Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Starts tomorrow according to High Court list of business.
I am surprised it has not got more coverage because the decision may determine how racing AND sports can charge others who offer betting on their products.
I am pessimistic about the outcome.
I am surprised it has not got more coverage because the decision may determine how racing AND sports can charge others who offer betting on their products.
I am pessimistic about the outcome.
Show More
they are reporting just over 100 million has been collected over 4 years.. but v'landys thinks this will inject 40-50 mil a year in the future? how does he work that math out? just taken away the companies competitive advantage and now expects them to turnover even more?
lifetaker ditto ...... had any trouble down at the mall recently 
Greg Radley just asked one of the stupidest questions of Giles Thompson i have ever heard
Gee, alot of these so called 'experts' live in such a bubble that they have no idea of the wider marketplace.
Gee, alot of these so called 'experts' live in such a bubble that they have no idea of the wider marketplace.
VeryLTU .., All is Fine with you, No! .., I've Not been Inside. Been associatting with a woman 15 years younger and I'm Helping her earn BF. money aswell = time consuming.
Trust All Others are ' Safe & Rich '
$$$$$$$ LIFEY LIFEY LIFEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ LIFEY $$$$$$$$
HS... 15YO$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THINGS ARE GOOD DWON AT THE MALL
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ LIFEY $$$$$$$$
HS... 15YO$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ THINGS ARE GOOD DWON AT THE MALL
VeryLTU, .. Rolling-over Pis sing Myself Laughing. 
Is the
in 
Or just Horney ? 
Is the
in Or just Horney ?
Not sure of exact words. But very close to this - If you charge 5% on winnings, is it as simple now as 1.5% now going straight to Racing NSW?
Der...they are 2 completely different models. Turnover vs Gross Profit. What else can you expect from a bloke from Newcastle that has been employed by the Jolly Green giant for the majority of his life
Der...they are 2 completely different models. Turnover vs Gross Profit. What else can you expect from a bloke from Newcastle that has been employed by the Jolly Green giant for the majority of his life
Who pays 5%? I currently pay less that 3%
Also isnt fee 1.5% on the turnover but BF only get the commission from winning bets.
Also isnt fee 1.5% on the turnover but BF only get the commission from winning bets.
and that makes him marginally less informed than peter, they won't know anyway, vtrain. Loved it when pete got all indignant about those "gutless" people who are "writing about him on the internet" hi pete .... im John Smith from Rippedoff street in Puntersville 6969 !!! CYU soon.... ill be down at the scab punting footy from now on.
the concessions will start when bf and the other losers meet with pete and john (the WINNERS............ weeeeee arrreeee the chammmmppppionnnnss) at rnsw's next coffee and sandwiches.
are you serious PC? I'd love to see/hear a tape. I suppose it's not too baffling, which is horribly disturbing
I can't believe some people think this is a bad result for punters. Get your heads out of the sand. Bookmakers won't cut back on products.
Has anyone read the RVL response? http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/news/rvl/n_RV_welcomes_High_Court_decision.aspx
Have a look at the last paragraph.
1 lousy million? Am I missing something?
Have a look at the last paragraph.
1 lousy million? Am I missing something?
The Executive Chairman of Sportsbet, Matthew Tripp, said the company was disappointed with the ruling.
“We accept the court’s decision, however, our focus now shifts to protecting our members from the impact of the decision,” Tripp said.
“We will not be passing on the cost to our one million-plus members. How could we anyway after barring them all?”
“We accept the court’s decision, however, our focus now shifts to protecting our members from the impact of the decision,” Tripp said.
“We will not be passing on the cost to our one million-plus members. How could we anyway after barring them all?”
F-ckin hell!! Is that LIFETAKER back on the forum? I haven't seen him here since the late 70s early 80s. Still looking FAAABULOUS!!
