- This topic has 659 replies, 109 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Amazing thet he did not resign today.
How can he ever be critical of Betfair again without coming across as a total fraud and hypocrite.
I can hear the closing of ranks already , nothin will happen, and if anyone wants a insight as to why racing is heading for the trash can , then this is a prime example
Self Interest will always prevail
shocking
Ricky
These hedge fund sharks specialise in short selling, why change the habit of a lifetime? The money market men over the last few years have amply demonstrated to us all how decency, morality, leadership and the common good come a very poor second anytime the quick buck is involved. Say one thing in public, do the other in private. Greed overcomes principle. Should anyone really be too surprised Paul Roy has acted as he has?
Leadership my ar*e.
I genuinely expected him to resign yesterday, yet when I read the Post, industry figures were neither surprised nor particularly damning.
What would happen if Betfair moved abroad? Thereby costing British horse racing a minimum of £8m per year (under current funding arrangements.)
The Betfair Chairman is not a particular fan of horse racing by all accounts. They pulled the £1m voluntary payment earlier this year and are in dispute with the BHA, the bookmakers and the Racing Post. As Black and Wray withdraw, why wouldn’t Betfair follow the likes of the Hills and Ladbrokes online operations abroad? They’ve spent millions of pounds(of our money) cracking the US (media, betting in California) and Australia (betting) and clearly have plans to become a global betting behemoth.
Betfair started with racing. So? Ditching UK horse racing would be like a rock star ditching his long suffering childhood sweetheart for a buxom beauty the week after a hit album. It happens all the time.
You don’t become a £1.5billion plus business by being a slave to sentimentality.
Where would Paul Roy stand then?
Essentially, he would be responsible for accelerating the financial demise of the sporting organisation he is paid to steward and as Drone said the other day, he would even profit from the demise. If that isn’t conflict of interest then what is?
- Total Posts 17716
Paul Roy would doubtless claim the "arms length" principle was in play, if he’d been questioned officially. Thus my qualification of "probable" conflict of interest.
We should never underestimate just how brazen (and flexible) the parasitical worms of society are. Principle counts for nothing with them.
The really culpable ones here, in my opinion, are the BHA and journo-toadies who have seen fit to pretend the whole thing is of absolutely no account. Will Greg Wood, for example, be featuring this particularly juicy tapeworm in his column? Don’t hold your breath….
Greg Wood’s newspaper appear to be the only broadsheet giving the issue an airing, granted I don’t have access to The Times.
- Total Posts 17716
Greg Wood’s newspaper appear to be the only broadsheet giving the issue an airing, granted I don’t have access to The Times.
Thank you for this link – significant that it is
Nick Luck
and not Mr Wood who’s stood up to be counted.
I also found one other media guru at least prepared to stand up on this one, in the
Evening Standard
Might also be worth finding out whether an attempt to stagger the races was made between the two courses (with the BHA’s Raceday Planner acting as conduit) rather than necessarily assume there wasn’t; and if there was, whether either course dug its heels in.
That, I must confess, is one detail of the Planner’s job about which I’m still a bit hazy, namely whether his or her powers of jurisdiction can force a course not to overlap under any and every set of circumstances. With grateful thanks in advance, maybe someone closer to the entire process can advise?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Reaction has been strong to the news that Paul Roy, BHA Chairman, also chairs an investment company who applied for £40,000,000 worth of shares in betfair, at a time when racing is trying to ensure that it maximises revenue from that company.
It is clear from posts so far that soem are outraged by this – I thought it was worth gauging whether the vocal few were representative of the silent majority on this issue.
Paul Roy – should he stay or go at the BHA?
Has he lost the confidence of his biggest constituent group (us punters) or is there enough distance between his BHA role and his financial interest in the investment company he’s involved with?
You decide!
Hopefully Silvoir can shed some light on this, but wasn’t the job filled briefly before vacated and now unlikely to be refilled due to budget cuts? I;m sure I read this somewhere. Possibly the Guardian?
Whether racing loses more in levy through races clashing than the 25k or so it would cost to fill such a position, well I’ll leave that to others to decide.
GC, there is a Protocol for this on the BHA website my understanding of which is that only the Stipenairy Stewards can alter a race time and the BHA bod at HQ can only advise.
He has to go. Simples. Must have Irish blood in him trying to dodge this bullet. Do the right thing and go.
I’ve blogged on this topic and for me it’s not just a queston of a conflict of interest or of integrity. It’s a question of judgement.
Roy argues the purchase of shares changes nothing. This is nonsense. It totally undermines the position that he himself took when speaking on behalf of racing in a press release billed as ‘British Horse Racing Reacts to Betfair’s IPO Announcement’.
In that release Roy deliberately draws the attention of potential investors to what could have been perceived as threats to the Betfair model. He did not need to make that statement. He chose to do so. If he did that without anticipating the corner he was painting himself and racing into then his judgement has to be questioned.
His failure to accept this subsequently and acknowledge legitimate criticism insteand of dismissing it as ‘mischievous and ill informed individuals’ shows an aggravating lack of nous and commercial acumen. The purchase of Betfair shares by New Smith has made it absolutely impossible for Racing to repeat the argument that Roy personally made on Racing’s behalf. Either he didn’t see that/ won’t accept it /doesn’t care. Whichever of those three is true he’s cooked his own goose surely.His statement could have put prospective purchasers off applying for shares thereby getting a larger allocation of shares for his Company.
Would that be market manipulation?
Will Scotney investigate him for bringing racing into disrepute?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.