“Turnover fee”?

well abanjo, u have opened the box......so for what its worth here goes.

your just about right with the bookies turnover, however if the bookie backs it back with a bookie in his state where they r licensed then he pays tax on what he has left on his book, but if he bets back with a interstate bookie or overseas bookie he pays tax on the lot.

Now turnover tax with Betfair is a whole diff kettle of fish.
if on BF i back a horse at 5/1 for 100$ then BF pays tax on the 100$, and then if you lay that same horse at the 5/1, betfair pay tax on 500$. so for the maths at 1.5% fee on turnover, they will pay 1.5% t/o tax on my bet = $1.50
and on your bet 1.5% t/o tax = $7.50
total tax to the state were the race is held is = $9
now add to that their state tax where they are licensed on betting = ??? (diff states diff tax)

so i'm sure u can work out from here why BF's model will not work, as in the majority of cases they would be losing on the transaction.
they have a few options they can now take on NSW racing but whatever they r, the punters will be worse off on laying horses on NSW racing.
this is only the beginning , already cries in Victoria to switch to the turnover fee, and now even the sporting bodies (cricket,afl.nrl,tennis) will be looking at the turnover model for further funding. So if that happens in the sports feilds it back to the courts they all go to work out what the all the sports are entitled to get from the bookies and BF

I will stand corrected if any knows for sure how  it will work, but  logroller i dont think your calculation could possibly be correct.

Standard transaction

bookie
lays 100$ x 5/1= loss
punter
  bets 100$ x 5/1 = winnings

turnover for tax purposes= 1.5% x 100$= 1.50$

betfair

layer  same as above

backer

same as above

the  bookie does not pay turnover tax on what a punter wins, just on what is bet.

Why would it apply to punter winnings on BF?

Reverse the thinking.

Betfair

horse loses

backer loses 100
layer wins 100

turnover =100

horse wins

backer wins 500

layer loses 500

however the  cash in hand for the layer is still 100.

therefore I propose the tax on any 100$ bet is 1.5% = $1.50 regardless of the price of the winner.

thats my 2 cents


tax same as above

very interesting point  aaachen.

what your saying is that a trader could "turnover " 500$ to make 20$.

BF collects say 5% of the 20$= 1$

But turnover tax is 1.5% x 500$= 7.50$

under this scenarion BF will have no choice but to change its model to a turnover based system.

Say 5 % of bets placed.

Pays 1.5, collects 5 giving it a 3.5% margin.


Point of interest

bets 100  TAB takes 20 % with rounding =20$

BF punter wins 500 x 5% = 25$ takeout.

ben if it was your scenario then why would they be crying , beleive me this is the way it will work

ben u answered it in one of your statements, "the tax is only charged on what is bet" the chap laying 500$ to win 100$ has in fact bet 500$ in that scenario, just like me backing a horse to win 20$ at 1/25 (1.04) i am betting 500 to win that 20, and the bookie will pay tax on the 500


i'm as sure as i can be ben, without being too arrogant to be proven wrong

why dont BF just change the way they display the fields etc. As in ''All to hard'' that just raced would appear on BF as:

S-R-2-1

and so on. its the way we fill out tickets in the TAB anyway cross referencing with screens and newspapers etc. Same same imo and users would get the gist of it. Even sports bets in the tab need a 5 or 6 digit code filed in on the ticket.

That way BF are not using published race fields to market and make money from. BF is simply making their 'own' codes for traders to trade on.

Or am I way off i really havent looked too much into all this till now the decision has been made

yeah sosa your way off, all though some time ago an overseas bookie said he doesnt actually show the race fields under any thing related to him, he only quotes the name or numbers over the phone, but that was well before the internet becoming the massive betting tool it is.

your wrong castiron, that is what the whole fight was over, this is the start of the finish for BF as we now know it

please understand one thing...............the racing bodies /authorities have always hated the fact that punters with BF can lay a horse to lose, this was the whole agruement from the very start of BF all over the world, this is what the powers in racing have wanted to stop from the start of exchanges, and now they have found a weapon, beleive me they will aim that weapon right at the heart of exchanges and try and run them completely out of business.

also Cast, laying is fundermentally the same as backing, no real diff, i am still outlaying a certain amount of money to win a certain amount of money, its all the same and the outlay is turnover, whether with a bookie,tab or BF

imo the only way it could happen your way castiron  ...

was if bf INITIALLY 'took over' all the lay bets (tho flagged them against the a/c holder's account for LATER reimbursement or collection ... plus commissions etc)

... that way the BACK bet is the only exposed punter "turnover"

... and the BF race screen would only register the 'amount' on the race as the 'back' amount

but whether that concept is legal i dont know

I thought BF pay it on lay side as well effectively making the fee 3%. The reason the corp bookies only pay on the back side is that their customers dont make the lay.

I specifically remember the interview with V'Landys. It was either on TVN or Sky.

He stated that Betfair only paid turnover on the back side.

Joel most would only pay 25-30 cents commission.

Yeah I was going to say that, though I would think those taking 1.01's would also be paying the Premium Charge too.

thats a strong possibility logroller.

layer- loses 500+ 1.5%= loss 507.61% charge to account.

that would solve their problems.

in that case im guessing the prices here would become less generous.

I think if the High Court read this thread they might have reconsidered their decision. I've read all the submissions & didnt get a sense of how unfair this fee is.

A 50% fee on total commissions received would be fairer

cant help myself...........thanks for the insight "onthechase".....so then, i only lay horses! so it wont affect me in anyway shape or form then, dont know what all the fuss is about then

beauty

Should read "Either of these methods would affect both backers and layers."

well i surely hope u 2 r right,

don't get too excited folks ... this is from the News release on this very Forum ... as a BF Service Announcement ...

*************

“This finding essentially means that it is six-times more expensive for Betfair to offer New South Wales racing to customers compared to offering racing from any other state in Australia.

“A turnover fee will place extreme pressure on our ability to continue to offer our customers what we believe is the best product in the market.

“It will directly and significantly reduce the competitiveness of wagering on racing in NSW.  It is ultimately the punter who will pay for this lack of competition as it will impact on the variety, quality and value of betting on racing in NSW.