Chairman of Sportsbet wants to protect their members from the impact of the decision...Such a benevolent fella...Why don't you just state the real mantra, that all your interested is separating as many punters as possible from their hard earned , and any punter that actually looks like they might win can P... OFF !
how long before Betfair pulls the plug on NSW? My tip, straight after the carnival - they would be mad not to imo
there is no way they can just wear the cost, they'll pass it on - goodbye 101%-103% markets
mind you, I'll look forward to NSW racing getting a HUGE boost - the $100 million they can now spend will be great for the Industry
there is no way they can just wear the cost, they'll pass it on - goodbye 101%-103% markets
mind you, I'll look forward to NSW racing getting a HUGE boost - the $100 million they can now spend will be great for the Industry
so much to come Womble. let's hope it's not all bad...
I really think everyone here should read paragraph 74 of the ruling:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/12.html
I have way too many questions out of this one paragraph...
The fact they didn't pull out of NSW earlier looks as if it was one key to the outcome. So why would they pull out now?
I really think everyone here should read paragraph 74 of the ruling:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/12.html
I have way too many questions out of this one paragraph...
The fact they didn't pull out of NSW earlier looks as if it was one key to the outcome. So why would they pull out now?
other thing too Womble. if they can't operate under the new structure in NSW (and other states now; arrangements end in June, Qld; Vic, August) - they need to be meeting with the bodies NOW. I'll facilitate the meetings! Straight after the Easter break in the racing NSW offices.
doubleagent, 
* One need's the ability to: Addapt And Survive !
* Good Luck,
yeah it raises a few points Thebas. My knowledge of the English language isn't great, but I can see the court is arguing - why didn't you pull out of NSW etc to demonstrate it was an issue. However, does it also imply BF can operate using this model anyway...? we'll see.
hope you're right Double A!
hope you're right Double A!
haven't time to read it all now Josh but here is paragraph 74 for people
Even if the inquiry is limited to the appellant's own position, the evidence was not favourable to its case. Its chief executive officer, whose credibility was praised by the trial judge, admitted that the fee had not reduced the number or type of New South Wales thoroughbred or harness races on which the appellant sought wagers. He accepted that the appellant had not altered its commission structure in response to the fee. He acknowledged that the appellant had not introduced a premium charge in response to the fee. He admitted that there was no connection between the introduction of the fee and the odds offered by the appellant's customers. He also admitted that since the fee came in there had been no change of substance in the commissions which the appellant charged or the odds it offered. He further admitted that the appellant had not altered its "marketing spend" in response to the fee. He agreed that the fee had not caused the appellant to lose a single dollar of back bet turnover and that the fee had not caused the appellant to lose a single dollar of commission. He admitted that the fee had not caused the appellant to change its competitive behaviour in any way in relation to its dealings with customers and its attempts to win business away from competitors. He admitted that though an examination of the appellant's future conduct in the event of defeat in these proceedings was under way, no plan for change had been developed. And he agreed that the appellant's planning documents projected the achievement of "very substantial" and "healthy" targets notwithstanding the imposition of the fee. He did not assert that the appellant would cease to compete or to trade profitably, either at all or in relation to horse races in New South Wales. Nor did he assert that the appellant would not continue to gain market share.
it was always going to be a problem for them - i think the reason they kept betting was about how it would look if they stopped, i.e. image - there is no doubt it will cost them money, they absorbed it up to now but i can't see them continuing to do that
Even if the inquiry is limited to the appellant's own position, the evidence was not favourable to its case. Its chief executive officer, whose credibility was praised by the trial judge, admitted that the fee had not reduced the number or type of New South Wales thoroughbred or harness races on which the appellant sought wagers. He accepted that the appellant had not altered its commission structure in response to the fee. He acknowledged that the appellant had not introduced a premium charge in response to the fee. He admitted that there was no connection between the introduction of the fee and the odds offered by the appellant's customers. He also admitted that since the fee came in there had been no change of substance in the commissions which the appellant charged or the odds it offered. He further admitted that the appellant had not altered its "marketing spend" in response to the fee. He agreed that the fee had not caused the appellant to lose a single dollar of back bet turnover and that the fee had not caused the appellant to lose a single dollar of commission. He admitted that the fee had not caused the appellant to change its competitive behaviour in any way in relation to its dealings with customers and its attempts to win business away from competitors. He admitted that though an examination of the appellant's future conduct in the event of defeat in these proceedings was under way, no plan for change had been developed. And he agreed that the appellant's planning documents projected the achievement of "very substantial" and "healthy" targets notwithstanding the imposition of the fee. He did not assert that the appellant would cease to compete or to trade profitably, either at all or in relation to horse races in New South Wales. Nor did he assert that the appellant would not continue to gain market share.
