Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://racenet.com.au/news/78939/Betfair-boycotts-Golden-Slipper-day-and-NSW-racing
Show More
The benefit of pulling the plug quickley is the affect on all betting activity will be known before VIC racing decide in August. If the impact is bad for NSW (which I think it will be) VIC will keep the gross profits charge.
Anybody who wants to retain B/f should also boycott the meeting,
racing NSW have to sent a clear message
racing NSW have to sent a clear message
Bloody disingenuous heading Scottie.
Having said that I'd say to Betfair, don't talk about it DO it and not just overseas customers, even if it'd personally hurt to lose NSW racing.
Be as tough dealing with NSW as you were with your own customers when you dreamt up the PC! THAT I'd like to see.
Long term implications of this could see me back out of horses like I did a few years ago. Like some others I only came back because Betfair gave me choice instead of being force fed on what a service felt they could make money on if taken.
Having said that I'd say to Betfair, don't talk about it DO it and not just overseas customers, even if it'd personally hurt to lose NSW racing.
Be as tough dealing with NSW as you were with your own customers when you dreamt up the PC! THAT I'd like to see.
Long term implications of this could see me back out of horses like I did a few years ago. Like some others I only came back because Betfair gave me choice instead of being force fed on what a service felt they could make money on if taken.
....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.
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.
Agree completely Silver. Premium charge was a really poor business decision for mine.
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.
what a loads of codswallop, not printing the form guide, a bunch of soft**** (which has always been the problem with their business decisions) send a clear message, don't make me gag - a clear message would be not to offer it and trumpet it across the racing media - i mean why would you offer it it it has always been costing money ? - maybe someone on the board needs to be asking why ? - i know i would be
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.
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.
Agree totally badge.
love reading all the silly comments on racenet.
Bottomline is RNSW needs BF more that BF needs RNSW
love reading all the silly comments on racenet.
Bottomline is RNSW needs BF more that BF needs RNSW
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
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
Unfortunately from a Betfair punter's perspective Logroller your post tells it like it really is. At the end of The day Racing NSW has achieved what it set out to do get rid of betfair altogether or at least reduce its competitive edge to a point where it is no longer viable for betfair or punters using it. There was a tendency to treat Vlandys as joke but he who laughs last!!!!
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
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
The question I would like to ask Brent Hogan is, Why did Sportsbet fight RNSW if the turnover tax model would have allowed them to pay less? I did not mention BF because their model is completely different and I understand why they fought it.
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.
Don't understand all this fuss about Betfair, its a great way to punt, as long as they don't increase their minimum bet, the world goes on. They can only continue to increase their market share because its a very good product. I bet TABs for flexis and bet Betfair when Laying and Backing, best of 2 worlds. TABs have improved their service for small punters since the arival of Betfair which is a good thing. Punters are winners when their is reasonable competition. For too many decades the punters were coping it up the arrsse by TABCORP. Long live Betfair, even though I don't like Pommys much.
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 ...
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 ...
the racing powers are indeed hopeful that Betfair leaves australian shores (had lunch with a high ranking pollie the other day,not directly involved in the gaming industry)).This would pave the way for them to start their own poxy little exchange...imagine an in house exchange with a 10% take ...that's what they want.
Punters don't.
Punters don't.
Packer that is - if his dad was still about we'd have no worries at all imo
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
i knew i had seen these figures somewhere - finally found them, last day of the high court appeal
from here -
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s118/2011?print=1&tmpl=component
MR YOUNG: I took the Court to 2079 to make a narrower point, your Honour. But all of the variable costs are shown. I am not going to go through in detail but it is clear that the main costs are government levies. The next page compares – it is one of Mr Twaits’ spreadsheets numbered 1075. What it does is to show the impact of the Racing New South Wales’ impost on gross profit. It is a massive increase in costs as a comparison of the first column and the second column shows. Total betting taxes go up very substantially so comparison across those two periods is that the margin on gross revenue falls from 56 per cent to 2 per cent. The gross profit falls from $623,536 for a four-month period to some 46,000 for – it is a seven-month period, September 2008 to April 2009.
