THE WEDNESDAY WHINGE has a new look but won’t be dispensing with some of our old favorites and will continue to focus on THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY side of what has happened in racing over the past week. Our old mate ‘Godfrey Smith’ is back by popular demand and again pens his ‘Look Back at the Racing Week’. The Whinge will also include an opportunity for The Cynics to Have Their Say. Thanks again for your support for the most read column on this website. Our popularity continues to grow despite the bagging it is copping from some officials who cannot cope with constructive criticism.
RQ SHOULD STOP HIDING BEHIND CONFIDENTIALITY AND START INFORMING STAKEHOLDERS 
ALBERT WILLIAMS of BRISBANE sent this informative EMAIL OF THE WEEK:
‘THROUGH this website last week the outcomes of the new distribution deal were spelt out in terms that we thought were simple and easy to understand.
Racing Queensland is a statutory body set up by the LNP Government and is duty bound under the statutes and regulations to inform stakeholders of the results of this important issue that effects the lives of so many in this industry.
The Owners’ Association, I understand, asked the CEO of Racing Queensland, Darren Condon, to confirm the details and outcomes as to the monetary value of the new deal on an annual basis so as to understand the annual upside that will flow to the industry. His reply was ridiculous and apparently stated: ‘Details are confidential and will not be released until mid July’.
Tatts announced the deal to the Stock Exchange and Citi Group and other Institutions have released their findings with a remarkable consensus of opinion ‘a great deal for Tatts’ with upside to the industry of between $15 and $20 million.
The deal would not have been released to the Stock Exchange or institutional investors if the details were confidential. So why would Condon be instructed by Chairman Kevin Dixon to make a statement like this?
I would suggest possible reasons are that the LNP does not want any more bad news before the upcoming by-election in Stafford, or the Inter Code split up of the maximum $20 million is being hotly contested by the Harness and Greyhound codes.
The most likely reason is that Minister Steve Dickson and RQ Chairman Kevin Dixon are feeling the heat for delivering a deal that is not within a ‘bull’s roar’ of the expectations that they had jointly built over the previous year.
The deal was to be the salvation of the industry. They were to be the Heaven-sent saviors. And the deal would position the industry ‘a furlong ahead of the pack’.
Might I suggest the deal of between $15-$20 million additional funding will mean that racing in Queensland is still lagging the field by the length of the straight?
We have already ascertained that the thoroughbreds would require a minimum of $43 million to level with NSW on prizemoney alone without considering other payments to stakeholders.
The industry has been remarkably silent. Or are they shell-shocked by the latest developments?
Kevin Dixon and Minister Dickson cannot continue to make outlandish statements on how clever they are and what they have delivered.
If our calculation of the upside is anywhere near correct, what they have delivered to the commercial industry is a death sentence or a massive downsizing to stay afloat and relevant.
The opportunity to deliver a reasonable outcome has been squandered.
The result was never going to be even close to the outlandish statements that we came to expect from a Racing Minister who was either misled, is out of his depth, or possibly both.
DEADLY SILENCE FROM KEY GROUPS – ARE THEY TOO AFRAID TO QUESTION RQ?
THE most remarkable observation is the lack of comment by our elected leaders and office holders with the exception of those making a blind statement of support to continue the never ending spin. There has been no official comment from the industry associations.
Breeders, Owners, Trainers, Jockeys, Country Racing and Club Chairmen – it would be hard to accept that they are all satisfied, maybe possibly intimidated, don't care, or are not sufficiently up to the mark to understand the consequences for their club or stakeholders’ future.
I suggest that they are like the rest of us and have no detail or actual annual increase to be able to make an informed judgment.
The time has come for the All Codes Board, chaired by Kevin Dixon, to give the industry the actual annual monetary upside to the distribution for the racing industry and explain in simple terms how he arrives at the annual upside position.
Dixon negotiated the deal, excluded his Board including Board members who had far more experience in commercial dealings, so he needs to explain the end result he achieved.
