promoters pay out?
Perhaps now is the time to embrace a No 2 Fund with a broad-based constitution, as originally put forward by Lord Kimball. With the right people on board we could ensure that all funds are distributed where they are most needed, such as greyhound welfare, prize-money, the RGT, trainers and kennelhands to name but a few. What we would like to see is a clear and unambiguous declaration from the BGRB as to exactly how any additional income will be distributed.
DAVID MILES, Wickford, Essex STEPHEN BUTTERWORTH-PARR, South Ockendon,
DAVE WOOD, Edinburgh

IT'S been a bruising, and worrying, couple of months since the British Greyhound Racing Board declared war on the betting industry.
The low point came with an over-excited speech from Geoffrey Thomas to a House of Commons meeting on December 2, although bookmakers have played a typical game - saying little other than `it's nothing to do with us'. But at least they, perhaps for the first time, understand the strength of feeling about the unfairness and underfunding this sport has been subjected to, especially in comparison with horseracing.
Bookmakers got away with too much for too long because the promoters are weak. This is because of the deliberate divide and rule ownership by bookmakers of five tracks, probably six shortly, and the almost total reliance of some promoters on BAGS (Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Service) fees. It has become the drug they cannot live without.
Trainers (and owners) recognise this weakness because they are exactly in the same rotten position with promoters - a situation similar to that famous upper, middle and lower class sketch from BBC TV's The Frost Report. For class, instead read power as Tom Kelly (played by John Cleese) looks down on Jarvis Astaire (Ronnie Barker), who looks down on John Haynes (Ronnie Corbett).
This `natural order' is only buckling because the BGRB (well, the promoters really) has discovered data rights which it says it controls and that the bookmakers require. The bookmakers dispute this, but are clearly concerned enough to be examining ways of producing their own form database. This has led to the BGRB complaining to the police about an alleged theft of some of `its data'.
There is another investigation going on over at the National Greyhound Racing Club over separate allegations from Thomas relating to the control of bookmakers. The Racing Post is also concerned how fear of the power of bookmakers may have led `down-trodden' promoters, and some daft employees, to do stupid things. Some of Thomas's evidence lacks credibility, but the Racing Post has published the highly worrying testimony from Jim Reynolds, a respected Walthamstow trainer, of alleged track manipulation at a bookmaker- owned track during a BAGS meeting.
But this is not a conspiracy to defraud punters, although it might certainly be tempting to so term the unhealthy manipulation of forecast and tricast formulae by bookmakers. To their eternal shame bookmakers here nakedly departed from the principals of fair play in order to increase profits. This appalling greed represents, in my opinion, real evidence of consistent abuse of a dominant position, and something the Government, and the soon- to-be inaugurated Gambling Commission, must consider.
HOWEVER, it needs to be said that there is nothing wrong in bookmakers, as customers of greyhound racing, asking for `competitive racing'. And there is nothing wrong in racing managers being required, within proper guidelines, to try and produce 3-1 the field races. The Racing Post believes this demand from bookmakers is mistaken, because we think punters enjoy a variety of betting markets, but it's a commercial matter and not a regulatory one.
Bookmaking, as a whole, certainly does deserve criticism for their failure to meet their responsibilities to the Fund. Earlier tax cuts were made on the basis of initially 0.25 per cent, then 0.4 per cent of greyhound turnover, going to the Fund. Because this had voluntary status, only major companies, those who care about Government opinion, mainly paid up. The vast majority do not, and this includes the chairman of the new Association of British Bookmakers, Warwick Bartlett - now the leader of the entire bookmaking industry. Bartlett is shameless on this issue, even though it is another example of bookmakers not playing fair.
Betting comes under the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and its officials, including the Minister of Sport, Richard Caborn, are taking a close interest in what is happening, although say they will not involve themselves in `commercial matters'. However, when bookmakers come asking for assistance on matters that concern them, and they have some major issues, it will weigh against them if they are judged not to have met their `responsibilities' on greyhound racing. They must first ensure the benefit of the most recent tax change is passed on - remember these are the same people who failed to do exactly this with previous tax cuts. Bookmakers have much ground to make up.
They also face, for the first time, realistic threats from some owners, who are threatening to refuse to race their dogs at betting shop meetings. There is genuine fury, although admittedly some of it reflects disenchantment at the owner and trainer's lot about earnings from all greyhound meetings, and not just BAGS ones. Promoters are not innocent parties here, but, on balance, those within the sport believe unity is the only way any improvement can happen.
Although the figures are confusing, the BGRB has come up with a demand for what appears to be an additional pounds 24m, on top of the pounds 16m currently reckoned to be paid by bookmakers. It justifies this through comparison with what horseracing earns.
Because of the latest tax change, and an offer for internet rights, the Racing Post has estimated there may be up to pounds 5m on the table from bookmakers. The gap is huge, daftly so. The BGRB seems to have learned its art of negotiation from the firemen. Parity with horseracing is a dream that will not be realised, but that does not mean a fair solution cannot be found. Progress on settling the firefighters' dispute was made by independent arbitration - is it time for a `wise man' to intervene here?
THE Government may conveniently wish to stay out of commercial matters, but isn't it a shareholder in the sport through the enormous chunk it earns through sharing in bookmaker profits? The DCMS should be the `honest broker' here, especially given the core Labour Party ideal to help the weak. It might gently point out to bookmakers that because their profit margin on greyhound racing is far higher than on horseracing - partly through their manipulation of the forecast and tricast formulae - their capacity to pay is actually greater!