Massive additional cost for Betfair - problem is they wore it all this time so the court didn't see it become reality which hurt their case. Mind you they probably don't win it anyway - the constitution isn't about protecting different business models.
from here -
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s118/2011?print=1&tmpl=component
MR YOUNG: I took the Court to 2079 to make a narrower point, your Honour. But all of the variable costs are shown. I am not going to go through in detail but it is clear that the main costs are government levies. The next page compares – it is one of Mr Twaits’ spreadsheets numbered 1075. What it does is to show the impact of the Racing New South Wales’ impost on gross profit. It is a massive increase in costs as a comparison of the first column and the second column shows. Total betting taxes go up very substantially so comparison across those two periods is that the margin on gross revenue falls from 56 per cent to 2 per cent. The gross profit falls from $623,536 for a four-month period to some 46,000 for – it is a seven-month period, September 2008 to April 2009.
Massive additional cost for Betfair - problem is they wore it all this time so the court didn't see it become reality which hurt their case. Mind you they probably don't win it anyway - the constitution isn't about protecting different business models.
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.
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.
I couldn't log in to the site about 5 minutes before the Slipper...perhaps they couldn't afford any more turnover 
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
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
Can they re-define turnover.??
a bet is laid of 100/20, is the turnover 100, 200, 20, or 40??
why isn't it just $20,
did B/F make a rod for their back by doubling real turnover figures??
clearly they will do their fcking arS3 at in play betting.
a bet is laid of 100/20, is the turnover 100, 200, 20, or 40??
why isn't it just $20,
did B/F make a rod for their back by doubling real turnover figures??
clearly they will do their fcking arS3 at in play betting.
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
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
What about all those $1.01 in play bets, they would be a killer
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.
correct kye ... because the trading 'artificially increases' the turnover ... whilst the resultant profit to bf (comission sturtcure) does not increase at the same rate
a punter looks at his own 'profit on turnover' figure to assess the 'monies invested (in total)' against the profit he makes
with BF .. they could actually lose money (1.5% of turnover) in a race ... where the turnover was high .. but there commission is low (or negative)
... something has to give with the bf model ... if they are to continue with nsw after the judgement ... (and possibly to all states at a later date)
a punter looks at his own 'profit on turnover' figure to assess the 'monies invested (in total)' against the profit he makes
with BF .. they could actually lose money (1.5% of turnover) in a race ... where the turnover was high .. but there commission is low (or negative)
... something has to give with the bf model ... if they are to continue with nsw after the judgement ... (and possibly to all states at a later date)
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
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
The trading will hurt them most agreed.
but pound for pound Inplay betting will be devastating
but pound for pound Inplay betting will be devastating
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?
But yes as I mentioned earlier $1000 at 1.01 returns $10 for the punter, 50 cents for betfair in commission and $15 in turnover tax....
i think it will??
how could they possibly determine who has traded, It would be neigh on impossible
how could they possibly determine who has traded, It would be neigh on impossible
The answer is B/F have to make a stand , and switch NSW off
I am sure Betfair will provide the correct figures. For sure.
turnover in the NSW legislation is "back bet turnover" so they only look at one side of it, which is good but still
$1.01's are shockers under the new rules
$1000 on to win $10 - commission is a max of 50 cents, 1.5% of $1000 is $15 - Betfair out of pocket $14.50
$1.01's are shockers under the new rules
$1000 on to win $10 - commission is a max of 50 cents, 1.5% of $1000 is $15 - Betfair out of pocket $14.50
Castiron
so the turnover betfair display atr the top of the page are different from those they declare for product fee purposes??
so the turnover betfair display atr the top of the page are different from those they declare for product fee purposes??