Former Board members (Deputy Chairman Barry Taylor and harness rep Brad Steele), who resigned over the negotiation process, would be doing the industry a service by throwing some light on their reasons for their departure from the Board. Maybe there was a better deal in the offering than that achieved by Kevin Dixon and Minister Dickson.
The split between codes is an entirely separate issue and should not be used as smoke screen to delay the stakeholders what they are beginning to suspect.
The deal will not deliver anywhere near the expectations that were foolishly built up.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: NOW that the confidentiality cloud has been lifted I don’t think I am speaking out of school in revealing that Barry Taylor described the new deal to me as ‘a dud’ and assured me that much better could have been negotiated had the process not been restricted by the Chairman. It is imperative that someone from Government speak to Taylor and Steele to determine why they departed RQ and whether they felt left out of the negotiation process not only on the wagering agreement but other key matters relating to the operation of the three codes of which they were appointed directors and Taylor, especially, as an independent deputy chairman – something the Commission of Inquiry recommended was not perceived to be occurring with Kevin Dixon chairman of both RQ and the All Codes Board. But this advice from the Inquiry that the Government and RQ sought to ignore which makes a mockery of the millions spent on an inquiry and has convinced many that it was nothing more than a political witch hunt by the LNP to discredit Bob Bentley and his Board who were appointed by Labor.
IF YOU WANT AN OBJECTIVE READ ON RACING POLITICS IN QLD – BUY THE SUNDAY MAIL 
BRETT WINTEC of BRISBANE sent this email:
HOW refreshing is it to have a journalist of Peter Cameron’s ability providing independent views on all things of interest, including racing?
I couldn’t help but notice in a piece he reported on the weekend that another analyst has come out and claimed the new deal with Racing Queensland an undeniable success for Tattersalls.
Good luck to Tattersalls and the company’s shareholders who are clearly benefiting from the ability and skills the company sent to the negotiating table.
We went in with our main men who from what the above states simply didn’t get the job done for us and now we carry the can for three decades.
At least our blokes have good mates in Government who provided Tattersalls with tax reductions because without it we would have got nothing more.
What I dislike most of all is the rubbish that is pedaled to us to convince us our blokes did a good job for us.
The Government is forgoing income so we get more not because some bloke tells us he is a good negotiator.
In fact I understand the Bentley mob was first to get Government to provide tax relief for the industry and that the amount we are getting is about the same amount Bentley negotiated.
Anyway let’s hope Peter Cameron continues to provide balanced views so we have some remote chance of understanding what the facts are about racing matters.
EDITOR’S NOTE: COULDN’T agree more Brett – you certainly won’t read the sort of objective commentary that Peter Cameron is providing of a Sunday in the mainstream daily, especially from the running mates of the RQ Chairman.
In case you missed it here are the REAL FACTS ABOUT THE NEW TAB DEAL as reported by an unbiased columnist in Peter Cameron who doesn’t need to ‘suck up to RQ or the LNP Government to survive’:
TAB shareholders will be laughing at Racing Queensland over the 30 year TattsBet license deal. Citibank analysts described the deal as ‘highly favorable’ to Tatts.
Say that again – Tatts shareholders will be $114 million better off from the cost savings and Citibank estimates there will be another $40 million windfall for Tatts securing 10-year time payment for its $150 million ($100 million to the Government) exclusivity fee.
Citibank also estimates only an extra $15-$20 million a year for RQ from the new agreement. So much for the extra $50 million a year needed to lift stakes closer to Victoria’s $80,000 minimum per race.
Dogs and pacers will cop another hiding. Electronic fixed odds/spors betting will not benefit RQ. And so on.
THE RQ BOARD SHOULD BE SWABBED.
HERE’S HOPING THERE IS CONSULTATION WITH THE INDUSTRY ON DISTRIBUTION 
JOHN GILLESPIE from NQ writes:
‘UP here in North Queensland we generally get what we are given and that is it.
