The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill First Report

Home Forums Horse Racing Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill First Report

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1231
    bluechariot
    Member
    • Total Posts 569
    #48680
    Sailing Shoes
    Member
    • Total Posts 368

    Some interesting stuff there.

    I’m concerned about the non-recreational layer section

    " In our view these users, at least in the first instance, are only likely to be identified retrospectively. A betting pattern above a certain threshold needs to be established. The submission by the ABB to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury[773] suggests registration at £1,000 per month profit from laying, or an activity level of 60 lays a month. Betfair, when giving oral evidence to the Committee, referred to the fact that 0.71% of its accounts were "active customers who made more than £15,000 last year [from backing and laying]",[774] having previously referred to the fact that it has 200,000 registered clients.[775] This implies that around 1,400 people are making this amount of money on the exchange.[776]

    538. We believe that it will be necessary to have regard to the amount laid as well as the frequency of laying. We saw on our visit to Betfair examples of individuals laying a large number of bets on a single event in a short space of time so as to benefit from fluctuating price movements, but only generating a very small profit. At the other extreme, the Committee has noted the recent publicity surrounding the laying of substantial sums on the outcomes of minor horse races, wholly out of proportion to the value of the race; we believe that activity of this latter nature should trigger the immediate interest of the Gambling Commission.

    539. Setting the level of the threshold will be a task for the DCMS once it has established firm policy objectives for the regulation. It will then require consultation and co-ordination with the Gambling Commission and the exchange companies. We anticipate that HM Treasury’s review of the tax treatment of betting exchanges and their clients will also include consideration of these criteria. The Government will then have to give some thought to how this system would work in practice.

    540. The Committee is anxious to protect from unnecessary regulatory requirements, genuine recreational users of exchanges, including those who choose to lay bets. We suspect that the vast majority of such users back or lay relatively modest sums of money. However, the Committee suggests that there will be some users who, by the very nature and frequency of the sums they lay, cannot be said to be recreational.

    541. The Committee recommends that DCMS should consult the exchanges on whether a ceiling on the sum which may be laid "recreationally" would be appropriate. We are also attracted to the idea that all transactions above a certain level should automatically be reported to the Gambling Commission to assist the Commission’s monitoring of integrity. Such arrangements could be included either in regulations or codes of practice.

    542. In any event we think it likely that the Inland Revenue may wish to impose regulatory requirements on the exchanges as part of any money laundering or taxation arrangements for non-recreational layers as is the case with banks and other financial institutions. "

    <br>I don’t see how this could be put into practice or how it is legally right. As stated in the paragraph below…

    519. On the basis of individual contributions, Mr Davies asserted: "There is no tax on punters in this country. There is no tax on punters when they bet on Betfair, whether they bet on an outcome to happen or not to happen, and there is no tax on punters at William Hill, whether they bet on an outcome to happen or not to happen. The call from our commercial competitors at the moment is that those who bet on Betfair on an outcome not to happen, those who lay, in Betfair’s terminology, should be taxed. That would mean that you could walk into your high street this afternoon and you could bet that England would not win [Euro] 2004 and you could do so without paying tax, but to express that same view on Betfair, you would be classified as a layer and you would be taxed. Nobody is suggesting that you, as a passenger, should pay anything different on one airline from any other and nobody should be suggesting that you, as a punter, should be paying differently with one betting operator than with any other."

    (Edited by Sailing Shoes at 2:16 pm on Mar. 26, 2007)

    #48681
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17727

    A particularly enlightening question was "Is it cheating to lay a horse when it is known to be sick?", and Peter Savill’s response when given a similar scenario:<br>""My view would be that there has been no malpractice because, as we said earlier, horseracing and betting on horses is very much tied up inextricably with inside information. The moment you arrive on a racecourse there will be 50 people coming up and telling you what is fancied and what is not and all the reasons."<br>The inference being that it is perfectly legitimate to lay a sick horse, as long as a jockey didn’t tell you!<br>Yeah, right!:biggrin:

    #48682
    Nor1
    Member
    • Total Posts 384

    And it’s perfectly legitimate to race a sick horse?

    #48683
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    A particularly enlightening question was "Is it cheating to lay a horse when it is known to be sick?", and Peter Savill’s response when given a similar scenario: <br>""My view would be that there has been no malpractice because, as we said earlier, horseracing and betting on horses is very much tied up inextricably with inside information. The moment you arrive on a racecourse there will be 50 people coming up and telling you what is fancied and what is not and all the reasons." <br>The inference being that it is perfectly legitimate to lay a sick horse, as long as a jockey didn’t tell you!

    I didn’t see this. Which para was it?

    What I did see was this:

    "Could I ask Lord McIntosh to be a bit more precise and tell us exactly how he perceives betting when a bet is unfair? If I could help him, supposing somebody gets information at a cocktail party on a Sunday that a horse is sick for a Monday and he lays against that horse, as it were, on the betting exchange.

    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is cheating.

    Q1749 Viscount Falkland: That is cheating?

    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes."

    551. This runs contrary to our understanding, and that of other eminent witnesses, for example Peter Savill of the British Horseracing Board who, when given a similar scenario, stated: "My view would be that there has been no malpractice because, as we said earlier, horseracing and betting on horses is very much tied up inextricably with inside information. The moment you arrive on a racecourse there will be 50 people coming up and telling you what is fancied and what is not and all the reasons."

    Which is not the same question.

    There’s a big difference between "known to be sick" and getting "information at a cocktail party on a Sunday that a horse is sick".

    The key difference is that there is usually an element of doubt about the latter piece of info.

    Steve

    (Edited by stevedvg at 10:12 pm on Mar. 26, 2007)

    #48685
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    • Total Posts 17727

    <br>Stevedg

    So it’s only ‘known to be sick’ if the jockey says so, and anything else is fair game?

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.