- This topic has 145 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I agree about syndicates, where multiple ownership means shared expenses, but well bred expensive horses can end up running in sellers. The genetic mix of a good stallion/broodmare doesn’t always produce a superstar.
However, I again ask because I do not know, does the breeding side of racing, including the bloodstock sales, contribute to the levy, or is it when the horse starts racing this tax is collected through betting, owners…..Yup, schoolboy error there by me Drone, but you get my point? 10pc comms are unworkable and there would be uproar were the powers that be to attempt to implement them.
However, I again ask because I do not know, does the breeding side of racing, including the bloodstock sales, contribute to the levy, or is it when the horse starts racing this tax is collected through betting, owners…..
The following website explains how the levy is collected and how it is then distributed –
To answer your question directly Nor, no, breeders do not contribute to the levy. The levy is a commercially negotiated agreement between the betting operators and the BHB (that was) whereby the operators pay an agreed percentage of profits on betting on horseracing to the levy board who use that money to fund various aspects of racing. As Swallow Cottage’s link explains
Breeders operate a scheme called the European Breeders Fund. Basically the way it works is that stallion owners can elect to nominate a stallion for the scheme, in which case they pay a fee on a sliding scale according to the number of nominations the stallion gets. That money is then used to enhance prize money in EBF nominated races and breeders of horses in those races get a payment too if the horse gets owners’ prize money.
http://www.ebfhorseracing.com/default.asp
Hope this helps
richardGood god.
The major bookmakers are bleeding the sport dry and someone wants exchange punters to pay 10% commission?
What people who say commission increases don’t matter mustn’t realise is that they are applied to every bet. In an afternoon if you win £1,000, lose £1,000, win £1,000 and lose £1,000 betting shop punters finish level but you want exchange punters to pay £200 in commission? Please don’t say the exchange odds are 20% better to make up for it! They certainly aren’t since major bookmakers have started spoofing the exchanges to lower prices.
A better suggestion would be that the bookmakers hand over the 1% or 2% they are thieving via the new SP system.
Re FOBT’s racing has shot itself in the foot with the new winter evenings. Don’t they realise punters only have so much cash to spend? It isn’t an endless supply! Now punters will lose their cash betting on non racing products on an evening and won’t be seen betting on the more horse race meetings the following afternoon.
There is no point in increasing the tax because bookmakers would then just want more machines per shop to make up the difference. The number of machines per shop now is only an agreement not a law. It’s only a matter of time before bookmakers take the next step.
Many thanks SwallowCottage and Richard.
I had searched the hblb site, couldn’t find a mention of the bloodstock side of the industry supporting the Levy, and couldn’t believe it.
The enormous sums of money generated from this area of the sport seems imbalanced considering the prize money available for the majority of races.
Are the breeders and buyers so wealthy it doesn’t matter if their purchases are expensive flops?
If so, why can’t they be ‘tapped up’ for payment to the Levy?Hi Rollo Tomasi and welcome to the forum.
So exchange punters shouldn’t be asked to pay extra and there is apparently no point in asking bookmakers to pay extra.
Your suggestion for funding horse racing then, is what? Someone has to pay because the sums don’t add up.
Those who make the most money should pay.
The major bookmakers keep announcing record profits.
A lot of that profit is now from non racing products but without racing to attract customers would they have made as much money? Therefore bookmakers should contribute to the levy based on their total profits (inc sports, virtual, FOBT, etc.) not just the profit from UK racing.
Take this winter – if there wasn’t evening racing the shop opening hours wouldn’t have been extended and there would be no profit for betting shops from non racing products. Racing has been kind (or dumb) enough to put on meetings in the hope of producing more levy. Unfortunately all it will ultimately do, is lose punters cash to racing.
Those who make the most money should pay
A better suggestion would be that the bookmakers hand over the 1% or 2% they are thieving via the new SP system.
.. couldn’t agree more on both points .. welcome to the forum.
A lot of that profit is now from non racing products but without racing to attract customers would they have made as much money? Therefore bookmakers should contribute to the levy based on their total profits (inc sports, virtual, FOBT, etc.) not just the profit from UK racing.
Take this winter – if there wasn’t evening racing the shop opening hours wouldn’t have been extended and there would be no profit for betting shops from non racing products. Racing has been kind (or dumb) enough to put on meetings in the hope of producing more levy. Unfortunately all it will ultimately do, is lose punters cash to racing.
This is the exactly the problem that Horse Racing has.
Bookmakers make a profit on Horseracing and pay a % of that back to the sport. However, increasingly punters are moving away from the sport and are betting on other sports or FOBTS/virtual racing etc. Has racing got any claim to any cut of the profits from these forms of betting? I can’t really see how it has, but I do agree with Rollo’s point ~ Racing has put on more and more meetings, but is the end result going to be that betting shops are open for longer hours and that punters are largely going to ignore the low quality fare at the twilight meetings and instead sit and bet on the FOBTS?
I obviously work for one of the said betting companies, but my interest has always been in horseracing and sadly I do fear for its future. I don’t think putting on more and more poor quality racing is the answer. The main problem the sport has is competing with other, lower margin, forms of betting which don’t require betting operators to give back a share of their profits to the sport.
TDK .. I don’t understand how FOBT’s are low margin, I’m not being picky, I just don’t get it. They may be low margin for the bookies but they aren’t for the players, every spin is the same as backing a horse at -2.75% or whatever it is.
Would betting shops open longer hours without the (admittedly awful) extra racing?
and if they did, wouldnt british racing’s profile with punters, slip back even further?
- Total Posts 17716
Would betting shops open longer hours without the (admittedly awful) extra racing?
and if they did, wouldnt british racing’s profile with punters, slip back even further?
In both cases the answer would be; not for long. Imo, anyway.
Dave – they are significnatly lower margin than horseracing – if you bet blind on a horse race or a FOBT, your expected return would be higher on the FOBT. The key to their profitabilty from the bookmakers perspective, is that they are high "churn", in that players can bet every 30 seconds or so, rather than waiting 30 minutes for the next race.
if you bet blind on a horse race or a FOBT, your expected return would be higher on the FOBT
at the bookies maybe…but the exchanges?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.