Petitions

[D'Bandross 1]

Those who accepted the promises on behalf of their club, signed contracts without written assurances or sufficient safeguards in place must, also take some responsibility. It is all good and well to say "But they promised us", they let us down, we trusted them", and morally the club is correct BUT, tell me Pete, who in business operates on a "She'll be right basis"? When you are talking about deals involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, you make damned sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted before you sign off on anything. There is culpability on both sides, and both sides have to sit down and talk.

[Philocon 1]

Those who accepted the promises on behalf of their club, signed contracts without written assurances or sufficient safeguards in place must, also take some responsibility. It is all good and well to say "But they promised us", they let us down, we trusted them", and morally the club is correct BUT, tell me Pete, who in business operates on a "She'll be right basis"? When you are talking about deals involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, you make damned sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted before you sign off on anything. There is culpability on both sides, and both sides have to sit down and talk.

To be binding a contractual agreement doesn't always have to written although that is the best practice. If clear oral undertakings are given and in front of witnesses then they can have moral and legal validity as much as a written contract if tested in law. There are ample precedents.

Manawatu's arguments have pretty strong moral and legal support for their case given the understandings at the time the track was installed and public statements made by senior officals and board members at the time including written interviews in the magazine and comments reported and made to meetings of LPs and others. A negotiated outcome is the only viable solution and the Board should have been looking at this long before now. as far as I can gauge Manawatu has never actually refused to take any responsibility for the costs but has argued that both parties honour clear verbal undertakings given at the time whether in writing or orally.

[Peter R S 412]

the new Chairman of the Board is the least trusted and the least likely person on the Board to initiate that process. And that is based on past behaviour being a resonable indicator of future behaviour.

There will always be a large number of people with differing views on both sides. It is the environment that needs to be changed, from a battle between Board and Clubs to a working relationship where they work together with confidence in each other.

The Erebus was a terrible happening. There was injustice, much worse than any tainted decision making, hidden agendas and backside covering exhibited by many involved in the GRNZ during the professional Board era. Eventually someone in Air NZ with guts and understanding stood up and apologised for past mistakes. That was the only correct way forward. It took 30 years.

You can sweep past issues under the mat because they are in the past. That just leaves a festering wound. There is a real opportunity right now with the changes in personnel for someone to make a difference and set things going forward properly (and it aint for any Club to do that). We need a Rob Fyfe on the GRNZ Board or in the HO.

[Greyhoundrunner 0]

the new Chairman of the Board is the least trusted and the least likely person on the Board to initiate that process. And that is based on past behaviour being a resonable indicator of future behaviour.

There will always be a large number of people with differing views on both sides. It is the environment that needs to be changed, from a battle between Board and Clubs to a working relationship where they work together with confidence in each other.

The Erebus was a terrible happening. There was injustice, much worse than any tainted decision making, hidden agendas and backside covering exhibited by many involved in the GRNZ during the professional Board era. Eventually someone in Air NZ with guts and understanding stood up and apologised for past mistakes. That was the only correct way forward. It took 30 years.

You can sweep past issues under the mat because they are in the past. That just leaves a festering wound. There is a real opportunity right now with the changes in personnel for someone to make a difference and set things going forward properly (and it aint for any Club to do that). We need a Rob Fyfe on the GRNZ Board or in the HO.

We need some real healing and go foreward if the industry is to be seen as a legimate one Trusr is needed.

Cheers Jim Baird

[D'Bandross 1]

What you both say is true and I do not disagree. What I am saying is that right now problems exist, both sides have to work together. There are actually three seperate issues, the track loan, the club funding and export payments, and an issue that the club can only work through on it's own. The immediate priority is the third issue. If we have to resolve the other two issues via legal action, we may well win, but how long will that take? It would be wise to talk with the new board first before embarking on a journey that will be very costly in more ways than one. We have to talk with the new board first, if that fails and I sincerely hope it does not, then we look at other avenues of redress.