I am hoping that is not the case when it comes to Mr Dixon (the RQ Chairman) handing out all the new money that we are getting from Tatts as part of a new deal.
I followed some of the Racing Commission of Inquiry and there was a Government employee questioned at length at one stage about policies not being sent out for comment.
Clearly there should have been extensive consultation with the industry, or that is what it looked like any way.
As part of the industry up here I am going to watch with interest to see what amount of consultation Head Office undertakes regarding where it is going to spend the extra money from the new deal.
And rest assured, if we are just kept in the dark up here and just told what is going to happen without being consulted, there will be plenty of us knocking on Premier Newman’s doorstep.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: KNOCK, knock? Who’s there? Can Do’s not home but King Kev’s best mate Tim the Toolman will be happy to ignore your questions!
HAS RQ CHOSEN TO IGNORE MINOR CONCERNS FROM GALLOPS AND DOGS OVER ‘TROTS TREATMENT’? 
OSCAR JACKSON of GOLD COAST sent this email:
‘IN typical Racing Queensland fashion they have chosen to ignore concerns within the gallops and greyhound industries that a ‘special deal’ is being done behind the scenes to ‘save the trots’.
Why spoil a good story – the new TAB Product Deal – with the real facts. Just keep pumping out the propaganda and patting the two Dickos on the back for the great job they have done and treat the stakeholders like ‘mushrooms’.
That tale of ‘keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit’ might be close to the mark if the rumors doing the rounds about a new Tri Code deal being brokered to ensure harness racing doesn’t have to face up to the reality of receiving funds on the basis on turnover generated.
Nothing has changed in this state – where the ‘red hots’ are concerned – since Big Russ moved heaven and earth to give them the ‘speed pacing capital’ of Australia. That was when he closed down the famous ‘Creek’ sand track at Albion Park and poured tens of millions into his ‘baby’ – the trots.
Since then harness racing has progressively gone downhill. Parklands, built as a mirror image of Albion Park, has been closed as well and punters generally aren’t interested in betting on the local standardbred product.
More the shame in fact as the quality of the harness horses coming out of the Queensland stables has continued to improve to the degree where the top-liners are now highly respected on the big race circuit around the country.
No-one is suggesting for one moment that harness racing should not survive. But for too long it has travelled on the coat-tails of the gallops and continued to enjoy ‘specialist’ treatment at the expense of the ‘dogs’ who fare so much better turnover wise in Queensland.
It would be totally wrong if a new deal was done to protect the ‘red hots’ just because RQ and the LNP Government are too scared to challenge the political influence of Harness King Kev Seymour.
Everyone knows what an astute and successful businessman Mr Seymour is. Surely even he would realize that any business has to pull its weight and stand on its own two feet to survive?
EDITOR’S NOTE: I am just hoping that all these rumors about a special Tri Code deal being brokered to assist harness racing are nothing more than mischief making and that the real reason for the delay in announcing the carve up of the pie is because of Greyhound Racing chairman Michael Byrne’s involvement in the Baden Clay trial. But if it is not, I have some reliable mail that within the greyhound industry there is an influential proponent awaiting the outcome of the Tri Code partitioning who is ready to lodge court action based on Federal Unfair Contracts legislation if a lop-sided arrangement emerges that advantages harness racing. Perhaps someone should explain what that means to the ‘furlong in front’ Racing Minister as he continues his jaunting around the state endorsing the new TAB deal.
‘STILL NO REPLY’ TO INFORMATION REQUESTED BY QGBOTA ON NEW TRI CODE AGREEMENT 
LETSGOHORSERACING has been informed that some time ago the Queensland Greyhound Breeders, Owners and Trainers’ Association requested information concerning the new Tri Code agreement.
The only reply that they received was an indication that the directors of the Queensland Greyhound Racing Board were heavily involved in the process.
Here are the questions that were never answered – and perhaps the Chairman for Everything Racing in Queensland, Little King Kev, would like to step down from this throne for a few minutes and provide some answers for a change.
