Betfair boycotts Golden Slipper day and NSW racing

only a matter of time before they do pull the plug

agree Frog - has to happen imo

Anybody who wants to retain B/f should also boycott the meeting,

racing NSW have to sent a clear message

....and to Barney.

When BF actually do bar the state's racing Barney I'd come in on that. No point till then IMHO.

Then it'd a have to be case of you not betting on NSW racing with any agency at all as any t/o would involve a credit to NSW as I understand. I'm sure someone will correct me if that's not the case

As an aside I wonder if this is an instance where BF may come to regret implementing the PC. How much stronger would their clients be to support them except for that picking of the pocket I wonder.

Boycott the markets, not the advertising of them.  Make a stand against this decision in a way that will prove to NSW that it is possible to win, but lose big at the same time.

The way I see it is if Betfair drops NSW completely the bookmakers will not have a source to lay off their bets. So then RNSW will lose money hand and foot. No more big bets, no more decent prices. Punters will leave in droves.

Just boycott NSW completely after all standing ante post bets are finalised.

The other states will see the difference in turnover too.

Just like playing poker. Go all in or lose the game.

Bottomline is RNSW needs BF more that BF needs RNSW .........Kye this is such a BS line, racing NSW dont give a toss about BF, beleive it, ask any TABoperator  and any bookie if they would care if BF died and they wont give two sh!ts..........the only ones that r at a loss here are the savy punters and BF.

as i keep saying this is the beginning of the end for BF as we know it in this country.
Other states would have to have rocks in their heads not to switch to the turnover base model, even if the reports r that they will only get an extra $1million, which by the way is total bullocks. Racing Victoria will be better off to the tune of around 3-5million from the corp's in the Northern Terriorty alone.

and u know what, the death of BF wont effect the turnover on racing to any great deal either, lets face it the majority of t/o on here is educated money and computer programed trading, it will simply just disappear and it wont dry up t/o with anyother operator thats for sure

interesting to see the alternate position taken by NSW Greyhound Racing

http://www.puntersshow.com.au/index.php?_a=stories&storyId=1709

Gross profit better for dogs

CEO of Greyhound Racing NSW Brent Hogan has blogged in regard to their gross revenue position.

‘The Dogs’ have been on the gross profit model for the last few years and seems are better place because of it.

Regular viewers of the Punters Show would be well aware of how impressed we have been with the greyhound administration and a lot of it has to do with Brent who has a far greater understanding of true wagering than any administrator in horse racing in NSW we can think of.

This is what he had to say on his blog on thedogs.com.au industry site …

“Last Friday the full bench of the High Court unanimously dismissed both the Sportsbet and Betfair appeals in the race fields litigation they had instigated against both Racing NSW and Harness Racing NSW.

The decisions are important in that they provide absolute clarity that the race fields legislation is constitutionally valid and confirms the right of each racing controlling body to impose a fee on either a turnover or gross
revenue model for betting on our respective races.

You will have read over the weekend about the war chests that the other two codes now have at their disposals following their success in the High Court. The amounts represent the fees that they have been collecting for
the last three and half years but have been unable to spend because of the court case. In effect it has worked like a savings plan for the other codes.

From our perspective however, we have been collecting fees from all wagering operators and spending that money for the last three and half years.

It is the money that we have collected from race fields legislation that has allowed us to pay an additional $19 million in prizemoney throughout that period over and above what we could have afforded to pay without using the race fields money.

Our approach to race fields to date has also allowed us to focus on growing greyhound racing in this state. In that period we have grown the number of TAB meetings being conducted with an additional 208 TAB meetings now part of our schedule. TAB racing at Wagga, Grafton and Dubbo would still be an aspiration today had we followed the path of the other two codes from a race fields perspective.

When this financial year draws to a close over $1 billion will have been wagered on NSW greyhounds, setting a new benchmark for our sport.

I have been asked on several occasions over the weekend would we have received a higher return if we charged wagering operators on the basis of 1.5% of turnover as opposed to 10% of their gross margin, effectively their winnings on a particular race.