[Philocon 1]

There is no question that mediation has to occur between the board and the Manawatu club, and that those at the head of each organisation need to step aside and allow an independant arbitrator (or arbitrators)to review all the issues and come up with reccomendations that both parties MUST adhere to.Opening up the Manawatu books has to be the first step so that the financial plight of the club becomes crystal clear, and policies put in place to ensure they don't happen again. If tough decisions need to be made now is the time to make them.

You are confusing and mixing two very different processes. Mediation is purely voluntary for all parties. A mediator acceptable to both parties is agreed by both parties and his/her recommendations are made but are not binding on either party. They can agree to either accept the mediator's recommendations, reject them, or use them as a basis of negotiated settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal is an example of this where the tribunal makes findings and recommendations which are then the basis for negotiation between Crown and Iwi. Part of a mediator's role is not only to come up with recommendations but to bring the parties together and try and find some common ground.

With arbitration, both parties still have to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator acceptable to both. However the arbitrator's findings are then binding and both parties must abide by them having agreed to the framework etc from the outset.

However what's really required first is negotiation and genuine negotiation entered into with goodwill by both parties. If a commitment to such goodwill negotiating doesn't exist from the outset then mediation and arbitration is also a waste of time.

Arbitration or mediation may be an agreed outcome of initial negotiation. However, if the two parties can negotiate a settlement, then mediation or arbitration may not be needed. To get negotiations of the ground all that is needed is a facilitator or chairperson acceptable to both sides.

Mediation is probably the first best option to try if negotiations break down. Arbitration is a last resort option.

Mediation is the preferred option in most industrial disputes. Arbitration such as in the old IC&A Act or court rulings etc is seldom ideal and often has led to more conflict and unresolved issues further down the track. So the key is not mediation or arbitration or even negotiation, but genuine goodwill on the part of both parties to achieve a settlement and resolution. Otherwise nothing will change.

As for opening the clubs books the accounts were available for viewing at the AGM and open to question from the floor of which there were plenty. They were approved subject to the auditors report (which was delayed because of the current dispute). Any further delving into the club's accounts would be subject to the negotiations or agreed terms of mediation etc and if you feel the club's books be opened for detailed probing and inspection then the same would apply to GRNZ too unless the goodwill I referred to above is to be applied one-sidely.

[Philocon 1]

You are confusing and mixing two very different processes. Mediation is purely voluntary for all parties. A mediator acceptable to both parties is agreed by both parties and his/her recommendations are made but are not binding on either party. They can agree to either accept the mediator's recommendations, reject them, or use them as a basis of negotiated settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal is an example of this where the tribunal makes findings and recommendations which are then the basis for negotiation between Crown and Iwi. Part of a mediator's role is not only to come up with recommendations but to bring the parties together and try and find some common ground.

With arbitration, both parties still have to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator acceptable to both. However the arbitrator's findings are then binding and both parties must abide by them having agreed to the framework etc from the outset.

However what's really required first is negotiation and genuine negotiation entered into with goodwill by both parties. If a commitment to such goodwill negotiating doesn't exist from the outset then mediation and arbitration is also a waste of time.

Arbitration or mediation may be an agreed outcome of initial negotiation. However, if the two parties can negotiate a settlement, then mediation or arbitration may not be needed. To get negotiations of the ground all that is needed is a facilitator or chairperson acceptable to both sides.

Mediation is probably the first best option to try if negotiations break down. Arbitration is a last resort option.

Mediation is the preferred option in most industrial disputes. Arbitration such as in the old IC&A Act or court rulings etc is seldom ideal and often has led to more conflict and unresolved issues further down the track. So the key is not mediation or arbitration or even negotiation, but genuine goodwill on the part of both parties to achieve a settlement and resolution. Otherwise nothing will change.

