- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
Curley commenting on the recent skirmishes:-
"I do mind operations like Sportingbet not paying up, and I’ll take them as far as any man would take them. One account we had with them placed a £50 yankee, and 30 seconds before the first horse ran the bet was voided and the account closed by email."Surely we have to do something about bookmakers acting in this way? I came across someone who was involved in the National Association for the Protection of Punters a few years ago. Nowadays though, can’t we do something like organise an internet campaign to publicise such scandalous bookie behaviour, and get the Gambling Commission to put pressure on them?
Aren’t there already formal bodies that Mr Curley can take his complaints to?
I don’t recall NAPP being very successful. The trouble with punters is that they are such a disparate group. Any attempt at a co-operative approach would be difficult to both manage and finance.
Perhaps something should come out of the levy for this purpose then things such as the disgraceful way prices are trimmed at the last minute before every Grand National to protect the SP could be lobbied successfully.
The SP is a bone of contention with me. Should be a fixed take per runner which should be regulated.
On the Grand National issue, I’ve made this point before. Say your fixed takeout per runner is 1.5%, then for the Grand National it would be 60%, so them betting to 150% was doing us a favour.
I don’t recall NAPP being very successful. The trouble with punters is that they are such a disparate group. Any attempt at a co-operative approach would be difficult to both manage and finance
I think you might have cracked the last
sentence Mac.Changing this house’s name to
the bigsqueeze
and the articles
of memorandum could all be managed
in daylight hours.I have no experience at all of Sportingbet.com but would not touch it for one reason: sports wager contracts with it are governed by the laws of Alderney:
http://www.sportingbet.com/t/info/rules/rules.aspx
If a dispute should arise, then with Alderney you’re firmly in the hands of the bookie in a way that you no longer are in jurisdictions that have implemented EU Council Directive 93/13/EEC
– eg in Great Britain through the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083):
http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_reg/ … 92083.html
In GB if (and it has yet to be decided by a Court) a contract of wager is a “consumer supply contract” within those Regulations, then the practical effect of Section 335 Gambling Act 2005 (“The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its enforcement”) is that since 1 September 2007 doubt can be cast on many of the unilateral decisions that bookies had before that date become used to making in dealings with punters.
Its an interesting exercise to see what unquestioned bookie practices of the past might now fall foul of the “Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms Which May Be Regarded as Unfair” in Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
In a voiding situation such as Barney’s case for example:
"(c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone "
or
"(f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer…"
or
"(m) giving the seller or supplier …the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.."
Note though that to pray in aid the Regulations, the punter has to be a “consumer”, defined as “any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession .”
Aren’t there already formal bodies that Mr Curley can take his complaints to?
Aren’t those formal bodies IBAS and the Gambling Commission?
I would not fancy my chances of getting a miscarriage of justice overturned by the former – until recently a body renowned for its secretiveness and bookie-favouring decisions – and I would not fancy my chances of getting any response whatsoever from the latter.
I have written numerous times about the need for there to be some sort of body concerned with punters’ issues. Government does not ignore the plight of consumers by shrugging its shoulders and saying "they are a disparate bunch with disparate needs": it has, in the interests of fairness and good practice, established and funded bodies that consider those consumers’ interests.
There have been so many cases of possible abuse – not least in terms of apparent market rigging – in recent years that the authorities should go further and ask the Office of Fair Trading to get involved or establish a similar body for racing.
A former Director General of the OFT, John Bridgeman, is the Independent Regulatory Director of the BHA. He has been notably silent on this matter.
Unfortunately at the moment the only formal body for a GB punter to be worth bothering with is the Court.
Even IBAS and the Gambling Commission seem to say as much:
" Ibas believes
rules are a fundamental reference point. Of course, the ultimate test of any rules will be when case comes before a court. A key element will then be the ‘fair and open’ requirement of the Gambling Commission, which states: "Licensees must satisfy themselves that the terms which gambling is offered are not unfair under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999." "
http://www.ibas-uk.com/newsPress.php?newsID=33
None of which though seems likely to help Barney as regards Alderney.
