- This topic has 37 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
From today’s ROA newsletter:
RACING UNITES TO SECURE FAIR RETURN FROM BETTING
Racing has launched a campaign calling on the Government and the Levy Board to secure a fair return from the betting industry, after an unacceptable fall in the funding of the sport.
The Racing United: Campaign for a Fair Levy is based around a new charter urging the closure of clear loopholes that exist in the current Levy system, which has allowed funding for racing to drop by more than a third in two years from £115m in 2008 to just £75m in 2010.
While continuing to enjoy gross wins of £1 billion a year just from taking bets on British racing, bookmakers are increasingly basing their online and telephone businesses offshore to avoid paying the Levy, in addition to exploiting threshold rules originally set up to exempt only small independent high street bookmakers.
Betting exchanges, which did not exist when the Levy was introduced, are also not providing British racing with a fair return. Furthermore, no Levy is received from bets being placed in Britain on overseas racing, despite this being standard in several other parts of the world.
The Racing United Charter addresses such issues with the current system, while also making clear that if the vital modernisation does not take place the whole sport is committed to the creation of a modern market in which betting operators wanting to offer a bet must enter into enforceable contracts to do so.
The Charter has been launched jointly by the British Horseracing Authority, the Horsemen’s Group and the Racecourse Association, which represent jointly the trade associations of racecourses, breeders, jockeys, stable staff, owners and trainers involved in British racing. It is available for signing at a dedicated website.
To which I say "not in my name".
The Horsemen’s Group, the BHA and the Racecourse Association have no mandate to speak "on behalf of all of racing", or even just for me.
A huge and very important constituency of racing – punters – continues to be routinely ignored by those in power, and gestures such as these deserve to be seen as fraudulent while that remains so.
Not in my name either.
Who do the Sleepy Hollow mafia think they are? Four of them get together and give out a few tips. Then, when that gig finishes, they try to reinvent themselves as a ‘Group’ that speaks on racing’s behalf.
The nerve!
Indeed. It is an insult to the memory of four – make that three, sorry, make that two – overworked and occasionally much misunderstood individuals.
Being a nice sort of chap that sees the best in everyone, I’m sure that the desire of the top men at the BHA to pursue a bigger Levy payment, has nothing at all to do with the fact the the Levy funds their salaries and pensions.
Short report in the Telegraph today that suggests the bookies would be happy to abandon the Levy system and pay racecourses direct. Oh dear, not good news for the middle men at the Levy Board and the BHA …..
AP
Agree with the original post completely.
One of the most staggering things in my opinion is the BHA’s intent to make bookmakers and exchanges pay levy on overseas racing products. Overseas horse racing has nothing to do with them, never will do etc. I don’t care what is standard elsewhere either. They will ask for football levy as a result of less of revenue next. Maybe they don’t understand why some of us avoid British horse racing on purpose…
It’s like the bank run in
It’s a Wonderful Life
when they realise they don’t need Mr Potter’s services. Brings tears to the eyes.
http://matthewspainhour.myadventures.org/blogphotos/myadventures/matthewspainhour/mr._potter.jpg
Paul Roy
http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/news-images/press_releases/2009/paul-roy-200.jpg
Mr Potter
Paul Roy, Chairman, British Horseracing Authority
Ian Barlow, Chairman, Racecourse Association
Rupert Arnold, Chief Executive, National Trainers Foundation
Kevin Darley, Chief Executive, Professional Jockeys Association
Jim Cornelius, Chief Executive, National Association of Stable Staff
Kirsten Rausing, Chairman, Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association
Paul Dixon, President, Racehorse Owners Association
peter player, whatton manor stud
mark weinfeld, Meon Valley Stud
James Fanshawe, Pegasus Stables, Newmarket
Mrs N Madsen,
Nic Coward, Chief Executive, British Horseracing Authority
DR R D P NEWLAND, TRAINER
Derrick Morris, British Horseracing Authority
Paul Drinkwater, Owner
Nick Alexander,
Neil Young, BHA
What a group so far.
No Douglas Erskine-Crum? Where is the man who mops up more in pension cash than the average Group race is worth?
I’ve adjusted it slightly.
Douglas who loves his pension, Douglas Erskine Crum’s levy pension grabbing
EDIT – Good luck to them. Well done for deleting it. I will be back for more, and more and more.
