- This topic has 38 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
It’s about both, and whether one outweighs the other.
The warnings of shop closures are overblown. The recently opened arcades in the clustered areas will close, but I don’t see how the pre-FOBT shop count suddenly becomes completely unviable.
I find the notion that racing’s survival is pinned on its place as a loss leader for arcades in clustered areas slightly absurd.
I am not really convinced that FOBT’s are any more addictive than any other form of gambling. When I managed a betting shop for ten years I came to recognise the different punter types and their gambling behaviours.
There will always be a divide between those who bet within their means and those who cannot control their habit. I have watched problem gamblers lose their marriages and businesses through betting solely on horses. A constant feature of this type of gambler’s behaviour was the mentality of recouping their losses on the very next race, rather than waiting for an appropriate opportunity. Guys who were otherwise good judges would be chasing in a race they previously had no intention of placing a bet in. They just HAVE to win their money back the same day and would end up begging for a credit bet once their funds had run out. Some of the bets I have seen beggar belief, such as £200 forecasts in a race where the favourite was 9/2 and an £800 bet on a Virtual greyhound. Both bets lost.
I believe that that type of wagering is well on a par with the money that can be staked on the "Crack Cocaine" FOBT’s and I know that some of my ex problem punters were prosecuted for defrauding the Benefits System.
Perhaps the Skill-less and soulless FOBT’s are attracting a different type of punter but I don’t believe that gambling on horses is somehow more respectable and less problematical. It’s the age old hypocrisy akin to alcohol consumers looking down their nose at other "users" because their drug of choice happens to be legal. I watched a Horizon special a few years ago where a team of scientists stated that if alcohol had just been made available now, it would be declared a Class A drug. Too many people in power like a tasty themselves, so that won’t ever happen.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- Total Posts 438
The question isn’t about Levy, it’s about racing’s finances which depend very heavily on media rights money which is based on the number of betting shops trading.
So what happens in a few years’ time, when betting shops are allowed more FOBTs and the bookmakers derive 80% of their profits from them and therefore decide that paying for live racing pictures in shops isn’t worth it?
Will racing’s finances be all right then?
Currently those dreaded machines keep a lot of bookie shops open , yes it is entirely feasible that one day some accountant from a large chain will think out loud , why are we paying so much just to have racing in our shops !!!!
The rest will be history
The boneheads that currently run racing cannot even see this as a possible …for me its a question of time
The Elephant is not those machines , its the big step needed to stop donating to a sport that is losing appeal by the month , someone has to be brave enough to take it , the rest will follow like sheep
Thats the worry indeed
IMO
Ricky
The question isn’t about Levy, it’s about racing’s finances which depend very heavily on media rights money which is based on the number of betting shops trading.
So what happens in a few years’ time, when betting shops are allowed more FOBTs and the bookmakers derive 80% of their profits from them and therefore decide that paying for live racing pictures in shops isn’t worth it?
Will racing’s finances be all right then?
No they won’t, they’ll be in tatters. The reason bookmakers need FOBTs is because the fools at the BHA surrendered commercial control of fixtures rights.
There was the a free-for-all among racecourses and the costs of pictures to betting shops were almost doubled – yes, ‘racing’ decided that its main distribution channel, its shop window provider, should be squeezed until the pips squeaked.
Turf TV was breathing its last, with no customers, when Coral blinked and signed up and the rest had to follow. Businessmen who are heavily coerced by suppliers have long memories.
Racing is the most expensive product for a bookmaker. If it stopped tomorrow many bookmaking boardrooms would resound to cheers and applause. Sure, there would be sadness among a few of the MDs, for the ‘old days’ but business is business.
Racing would be better off giving away pictures to bookmakers at cost and entering a structured profit-share deal and, vitally, a full partnership with the betting industry to sell the sport.
Two willing sellers, neither of whom feels ripped off, would make a much better job of making the sport a long-term success. Racing believes it has the upper hand in its ‘battle with the bookies’ – it says everything about racing’s strategy that it has always seen it as a ‘battle’ rather than a partnership.
Thankfully, Mr Bittar seems to have a better idea of how to work with ‘the enemy’. Hope remains, but costs need to come down drastically for bookmakers to commit fully to the sport.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.