1. HOW long is currently being discussed, as the length of the term, of the next agreement.
2. (a) Upon what criteria are the relative percentages being based?
(b) How far back are the percentages taken into calculation?
(c) How does the wagering for fixed odds figure into each code’s portion?
3. What factor do administration costs impact upon what is received by each code?
4. Will the Product Co need Royal assent? What about the Tricode?
5. How has any variance to the percentage distribution been formulated as economic conditions wax and wane? If so, what is the mechanism for its formulation?
6. A recent survey of greyhound participants considered that a term of no more than five years for the length of each Tri Code renewal was acceptable. Will this have any weighting in discussions?
7. What influence with the Queensland Greyhound Racing Board have in voting the outcome?
8. In what way will the new Tri Code agreement provide fair sustainability thus ensuring long-term viability of greyhound racing into the future? Please substantiate.
9. Are confidentiality clauses to be included in the new agreement? If so, why?
10. When is the Greyhound industry able to obtain a copy of the agreement upon which their future is cast? If this is not so, why?
11. How has the potential increase in the greyhound revenue, on account of Cronulla, been factored into the agreement?
12. Does the Tri Code agreement have to be registered with any regulatory body? If so, what is the authority? What is the time frame for expiration for objection?
EDITOR’S NOTE: THE greyhound industry deserved answers to these question well before now. Certainly the stakeholders should be shown any new Tri Code deal before it is signed off on. But knowing how the Chairman of the All Codes Board dislikes any form of criticism – some say consultation as well, expect with those who agree with him – then the best of British to the poor relation of the other two codes when it comes to getting a fair deal.
SAD INDICTMENT THAT THE ‘TRAINING BUSINESS IN QLD RACING IS NO LONGER VIABLE’ 
MARK C of SUNSHINE COAST writes:
‘WHILE our embarrassing Racing Minister has been running around like a headless chook promoting the new wagering agreement yet another high profile trainer has quit the industry in Queensland.
Full marks to trainer Len Treloar for being honest enough to publicly concede that the training business in Queensland racing is no longer viable.
The comments he made were quite sobering and one wonders how many more trainers are delaying the inevitable hoping that this new ‘smokes and mirrors’ TAB deal will rescue them financially when the independent experts are openly declaring the only big winner will be Tattersalls.
Treloar saidsaid his accountants had advised him to close the sables at the end of the financial year and not drag matters out.
He went on to say:
“The costs here for rental, staff, superannuation, race day fees, and the like are too high to be compensated by the prizemoney level.”
“I know they have announced the industry will be getting more prizemoney because of the wagering deal but I don’t think it will flow through for at least another 12 months.”
When you start dissecting the real figures from the elastic ones contained in the political press releases, one wonders just what each code will receive and how that will be split up. Even if it is a 20 per cent increase across the board – as I believe the RQ Chairman suggested – it isn’t going to amount to a great deal of money for some clubs.
I accept that you have to start somewhere but why paint a brighter when the reality will eventually prove that not to be the case? It just builds up the hopes of racing folk and simply isn’t fair.’
TATTS NEW WORLD OF BETTING LACKS ONE IMPORTANT INGREDIENT - CUSTOMERS 
FROM a former TAB AGENT who gave up on TATTERSALLS before going broke:
‘TATTS new world of betting – announced in the wake of their one-sided TAB deal with RQ – lacks one important ingredient – customers.
Someone should tell the dills making the decisions that that it will be a waste of time putting self-service terminals in every street in every town unless they start providing the products that the punters want.
And will they please stop using that figure $4.5 billion in stories and releases relating to the new wagering agreement? It is totally misleading and nothing like the real figure that the industry alone will receive.
About the only thing Tatts will achieve by installing self service betting terminals in newsagents and shopping centres is to send nearby TAB and PubTAB agencies broke.
