Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am afraid I have never indulged in training a greyhound. Harold's Cross and Shelbourne Park are very much part of the Dublin landscape and it is a very serious matter. I have carefully examined the briefing the IGB provided, the Comptroller and Auditor General's statement, which was a very strong and robust analysis of what has happened over recent years, the current situation and how we are moving forward, and what the chairman and CEO said today. I see some mixed messages in the report and what the chairman and CEO said today. The statements recognise the harsh, cold, dire realities of the situation. The Comptroller and Auditor General has indicated that at least €4 million in costs could have been avoided in the projects to which we refer. The average attendance was the same in 2012 and 2013, 392 per race, and is clearly unsustainable.

There was a 32% reduction in greyhound ownership in Ireland between 2007 and 2013. Between 2008 and 2013 the debt doubled from €10.4 million to €21.8 million. There was a pensions deficit in 2012 of €8.6 million. These are serious matters. Bord na gCon is only paying interest on the debt and there is no indication of when the principal will be repaid. The witnesses tell us that next year they hope to restructure the debt. It is stated on page 3 of the briefing that the Irish Greyhound Board has reached agreement with its bank on the restructuring of loan facilities and that the agreement will come into effect once the security held by the bank has been legally perfected, whatever that means. There is no indication of how much of the principal will be repaid. Will the witnesses clarify whether repayment will continue on an interest-only basis?
I am concerned that following the reference in the briefing document to the restructuring of loan facilities there is a paragraph with wishful thinking:

As outlined the financial statements for 2013 continue to be prepared on the going concern basis. While the forecasted profits projected from new income streams did not materialise in 2014 due in principle to reconciliation of information technology platforms, IGB remain confident that significant returns will be generated for the industry over future years from secured contracts with co-mingling partners and supply of live racing pictures to the wagering market. IGB are currently finalising contracts with an established tv provider within the wagering industry and have contracts with some of the largest wagering partners that are due to commence during quarter 1 2015. IGB are encouraged by the support and financial commitment made by these wagering outlets for their future use of the IGB racing product. The demand for the Irish greyhound racing product is greatly enhanced with the badge of a semi-State organisation.

What does "due in principle" mean? This paragraph is nothing but waffle, making tentative references to "confidence" about "future years". This is all wishful thinking. The reality is the level of greyhound ownership is down, track attendances are down and the Tote take is down. We received clear and realistic statements from the CEO and the chairman stating the situation was bleak. The chairman says staff morale and relations with stakeholders have been damaged and that this has badly affected the capacity of the Irish Greyhound Board to focus on the future. We are receiving mixed messages. It is suggested everything will be hunky-dory in the future, but the reality today looks serious. Will the witnesses address this issue?
I do not like being told that there is a new board that cannot take responsibility for things that happened under the old one. The suggestion is that we must accept the legacy of the old board, while acknowledging that the new one is not at fault. Representatives of the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board were before the committee three weeks ago and the board had impaired debts of around €40 million. To a large extent, it blamed the old board, but this is not good enough in the case of a commercial semi-State body that must operate on an ongoing basis. The witnesses cannot simply say these are legacy debts - I do not like that message. They must clarify the mixed messages.