As for opening the clubs books the accounts were available for viewing at the AGM and open to question from the floor of which there were plenty. They were approved subject to the auditors report (which was delayed because of the current dispute). Any further delving into the club's accounts would be subject to the negotiations or agreed terms of mediation etc and if you feel the club's books be opened for detailed probing and inspection then the same would apply to GRNZ too unless the goodwill I referred to above is to be applied one-sidely.

The word I should have and meant to use was good faith rather than good will but good will is important too if we can find it.

[POPA GAS 73]

Geez Phil,thank goodness you at least read all that you write!

Andy

[Umbrage 0]

Must admit your reply was too long to disgest fully Philicon but my point remains,

some form of mediation (arbitration) has to occur for the current hassles to be solved. Otherwise it will continue to a be case of knocking heads together and poor old Manawatu will eventually go down the gurgler.

[aquaman 1,352]

Those who accepted the promises on behalf of their club, signed contracts without written assurances or sufficient safeguards in place must, also take some responsibility. It is all good and well to say "But they promised us", they let us down, we trusted them", and morally the club is correct BUT, tell me Pete, who in business operates on a "She'll be right basis"? When you are talking about deals involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, you make damned sure that every t is crossed and every i is dotted before you sign off on anything. There is culpability on both sides, and both sides have to sit down and talk.

Hey, lets be clear here both Debandross and Gary Caffell re Umbridge. Now one has to step aside, and there is not culpability on both sides. What there is, is an organisation called the NZ Greyhound Racing Board reneging on promises,using , bully boy tactics, on a Club that they are supposed to serve. The Board in this case is the perpetrator, and the Club is the victim. What doe's need to happen, and quickly is, that those responsible for this outragous behaviour be identified and brought to account. Then and only then can a healing process begin.

This is a classic case of the tail waging the dog, in this instance the tail being the Board. THEY ARE THERE TO SERVE THE CLUBS, NOT TO DECIEVE, OR ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THEM, OR WORSE DESTROY THEM.

This Board are digging a big hole for themselves, they need to apoligise very quickly to the Manawatu Club, and make good the damage they have inflicted.

[Umbrage 0]

Noes good re Aquaman. you obviously are only hearing one side of the story.Fortunately there are some new names on the Manawatu committee now who understand the importance of starting afresh and you can expect them to take action along those lines.Their input is going to be crucial if things are to get sorted out asap.

[macduff 0]

Hey, lets be clear here both Debandross and Gary Caffell re Umbridge. Now one has to step aside, and there is not culpability on both sides. What there is, is an organisation called the NZ Greyhound Racing Board reneging on promises,using , bully boy tactics, on a Club that they are supposed to serve. The Board in this case is the perpetrator, and the Club is the victim. What doe's need to happen, and quickly is, that those responsible for this outragous behaviour be identified and brought to account. Then and only then can a healing process begin.

This is a classic case of the tail waging the dog, in this instance the tail being the Board. THEY ARE THERE TO SERVE THE CLUBS, NOT TO DECIEVE, OR ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THEM, OR WORSE DESTROY THEM.

This Board are digging a big hole for themselves, they need to apoligise very quickly to the Manawatu Club, and make good the damage they have inflicted.

The problem is aquaman, when the tail becomes the chairman of the board the dog is on a one way trip to the vets

[Philocon 1]

Must admit your reply was too long to disgest fully Philicon but my point remains,

some form of mediation (arbitration) has to occur for the current hassles to be solved. Otherwise it will continue to a be case of knocking heads together and poor old Manawatu will eventually go down the gurgler.

Before a mediation can be sought there needs to be talking and negotiation first which more than likely will happen if it isn't already. Mediation is the likely follower if/when those discussions or negotiations fail. Arbitration is not a form of mediation but a solution that is imposed by an arbiter appointed by both parties. So yes mediation is the most likely outcome; sensible negotiation is the most desirable and still possible but arbitration is the least desirable option.

It was made clear that the code needed the upgraded Manawatu track at the time of its opening for the Oz export racing on Mondays. So presumably they still do - what has changed? So allowing the club and track to go down the gurglar is surely a sensible option for no one.