Turnover is not about the service facilities. It’s all about the product. And the fact remains that – to date – and one could argue into the future Tatts are just not competitive with what they offer the punters compared to the two big interstate TABs and more particularly the corporate bookmakers.
Now RQ is doing their best to put the corporates out of business – which one can only interpret as a behind-the-scenes promise from their new partnership with Tatts. The only thing that will achieve the desperately needed destruction of the blood-sucking overseas-owned bookmaking agencies is a NATIONAL TOTE. Why can’t these dick heads running racing and politics in this country see this?
But back to the state of play in Queensland and whatever happened to the much publicized competition that Tatts was going to receive in the new wagering agreement? Didn’t RQ go to great lengths to explain how they were calling for expressions of interest from other betting agencies to operate from clubs and pubs etc.
More hot air from those running the show at RQ when it would seem the long-standing belief that Tatts were always going to have a monopoly was right and that the drawn out negotiation process, spearheaded by Dickson and Dixon, was nothing more than an exercise in futility that failed to deliver the ‘furlong ahead’ promise that our silly Racing Minister expressed.’
‘SURELY THIS FEELGOOD STORY ABOUT THE COURT PRECEDENT WASN’T A DIVERSION’? 
FLOYD KING of BRISBANE sent this email:
‘AT a time when there is a need to pump up the wheels of RQ why not roll out another feelgood story about how there is a chance of recouping that big money paid to departing executives of the Bentley era?
Instead of asking his little mate running the show at RQ to explain the ‘sweetheart’ deals done with Tatts and supposedly in the pipeline to ‘save the trots’, the spin doctor suggests a recent court ruling could be used as a precedent to try and recoup more than $1 million of industry money.
According to the report, RQ is waiting on legal advice to determine whether there is a precedent in Chief Justice Paul De Jersey’s ruling in a case where Invion Pty Ltd won a claim against five former executives who received payouts.
The story doesn’t say who they will be getting that legal advice from – obviously not the corporate counsel employed by RQ and subsequently shown the door in controversial circumstances recently. Little being said on that front in the mainstream racing daily either.
The spin doctor quotes his great mate from RQ as saying: “If the legal opinion comes back that we do have a good chance of recovering the money then we would pursue it, but if it's doubtful, then we wouldn’t.”
How’s that for a bit each-way. At the end of the day nothing will happen – life will go on in racing – except that the industry will be many thousands of dollars lighter for more money wasted on legal advice for a lost cause.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: JUST an update on a few ‘facts’ that failed to appear in the Nathan Exelby article. What he forgot to mention about the so-called ‘precedent case’ was that the Executives of that company wrote their own contracts without approval of the Board. In the case of the Bentley Board – whether you agree with what happened or not – it approved the executive’s termination payments. The Bentley RQ Board argued that its termination payments were made to retain executives to secure the industry the $110 million infrastructure funding following what they alleged was ‘harassment by identities in the racing industry and the LNP declaring a clean out of the company when elected’. The Bentley Board maintained that no bank or Government or lending authority would advance the sum of money that was in the offering on a walk out of the executives. The Board took a decision that they considered after two lots of legal advice was in the best interests of Racing Queensland. Surely this ‘beat-up’ wasn’t a diversion to keep the industry from staying focused on the disaster looming when the finer print and details of the new wagering agreement is realized.
DOES RQ HAVE A SET OF RULES FOR TOOWOOMBA AND ANOTHER FOR COUNTRY CLUBS? 
TONY J of NORTH QUEENSLAND writes:
‘RQ has produced the big stick and told clubs in the country that they will be required to have a minimum number of starters for each race which in some centres is going to mean that race meetings will not be run.
Yet it seems they have another rule when it comes to clubs in the south-east and metropolitan area from the gallops and harness codes that are regarded as ‘teacher’s pets’.
There was much speculation about what would happen in Toowoomba when two races failed to reach the ‘benchmark’ number of starters required for last Saturday night’s meeting.
Not surpringly – although one race was abandoned at acceptance time – another was allowed to proceed with only five acceptors and one of those was engaged at Ipswich on Friday where it started.
