Fridays SGM

[Mike Martin 200]

The special general meeting on Friday that removed The elected Southern representative must go down as the most disgraceful event in New Zealand greyhound history, and that is taking into consideration many sad historic cases.

It was a undemocratic witch hunt that has highlighted the very worst of our sport and the vagrancies of our constitution.

[AC DC 18]

When has our voting system ever been anything like democratic? The system we have is seriously flawed and archaic and serves no purpose in todays climate. Change is long overdue in the voting system, the only way to be democratic is to give the vote to all the individual lps. Clubs, for the most part, are run by a stranglehold of 'old school' people stuck in the past. We need vision and enterprise but it is impossible to make headway with the mentality that exists. The industry is not moving forward!

As far as being a witch-hunt, you could not be more wrong. this action resulted from a dire situation that should have been remedied the first time. What is more disturbing is the clubs that cant stand up and be counted.

Diana 

[Mike Martin 200]

I partly agree with you Diana, the Waikato president told me they had legal advice  that a no vote was a vote for the status quo go figure that. The Tokoroa secretary voted on her own without consulting the rest of the committee let alone members. A northern board member was also lobbying vigorously against the southern elected member. Democratic yeah right. 

[AC DC 18]

There were 2 bigger disgraces in this whole fiasco!

Firstly the board should have never re opened the noms for election!The board were unbelievably stupid in making that decision!

Secondly the fact that the person and the clubs had the cheek to to nominate and restand for the position that he had just been thrown out of!

I am sick of the board constantly blaming the rulebook and clubs for not being able to make decisions!

As a matter of interest were the clubs and the license holders involved in any consultation about every dog having to be allowed a start in the NZRS races???Or was that a decision they made on their own?Yet another poor decision and a fiasco!

AC

[modest mouse 469]

The handling of this disaster is the absolute epitome of the state of greyhound racing in New Zealand.

[POPA GAS 73]

Well this is going to be hard to get all clubs to agree on how the voting should be done.

Here is a problem that Wanganui could have in the future. As in the CD, Wang is the only club that runs all the races but only has one vote.

 If Wellington got together with Taranaki they could out-vote Wanganui.

Wang is likely to take over the running of Manawatu, giving them over 150 race meetings, and only the same voting power as Tokoroa with 1 race plus a trial track, Ashburton 1 race plus trial track, Taranaki 1 race,plus trial track, and Wellington with 5 race meetings and no trial track.

Now we are all living in the past if you think these clubs should have the same rights as a fully fledged racing club.You think?

So how can you think you can change it. These clubs are not going to vote  for change.

As for Greyhound racing its doing ok money-wise if you can believe half of what we're told,so don't panic Mr Mannering.

 As for all lp's voting,define lp.We suggested that an lp who is entitled to a  book, was entitled to vote on certain issues, when current,not every handler or syndicate member.That suggestion seemed favourably received.

Bev (handler) 

[Mike Martin 200]

That has been my argument all along Bev.It is absurd that those clubs you mention should have the same voting power as the other clubs. Wellington are a quandary having been right in amongst the action then falling by the wayside. No matter what way you look at it they are an endangered species and should now be treated the same as Tokoroa and Ashburton. Dianas description of a club with the an archaic 'old school' outlook fits Wellington to  a tee. Sorry about that Joan but you have reigned as long as the queen, you got the handshake at the last awards now do the decent thing.

 

      The LPS are disadvantaged with the present system and have been overall poorly served for a long time. but we all agree that the turkey aint going to vote for Christmas dinner.

[Hound Fan 577]

Well this is going to be hard to get all clubs to agree on how the voting should be done.

Here is a problem that Wanganui could have in the future. As in the CD, Wang is the only club that runs all the races but only has one vote.

 If Wellington got together with Taranaki they could out-vote Wanganui.

Wang is likely to take over the running of Manawatu, giving them over 150 race meetings, and only the same voting power as Tokoroa with 1 race plus a trial track, Ashburton 1 race plus trial track, Taranaki 1 race,plus trial track, and Wellington with 5 race meetings and no trial track.