HOWEVER....is in play included, as it is a product no one else offers........
so on a $1.01 chance, just to break even in the above scenario - Betfair would need to charge 150% commission
Wahoo - easy $10 win, Betfair - sorry commission on that is $15, so I'd owe them $5
Barney - the turnover the show is double the actual turnover
Wahoo - easy $10 win, Betfair - sorry commission on that is $15, so I'd owe them $5
Barney - the turnover the show is double the actual turnover
but which one do they pay the % on double or single??
betfair is still making a profit although much less.
i dont think it is all doom and gloom.
exterminate the traders and just have an exchange
sorry....eliminate !
i dont think it is all doom and gloom.
exterminate the traders and just have an exchange
sorry....eliminate !
Betfair will switch off NSW No risk
otherwise they will leave themself wide open for all other states to follow
otherwise they will leave themself wide open for all other states to follow
bf can 'know' a trader ... after a race ... but not before
they cannot presume what a customer might do before ... & during a race
they cannot presume what a customer might do before ... & during a race
Barney
They only pay turnover on the amounts people are backing to win. They don't double up on the lay side.
They only pay turnover on the amounts people are backing to win. They don't double up on the lay side.
Good debate fellas. Joel raises the point that needs massive clarification. If a bookmaker lays back a bet it's not T/O?? If so it's quite easy for betfair to work out who's traded after a race and net position etc. We have no dramas then! (waiting for a sledgehammer................)
If they charge the fee on in running it shows they have absolutely no idea. B/f probably would lose on every in running race so would need to stop....1.50% of nothing is nothing, whereas 10 or 15% of profit would be OK on something they can't get anywhere else.
this is from racing nsw
How will “bet backs” be treated for the purpose of determining fees?
Unlike totalizators and betting exchanges, wagering operators’ laying fixed-odds bets (i.e.
bookmakers’ odds) are “at risk” and can suffer a net loss (i.e. turnover is less than amounts
paid to their wagering customers on winning bets) on an event based on the outcome of that
event.
A wagering operator laying fixed-odds bets is entitled to a “credit” (i.e. effectively a
deduction on their turnover for the purpose of assessing fees) for a genuine bet back if, but
only if, the bet back is made via an account (i.e. no “credits” for cash bets) with an
Australian-licensed wagering operator who:
• has a race field information use approval from Racing NSW; AND
• is actually paying fees to the NSW racing industry in that financial year.
The onus is on the wagering operator claiming the credit for a bet back to demonstrate that
they are entitled to that credit (e.g. a bookmaker will have to produce the details of the relevant
account with the other Australian-licensed wagering operator and be able to prove it was a genuine
bet-back meeting the above requirements). If the wagering operator can not satisfactorily
demonstrate that those requirements have been satisfied then the wagering operator will be
assessed on the full amount of the bet without any “offsetting credit” for the bet back.
How will “bet backs” be treated for the purpose of determining fees?
Unlike totalizators and betting exchanges, wagering operators’ laying fixed-odds bets (i.e.
bookmakers’ odds) are “at risk” and can suffer a net loss (i.e. turnover is less than amounts
paid to their wagering customers on winning bets) on an event based on the outcome of that
event.
A wagering operator laying fixed-odds bets is entitled to a “credit” (i.e. effectively a
deduction on their turnover for the purpose of assessing fees) for a genuine bet back if, but
only if, the bet back is made via an account (i.e. no “credits” for cash bets) with an
Australian-licensed wagering operator who:
• has a race field information use approval from Racing NSW; AND
• is actually paying fees to the NSW racing industry in that financial year.
The onus is on the wagering operator claiming the credit for a bet back to demonstrate that
they are entitled to that credit (e.g. a bookmaker will have to produce the details of the relevant
account with the other Australian-licensed wagering operator and be able to prove it was a genuine
bet-back meeting the above requirements). If the wagering operator can not satisfactorily
demonstrate that those requirements have been satisfied then the wagering operator will be
assessed on the full amount of the bet without any “offsetting credit” for the bet back.
Doesn't betfair classify themselves as a bookmaker, and manage risk by betting back each bet with a corresponding bet....therefore their turnover is Zero as for every bet they lay they bet back.
thanks for that Womble, found that in the PC report as well with the definition of T/O.