RQ allowed the final race at Clifford Park on Saturday night to proceed with only the four runners – yet had the same situation occurred at a country track under the new race fields policy it would have been a different story.
This simply opens the door to suggestions of favoritism for Toowoomba where the chairman of the club is known to be a great supporter and close friend of the RQ Chairman.
Of course we will be told that he had nothing to do with the decision and that it was made by the RQ CEO who most believe doesn’t fart without asking the chairman first.
This is just more proof of the farce that RQ has degenerated into from a control body aspect. If ever there was need for an independent voice on the All Codes Board this is it – but don’t hold your breath waiting for someone to be appointed that might dare to disagree with the Chairman for Everything.’
WHERE DOES THE FOUR-HORSE FIELD AT TOOWOOMBA FIT INTO THE RQ RULES? 
THEN there was this one from OUR MAN IN THE DEAGON BUNKER which read:
‘I don’t know how Race 6 at Toowoomba last Saturday fits into the below (RQ) policy.
Five acceptors turns into a four horse race. I am not sure but I heard there was a race with six accepted for in Townsville last Sunday which was abandoned.
Looks like our buddies are looked after......
Minimum Race & Field Policy
TAB MEETING-Minimum Requirements
For provincial meetings or metropolitan mid-week meetings - this policy will only be enforced if there are more than six (6) races on the card.
- Where the minimum requirement of six races has been met, each race on the card must have seven (7) acceptors or more.
- If a race does not have at least seven (7) acceptors, that race will be abandoned.
*The only exception is a Black Type race, which will go ahead regardless of the number of acceptors.
For example: Provincial Meeting - 7 Races (minimum requirement is met and each race must have seven runners or more to proceed)
RACE 1 - 7 acceptors (proceed)
RACE 2 - 8 acceptors (proceeds)
RACE 3 - 8 acceptors (proceeds)
RACE 4 - 8 acceptors (proceeds)
RACE 5 - 7 acceptors (proceeds)
RACE 6 - 9 acceptors (proceeds)
RACE 7 - 4 acceptors (abandoned)
HARNESS RACE ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITH TWO STARTERS – WHAT A JOKE! 
THAT email followed closely on the heels of this one from TIM VINCENT which read:
‘AFTER reading the story on your website regarding potential deals for the Harness Industry, I thought that the below issue needed to be raised to support the commonly shared view in thoroughbred and greyhound circles that the harness industry is immune to the restrictions/constraints placed on our codes.
As a thoroughbred stakeholder who has already been impacted by Racing Queensland’s new field restrictions, I was extremely disappointed to see a harness race with three acceptances allowed to proceed last Tuesday. To add further fuel to my anger was that there was one scratching with a ridiculous two horses facing the starter.
What happened to the “We Run As One” approach? Why is harness not required to comply with the same restrictions as thoroughbreds?
I have since spoken to a few of my fellow stakeholders and they confirmed that Kevin Seymour owns the winner of the two horse race. I sincerely hope this had nothing to do with this race being permitted to proceed when thoroughbred races with six acceptances are being abandoned at TAB meetings.
It just looks very odd to me, and has confirmed to me that Nathan Exelby (Racing Editor of The Courier-Mail) was right about the trots being on a downhill slide.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: WHEN the situation at Toowoomba emerged last week our website was inundated with calls and emails asking for clarification. Terry Butts, aware of the problems that the new policy will create at country tracks, contacted RQ CEO Darren Condon who explained that there has to be a minimum of six races for a TAB meeting to be run. This meant that with two of the seven races struggling to attract required field numbers there had to be an exception to the rules for one of them. That was what occurred in Toowoomba as convenient as it sounds. It’s still not good enough and highlights how bad racing at Clifford Park is travelling. A retired star jockey visiting Townsville for the meeting on Sunday made no secret of his feelings about the new track at Clifford Park. He described it in a word as ‘stuffed’.
