- This topic has 40 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Ha, steeplechasing, that’s the second time today I’ve seen that “Never argue with a fool” quote. Must be catching.
Ha, steeplechasing, that’s the second time today I’ve seen that “Never argue with a fool” quote. Must be catching.
:) I’ve found it a useful policy on here more than once!
Now if we had a Tote/Exchange monopoly for the sole benefit of racing it would be a different matter.
That’s the way forward, Yeats. Must be low takeout though. The Betfair (ABP) exchange, has long had a monopoly on my betting.
Nice one BetVictor.
Not that I want to be seen agreeing with anything Simon Clare says but he has repeatedly made the point that the deduction for retail is different to online – 10.75% for betting shops compared to 7.5% for online.
What is the reasoning for this difference, does anyone know? Why not make it 10% all round?
Could this be a last throw of the dice from BetVictor? After years of ever-worsening results, their market share has shrunk so far that they are directly competing with the second tier firms like 888, Betway, Betbright and co.
I think you would be a little naive to see anything especially moral or principled about BetVictor assuming ABP status. They have seized the opportunity to pounce upon vacant high-profile advertising partnerships in an effort to revive their fortunes. Although they are well-backed, this seems quite a gamble: the extra ABP costs and their hugely increased advertising expenses could cripple them if turnover does not improve.
Have RUK done a U turn over this? What other excuse can there be for giving plenty of airtime to William Hill rep Ivan Duke at Musselburgh yesterday?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.