Now we are all living in the past if you think these clubs should have the same rights as a fully fledged racing club.You think?

So how can you think you can change it. These clubs are not going to vote  for change.

As for Greyhound racing its doing ok money-wise if you can believe half of what we're told,so don't panic Mr Mannering.

 As for all lp's voting,define lp.We suggested that an lp who is entitled to a  book, was entitled to vote on certain issues, when current,not every handler or syndicate member.That suggestion seemed favourably received.

Bev (handler) 

Hay,have a good think about this,i believe our board members know what products are allowed to be used on bitches in nz ( ie testaprop to a certain level and certain tetestrone products that are ok in australia) but has this been communicated back to lp"s? O no we are giving our bitches women hormones with no testing on animals so nobody knows what effect this will have on future breeding

Maybe Paul Connor could now let us know now that he is not on the board,and if true we need some others to depart the board including our lp rep and our chairman if they have held this back from all LP's

[aquaman 1,352]

A question for Hound Fan, if you are concerned about these approved in Australia Womens tetestrone products, and the affects they may have on the animals future breeding prospects, then why give them. To the best of my knowledge nobody is forcing the use of these products on the dogs but rather its one of choice. I would imagine anyone thats serious about breeding would be circumspect about anything that may endanger their dogs or breeding prospects.

 

I no the use of these products are an attempt to supress the seasonal cycle, but really if you are a breeder then why would you want to do that. The reality is some trainers find the seasonal cycle interferes with their race plans of starting 3 times a week 52 weeks of the yr and they couldn't give a rats arse wether they produce spastic pups after pumping them full of junk there entire race life or not. Serious breeders allow their charges a break when they come into season knowing they will reap the benifits at the other end.

[Hound Fan 577]

A question for Hound Fan, if you are concerned about these approved in Australia Womens tetestrone products, and the affects they may have on the animals future breeding prospects, then why give them. To the best of my knowledge nobody is forcing the use of these products on the dogs but rather its one of choice. I would imagine anyone thats serious about breeding would be circumspect about anything that may endanger their dogs or breeding prospects.

 

I no the use of these products are an attempt to supress the seasonal cycle, but really if you are a breeder then why would you want to do that. The reality is some trainers find the seasonal cycle interferes with their race plans of starting 3 times a week 52 weeks of the yr and they couldn't give a rats arse wether they produce spastic pups after pumping them full of junk there entire race life or not. Serious breeders allow their charges a break when they come into season knowing they will reap the benifits at the other end.

John.

My point is if there are products that can be used and are legal the board should not have privleged information ( are they not trainers as well?)--and you are right it is up to the individual weither he uses hormones or not,but let us keep it a equal playing field.

[aquaman 1,352]

John.

My point is if there are products that can be used and are legal the board should not have privleged information ( are they not trainers as well?)--and you are right it is up to the individual weither he uses hormones or not,but let us keep it a equal playing field.

OK fair enough.

[Mike Martin 200]

I am no t too sure about that HF it's your responsibility to manage the dog as you see fit and that includes presenting it on racedays so it will meet the criteria for any testing. The nzgra have the responsibility of telling you what is NOT going meet that criteria.

[Hall 144]

Well this is going to be hard to get all clubs to agree on how the voting should be done.

Here is a problem that Wanganui could have in the future. As in the CD, Wang is the only club that runs all the races but only has one vote.

 If Wellington got together with Taranaki they could out-vote Wanganui.

Wang is likely to take over the running of Manawatu, giving them over 150 race meetings, and only the same voting power as Tokoroa with 1 race plus a trial track, Ashburton 1 race plus trial track, Taranaki 1 race,plus trial track, and Wellington with 5 race meetings and no trial track.

Now we are all living in the past if you think these clubs should have the same rights as a fully fledged racing club.You think?

So how can you think you can change it. These clubs are not going to vote  for change.

As for Greyhound racing its doing ok money-wise if you can believe half of what we're told,so don't panic Mr Mannering.