NEW TOOWOOMBA TRACK CONTINUES TO PROVE A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR DISASTER FOR RQ 
RARELY does a week pass in racing in Queensland when we don’t receive an email concerning another drama, controversy or allegation of ‘favored’ treatment involving the Toowoomba Turf Club.
The one just ended was no exception and this time it involved the running of a race at Clifford Park on Saturday night – on a track by the way that was nothing short of disgraceful in the eyes of most observers.
HERE’S an email another former fan of racing in Toowoomba, JIM BRANNIGAN, who has become a regular contributor:
‘ANOTHER weekend and another disgraceful outcome from the race meeting held in Toowoomba.
I watched the first race on Sky and after they clocked 1:15.15 for the 1200m, running home in 38.03 for the last 600m on a dead track, I changed channels for the remainder of the night.
With a track performing such as this no wonder they only had six races with the last race attracting just four starters.
Can someone at Racing Queensland please let us know where they are up to with a strategy to remedy this multi-million dollar disaster?’
EDITOR’S NOTE: DON’T count on any explanations from RQ when it comes to racing in Toowoomba – the whole industry is aware of that. They have their own track ‘experts’ up there now having dispensed with the services of the previous track manager who did a good job but feels he was relegated to ‘scapegoat’ status for the problems that even God himself could not have rectified.
IS THERE SOME IMPORTANT MOVEMENT AT THE STATION COMING UP FOR STEWARDS? 
DALE K of TWEED HEADS sent this cryptic email concerning stewards:
‘SOME interesting stories doing the rounds about movement at the station where stewards are concerned.
Rumors emanating from the bunker in Sydney racing suggest that Racing NSW Chief Steward Ray Murrihy has gone on pre-retirement leave.
An addendum to that story suggests that the powers-that-be might look overseas for a replacement and the name being mentioned is an Australian steward who is said to have fallen out with his boss at a prominent Asian venue.
Whatever happens the retirement of the experienced and well respected Murrihy – who will no doubt bob up in some consultancy role in the not too distant future – will only mean that RV Chief Stipe Terry Bailey increases his profile as the steward ‘most feared’ by licensees and ‘most respected’ by punters in this country.
And to think that Racing Queensland had an opportunity to snare Bailey’s services when the new Board came to power after the last election but turned their back on him. One can only ask the question: Why Was It So?’
LESS SUPPORT FOR SYDNEY CHAMPIONSHIPS THAN ANY DAY OF MELBOURNE SPRING 
PERCY SMITH of MELBOURNE writes:
‘THE Government of NSW lashed out and invested in the Sydney Autumn Carnival to the tune of $10 million. (Not a bad backhander).
But there appeared to be less support for the entire carnival, patronage wise, than on any given day Melbourne achieves during their Spring Carnival.
Now we have Mighty Max going to print in the SMH complaining about the ‘tough times’ Racing NSW is facing during Winter.
Is poor old Max doing Peter V’landys begging for him?
After all as CEO, Chief Steward and Course Ranger there is only so much spare time in the day.
Surely Mr V’landys should take a step ‘back’ just to see if he isn't the cause of the problem.
A win over the corporate bookmakers only lasts so long.’
EDITOR’S NOTE: HERE is the Max Presnell column piece from the SMH that the above email refers to:
IDEAS, not prizemoney, are what is required to invigorate Sydney racing, which is wallowing in the off-season doldrums.
It could be argued Sydney has the best trainers, the best jockeys and the best horses, so why does it not have the best racing?
Saturday’s Rosehill program, run on a perfect winter surface, again hardly compared with the field numbers at Caulfield and Eagle Farm, which had a couple of novelties such as a 3200-metre staying test and a $100,000 maiden. No, they wouldn’t work in Sydney, but at least they differ from the normal drab menu served up here for years, with little interest from Racing NSW, which seems enthralled solely with the autumn bonanza.