Short report in the Telegraph today that suggests the bookies would be happy to abandon the Levy system and pay racecourses direct. Oh dear, not good news for the middle men at the Levy Board and the BHA …..AP
The Chief Exe of Musselburgh (iirc) was on Radio 5 a couple of months ago and suggested this as an option going forward……It struck me at the time from the way that he spoke that this proposal hadn’t been just plucked out of thin air by him but had been subject to some form of dialogue between the interested parties of racecourses and bookmakers.
- Total Posts 102
I dont know if i would feel comfortable with the racecourses and Bookmaking industry dealing directly with each other regarding payments.
Might there be a mention of providing "less predictable results" mentioned when the size of payment comes up
Hang on, didnt Phil Smith mention that in his meeting with trainers…………..
iF the bookies deal directly with tracks , it would be bags meetings, same as the dogs at hove or monmore , yes the quality and quantity would make it very profitable for them
But racing as we once knew it would be buried forever
Lovely scenario it is not
Ricky
Just to expand on what the CEO of Musselburgh was saying or more precisely my interpretation.
The core of British Racing; the Pattern, traditional big midweek and Saturday meetings (i.e. those profitible to the courses) would remain the same as now. But, and this is the example he gave, if the bookmakers wanted 2, 3, 4 or however many meetings on a Monday afternoon they would have to pay for them.
Paul Struthers was on the same programme that night so perhaps he can confirm or add to it.
Prufrock, Be interesting to know what brought on this particular rant. But what are you suggesting that punters as a body could contribute to the negotiations with the bookies? Cancellation of all outstanding debts for racing journalists, or occasional racing jounalists?
richardRichard, I am not clear what you are referring to with the word "rant". While I think the words chosen by "Racing United" are ill-advised and unjustified, I would not describe them as a "rant". And I think it is obvious that their remarks are made with good intent in the face of a crisis, or imminent crisis, in racing. Perhaps you could make yourself clearer.
Punters should be seen as an important customer group – possibly THE most important customer group – for British racing, as their activities finance a great deal of what goes on. The evidence is that they are turning their back on it, and I cannot say I am surprised.
It is not only a simple matter of justice but of economic sense to ensure that they are not taken to the cleaners and turned off the sport they are underwriting to such a large extent.
That happens far too easily at present, with those in power willing to turn a blind eye to behaviour which damages punters’ interests or even being complicit in that behaviour.
The specific wording of the "Racing United" statement assumes that all within racing are already signed up to a levy proposition that I for one believe is totally unrealistic and to a levy process that appears not to understand the merits of a high-turnover-low-margin product.
I agree with the general aims of "Racing United". I disagree with the specifics. And I disagree strongly with their trying to railroad their suggestions under the illusion that proper consultation and representation has taken place.
I am mystified by your final remark. I believe many of our racing journalists have failed us, else the need for someone or somebody to stand up for punters would not be so pressing. There was scarcely a squeak about Lord Donoughue’s shameless rape of the punter in 2006/7.
Quite what those individual journalists’ betting behaviour has to do with it, I don’t know. A punters’ representative would not be tasked with settling individual disputes but with having an input into the decision process on much wider issues.
Again, perhaps you would care to make yourself clearer.
Punters don’t exist in the BHA landscape of racing. Paul Roy confirmed that so some of us have moved on.
But, even though some of us have moved on, that is not enough for the BHA mob. They want a percentage of what some of us have moved onto.
It was bad enough Betfair paid some of their overseas racing profits back to British racing in 2009 – the fact British racing wants it automatically for a product it doesn’t provide is staggering. A clear message to the BHA, or "Racing United" as you may want to be branded –
Anyone who bets on overseas racing doesn’t automatically want to fund your sad product in Britain any-more
.
And if they are still failing to understand the point, because someone will be reading this, what do you class as overseas racing money you are entitled too? Where does the idea stop? Harness racing, Quarter-Horse racing, Thoroughbred racing? All of which are available to bet on in Britain.
They are not the BHA products and they do nothing to put them on. They are simply competitors. And I sincerely hope if they do try to demand levy out of it, betting operators take the BHA to the European courts.
This is not a topic I will be letting go.
Jose,
It’s not that long since they were asking for Levy on virtual racing too – indeed, I suspect there are still people at BHA HQ who not only believe that this is right and fair, but more worryingly, cannot comprehend why anyone would think otherwise. The fact that the horses don’t exist, and so don’t have virtual owners or virtual nosebags, is apparently neither here no there.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.