it was always going to be a problem for them - i think the reason they kept betting was about how it would look if they stopped, i.e. image - there is no doubt it will cost them money, they absorbed it up to now but i can't see them continuing to do that
push the commission rate to 6% from 5% maybe?
why should other customers pay by raising the commission
stop betting on nsw events simple
stop betting on nsw events simple
They can change commission rate on different markets, so they could raise it on NSW racing only
Victoria to follow suit???
http://www.smh.com.au/business/victoria-to-follow-nsw-on-race-course-fees-20120330-1w37r.html
Victoria to follow NSW on race course fees
March 30, 2012
Victoria intends to follow the NSW lead on race fields legislation following a High Court decision that validates their right to charge a fee to betting agencies for the use of racing information.
The court rejected a claim by the wagering firms Betfair and Sportsbet that it was unconstitutional for NSW racing bodies to demand 1.5 per cent of their turnover to use race-field information.
The wagering operators had challenged the legislation on the grounds that it is discriminatory and protectionist.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Victoria's Racing Minister Denis Napthine said the government would now bring forward legislation to ensure the state can cash in on the court's decision.
"This decision provides much greater certainty to the racing industry, which is worth more than $2.5 billion to the Victorian economy and employs 70,000 people," Mr Napthine said.
Mr Napthine said the new legislation would be aimed at ensuring the Victorian racing industry receives fair and reasonable returns for its racing product from wagering entities.
The state's peak racing body, Racing Victoria (RV), hailed the decision as a win for all Australian racing.
"The decision validates the race fields legislation in NSW and determines the right of a principal racing authority to impose a fee on either a turnover or gross revenue model," said RV chief executive Rob Hines.
Betfair and other bookmaking firms operate on Victorian racing under an arrangement which requires it to pay a fee based on gross revenue, rather than turnover.
The agreement between the wagering operators and RV expires in August.
Mr Hines said RV had entered into its agreements with Betfair in anticipation of the High Court decision.
"A report will now be provided to the Racing Victoria board that will determine the structure and timing of any changes to our product fee regime," Mr Hines said.
RV expects to collect $53 million in race fields fees under its gross revenue agreements this financial year.
Under the 1.5 per cent of turnover arrangement operating in NSW, RV would have expected to collect $54 million over the same period.
Betfair estimates the High Court ruling will make it six times more expensive for the company to operate on NSW racing than on racing from any other state in Australia.
The court agreed with the NSW argument that the names of horses in a race field are the property of the relevant racing authority which was therefore entitled to determine and charge a fee for their use by external wagering organisations.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/victoria-to-follow-nsw-on-race-course-fees-20120330-1w37r.html#ixzz1qkFymR1C
As has been asked before - why is it only $1 million more under the turnover model???
http://www.smh.com.au/business/victoria-to-follow-nsw-on-race-course-fees-20120330-1w37r.html
Victoria to follow NSW on race course fees
March 30, 2012
Victoria intends to follow the NSW lead on race fields legislation following a High Court decision that validates their right to charge a fee to betting agencies for the use of racing information.
The court rejected a claim by the wagering firms Betfair and Sportsbet that it was unconstitutional for NSW racing bodies to demand 1.5 per cent of their turnover to use race-field information.
The wagering operators had challenged the legislation on the grounds that it is discriminatory and protectionist.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Victoria's Racing Minister Denis Napthine said the government would now bring forward legislation to ensure the state can cash in on the court's decision.
"This decision provides much greater certainty to the racing industry, which is worth more than $2.5 billion to the Victorian economy and employs 70,000 people," Mr Napthine said.
