- This topic has 161 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
Add the fact they should pay for the privilege for the other sports, and I’m with you 100%. They really should pay more for the privilege of betting on Arsenal and Manchester United with their 50 markets as Topping says.
It’s time off-course bookmakers paid for privilege of every sport or no sport.
Again, you have them rolling in the aisles Jose. You approach this entire subject with all the venom of a bookmaker scorned. Can you point me to the rails bookmaker section at the Arsenal or Man Utd stadiums? I’ve never seen one.
That has totally nothing to do with it and you’re missing the point.
Not been to the Emirates Stadium? There are BETTING facilities there – Ladbrokes are in the concourse area.
Well just to even things out I’ve not been to Old Trafford, but I do note Betfair’s in-running adverts when I watch Manchester United on TV and it was previously Betfred.
- Total Posts 17716
Betfair must have offered more money than Fred. Either that or Fred blew his budget. Such is the world of commercial sponsorship and advertising.
I haven’t missed your point at all Jose. I just don’t agree with it. I’m well aware that there are betting facilities at major football stadiums. I haven’t seen a bookies ring though.
I’ll ask them to put a betting ring behind each goal, although I can’t see health and safety regulations allowing it. It makes no difference whether there are betting rings on Mars to the point I’m making.
Interestingly the Daily Topping chooses to carry the mildly significant news about him going to play in Gibraltar on page 13. Matt Dawson’s new job makes page 3. Well done Bruce.
Hills decision to move off shore to avoid paying levy was page 13 fare.
However, during one of the busiest weeks of the season space can be found on page 1 for VC’s ‘pledge’ to pay for his off-shore business for the first time in donkeys’ years. A ‘pledge’ that is conditional upon betting on something not to happen arbitrarily being treated differently for taxation purposes to betting on it happening.
This would be the industry that ‘pledged’ not to move its businesses off shore if it was granted the tax regime [gross profits] it preferred.
I’m just saying…
Not the same Victor Chandler who for the last few years has been advertising on page 1 Never Nearer?
Perhaps the Racing Post could launch a campaign on the issue, like that deeply cynical/highly principled (delete as you see fit) one they did for a while about getting more racing on the BBC.
Or perhaps not.
May have been posted already:
Perhaps the Racing Post could launch a campaign on the issue.
Sorry Pru, perhaps I’m being dense here. Are you suggesting that, in the light of its tacit editorial support for the current BHA/HBLB campaigns, the Racing Post should logically decline to publish advertisements for off-shore internet sites, supply form services to those self-same web sites, or carry their prices in Pricewise tables?
I don’t think Uncle Ralph would like that.
I hope, and indeed believe, the Racing Post has credibility. I’m aware there is a school of thought that we are in the bookies’ pockets, but I strenuously refute that and am usually left empty-handed when I ask for evidence to support the theory.
I did fire off a fairly standard email to the department for culture, media and sport regarding the pension issue and whether it’s appropriate to use levy money for such a purpose.
And I got this standard reply….
Dear Jose
Thank you for your internet enquiry of 26 July 2010 about the distribution of Levy funding.
The Government shares your concerns about wanting to ensure a sustainable future for the horseracing industry including stable and appropriate levels of funding. Regarding your concern about the Levy Board funding part of the BHA pension scheme provision, the Horserace Betting Levy Board is a statutory non-departmental public body and although DCMS is the Department that is responsible for overall gambling policy, including that relating to the Levy, the Levy Board operates independently from Government in accordance with its statutory objectives. These are to collect the levy from bookmakers and the Tote and to apply the funds so raised to one or more of the following:
· the improvement of horseracing;
· the improvement of breeds of horses;
· the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education.
It is therefore for the Levy Board, which includes members representing the BHA, the Racecourse Association and the Horsemen’s Group, the Bookmakers’ Committee, and the Tote, as well as three Government Appointed independent members, to decide in what ways these statutory objectives will be met. The BHA pension scheme provision is in relation to a commitment given by the Board in 2007/2008 to meet part of the annual deficit repair costs of the BHA pension scheme.