Of course, that said, it costs dramatically less to stage a greyhound race, compared to a horse one, and horseracing holds a strong bargaining position because of its dominance with punters. The BGRB will be acutely aware that if it is proven to control the rights it says it has, but prices itself out of the market, bookmakers may switch instead to a mixture of racing from their own tracks, and `numbers' betting, including virtual dogs. This is a risky path.
The DCMS may also wonder if it is right, or fair to punters, that bookmakers are seeking to operate their own database? This presumably leaves out form, or only gives partial form, for tracks not contracted to BAGS. Imagine the outcry if bookmakers decided what form should be available to punters for horseracing. Another concern is that a separate database might be the fore-runner to a split in the entire sport. There are catastrophic implications; we could spiral into chaos.
What off-course bookmakers cannot be expected to do is to carry the entire greyhound industry, but they must accept a proportion of the infrastructure costs. The Henlows of this world will not be earning a huge windfall out of this, whatever New Deal says, but they do deserve better treatment - greyhounds from there end up on BAGS, and the track's owners and trainers pay the fees that keep the National Greyhound Racing Club in business. Or do the bookmakers also propose to set their own `NGRC' up, and fine trainers for wrongdoing?!
What is essential is that increased funding, when it arrives, is spread equitably. Many owners and trainers are also worried that promoters will hijack most of what is gained, and a mechanism is required to ensure fairness for all. The Fund and BGRB has been too promoter-dominated up until now, oddly enough it's been bookmakers who have tended to hold promoters in check on the Fund's board, rather than owners and trainers.
Both sides have to be realistic, but especially bookmakers. They have enjoyed all the advantages of the relationship with greyhound racing, even if some promoters have also earned a tidy sum out of it. Now it's pay-back time, otherwise disaffected owners and trainers seem likely to mount a grassroots campaign to inform the general public of the industry's plight and concerns about numerous issues, including welfare and the minimum wage. There are plans to irritate bookmakers, and their shareholders, as much as possible.
A mechanism for mutual sharing might be advantageous, but as it stands, neither side is going to roll over. Common sense is required; it's time for the posturing to cease; greyhound racing deserves better.

THE hand of history is upon us as many people, not least Richard Caborn, the Minister of Sport and his colleagues in Westminster watch and wait to see the result of today's meeting of the Association of British Bookmakers, at which the British Greyhound Racing Board's New Deal is being considered.
The betting industry is under no illusion that Government has expected them to reach an acceptable arrangement with the Board ever since the move to Gross Profits Tax (GPT) was made 14 months ago. In that time off-course betting turnover on greyhound racing has risen by over 40 percent.
The Minister made clear to the assembled bookmakers at the House of Commons on 2 December 2002 that HM Government did not introduce GPT `for the benefit of their health'. They did it to create a climate of investment which should not just benefit the betting industry, but also should benefit horseracing and greyhound racing. So far, only horseracing and the betting industry themselves have reaped the rewards of the Government's taxation initiative. Now it is the turn of greyhound racing.
The Board is not expecting something for nothing. The New Deal offers the betting industry:
lThe protection of a licensing regime which enables them to legally bet on all 72,000 races we stage a year
lA full form and racecard service supplied from the National Form Database
lInvestment in the National Form Database which offers punters and bookmakers alike the reliability, credibility and integrity required of a nationwide gambling sport
lA share in fixture control
lRepresentation on the new body that will distribute income into the sport
lFunding of enhanced standards of racecourse integrity and security, higher prize money and the Retired Greyhound Trust
lPartnership to explore initiatives to expand betting on greyhound racing in this country and overseas
lA long term agreement with the betting industry which will not necessitate `levy' type squabbles every year and will allow investment into the sport
Of course, the New Deal offer could be rejected out of hand. We must be prepared for the possibility that the Association recommends to its members that they don't want to work with greyhound racing and only want to use our product as a betting medium.
Bookmakers could pledge to try and increase their control over the sport by buying more tracks, thereby dividing their tracks from the rest of the sport. They could look to drive a further wedge between the tracks with BAGS contracts and those without. They may even propose setting up their own bookmakers form database and risk offering inaccurate, incomplete and unverified form and data. But make no mistake, they will only do these things if they decide that profit means more to them than their integrity and credibility.
We hope that this is not the path the betting industry will choose because the damage that will be done to our beloved sport will be irreparable. Tracks will be lost, owners and trainers will disappear from the sport. The Board will be forever in legal disrepute with bookmakers and neither of our industries will be able to approach the future with the confidence that comes from shared mutual interests and commercial cooperation.
We have kept our side of the bargain and now the ball is in the court of the Bookmakers' Association. As requested, we have provided the betting industry with a way forward through the New Deal. We have also done as they asked and agreed not to enforce our rights until the end of the month in order to give them time to reach agreement with us.
Owners and trainers and those that follow greyhound racing have real hope for the first time in 40 years. The 20,000 people who have logged on to our website to support New Deal wait in anticipation. The positive news for all of us then is that given good will and reasonableness on both sides, I'm confident we can reach agreement by Jan 31.
It is time for the conflict to stop and co-operation to begin. There lies ahead the possibility of a golden future for both our industries. Only by working in partnership can both greyhound racing and the betting industry achieve all that each of us is capable of achieving.
GEOFFREY THOMAS
chief executive
BGRB, London