So therefore BF itself is the wagering operator. I wish I was the wagering operator!
(Take your point Joel..) I'm sure smarter people than me have looked at this..:(
BUT it raises a good point for mine...the tax isn't intended to mess around a bookie who lays off. Why shouldn't it be the same for us?
So therefore BF itself is the wagering operator. I wish I was the wagering operator!
(Take your point Joel..) I'm sure smarter people than me have looked at this..:(
BUT it raises a good point for mine...the tax isn't intended to mess around a bookie who lays off. Why shouldn't it be the same for us?
wasnt that what the whole court case was about and betfair lost
Here's the operator page, with the tax rule:
http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=approved-licensed-wagering-operators
http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=approved-licensed-wagering-operators
the court case was on the leveling of a turnover tax...or whatever NSW saw fit. I'm just looking (i'm sure stupidly) at the definition of a T/O tax...
good find Josh - i'm sure they would change the law pretty quickly if they tried that Joel, nice thinking though
like I keep saying, I'm sure someone has looked at this...but if you have a law, with an intent that the wagering operator/provider get that credit..why wouldn't it apply within the operator's structure? IF that makes any sense. There's possibly another law that defines an exchanges turnover...but if not...
Whilst this has been a popular topic on this forum I cannot see it got a mention on the General Betting forum.
Kicked out of France, kicked out of Spain, if I were a broker advising my pomme friends who hold Betfair shares, I would advise sell, sell, sell.
Kicked out of France, kicked out of Spain, if I were a broker advising my pomme friends who hold Betfair shares, I would advise sell, sell, sell.
yep SA too (for its residents). it's racing's loss. we just have to evolve or die. I wish racing realised that too.
I for one would boycott NSW personally.
This whole topic of intellectual property is ridiculous.
It's a desperate greedy grasp to get money to pay for drunken teenagers who contribute nothing to racing.
Who owns the field?
Racing Club.
Who owns the jockey name?
The jockey.
Who owns the horse name?
The owner.
So don't publish the field, race name, venue or barrier.
Publish the horse name and jockey with an event ID.
Give a percentage to the jockey and the owner and give the Clubs nothing, nada, zip.
Because that's exactly what they deserve.
This whole topic of intellectual property is ridiculous.
It's a desperate greedy grasp to get money to pay for drunken teenagers who contribute nothing to racing.
Who owns the field?
Racing Club.
Who owns the jockey name?
The jockey.
Who owns the horse name?
The owner.
So don't publish the field, race name, venue or barrier.
Publish the horse name and jockey with an event ID.
Give a percentage to the jockey and the owner and give the Clubs nothing, nada, zip.
Because that's exactly what they deserve.
the major trouble is the industry (all codes) are top heavy. They want punters to pay the prize money for more and more horses and more and more races, There are too many venues and pools are too small, they will kill the golden goose.
all the codes fromall the states need a round table meeting to rationalise the number of meetings,
breeders and buyers of blood stock need to have a good hard look at themselves.
Singelton, harvey etc want to buy million dollar yearings and they want me and you to subsides them, Fck them.
all the codes fromall the states need a round table meeting to rationalise the number of meetings,
breeders and buyers of blood stock need to have a good hard look at themselves.
Singelton, harvey etc want to buy million dollar yearings and they want me and you to subsides them, Fck them.
The cause may be better served pursuing the advertisement on the price of punting , as Betfair does( or at least gives the option ).
Make all the TAB's print on the betting tickets the cost of the bet.
Printed ticket will show on a $ 100 bet the take-out: ie $ 19 etc.
Currently this is hidden ....would open some eyes
Make all the TAB's print on the betting tickets the cost of the bet.
Printed ticket will show on a $ 100 bet the take-out: ie $ 19 etc.
