D-DAY FOR DOOMBEN

Tomorrow is D-Day for racing in Brisbane – delivery day, if you like, being the due date for those expecting the birth of a new racing entity for Metropolitan racing.

While that result is a short-priced favourite to carry the vote at a Special General Meeting scheduled for 10.30 tomorrow morning, the old adage that there are no certainties in racing still remains true and many will be holding their collective breaths as they await the outcome.

Let it be said at the outset, the proposal to amalgamate the Brisbane Turf Club with the Queensland Turf Club has obvious advantages and almost all voting members would certainly not be against the progress that would bring.

Likewise, it can arguably be surmised that most voting members would not be unhappy with the creation of the a new, single racing identity, the Brisbane Racing Club, if they are comfortable that the core of their concerns, which have been well documented over the past eighteen months, have been adequately catered for in the decision making process.

Ask almost anybody at the track and there now appears to be a general consensus that a merger is inevitable. Some are bold enough to suggest it is all over bar the shouting, and that even the shouting might be short-lived, as emotion gives way to reason. It is now termed a ‘common sense’ decision, a no-brainer. It has to happen they say. And I’m not going to contest that point.

What I do find intriguing though, is the fact that even at this late stage – just hours away what is likely to be an historic vote, the three constant factors that have formed the basis of the counter-argument against the push for amalgamation are still very much in play.

Three concerns have been the roadblock and have emerged as the pivotal points on which the amalgamation issue will be decided, with the result of tomorrow’s vote largely depending on whether enough individual members have come to terms with these factors.

As such they are well worth one last evaluation here, if for no other reason than submitting them as a matter of historical record.

The future of Doomben Racecourse has always been a prime concern – from the day a move from a Metropolitan precinct to a ‘green’ site, for both race-clubs, was first mooted several years ago.

In the continuing argument of the past year, it would perhaps have been prudent for those who allegedly at one time wanted to trade the Metropolitan racecourses for a new super-track, (if that was indeed the case) to have acknowledged that the sale of one or both of the Metropolitan racetracks was an option at one stage, albeit an unpopular one ... and that they had moved on from that standpoint.

That would have helped evaporate past distrust which has simmered since that time between various influential parties as the plan for the future of racing in Brisbane evolved.

The current BTC Board is fully committed to both the merger and the retention of Doomben Racecourse and their integrity in their stated intention is not in question.

The question is whether they have gone far enough in terms of detailing the terms under which Doomben would be retained.

It’s all in the wording.

Does retaining Doomben Racecourse as a fundamental part of the Brisbane Metropolitan Racing Precinct Master Plan, as stated, mean merely retaining Doomben as a racing facility - which is a description open to many interpretations? Or, and this is the important point, does it mean the track will be retained as a race-meeting venue?

In all of the documentation featuring various proposals over the past year, the words, “the intention is to retain Doomben as a race meeting venue,” has not been mentioned.

Some have said that is implied. I say it has not been specified, and therefore falls under a grey area and could come back to bite those who believed otherwise. If I was a voting member, it is a point I would want clarified.

The second factor constantly prompting debate is the term ‘merger of equals’.

It has been clearly stated that, if approved, once the new racing club has been established, all the assets and liabilities of both the pre-existing race-clubs will be transferred to the new club leaving all members in the same boat as they sail into the future.

Given that fact, is it not important to know if the two clubs were able to negotiate the new deal as true equals in terms of existing assets and liabilities?

The BTC Board have cited financial concerns for the future as a serious motivational factor for pursuing amalgamation. A loss of $1 million in the past financial year has been mentioned and dire trading circumstances for the future have been predicted.

The BTC’s financial concerns have been well documented and given much publicity, but how many voting members are aware of how this figure and all-around concern up stacks up against the equivalent Queensland Turf Club operating performance?

It is reasonable to suggest that both race-clubs would have been affected by the adverse trading conditions of the past season - the impact of EI and the downturn in the economy – and this begs the question – is one club substantially better off than the other entering into the amalgamation arena and if there is such a financial imbalance, how can it then truly be a ‘merger of equals’?

Food for thought.

The final constant point of agitation is that nobody likes to be bullied.

People in a vulnerable position can often interpret powerful influences as being overbearing, or even playing the part of a bully. The interpretation may be wrong but if they believe it to be true, it adds conflict to the situation.

Queensland Racing, the Principal Racing Authority in the state, by its very nature, has a powerful influence on any racing matters of the day.

A bully, according to one definition, tries to ‘pressure or coerce somebody into doing something.’ In another definition (both taken from the Oxford Dictionary), bully is defined as ‘very good, first rate.’

So which of the bully definitions, if any, applies to the Queensland Racing Authority?

Certainly Queensland Racing’s stated policy during all of this time has been that it is their position that the BTC and the QTC should form one club to conduct metropolitan racing in Brisbane. That policy is unambiguous.

As is the second part of the policy statement which says that Queensland Racing will not plan for a future that includes both the BTC and the QTC.

As is the policy statement that Queensland Racing would not continue to subsidise the administration of either the BTC or QTC in their current form. (In previous years the BTC has relied on an annual $950 000 administration subsidy).

Last, but not least, is the consideration of the future allocation of racing fixtures to the BTC by Queensland Racing if it remains a stand-alone club.

In their ‘Blueprint for the future of racing’ the BTC Board points out it has no influence on the way in which race dates are allocated, and adds, “ít would not be surprising though (in the event of the merger not proceeding) if a greater allocation of metropolitan race dates were allocated to the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.”

Why would that be? The comment is not explained so you can formulate your own answer.

From Queensland Racing’s point of view, these conditions relate to their right as the Principal Racing Authority in Queensland to implement sound management strategy ... as in the ‘very good, first rate” definition.

But some would liken those policies to applying pressure and thus would use the other definition mentioned above.

Thus it is that, quite amazingly, these three points – the retention of Doomben as a RACING venue, the degree of truth to the term ‘merger of equals’ and the argument about the role played, for better or worse, by Queenland Racing – will go the distance until the final bell and will still be standing to hear the announcement of the judges scorecard.

Because these are all emotive issues nothing can be taken for granted.

Whichever way the verdict goes, tomorrow will be an historic day.