- This topic has 37 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
Wouldn’t disagree with that. Its staggering that the people whose ever decreasing custom is causing the "crisis" in the first place have no place in consultations.
Although when it comes to betting customers, who would they consult and what do they want?
Its a fair question imo.
Cav , was just thinking , the sport is relatively healthy attendance wise , great crowds have attended the proper meetings this summer , and indeed will do again over the winter when attractive jumping cards are offered
We don’t have a plan , leadership , or any sense of direction, varied factions continue to maul and maim racing where it hurts
Funding has been the main bug bear for 40 years , once that is sorted we have a chance to go forward , sadly under the present mob that probability is becoming less achievable by the week
Wonder if the BHA as we know it will still exist 2 years from now ??
As for Punters , they get what they deserve , if the continue to bet on dross and virtual cartoons, then so be it
If Punters had no bets for 3 months on British racing , then I am certain changes would be effected
best to all
Ricky
re – putting punters into the equation, it’s not a matter really of consulting. It’s a cultural shift.
It’s a case of putting what your core customer is doing now/ wants now/ is likely to want in the future absolutely at the centre of your planning and activity.
If I was going to open a new shop I wouldn’t try and find my typical customer and then ask them what they want. I would however do everything in my power to clearly identify who my shop is for, what they would want to use it for and then provide them with what they want. I would look at what’s selling and what’s not selling and act accordingly on an ongoing basis because I would know failure to do so would result in me going bust. I’ve gone into this on my blog today but for me Racing is still a long way from doing this because Racing is still a long way from even acknowledging who their core customer is and what it is they’re buying!The launch of the Racing United campaign was accompanied by a set of figures from the BHA, entitled "Bookmakers’ false claims on increased contributions to racing", which appeared to suggest that, in percentage terms, bookmakers’ combined payments have actually increased as a percentage of their gross win on British racing over the last four years, from 12.53% to 14.5%.
Can this really be true? [That they circulated the figures, rather than the figures themselves, that is.]
I’m willing to believe a PR company will peddle whatever idiotic prejudice the person picking up the tab wishes to waste their money on. Disproving the case is usually the job of others though.
- Total Posts 438
If I was going to open a new shop I wouldn’t try and find my typical customer and then ask them what they want. I would however do everything in my power to clearly identify who my shop is for, what they would want to use it for and then provide them with what they want.
And you’d be out of business pretty sharpish!
Betting shops need to make a profit, as do all businesses. Were you to open a new shop based on the punters’ needs, you’d have ten members of staff at all times (no queues at the till, free tea and coffee all day, a dedicated person accepting debit card bets, someone explaining the myriad football coupons, etc); you’d also have Sky available on several plasma screens and you’d pay four times the odds on every multiple bet with only one winner and, needless to say, best odds guaranteed on each and every race.
In order to survive, racing just needs to make itself more "real" to the contemporary customer; sadly, the sport is seen as predominantly white and upper class and that doesn’t sell to today’s hip young thangs. Dja get me?
An excellent analysis by Sean in his blog, imo. I recommend a read of it to anyone interested in this subject.
Media rights hold the key. Beyond that Racing should certainly pursue the idea of a ‘right to bet’ payment. It will be fiercely contested by the betting businesses (both exchanges and bookies) but there is no doubting how compelling the argument is, particularly if such a payment is linked to the costs of integrity enforcement. Racing needs to work with other major sports on this front.
I hope this can be quoted from Sean’s blog. At the end of the day, it is promotion. If it can’t, Cormack can remove it.
Agree with the line that racing needs to work with other major sports – just in general. Racing has forever been working at a disadvantage for actually claiming to be "special" as far as the levy is concerned. I’ve said forever other sports should be entitled to a share of betting profits (levy, if you want) from putting on the product.
But how would a ‘right to bet" payment work?
The ‘right to bet’ fee would require cross sport participation at at least a national level here (ie FA, ECB, LTA etc) but would realistically require a good deal of international cooperation. Given it’s an approach the French are already moving with cooperation within the European context at least should be the target.
If bookmakers want to be able to advertise in a country/be licensed in a member state, sponsor sporting teams and events etc they would have to toe the line by making the right to bet contribution on every sport on which they offer markets.
A very tiny percentage of stakes as a fee would generate a big income. The more people bet on your sport the more income would be generated which would in turn encourage sports to think about making sure they take care of punters interests as well as their own. The ‘exchange layers loophole’ is immediately taken care of if you go for a fixed turnover clip as a set percentage of every euro wagered goes to the sport providing the betting material. Super simple, super fair, super easy to PR to both consumers and legislators and guaranteed to be super unpopular with all betting operators and therefore likely to be good for us consumers, or as I shall be calling us from now on ‘We The Punters’.Thanks Sean for discussing Racing United on today’s racing forum on ATR, it makes a lot more sense now but as you say why are they ignoring the punters?
Would second Prufrock’s comments re Sean’s blog – well worth a read – and not just for this article either…
Re the "right to bet" idea, it would be handy for racing if this concept was adopted across all sports.
I think there are one or two firms who are quite cynically almost using horse racing as a loss leader on their websites – offering unrealistic and unsustainable concessions to try to recruit and retain recreational punters (the logic being of course that these customers will then go on to bet on and lose on other sports or games).
In a world where you pay levy on racing profits but not on anything else, you can see the commercial logic, but it is obviously bad news for Racing.
Sean – I don’t quite get the "bad for betting operators, therefore good for punters" logic… If you put on a small tax on turnover, you can guarantee that it will be the punters paying for it in some form?
- Total Posts 17716
The ‘right to bet’ fee would require cross sport participation at at least a national level here (ie FA, ECB, LTA etc) but would realistically require a good deal of international cooperation. Given it’s an approach the French are already moving with cooperation within the European context at least should be the target.