Mr Napthine said the new legislation would be aimed at ensuring the Victorian racing industry receives fair and reasonable returns for its racing product from wagering entities.
The state's peak racing body, Racing Victoria (RV), hailed the decision as a win for all Australian racing.
"The decision validates the race fields legislation in NSW and determines the right of a principal racing authority to impose a fee on either a turnover or gross revenue model," said RV chief executive Rob Hines.
Betfair and other bookmaking firms operate on Victorian racing under an arrangement which requires it to pay a fee based on gross revenue, rather than turnover.
The agreement between the wagering operators and RV expires in August.
Mr Hines said RV had entered into its agreements with Betfair in anticipation of the High Court decision.
"A report will now be provided to the Racing Victoria board that will determine the structure and timing of any changes to our product fee regime," Mr Hines said.
RV expects to collect $53 million in race fields fees under its gross revenue agreements this financial year.
Under the 1.5 per cent of turnover arrangement operating in NSW, RV would have expected to collect $54 million over the same period.
Betfair estimates the High Court ruling will make it six times more expensive for the company to operate on NSW racing than on racing from any other state in Australia.
The court agreed with the NSW argument that the names of horses in a race field are the property of the relevant racing authority which was therefore entitled to determine and charge a fee for their use by external wagering organisations.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/victoria-to-follow-nsw-on-race-course-fees-20120330-1w37r.html#ixzz1qkFymR1C
As has been asked before - why is it only $1 million more under the turnover model???
I have not seen any reference to the arrangement that NSW Racing would not charge on course bookies the same as the interstate corps as an incentive to have them field and add colour. I think they picked a annual turnover cut off. I suppose this is still the case.
Hal I think you'll find that they must charge one and the same.
they were going to have a cut off of $5 million in turnover from memory - Sportsbet won that part of the case so it got canned
the tvn v'landy's panel discussion this morning was interesting ...
hard to read what they will all do behind the curtain but ...
pvl indicated that the favourable decision gave them a starting point ... to negotiate now with the corps ... insinuated imo they couldn't negotiate 'before' the firmness of the legal decision in their favour
pvl insinuated no such 'negotiable favour' with BF tho ...
(said they brought the bf model over to Oz ... and will have to live with it now ... within the context of the high court decree)
... they'll probably replay the panel discussion during the day ... i'll need a 2nd listen lol to absorb it properly
hard to read what they will all do behind the curtain but ...
pvl indicated that the favourable decision gave them a starting point ... to negotiate now with the corps ... insinuated imo they couldn't negotiate 'before' the firmness of the legal decision in their favour
pvl insinuated no such 'negotiable favour' with BF tho ...
(said they brought the bf model over to Oz ... and will have to live with it now ... within the context of the high court decree)
... they'll probably replay the panel discussion during the day ... i'll need a 2nd listen lol to absorb it properly
Thanks logroller and wombleoz, cannot see NSW Racing negotiating with Betfair, they want them out of the market. We need one state to break away and come to a deal, can't see that though, the breeding lobby run the show.
Thebas I would think Racing NSW and racing in general's aim is to put Betfair out of business in Australia.
take a look at Tattsbet's takeover of Oztote and the withdrawal of Betfair's ability to offer it as a product.
Who buys a business and then discards an income stream of that business?
Think the TAB'S and Racing see Betfair as an uncontrollable rogue that they want banished from the industry.
take a look at Tattsbet's takeover of Oztote and the withdrawal of Betfair's ability to offer it as a product.
Who buys a business and then discards an income stream of that business?