In addition, you may wish to make your concerns known to the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The Levy Board’s contact details are:
Parnell House
25 Wilton Road
London
SW1V 1LWTel No: 020-7333-0043
Email: enquiries@hblb.org.ukIt might be of some interest, it might not.
Nice one Jose – at least they expended an electronic stamp, huh!
I don’t want to clutter up the Harry Findlay threads but doesn’t anyone find it almost nauseating that on the exchanges you can have a million pounds traded on a race like the 7.20 Class 6 at Nottingham tonight and the win prize money was just £2,300.
That’s ignoring the contributions of the Tote, levy-paying high street bookmakers and offshore parasites.
Wouldn’t a model based on each
race
be practical? The real time ICT is there and the rest of the world do this.
You could stage races with
no advertised prize money
(outside stakes and course generated sponsorship)with the placed runners receiving a fixed percentage of what the on-course books, Tote, betting shops, bookmaker call centres, internet outlets, betting exchanges and offshore parasites generate for each race.
Way I read this, the game would be quids in – racing would be a boom industry all over again. A win-win situation. The outlets need action and the game needs betting money to bolster the prize fund.
They may be casualties with the model: Racing which (allegedly)no-one is interested in betting on – such as artificial surface maidens, Graduation Chases, Saturday afternoon Novice Chases with three runners, match races, Novice Chases on gaff tracks, races with a heavy odds on favourite, some banded races – could soon be run for stakes only as a consequence of the market deciding the direction, distribution and level of prize money. You could get races at Newmarket run for a grand – alternatively, you could get Class 6 handicap races at Yarmouth run for twenty large.
Nice one Jose – at least they expended an electronic stamp, huh!
Do you mean the bit at the very bottom? I can post that as well if you want!
No mate, worry ye not. I was just commenting on modern communication. I got an actual letter once from an MP – how times change, huh.
Well they have for those of you who are old enough to realise the change.
I actually like the anonymous nature of having totally nothing to lose in the matter of seconds.
But, in all seriousness, I don’t mind the idea of a races’ prize money being related to how much has been bet on the race. Provided racing can fund "minimum prize" money levels for every race, and set a bar for Group races regardless, this could work. Everyone can read through the thread with the ground I’ve covered on how each sport should have "levy" money, but this is something that makes sense. It makes sense for a variety of reasons imo. At the same time, if it ever could happen, or did happen, it would surely be an incentive for racing (racecourses, BHA) to get the fixture list right? Symbiotic relationship could mean something.
And under the rules of racing, owners can’t back and lay back on Betfair to boost the prize money.
EDIT – I will just edit and add, could anyone imagine the desperation to get into a Southwell handicap on the AW in the winter if it was known way in advance that would be the only meeting on that particular day in Britain under the system outlined above? For me, it would be hilarious to see. The anticipation of "all the money will be bet at Southwell" only, so we’ll have the cake to ourselves.
Thanks for posting that letter from the DCMS, Jose. Reading between the lines, I would say they are not especially impressed with using Levy money in such a way but are very happy to wash their hands of it.
I have written about the Levy in my blog this week, which owes plenty to the discussions above. Many thanks to all who have contributed.
For me, it would be hilarious to see. The anticipation of "all the money will be bet at Southwell" only, so we’ll have the cake to ourselves.
That’s one of the brilliant aspects of the scheme, Jose. Remember that day in January last year when there was nothing BUT Southwell to bet on?
Betting shop staff, offshore parasites in their air conditioned call centres, the press, professional trader/punters on the exchanges, in-running gangs, travelling value hunters and connections – all twiddling their biros without the Sandpit, (something Mark Davies at Betfair has never publicly acknowledged about horse racing in his relentless self-interest offensive).
The winning horse’s reward that day? £1,700 to the winner, by and large. Why bother?
The course’s in-running baldies on their step-ladders bet more than that during the first furlong of the typical Class 6. There’s something immoral about that.
When all the betting handle is aggregated at a central point, and the fixed percentage calculated, why shouldn’t the winner get £5,000 plus as a reward for their efforts – if that’s what the market decides.
Conversely, if Joe Punter really DOES dislike betting at Southwell, as many enthusiasts attest, then the market will soon highlight that and Southwell will have to find alternative funding if it is to survive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.