Currently this is hidden ....would open some eyes
you are right there AP
doubt if many tab punters have a clue how their dividend is decided
i also doubt if it would achieve anything though
doubt if many tab punters have a clue how their dividend is decided
i also doubt if it would achieve anything though
geese i hope betfair dont go otherwise ill have to head back to work . but i hope they pull out of sydney and hurt em
Sadly most punters have no interest in take out/ commission rates.
we are guessing about how it proceeds but my guess will be they will approach Racing Nsw and ask for the 1.5% to be on charged on the total amount won on any race. I think if Racing NSW say no that will be it for Betfair betting on their races. I could worry about it but really wasting my mental energy doing that but hoping Betfair roll on in Australia
didnt racing NSW knock back 10 % of gross profits craig
iam tipping they want want 1.5 %
Just cut them off
iam tipping they want want 1.5 %
Just cut them off
top link josh ta ... re 'bet back' approvals
with bf a legitmate 'bet back' for corrs & books .. then layoffs and therefore liquidity ... on 'well fancied or backed' runners should remain intact ... as bf becomes THE medium outlet for this activity
the court case was determined on 'protectionism' (fair play) ... regarding a perceived disadvantage to Interstate Operators ... but
the judges could find no parrallel of interstate protectionism ... as most operators were gambling from computers which were determined as being 'non-state' relevant (as i read it)
with bf a legitmate 'bet back' for corrs & books .. then layoffs and therefore liquidity ... on 'well fancied or backed' runners should remain intact ... as bf becomes THE medium outlet for this activity
the court case was determined on 'protectionism' (fair play) ... regarding a perceived disadvantage to Interstate Operators ... but
the judges could find no parrallel of interstate protectionism ... as most operators were gambling from computers which were determined as being 'non-state' relevant (as i read it)
they already bet back with Betfair Thebas - have been doing so for ages, the problem is to pay the 1.5% Betfair need to do something different, especially with traders - they can't have turnover they don't get commission on
got a little bit of a run on Racing Review today - Mark Sheen half got it in saying that Betfair generates turnover until he started talking about the industry setting up their own exchange
Ritchie dumped Betfair pretty quick and he is meant to care about punters
got a little bit of a run on Racing Review today - Mark Sheen half got it in saying that Betfair generates turnover until he started talking about the industry setting up their own exchange
Ritchie dumped Betfair pretty quick and he is meant to care about punters
until he started talking about the industry setting up their own exchange
cheers womble
it WAS written into the recent victab govt agreement ... that they can open an exchange if they choose ... as well as have their current suburban shop fronts
if this exercise is just to get rid of bf ... to start up their own ... then that stinks of protectionism ... if not state based ... morally based lol ....... (no legal precedent for business morals tho i don't think)
it's a changing landscape at the moment ... and the painting is still fuzzy
cheers womble
it WAS written into the recent victab govt agreement ... that they can open an exchange if they choose ... as well as have their current suburban shop fronts
if this exercise is just to get rid of bf ... to start up their own ... then that stinks of protectionism ... if not state based ... morally based lol ....... (no legal precedent for business morals tho i don't think)
it's a changing landscape at the moment ... and the painting is still fuzzy
Bruce said RVL could contract Betfair to run an exchange for them 
so spot on re the rules Thebas
so spot on re the rules Thebas
No worries Thebas - and you're right about 'fuzzy'! Craig mentioned 'they will approach Racing NSW'.
This is the one part that kills me. There's no transparency anywhere. The media are all TAB (and corp to a degree) driven. Even in 2012 I have no idea what the perception of Betfair is in the marketplace (other than people are betting up!). I read the vitriol on racenet the other day and wonder is that complete naiveity? what other people have told them?
Back to Craig's point - take what I've seen in the media on face value. Betfair announced the 'boycott' - then V'Landy's said yesterday "talk about taking your bat and ball and going home - just goes to show they have never been interested in promoting racing" Other than that being obscene - the only conclusion I can draw is there is no relationship (other that at integrity level). They mustn't talk - or BF have approached NSW and they said go away.... tell me if I'm reading any of that wrong!