Think the TAB'S and Racing see Betfair as an uncontrollable rogue that they want banished from the industry.
spot on whoopi and hal .... that was the pvl BF insinuation
re the corps .. the negotiation that was put out there re the corps .. sounded like a trade-off in % or $ ... for racetrack sponsorships etc ... that type of thing
any ways .. HK only race twice a week i think ... and no laying .. so only a minor interest there ...
i'm preparing for the US to be 90% of my bf action at this point lol ... (tho i haven't 'nailed' my full understanding of the US yet ... like i think i have with Oz racing .. and by that i mean .. knowing where i went 'wrong' if you know what i mean ... rather than right ... for the future upcoming races ... but 3 months in and i;m getting there lol)
re the corps .. the negotiation that was put out there re the corps .. sounded like a trade-off in % or $ ... for racetrack sponsorships etc ... that type of thing
any ways .. HK only race twice a week i think ... and no laying .. so only a minor interest there ...
i'm preparing for the US to be 90% of my bf action at this point lol ... (tho i haven't 'nailed' my full understanding of the US yet ... like i think i have with Oz racing .. and by that i mean .. knowing where i went 'wrong' if you know what i mean ... rather than right ... for the future upcoming races ... but 3 months in and i;m getting there lol)
Thebas, i don't know whether BF will up the fees or dump NSW but i doubt US racing will be the future. I suspect the takeout rates will be higher for most of their racing. Certainly in California anyway where they are getting a licence.
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/12/07/betfair-official-outlines-plans-for-california-exchange-wagering.aspx#
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/12/07/betfair-official-outlines-plans-for-california-exchange-wagering.aspx#
yeah but hal 10% of my pie going to betfair is better than me having no pie at all
thx kye didn't know that was coming ... the future of the serious punter is constantly in doubt ...
i like being able to lay as well ... it balances my punting model
being forced back to a 17% hike will be the finish for me on this caper
when you think of blokes like zelkjo ... with all their data resources and staffing ... and still the best they make out of the game is with the rebates .. tells you what horse punting is for ...
imo it is for deposits to the business 'players' ... to keep the breeder's overcharging for horses .. (where you can't own one outright anymore gotta be in a syndicate) .. so that they can put on the daily racing 'shows'
the punter funds it to a leeser extent than before .. pvl said on tvn this mornoing that in the past the t@b funded racing totally .. where it doesn't now .. (and its not the corps and BF) ..
it's the RUNNING costs of the industry ... from horse buying .. to horse training ... to prizemoney
the punter is the absolute bottom on the food chain
i like being able to lay as well ... it balances my punting model
being forced back to a 17% hike will be the finish for me on this caper
when you think of blokes like zelkjo ... with all their data resources and staffing ... and still the best they make out of the game is with the rebates .. tells you what horse punting is for ...
imo it is for deposits to the business 'players' ... to keep the breeder's overcharging for horses .. (where you can't own one outright anymore gotta be in a syndicate) .. so that they can put on the daily racing 'shows'
the punter funds it to a leeser extent than before .. pvl said on tvn this mornoing that in the past the t@b funded racing totally .. where it doesn't now .. (and its not the corps and BF) ..
it's the RUNNING costs of the industry ... from horse buying .. to horse training ... to prizemoney
the punter is the absolute bottom on the food chain
and agreed there whoopi .. i worry of course that 10% today .. might be 15% tomorrow .. then 20% etc .. to keep it all going for 'them'
still you and i might be out of it all by the time that gets to happen (hopefully in respect to the poor punter's future)
still you and i might be out of it all by the time that gets to happen (hopefully in respect to the poor punter's future)
After Betfair are quaddies the best value, take out wise, 4 races one grab.
How many of winning punters on here would be losers if we all had to pay an extra 1%?
how about they start by just scrapping discounts....everyone pays their 5%
Betfair's media & comms manager Matt Thompson re Retro:
Contrary to ignorant, ill-considered comments on @RacingRetro this morning, @Betfair_Aus won't be 'disappearing into the sunset' just yet.
Take it how you want, but I'm glad to hear that stance. Not saying that position may not alter, but for now I'm optimistic.
Contrary to ignorant, ill-considered comments on @RacingRetro this morning, @Betfair_Aus won't be 'disappearing into the sunset' just yet.
Take it how you want, but I'm glad to hear that stance. Not saying that position may not alter, but for now I'm optimistic.
if Betfair doesn't do something soon they'll lose Victoria as well i'd suggest - unless of course they want to keep absorbing the extra cost
agree Womble. BF have tactically ballsed this up. i think i posted 18mths ago that they should cease betting on NSW. If they had done it then would have saved millions & probably would have struck a deal with them by now.
fair points Womble & Kye. The judges agreed with you too! That meeting needs to happen ASAP.