[Umbrage 0]

Philocon, the question is whether Manawatu can afford to keep on racing under the existing conditions of their loan. They need help and whether the present leadership of GRNZ is either prepared or is able to provide that is very much open to debate.The mediation process is clearly the best and quickest solution, and the sooner the better.

[Yep Yep 0]

No club shall be disadvantaged during the three year set up faze of taking racing to the overseas market.

You will be paid 2% of overseas turnover on your meetings, this will pay for the track installation cost.

lies lies more lies, Club been shafted by liars.

Manawatu Club committee needs to appoint Ashoka as caretaker manger. All then need to resign. when NZRB and GRNZ decide to play fair and honour there verbal undertaking to the club. The the club can call for re-elections of positions.

Committee needs to walk away and focas on just racing there own dogs. They dont need to be treated the way the industry is treating them. They give there time free to run the club for NZRB and GRNZ to rain hell on them and rape club of income born from the committees efforts.

walk away just race your dogs.

[Philocon 1]

No club shall be disadvantaged during the three year set up faze of taking racing to the overseas market.

You will be paid 2% of overseas turnover on your meetings, this will pay for the track installation cost.

lies lies more lies, Club been shafted by liars.

Manawatu Club committee needs to appoint Ashoka as caretaker manger. All then need to resign. when NZRB and GRNZ decide to play fair and honour there verbal undertaking to the club. The the club can call for re-elections of positions.

Committee needs to walk away and focas on just racing there own dogs. They dont need to be treated the way the industry is treating them. They give there time free to run the club for NZRB and GRNZ to rain hell on them and rape club of income born from the committees efforts.

walk away just race your dogs.

Great advice Danny. That's how we get into these messes in the first place, because people just walk away and leave it to someone else to do. That's not unique to greyhound racing either.

I agree that undertakings originally given have not been adhered to and if the present impasse persists CD racing has a serious problem. I also agree that committee members give their time freely and in good faith and don't expect nor deserve showers of sh*te and onions raining on them and the same goes for paid staff as well. But if everyone walks away and focuses on racing their own dogs then there may be no racing left for their dogs to race in anyway. Certainly not at Palmerston North.

[Lindsay Joyce 2]

reading the posts on hear, isnt it a shame that this is all happening.

There's nothing from the NZGRA in reply, to the Lp's. Very confusing and makes things extremely uncertain for the future of us LP's.

Why is it that from there meetings, we are not informed?

[Yep Yep 0]

Great advice Danny. That's how we get into these messes in the first place, because people just walk away and leave it to someone else to do. That's not unique to greyhound racing either.

I agree that undertakings originally given have not been adhered to and if the present impasse persists CD racing has a serious problem. I also agree that committee members give their time freely and in good faith and don't expect nor deserve showers of sh*te and onions raining on them and the same goes for paid staff as well. But if everyone walks away and focuses on racing their own dogs then there may be no racing left for their dogs to race in anyway. Certainly not at Palmerston North.

well arn`t you a bright cookie, i think you got my post.

just race your dogs as they have killed the passion for being involved in other things in greyhound racing.

killed the passion to race greyhound till they retire from racing if they are below average as their now now place for them in the new run so called professional industry. No long a sport they killed that as a passion, if your dogs not good enough put em down and get ones that are or walk away like many have.

GRNZ got it all wrong in the last couple of years and it don`t look like changing, grassroot Lp crapped on little or no place for them unless they got good dogs or can breed enough to be left with a few that make. Those that dont bang bang bang.

[Philocon 1]

well arn`t you a bright cookie, i think you got my post.

just race your dogs as they have killed the passion for being involved in other things in greyhound racing.

killed the passion to race greyhound till they retire from racing if they are below average as their now now place for them in the new run so called professional industry. No long a sport they killed that as a passion, if your dogs not good enough put em down and get ones that are or walk away like many have.