The simple answer to that is no.

In the three and half years that race fields has been in place $2.9 billion has been bet on NSW greyhound races with all wagering operators combined producing a gross margin of $446m. The maths is simple, 1.5% of $2.9bn is $1 million less than 10% of $446m.

The current NSW race fields legislation is complicated by the existence of a cap on fees which does not presently allow us to charge an individual wagering operator more than 1.5% of their turnover on our races.

The current arrangements we have in place with all wagering operators under the race fields legislation are in place until 30 June 2012.

In line with our established practice we will review all of the conditions, including those related to fees, prior to issuing approvals for the new financial year.

Our approach will be simple, making sure the maths remains in favour of greyhound racing in NSW.”



News posted: 04/04/2012

Logroller , you are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. RNSW needs the income it is getting from BF for a start. All their budget has been prepared with revenue increasing from BF. PVL may hate BF but even he would know they need it operating on NSW.

Report • Quote Kye • April 6, 2012 5:11 AM BST
Agree totally badge.

love reading all the silly comments on racenet


Amazing who ya see amongst them on the other side of town.......


TeenQueen
A bunch of capitalists taking a stand and not punting and trading on NSW Racing ... That'll be the day! Business as usual on Saturday I'd say ...

Hopefully James will stay strong Ziggy

Betfair aren't going anywhere...................strike a turnover deal with one of the Scabs ( and negotiate  a rebate from them) FOR ALL NSW Gallops punched through Betfair tote. Just no exchange on NSW Gallops. Pretty simple stuff IMO

Very telling figures womble. I have not read anywhere Betfair have said that under the turnover model they would have to increase the commission from 5% to xx% to maintain adequate profit levels. They have said however that  the turnover model would raise costs 6 fold.

So does that mean for Betfair punters they would have to multiply their current commission rates by 6 to cover the costs, ie 3% becomes 18%. If so, just emphasises why turnover cannot work for an exchange.

Betfair a crazy to continue betting on NSW,

if they do they justify the decision, basically saying it is still a viable proposition.

And if that is the case all other jurisdicictions will put their grubby little hands out for me

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2011/232.html

search for upon resuming at 2:14

Judge Gummow was clinically unimpressed by the case .. regardless of the profit/turnover argument .. because the case was defended by bf (mr young) on the basis of interstate protectionism

****

MR YOUNG: It is in furtherance of my answer to Justice Bell, your Honour, that gross revenue is used as the basis for charging fees on race fields around the country. That is the simple purpose of the first document. It is factual.

GUMMOW J: That raises something that has been going through my mind. Most, if not all, of the players in this story seem to be operating on a nationwide basis of activity. How then does one readily introduce notions of protectionism of particular markets based on geographic lines?

MR YOUNG: In the way that I endeavoured to explain using Justice Hayne’s questions yesterday as the basis, and Mr Gleeson’s answers, that is to say that even though many of the operators have a State focus but conduct as well very substantial interstate operations, they pay revenues under their State licences to the State licensing authorities on their wagering revenue, and it is those revenues that are the subject matter of the protection, and they flow from the State licensee to the State industry.

GUMMOW J: Do we have findings about this?

MR YOUNG: You have findings in relation to New South Wales.

GUMMOW J: I know. That is not what I asked. The answer, I think, is no. It seemed to me we may be invited to launch ourselves on a very significant section 92 case upon an inadequate basis.

*********

it was all over rover at that point for mine 

I dont think it is the 1.01 that would hurt the most as sometimes they get beaten. i reckon it is the trading that hurts most.

the 1.01 will win 99% of the time,

and the majority of In Play is long odds winners..

InPlay will absolutely hammer B/f IMHO..


the 1 in 100 that get beat , they pay a legitimate impost

the 99 that win bend them over and jam it up them

If a bookie lays off their bet at another bookie it's not counted as turnover....as someone mentioned earlier that is the case now so long as the bookie is in the same state for tax purposes. Since they all pay the turnover tax now perhaps this wont count?

i think it will??

how could they possibly determine who has traded, It would be neigh on impossible