 As for all lp's voting,define lp.We suggested that an lp who is entitled to a  book, was entitled to vote on certain issues, when current,not every handler or syndicate member.That suggestion seemed favourably received.

Bev (handler) 

Well Bev I have no Problem with Wellington having a vote as they are a registered Racing Club,with as you say 5 race dates and if I remember rightly Wellington had there Track closed by the then CEO.  I could not imagine anything worse than Wanganui having control over what happens in the CD. I am actually in favour for a Independant Group of people running the CD, not Wanganui alone. I did agree on Wanganui taking over Manawatu.But as I said before lets see if we can once again get together and stop this them and as attitude, as you have done in your quote. Hell what a big step.

 

Janet Hall

[POPA GAS 73]

Well Bev I have no Problem with Wellington having a vote as they are a registered Racing Club,with as you say 5 race dates and if I remember rightly Wellington had there Track closed by the then CEO.  I could not imagine anything worse than Wanganui having control over what happens in the CD. I am actually in favour for a Independant Group of people running the CD, not Wanganui alone. I did agree on Wanganui taking over Manawatu.But as I said before lets see if we can once again get together and stop this them and as attitude, as you have done in your quote. Hell what a big step.

 

Janet Hall

Well Janet, I do have a problem with Clubs like wellington ,getting together with CHCH  and ashburton to outvote 2 racing clubs in an area dipute, whatever the issue.Because of using a rule that says they can? Any one should be able to see,using this same senario to manipulate any vote in any area.

 Janet, I am only on the Wanganui Board to look after Greyhound racing to try and ensure dog people run all dog racing.

Wanganui does not want to take over Manawatu. Wellington was asked and did not want to ,also suggesting Wang was stupid if they do it. They are more than happy running 5 times a year with no  responsibility, and  make a nice profit  to boot..

I repeat,Wanganui is only doing it to keep it in the hands of Greyhound people. I come up for re-election this year so anyone  can always stand.

Bev Duganzich

[Mike Martin 200]

Janet,

             I was one that did no want wellington to close but being the only club without  a track and not likely to ever have one maybe it's time they hung up their boots. What is to stop a group start up another club  like maybe the Stewart Island greyhound racing club and run meetings at whatever track. Sounds ludicrous but in our present state obviously the rules allow it.

           Bev is correct in that the two tacks in the CD with the least input have equal power. This leaves the situation open to foul play.

 

Janet, just consider this scenario and answer honestly.

 

    Just say there was some individuals with an agenda to change something in the industry that not everyone else wanted change to. Now imagine if that club could convince one of the smaller clubs  to put forward a motion to make the change for them. Then add a scenario where say the president of another of the smaller clubs (who happened to have a well established link with the original stirrer  maybe even the club itself racing dogs from their kennel ) and this club to second  that motion. All the stirrer would have to do is then get his own club to vote for the motion and let the rest of the clubs believe it is none of their business and you have an injustice take place.

 

  Now Janet do you believe that would be possible and remember if it is there may well be coup against Wellington one day. .

[Kildalucy 4]

Janet,

             I was one that did no want wellington to close but being the only club without  a track and not likely to ever have one maybe it's time they hung up their boots. What is to stop a group start up another club  like maybe the Stewart Island greyhound racing club and run meetings at whatever track. Sounds ludicrous but in our present state obviously the rules allow it.

           Bev is correct in that the two tacks in the CD with the least input have equal power. This leaves the situation open to foul play.

 

Janet, just consider this scenario and answer honestly.

 

    Just say there was some individuals with an agenda to change something in the industry that not everyone else wanted change to. Now imagine if that club could convince one of the smaller clubs  to put forward a motion to make the change for them. Then add a scenario where say the president of another of the smaller clubs (who happened to have a well established link with the original stirrer  maybe even the club itself racing dogs from their kennel ) and this club to second  that motion. All the stirrer would have to do is then get his own club to vote for the motion and let the rest of the clubs believe it is none of their business and you have an injustice take place.

 

  Now Janet do you believe that would be possible and remember if it is there may well be coup against Wellington one day. .