GRNZ got it all wrong in the last couple of years and it don`t look like changing, grassroot Lp crapped on little or no place for them unless they got good dogs or can breed enough to be left with a few that make. Those that dont bang bang bang.

My reply could mirror yours but what would that achieve? nothing!

Those who don't fight and run away will end up in the same boat as those do fight and run away. Accepting defeat saying that is how things are is the same as doing nothing. It's about choosing the winnable battles, winning them and advancing from there. What you are saying is nothing is winnable, all is lost. Maybe that is why you are becoming a cynic, but I remain a sceptic as I always have been

[Peter R S 412]

GRNZ Board works on the approach of "do it our way or we will put you out of business". I could cite many examples.

They must have budgets that both the Club and the Board accepted as the basis for the investment in a new track at Palmy. Who is analysing where the differences are? The decision, made by the Board, was based on belief that the industry could sustain the investment.

Only problem is, if it goes wrong, its the Club that can't pay its bills.

Surely the Board has to take a lead here, through its Head Office CEO. Who is that?

[nahla 1]

never thought you shot your dogs danny,sounds like you have really lost any interest in remaining in the sport at all.Running away certainly not the way to get changes you desire,keep being a continual pain in the arse the way to go.Hope you rekindle that passion.

[Umbrage 0]

History of what happened to the Wellington and Wairarapa clubs shows that every time progress seems to be being made with GRNZ they simply shift the goalposts and make life more difficult. Another reason why mediation by an independent person (s) has to occur at Manawatu.

[Philocon 1]

History of what happened to the Wellington and Wairarapa clubs shows that every time progress seems to be being made with GRNZ they simply shift the goalposts and make life more difficult. Another reason why mediation by an independent person (s) has to occur at Manawatu.

You could well be right but an externally or self appointed mediator cannot just turn up and say "Right fellas I heard you're having a bit of bother I'm going to mediate a solution for you." They are not a mediator until both parties appoint them.

Both have to agree on a mediator first, approach him/her and start the process. That requires talking first and negotiation and who knows those initial talks may bring about a resolution that means mediation may not be necessary. Things like mediation don't just happen because some people on racecafe say they should. Parties have to agree first and that means talking. If it's imposed from above without agreement of both parties then it's arbitrarily done and is not mediation.

For the sake of Manawatu, CD racing and the code generally, this has to be resolved and asap, but a solution where the whole code (including the club) benefits, or doesn't suffer more harm over and above that already done is essential.

[Umbrage 0]

Philicon, what has been said is that the current head honchos in both the GRNZ and the Manawatu club need to step aside and allow the appointment of a mediator whose decision would be seen as binding by both parties.The problem is whether they will agree to move out of the spotlight and allow a so-called outsider to call the tune.But if they don't then this whole mess is going to keep simmering away until Manawatu becomes just another part of history.

[Philocon 1]

Philicon, what has been said is that the current head honchos in both the GRNZ and the Manawatu club need to step aside and allow the appointment of a mediator whose decision would be seen as binding by both parties.The problem is whether they will agree to move out of the spotlight and allow a so-called outsider to call the tune.But if they don't then this whole mess is going to keep simmering away until Manawatu becomes just another part of history.

Firstly that's not mediation but a form of arbitration and secondly GRNZ is unlikely to unilaterally step aside as you say and hand over to someone else to decide or recommend. That's just not realistic. Secondly who then appoints that so called mediator? The RB? Govt?

If the mediator is not someone both parties accept then the chance of them both accepting his/her decisions, findings and recommendations etc is even slimmer.

GRNZ might also argue that the club step aside and an independent mediator be appointed over their heads instead. Whatever happens they both have to agree to it whether mediation or arbitration. So the first step still has to be that they talk to each other whether to negotiate or involve mediation or arbitration from a third party. There is no magic formula where one or both steps aside and some miracle worker comes in from nowhere and solves it for them.