Thats right this should never have gotten to court. Betfair have been the hunted since they got here they need to do things better than everybody else to be seen as clean ie lay betting hysteria etc. It will be interesting what they come up with. I quit in September to do this full time.....another great move by me but hopefully this works itself out. I personally cannot see PVL dealing with betfair he has always been against their model remembering previous retro appearances etc.
BF will start betting fixed odds on sports very shortly and they r going to seed the exchange markets with that turnover
very similar to me Swans. It had been PT, but pretty much full now for me now. I know PVL it seems is someone who can't be reasoned with, however the waves from Messara are a lot more encouraging. Although he was very quiet on TVN this morning.
I think the punters show tomorrow will be interesting. Dallas usually has the mood of the meeting.
I think the punters show tomorrow will be interesting. Dallas usually has the mood of the meeting.
I watched PVL this morning & he was sure BF would not quit NSW & simply change its fee model. He is trying to bluff BF to cop it sweet & charge punters more but I reckon he knows NSW need BF. As much as he doesnt like BF they would sit down & negotiate but only if BF quit covering their racing.
Josh T and Swans. Hope you factored in the fact that if you want to upgrade your house you'll have to do it with cash, not a mortgage..Couple of years back I went to the bank with statements showing my income for past 3 years...not interested.
I had to actually earn the cash money to upgrade.
I had to actually earn the cash money to upgrade.
don't worry Whoopi, I understand your point completely. I've felt it for the last 8 years of my life working as a contractor, so the lesson has been to be cashed up. Or find a girl with a job paying 40k who can take out an astronomical loan. Makes sense doesn't it?!
When the Sydney carnival is finished Id like to see them suspend betting on NSW racing for 10 days and see what affect it has. Who is looking after the punters interests in this. It's our money they are fighting over.
please Kye ....u reckon NSW needs BF, and why would that be
For a start they are already relying on the revenue from BF.
Secondly the loss of BF will mean a drop in turnover on TAB/ corporates etc. That might be arguable but i'm confident many punters will simply change to betting on other states.
Further i think BF doesnt take turnover away from TAB it promotes more turnover thru arbing etc
Secondly the loss of BF will mean a drop in turnover on TAB/ corporates etc. That might be arguable but i'm confident many punters will simply change to betting on other states.
Further i think BF doesnt take turnover away from TAB it promotes more turnover thru arbing etc
are there any bookies out there now that don't have a Betfair screen open during the day???
the revenue to NSW would be peanuts. they have been paying on gross profit which would be fck all.
as far as t/o falling on Tabs and corps, i cant for the life of be see why their t/o would drop when a competitor leaves the market.
and they still hate the fact that punters can back a horse to lose.
NSW wants to see BF burn and blow away like all racing authorities do with all exchanges.
as far as t/o falling on Tabs and corps, i cant for the life of be see why their t/o would drop when a competitor leaves the market.
and they still hate the fact that punters can back a horse to lose.
NSW wants to see BF burn and blow away like all racing authorities do with all exchanges.
I rarely used to bet before Betfair, maybe $1 here or there. After betfair came on I increased it a lot, including on the TAB
Kye, why did the Tassy Tab give BF the flick with there multi's or what ever it is they did.......the Tab's and the Racing bodies want betting exchanges out of our market place
Do you mean the tote? I think you'll find that was because it was sold to Unitab.
I had given up on horse racing before betfair and now i kick a some into the scabs. Don't see any plans for how the increased income is going to benefit the punters lot. National round up day maybe.
On the bright side, horse racing gambling is in decline, the good old days are gone forever, and there is always the likelyhood that in the near future the wider community will band together to limit internet betting for my own good.
haha Hal.
Logroller doesn't seem to be a fan of the betfair model does he! Bottom line is, and I know I'm not alone - I couldn't win before Betfair. It took me 4 years after joining in '03 to work it out, and now I'm profitable. If it disappears I won't bet on any Australian racing. I don't use my tote account, and haven't for years (only for say a Quad or FF now and again & even that was via betfair).
