- This topic has 118 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks for putting me in the picture, Dave. I strongly favour the bookies divvying up, in that case.
It would be nice to control the excesses of corporatism – the curse of this country for the last 26 years – at least in this industry.
And I hope the "new and improved" system for SP calculations is knocked on the head smartish, when they’ve finished studying its putative benefits.
But Dave, how is that ever going to happen? The bookies are always going to pass on any extra payment to their customers, because they are in racing for the same reason as trainers, jockeys, racecourses and everyone else bar the owners and punters: to make a living.
The owners from up top and the punters from down below are the only net contributors to racing, and that is never going to change. If racing wants more money, it has to come from one or the other – and since Lord Donoughue knows very well which faction has more clout at the higher levels, it was never likely to be the owners.
Mr Frisk .. the bookies operate in a regulated industry. The regulations under which they operate is supposed to be fair and impartial.
I dont believe that the new SP system is fair. Let me explain why …
The bookies pay 10% of their profits to the levy. The bookies return was around 1.4% per runner before 1/11/06, the aim of the change is to increase that profit to 1.8% per runner. This means that the bookies will rake in, by way of the overround, +0.4% per runner. The bookies will keep 90% of this extra revenue and give 10% of it to the levy. That just doesnt seem right to me. This isnt about people making a living, they are doing that already and quite nicely.
If the Industry is is such a bad way that it needs all of this extra money then the bookies should have to pay a higher %age of profits to the levy .. 15% seem appropriate .. if the overround for us is going up from 1.4 to 1.8, thats more than 30%.
In two years time when the market catches on and the waves of mug money start drying up, like it did with the Regional Racing scam, they’ll be having another consultation about how to get more funding for racing .. !
When the betting tax existed it did not include Greyhound racing yet any greyhound winnings had the same ‘tax’ deduction.<br>This money went straight into the bookmakers profits.<br>Unclaimed winning bets/non runners ‘sleepers’ that punters do not claim again go straight into the bokkmakers bank accounts.<br>David Ashforth has complained about this practice many times yet nothing changes.
If a punter cannot be bothered to go and collect his winnings, I have no probelm at all with the bookmakers keeping it.
Perhaps bookmakers hsould take a name, address and telephone number with every bet they take and inform punters when their winnings are ready for collection, or maybe the staff after they’ve done their 14 hour days in summer could pop the winnings through the letterboxs of customers on their way home.
Dave
I’m not disputing what you say about the SP system, it’s clearly been fiddled to benefit the margins. I’m just saying that suggesting the bookies should dip further into their pockets still translates, just as it always has, into the punters paying more. Businesses pass on their costs to their customers.
The bookies aren’t stupid, they realise they have to pay money to racing to keep it going and to keep their punters betting, but under the Levy system, they are never going to hand over any more than the bare minimum they can get away with.
If the percentage of profits handed over to the Levy were bumped up, they would simply find a way of passing that on to their customers, probably via an industry SP with a fixed margin, though it’s not going to happen as the current level has been agreed on both sides as acceptable and no-one wants to hack the Government off any further by fallling out over it.
The fact that bookies have to make an offer under the Levy system, and have a very shrewd idea of what they can get away with paying, is why Savill was so keen to truly commercial negotiations.
There was nothing wrong with that in principle, it was just the execution – ie. getting the Levy abolished before they were sure that the alternative was water-tight legally – that was laughably cack-handed.
Even on a commercial basis, though, the money was ultimately going to come from the punters, and everyone involved knew it.
So your reasoning is that if bookies make more profits from a fiddled SP return they should only give 10% of the additional revenue to fund racing ?
dave,
You make a good case with the numbers, yet persuading the bookmakers to hand any ‘windfall’ profits back to racing is going to be very difficult indeed.
They are collectively very well organised when it comes to negotiating the percentage of their gross profit to be paid as levy, so this windfall profit stays in their balance sheet.
The only way punters can claw back any money from them is by exercising their market power and shopping around for the very best deal. This is only possible if you operate numerous internet accounts – the betting office customers are restricted to their own area and won’t travel too far.
In short, it is a very good time to own large chains of betting offices: they are still the cash cows of the gambling business, provided they are developed and managed properly.
Look out in the not too distant future for rationalisations between companies in what is becoming an overcrowded market. This will reduce competition in the high street and mean an even poorer deal for the beleagured punter.
Quote: from Artemis on 7:21 pm on Jan. 5
This will reduce competition in the high street
Artemis,
What competition – they all offer the same prices with just minor variations in the morning. They all show the same pictures, use the same cartoons, the same lucky numbers and the same machines.
There’s more competition between different branches of Tesco than there is between the big three.
AP<br>
Alan, are you saying there is some kind of cartel in operation with secret coded messages and odds cicrulating between the bookmakers!!!
Disclosure protocol [??]
<br>I must agree there is no competition in the high street. I can’t understand any sane person placing a bet with a high street bookmaker. The profitabilityof betting shops is now governed by how many FOBT’s they can install.
AP
I was thinking of the inducements aimed at the small stakes punters such as treble odds for Lucky 15s and bonusses for all correct multiple bets. This type of bet is a considerable part of the turnover for the multiples and wherever they are in opposition they do have to offer the very best terms or face losing a lot of business.
In terms of early prices, I agree that they are all about the same to decent money. Those offering the best concessions on multiple type bets are usually those offering the worst value to those looking for a serious bet.
Personally, I haven’t had a bet in a betting office for about 6 months and that bet was only placed there because I was having problems with my computer.
Perhaps bookmakers should take a name, address and telephone number with every bet they take
In other words, the sort of know-you-customer procedures that betting exchanges already adopt as a matter of course.
I look forward to the days of fully licensed betting shop users. :biggrin:
Davidjohnson<br>There may be a 1,00 and1 reasons why punters don’t collect winning bets or collect stakes from non runners.<br>Why can’t the bookmakers return this not inconsiderable sum after a year to either the Injured Jockeys Fund or some other good cause such as Gamcare.
Following the death of Phunter who was a member of this site I helped his widow Janice retrieve over £2,000 Peter had in his Betfair account. Janice knew her late husband had a betfair account but did know his password or indeed how to use the computer. <br>
An interesting piece in the financial pages of today’s Daily Mail under the heading: "Racing Profits Are A Good Bet "
"Betting firms could be in for thundering gains at the races. Broker Arbuthnot reckons the changes to the way starting prices on horse races are calculated could provide a fillip to Ladbrokes and William Hill ….."
Yes indeed.
richard
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.