Mike 

 

What you suggest here to Janet is already happening.

 

The Otago Club is run by one or two individuals.

 

I know for a fact that when the President and Secretary/Manager turned up to the first meeting to discuss the SI policy in Christchurch, they did not even let their own 'Board' members know they were attending. WE know this because members of the existing board were asked if they knew that the meeting had taken place and if they were advised in advance. Their answer was "NO".

 

The Board of the Otago Club has not once gone to the members and asked how they wished the Club to vote in the Paul Conner affair.

 

I re-post what you said in your first post which was

 

"It was a undemocratic witch hunt that has highlighted the very worst of our sport and the vagrancies of our constitution"

 

Do the Otago Club not fall into this same category by not consulting it members on one of the biggest issues in South Island racing?

 

This is what they say in there newsletter to members regarding this issue

 

"The current season will no doubt be remembered as one of the most difficult faced by our club and the code overall. To date we have run 21 meetings which included one transferred from Southland. All but one of our meetings could be deemed to be successful, the exception was when a group of Canterbury trainers boycotted our meeting in September which restricted us to an 8 race programme. This boycott also prevented us running a second Southland meeting the following week. The boycott was against the South Island selection policy, a policy adopted by Southland and ourselves which gives preference to dogs that have not started the preceding Thursday or Friday. This policy has been has since been put “on hold” pending a suitable solution to the major problem we have been experiencing in the South Island over the past couple of years, which is too many dogs and not enough races.

 

That was not the only problem we have been faced with as there has been ongoing discontent (emanating from the Christchurch and Ashburton Clubs) with the re-election of Paul Conner as Southern regional rep on the GRNZ Board, which has since seen him removed from office in what could be best described as dubious circumstances". 

 

I suggest to you that the way one or two members of the Club are running the Club to suit their own ends is in their own words "what could be best described as dubious circumstances". 

 

 

New Zealands  leading trainer turned up to the Otago AGM on a Sunday afternoon in October 2012 and was refused the right to raise the issue of the Clubs selection policy at the AGM. Is this democracy?

 

The Otago Club has called a meeting on a Thursday night to discuss their selection policy for the coming year. Here is what they say

 

"IMPORTANT

We will be holding a Special general meeting of members to decide club selection criteria “going forward” into the new season. This is your opportunity to put forward your views and discuss possible alternatives to the S.I.S.P. This meeting will take place in our clubrooms on Thursday, June 20 at 7pm".

 

Given that there a quite a few Christchurch trainers that are fully paid financial members of the Otago Club, why would you call a meeting on a Thursday when these financial members will not be able to attend due to racing commitments in Christchurch? Is this the democracy in action that you speak of in your opening post?

 

I for one will be voting with my feet and my wallet and not renewing my financial membership of this Club. I do not want to be involved in a Club that does not understand that it has an obligation to those that pay to keep the Club running.

 

By choice I will be making my financial donation to a Club that is inclusive of its members and gives members a say in the decisions that the Club makes and votes on.

[Mike Martin 200]

I see they should have sent a letter to the other clubs saying please let us know when you are able to attend a SGM we are wanting to hold. If you wanted to be there you would find a way on one afternoon of the year. That certainly sounds easier than the cowardly action taken. 

   It is all in the eye of the beholder, I remember a doctor telling me once you will never diagnose anything that you do not think of.

 

   All of what you have written is local politics and no reason to hijack a supposedly democratic process.

 

 And by the way the scenario I described to Janet happened is not happening.

[AC DC 18]

just as an aside, Ashburton Club may not have a race track but there are far more owners and members in that area than in Southland and Otago combined! so on that basis they should have an equal say in the way the industry goes

[Mike Martin 200]

There is another way you guys could go about it. Take a bus load of you members to the deep south (make sure they have paid up membership of the club before you go) for their AGM and take over the club. It has been done before, here in the North.

[jasonmccook1 2,359]

Mike 

 

What you suggest here to Janet is already happening.

 

The Otago Club is run by one or two individuals.

