Unfortunately I asked for the facts to be given so I could have better information as to where I place my vote. This thread has now gone off topic and has now resorted to personal attacks.
So can we get back to the facts and the topic at hand. I decided to do some of my own investigations, made a few calls and here are some facts.
The vote of no confidence was put forward in Graeme Calverly for a multitude of reasons, one of the main reasons being him supporting the Board purchasing Shado-Lans, after misleading the Greyhound people of New Zealand over the facts and figures surrounding the purchase.
He was requested to delay the purchase one month and have the clubs re-vote on the purchase with all the true facts and figures in a timeframe that allowed clubs to call a meeting and vote within the rules of their constitution.
This is not about whether the purchase is right or wrong but around the deception of the vote. There was a 4/3 split on the board and Graeme is the pivot vote, he was voted in by the greyhound people of NZ so he should never mislead the people he represents.
To spend $800k when you are budgeting a loss of $1m-$1.5m is fiscal incompetence. The information that was withheld until the day after the vote was the following:
fuel vouchers to be halved
15% club infrastructure payment cuts
cuts to public relations, club meetings, track inspections and export market developments.
Some clubs had indicated they would have voted differently if they knew of these facts.
Clubs have also had $800 per meeting "vet fee" cut from their payments. These cuts will mean most clubs will at a loss and will be at the mercy of the NZ Board for funds.
GRNZ interfered with the voting process by employing a "hand writing specialist" at a cost of $4,500 to challenge the signatures of 14 people who signed the petition for Graemes removal, even after these people phoned GRNZ and verified that they had signed.
The offer of an explanatory letter attached to the petition was turned down when Jim Leach informed them he retained the right to edit the contents.