“May I mention a pet quirk of mine, which is noting the number of race sponsors for Sydney Saturday racing?” emailed Frank McGrath, Kensington royalty and racing enthusiast. “For some odd reason, I've long considered it a possible barometer of the fair or foul weather around racing generally, and if I'm even half right, batten down the hatches. Saturday, for instance, there were three genuine sponsored Rosehill races, and those by some of the usual suspects; the others, including the Civic Stakes, were either unsponsored or carried ATC or TAB names, effectively self-sponsored. Caulfield? Every race privately sponsored, likewise Brisbane. Is this worth a mention?
Racing NSW chairman John Messara figures the answer to racing's problems lies with the state government and funding. “The fact is that we have a plan to revitalise all sectors of the industry if we succeed with our quest for a level playing field with other states as far as our share of TAB wagering revenue is concerned," he said. "We have specific plans for stimulating racing in the summer, spring and country and provincial. However, we do not want to lose the momentum that has been established with The Championships earlier this year, and that’s why that event appears to be at the forefront of our endeavours. Rest assured, our strategy goes way beyond the autumn.”
Surely, this should extend to rundown country centres dying of financial neglect from Racing NSW. On the subject of ideas for Sydney Saturdays, what about a return to the old graduation stakes, set-weight events, for winter action and giving claiming races or selling plates a trial?
SOME STORIES YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IN THE MAINSTREAM RACING MEDIA 
SURELY PUNTERS WON’T BE SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER CUP WEEK BLACKOUT
ANOTHER year has passed and it seems racing is still no closer to a deal that would see punters free of this ridiculous live coverage ‘blackout’ that occurs on TVN and SKY during the Melbourne Cup carnival.
Here is an interesting column piece on the issue written by Christian Nicolussi in his At The Track column in the Daily Telegraph:
Still stuck on wrong channel in ongoing Sky-TVN saga
THE shake-up at Sky Channel has claimed popular programs Off The Beaten Track, GG Girls and Racing Around The World.
We’re told Trials And Tribulations will also be renamed Total Trials as Sky tries to accommodate its increased live-racing coverage.
As of this month, punters can watch racing from 8am to 4am. Awesome. At The Track revealed a few weeks ago the axe had swung at Sky and a few redundancies taken up.
It remains unclear if more jobs will go before Christmas, when Sky Sports radio types head over the Harbour Bridge to join the TV types at their Frenchs Forest office.
Just when Sky and TVN kiss and make up still appears no closer.
It has been roughly 18 months since TVN took complete ownership of all Victorian and NSW racing vision, yet still no deal with Sky has been brokered.
Instead, mini-deals that can vary from one-to-three months keep being agreed to. One was done recently that will see Sky remain sweet for a few more months.
Rumour has it there is serious friction among some of the board members at TVN.
There was one suggestion the TVN-Sky deal would finally be put to bed in time for the spring carnival.
Punters will only be up in arms if there’s another blackout.
That won’t happen, but the sad reality is a lot of dough is being flushed down the toilet because of a doubling up in production and airtime.
RACING VICTORIAN OPEN DAY ‘A SELL OUT’ WITH THE TRAINERS 
WHILE they didn’t actually disappear as quickly as tickets to a U2 concert, nevertheless Racing Victoria’s inaugural open day for trainers at RV’s headquarter has been a “sellout”.
RV had to close off bookings an hour before last Friday’s 5pm deadline.
Trainers will be given a tour on August 18 of RV’s facilities where they will be given unprecedented access and information on the workings of RV, including handicappers and racing operations, the integrity department, apprentice training rooms, the official racing analytical laboratory, track managers and the Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board.
A highlight of the day will be an address to trainers by former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett, who is also chairman of mental health group beyondblue, on depression and integrity.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the above e-mails should not be interpreted as those of JOHN LINGARD, the owner-editor of the letsgohorseracing web-site. That is why he has added an ‘EDITOR’S NOTE’. Every endeavor is made to verify the authenticity of contributors. We welcome any reasonable and constructive responses from parties or individuals.