I'm one person in the corner that t/o would fall in NSW without but unfortunately we may not get to see that impact for sure and certain. As Womble says - all bookies use betfair. It stimulates turnover via the bookies, the corps and the tote. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Logroller doesn't seem to be a fan of the betfair model does he! Bottom line is, and I know I'm not alone - I couldn't win before Betfair. It took me 4 years after joining in '03 to work it out, and now I'm profitable. If it disappears I won't bet on any Australian racing. I don't use my tote account, and haven't for years (only for say a Quad or FF now and again & even that was via betfair).
I'm one person in the corner that t/o would fall in NSW without but unfortunately we may not get to see that impact for sure and certain. As Womble says - all bookies use betfair. It stimulates turnover via the bookies, the corps and the tote. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
your probably right Josh T, i commented on another thread some time ago that the tab pools held less on a day when the betfair site was down
There wouldnt be a more transparent example of the effect on tab turnover on the days or periods when the BF site has been closed - You reckon racing nsw bothered to look into it???
There wouldnt be a more transparent example of the effect on tab turnover on the days or periods when the BF site has been closed - You reckon racing nsw bothered to look into it???
Thinking that answer is no! Nicely picked up with the non BF days...I treated it as a nice day off actually.
As someone with really no idea as to how communications have been between the two entities it still appears so hostile. Perhaps they have never sat down for any length of time to talk.
For the betterment of the punters (& industry) in a way I hope they don't pull the plug on NSW because it will probably put the other States off side too (even though we think it will send the money their way in the interim).
Although from a schadenfreude POV it might be fun...
Giles T (Betfair CEO) will be on 927 tomorrow AM. That has to be worth a listen.
As someone with really no idea as to how communications have been between the two entities it still appears so hostile. Perhaps they have never sat down for any length of time to talk.
For the betterment of the punters (& industry) in a way I hope they don't pull the plug on NSW because it will probably put the other States off side too (even though we think it will send the money their way in the interim).
Although from a schadenfreude POV it might be fun...
Giles T (Betfair CEO) will be on 927 tomorrow AM. That has to be worth a listen.
"The court agreed with the NSW argument that the names of horses in a race field are the property of the relevant racing authority which was therefore entitled to determine and charge a fee for their use by external wagering organisations"
remove the horses names, just have numbers?
remove the horses names, just have numbers?
make them go to court for another 5 years to say numbers are copyright
if they stop betting on nsw , which i think they should and tab turnover went down do you think PVL would say so??
it would get blamed on 1000 different reasons except for betfair
it would get blamed on 1000 different reasons except for betfair
Stop betting on NSW racing. I think the punters want betfair, we at least should have the choice of who screws us :) Most bookies would be lost with pricing. It's our money they want to spend enhancing the value of their business's, stud farms etc.
we don't need to do anything unless Betfair does something, which they should've done years ago - i can't imagine the will wear the losses after the carnival is over
Victorian Racing Minister on now - it's all about "maximising returns for the industry but getting the balance right - fair and reasonable return from those that bet on Victorian racing"
Which is a reasonable approach
Victorian Racing Minister on now - it's all about "maximising returns for the industry but getting the balance right - fair and reasonable return from those that bet on Victorian racing"
Which is a reasonable approach
Giles on now - will have to pay 6 times more under the turnover model
nope none - said they will have to work through the ruling
night racing at Randwick from some guy at the ATC - idiots - send night racing to the provincials imo
Racetrack Ralphy making some good points about people not declaring their interests and no one talking about the customers - i.e. the punters
fair point re best tote products - punters are effectively paying the tote take out
strappers to get a share of the prize money - that's a good result
aggregating media rights with Victoria being worked on at present
I don't really like that Ralphy bloke but he made some very good points as he is a punter, Peter V and even Shane Anderson didn't really share his viewpoint though. Understandable from Shane as he is employed by Sky/TAB.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539