The Alderney Gambling Commission? Well, here’s one experience recited online:
I too had a problem with an overseas bookie about 10/12 years ago based in Gibralter. Five minutes before the off I rung a bet through for a 12-1 14/1 shot in an Irish handicap chase, £500 EW if I recall correctly, I don’t even remember the horses name, the operater put me on hold to "OK" the bet, (Favourite was a very short price) three minutes later she can back and said it was OK. By this time the horse had drifted so I asked for the bigger price or SP. She put me back on hold, went to check again only to come back and say I was too late, the race was off. Horse wins at 16-1, I’m not on and despite much argument I get nowhere.
I too had a problem with an overseas bookie about 10/12 years ago based in Gibralter. Five minutes before the off I rung a bet through for a 12-1 14/1 shot in an Irish handicap chase, £500 EW if I recall correctly, I don’t even remember the horses name, the operater put me on hold to "OK" the bet, (Favourite was a very short price) three minutes later she can back and said it was OK. By this time the horse had drifted so I asked for the bigger price or SP. She put me back on hold, went to check again only to come back and say I was too late, the race was off. Horse wins at 16-1, I’m not on and despite much argument I get nowhere.
I hate those deliberate delays ,and if your on your mobile you can run out of power even. Been in several similar incidents. Then to not accept the bet because the delay they have caused has altered the circumstance,it is absolutely disgusting. Absolutely no respect for clients.
no, the two are unrelated.
Sporting Index is governed by the FSA and all persons who are its controllers (ie including directors and significant shareholders) have to be listed on the FSA register here:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmIndi … 1&surname=
That list contains none of the directors of Sportingbet PLC (which is the London holding company of the Alderney-and-other-offshore-the-UK companies through which Sportingbet operates).
Sporting Index is licensed and regulated by the FSA, its punter-facing entities are all within the UK, and it is streets ahead of any bookie in terms of the protection it affords to its punters under the laws of Great Britain. With it, you even get access to the FSA compensation fund.
I’d happily deal with Sporting Index, in any of its various trading names:
Thanks for that.
I thought their logos looked pretty similar, that’s why I thought they might be linked.
I couldn’t comment on sportingindex as they won’t let me have an account!
They were the bookie arm of Sporting Index but the name & company were sold to the current mob.
A good rule of thumb is to give such firms the bodyswerve. Heathorns lasted over 100 years under its former owners, less than two under Thomas Tool. Similar stories elsewhere eg totalbet.
ah yes, in summer 2002 Sportingbet bought Sporting Odds Ltd, the then fixed-odds betting arm of Sporting Index, from HgCapital.
lot of water under bridge since then though.
Selected events in Sportingbet’s history:
– founded in Alderney in 1998
– outgrew and moved to UK mainland in 2001
– in 2007 moved sportsbook back to Alderney, citing dissatisfaction with the UK Gambling Act.
– in 2006 the US regulatory clampdown lost it two-thirds of its revenue
– also saw its chairman get arrested in New York : he then resigned "for personal reasons" and got released by New York back to UK despite an extradition request from Louisiana.
– since then it has bounced back by developing markets "in Europe", and just last month the holding company graduated its listing from AIM to the Official List in London.
– some of its London-based Turkish employees have been helping Istanbul plod since 2008 in connection with offering online gambling there despite a local ban (see recent prospectus)
points from its financial results announced May 2010:
– it draws more than 95 per cent of its revenues from outside the UK
– Spain and Greece account for nearly one-third of total revenue but revenues from there have weakened
– its Australian business is booming.
interesting, because in June 2009 it was reported that the UK provides Sportingbet with 6 per cent of its revenue "and Mr McIver believes the marketing push will drive that figure up to 10 per cent in 18 months."
“We are coming from a low base and we can compete with the likes of William Hill and Ladbrokes,” Mr McIver said then…..
Twelve months on and it seems "the likes of William Hill and Ladbrokes" at least didn’t seek to avoid paying out in Barney’s case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.