If bookmakers want to be able to advertise in a country/be licensed in a member state, sponsor sporting teams and events etc they would have to toe the line by making the right to bet contribution on every sport on which they offer markets.
A very tiny percentage of stakes as a fee would generate a big income. The more people bet on your sport the more income would be generated which would in turn encourage sports to think about making sure they take care of punters interests as well as their own. The ‘exchange layers loophole’ is immediately taken care of if you go for a fixed turnover clip as a set percentage of every euro wagered goes to the sport providing the betting material. Super simple, super fair, super easy to PR to both consumers and legislators and guaranteed to be super unpopular with all betting operators and therefore likely to be good for us consumers, or as I shall be calling us from now on ‘We The Punters’.Would a fixed percentage payment include the right to televise races, or would bookmakers be expected to pay again? Is there not a chance that a tax on turnover will lead to less favourable betting terms being offered across the board, bolstering profits at the expense of ‘we the punters’?
I come back to the point Prufrock and others that Racing United is addressing issues which are specific to the Levy. The Levy board is a statutory body set up by the government, it’s members are enshrined in law and only the statutory members can contribute to Levy Board "discussions". The three racing representatives on th LB (all appointed by the BHA) are the BHA, the RCA and the Horseman’s Group. The govenment is the only body that can change the workings of the Levy Board because the bookmakers have the sole right of veto on any proposals that might change the mechanism of the Levy.
So I for one applaud the formation of Racing United, because for the first time that I can remenber racing’s three constituents ( in legal Levy Board terms) have come together to put a specific agenda to the government for the benefit of racing. I don’t know, but would suspect that the banner Racing United is a mesage to the bookies that you ain’t going to be able to divide and rule this time like you normally do.
Whilst punters may have concerns about what is going on in racing, no-one other than the statutory members of the LB can make proposals. So Prufrock’s points are , I’m sure, well meant. But are legally irrelevant in respect of the statutory limits of the Levy Board and who legally can try to change things.
richard
AJ,
You’re right of course that any cost will be passed on to the customer but a small turnover based charge will be spread across the full range of betting organisations products and for the racing product would be uniform across all operators, including exchanges. Including exchanges in a turnover based charge impacts across all operators by adding a tiny sliver of margin to the bottom line so there should be no significant impact for racing punters and only a small impact on other sports margins too. In some respects the exchange market is the wholesaler to the retail market in terms of hedging options and so a small margin added there carries on through the system without necessarily making a big difference to the mainstream consumer.
I see media rights as a separate issue. All sports have the right to sell their tv rights to the highest bidder. The market for racing will be strong based on the desire of punters to see what they are betting on. By making a ‘right to bet’ charge universal across all sports we remove the requirement to argue the toss between media rights and the betting charge. All sports negotiate their media rights based on how many people want to watch. In the case of racing most people who want to watch are punters. Doesn’t really matter though in an environment where media rights are based on audience size and all sports get a clip of every betting ticket.
TDK,
you’re right to query bad for bookie/good for punter line. Bit glib on my part! The two can be brought into line and in many ways bookies are probably more likely to see that particular light quicker than racing. The historic reality is though that major businesses (including exchanges) have built their empires on racing, in return for a pretty poor levy paymemt, and have gone on from that platform to expand into all sorts of other areas where they haven’t had to pay a dime. Racing and the big bookies have both been slow to adapt to change (although in fairness government has been even slower on the uptake). They have been outstripped by new systems such as exchanges but also by fleet footed international betting operators. There is an opportunity to start afresh and to take other sports along with us.
Richard,
You are quite right as regards the statutory set up. I agree with you any form of united front from racing is better than none. If I were a government minister though I’d like to see a united front that made even a passing reference to the consumer and couched its argument in terms of what might best serve that consumer. Racing, in all of its guises, has thus far failed to do this. A lamentable lack of political nous imho. By doing so they might have outflanked the bookmakers and sought some higher moral/political ground. Instead, for all their solidarity, it looks like they’re asking for more in a time of famine.So Prufrock’s points are, I’m sure, well meant. But are legally irrelevant in respect of the statutory limits of the Levy Board and who legally can try to change things.
What about in all other respects?
Incidentally, what is the point in asking people to sign the charter?
The rest of us have no "statutory" rights to change matters, and we have already been told that our support for the initiative has been assumed.
Surely "Racing United", with its sense of rectitude and with the sole power to DO something in real terms, feels confident enough in its position already.
- Total Posts 17716
Media rights hold the key. Beyond that Racing should certainly pursue the idea of a ‘right to bet’ payment. It will be fiercely contested by the betting businesses (both exchanges and bookies) but there is no doubting how compelling the argument is, particularly if such a payment is linked to the costs of integrity enforcement. Racing needs to work with other major sports on this front.
I hope this can be quoted from Sean’s blog. At the end of the day, it is promotion. If it can’t, Cormack can remove it.
Agree with the line that racing needs to work with other major sports – just in general. Racing has forever been working at a disadvantage for actually claiming to be "special" as far as the levy is concerned. I’ve said forever other sports should be entitled to a share of betting profits (levy, if you want) from putting on the product.
But how would a ‘right to bet" payment work?
As I’ve said before, a simple 1p in the £1 charge on all horseracing bets (both backs and lays) would generate more than £120m annually for the sport – higher than the levy has provided in any year since its inception.
I’d doubt other sports would turn their noses up at a similar charge, either.I’ve got no problem with a 1% ‘Charge’ on my flutters to be paid to racing.
I would of course fully expect any change from the current Profit Based Levy, of which racing should receive 10% to be accompanied by Bookmakers being required to pay GPT at 28% or so rather than the current 15% they do pay.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.