 

I know for a fact that when the President and Secretary/Manager turned up to the first meeting to discuss the SI policy in Christchurch, they did not even let their own 'Board' members know they were attending. WE know this because members of the existing board were asked if they knew that the meeting had taken place and if they were advised in advance. Their answer was "NO".

 

The Board of the Otago Club has not once gone to the members and asked how they wished the Club to vote in the Paul Conner affair.

 

I re-post what you said in your first post which was

 

"It was a undemocratic witch hunt that has highlighted the very worst of our sport and the vagrancies of our constitution"

 

Do the Otago Club not fall into this same category by not consulting it members on one of the biggest issues in South Island racing?

 

This is what they say in there newsletter to members regarding this issue

 

"The current season will no doubt be remembered as one of the most difficult faced by our club and the code overall. To date we have run 21 meetings which included one transferred from Southland. All but one of our meetings could be deemed to be successful, the exception was when a group of Canterbury trainers boycotted our meeting in September which restricted us to an 8 race programme. This boycott also prevented us running a second Southland meeting the following week. The boycott was against the South Island selection policy, a policy adopted by Southland and ourselves which gives preference to dogs that have not started the preceding Thursday or Friday. This policy has been has since been put “on hold” pending a suitable solution to the major problem we have been experiencing in the South Island over the past couple of years, which is too many dogs and not enough races.

 

That was not the only problem we have been faced with as there has been ongoing discontent (emanating from the Christchurch and Ashburton Clubs) with the re-election of Paul Conner as Southern regional rep on the GRNZ Board, which has since seen him removed from office in what could be best described as dubious circumstances". 

 

I suggest to you that the way one or two members of the Club are running the Club to suit their own ends is in their own words "what could be best described as dubious circumstances". 

 

 

New Zealands  leading trainer turned up to the Otago AGM on a Sunday afternoon in October 2012 and was refused the right to raise the issue of the Clubs selection policy at the AGM. Is this democracy?

 

The Otago Club has called a meeting on a Thursday night to discuss their selection policy for the coming year. Here is what they say

 

"IMPORTANT

We will be holding a Special general meeting of members to decide club selection criteria “going forward” into the new season. This is your opportunity to put forward your views and discuss possible alternatives to the S.I.S.P. This meeting will take place in our clubrooms on Thursday, June 20 at 7pm".

 

Given that there a quite a few Christchurch trainers that are fully paid financial members of the Otago Club, why would you call a meeting on a Thursday when these financial members will not be able to attend due to racing commitments in Christchurch? Is this the democracy in action that you speak of in your opening post?

 

I for one will be voting with my feet and my wallet and not renewing my financial membership of this Club. I do not want to be involved in a Club that does not understand that it has an obligation to those that pay to keep the Club running.

 

By choice I will be making my financial donation to a Club that is inclusive of its members and gives members a say in the decisions that the Club makes and votes on.

 

Mr Fisher

 

OGRC has basically called you a fibber in regards to your allegations I look forward to your reply as if what OGRC states is true makes you look quite silly  doesn't it??

[Joan Bates 0]

That has been my argument all along Bev.It is absurd that those clubs you mention should have the same voting power as the other clubs. Wellington are a quandary having been right in amongst the action then falling by the wayside. No matter what way you look at it they are an endangered species and should now be treated the same as Tokoroa and Ashburton. Dianas description of a club with the an archaic 'old school' outlook fits Wellington to  a tee. Sorry about that Joan but you have reigned as long as the queen, you got the handshake at the last awards now do the decent thing.

 

      The LPS are disadvantaged with the present system and have been overall poorly served for a long time. but we all agree that the turkey aint going to vote for Christmas dinner.

Hi Mike _ I have just been advised of your posting regarding myself- I cannot close down the Club - only the Members can do that- therefore your remarks are uncalled for and you should "do the decent thing"and retract your comment - regards - Joan  

[Mike Martin 200]

Wont be withdrawing Joan because I meant it. I never said that you should close down the club. I do suggest that you stick to your knitting.