This is the one part that kills me. There's no transparency anywhere. The media are all TAB (and corp to a degree) driven. Even in 2012 I have no idea what the perception of Betfair is in the marketplace (other than people are betting up!). I read the vitriol on racenet the other day and wonder is that complete naiveity? what other people have told them?
Back to Craig's point - take what I've seen in the media on face value. Betfair announced the 'boycott' - then V'Landy's said yesterday "talk about taking your bat and ball and going home - just goes to show they have never been interested in promoting racing" Other than that being obscene - the only conclusion I can draw is there is no relationship (other that at integrity level). They mustn't talk - or BF have approached NSW and they said go away.... tell me if I'm reading any of that wrong!
i think BF and the corps approached pvl for some negotiations very early on
pvl ... (and rightly so) ... said he wouldn't negotiate until the verdict was handed down
now that pvl has the verdict ... he is in a 'position' to negotiate sensibly to everyone's benefit .. and i read into his verbal comment that he would be 'sensible'
... well certainly with Tripp anyway ... but he did not mention BF (unless it was just 'assumed' that BF were 'inccluded' in the negotiation hope ... because of their 'partnership' with SBet in the court case)
pvl ... (and rightly so) ... said he wouldn't negotiate until the verdict was handed down
now that pvl has the verdict ... he is in a 'position' to negotiate sensibly to everyone's benefit .. and i read into his verbal comment that he would be 'sensible'
... well certainly with Tripp anyway ... but he did not mention BF (unless it was just 'assumed' that BF were 'inccluded' in the negotiation hope ... because of their 'partnership' with SBet in the court case)
Gotcha. I'd be disappointed then if BF didn't speak with RNSW this week then before announcing the boycott. I'd really like to think they did.
I never got the impression NSW Racing wanted to negotiate with Betfair.
Pay us 1.5% and adjust your business model as you see fit.
Pay us 1.5% and adjust your business model as you see fit.
And that could be right too...
When Rob Hines of Vic also implied they may have to 'change their model' it also sent a shiver. But at least I'm safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of us here are smarter than him.
I'm going to stick to my argument (started by someone else) - that if Bookies (as a wagering operator) get a rebate then why shouldn't that apply to traders within the confines of an exchange.
When Rob Hines of Vic also implied they may have to 'change their model' it also sent a shiver. But at least I'm safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of us here are smarter than him.
I'm going to stick to my argument (started by someone else) - that if Bookies (as a wagering operator) get a rebate then why shouldn't that apply to traders within the confines of an exchange.
Betfair has a problem with public relations. No one is pushing their case or the punters case. I would like to see the betting figures for the days they were down for maintenance.
don't disagree Harry. Even 'our' CEO was very subdued on 927 on the Monday morning. It was a very quick interview (and SA would have let him go on).
The vote was 7 nil I think. Not even close.Only their lawyers thought it was a good idea to appeal. Betfair have had months to get the public onside with better education. Prior to the result I would of taken NSW down for technical reasons and see what the figures were. Give them something to negotiate with .......
Maybe they know what they are doing . They have something about smart minds in their ads.
Maybe they know what they are doing . They have something about smart minds in their ads.
Strategic plan ?, knowing what the outcome would probably be .....law of unintended consequences for PVl and RNSW
Somebody should do some googling and see what rate/mechanism BF pay HRV.....
Fkn disgraceful ride G Lynch. you would have expected that ride if it had drifted 5 pts not firmed
The most important thing is the quality of the racing out on the track. If Aussie racing was offering good quality races for the punter to bet on then maybe the high price of 1.5% of turnover would be justified. Unfortunately the quality of Aussie racing out on the track has been dropping recently and it gets worse as every day passes. Poor quality races are happening now even at Australia's leading tracks. V'Landys is going to use most of the money to increase prizemoney which is good for some breeders, trainers, jockeys, vets and stablehands but it could be better spent. Paying prizemoney to 10th place is dumb and will only lower the quality of the racing. Pocket money paid to jockeys and trainers for finishing nowhere is the last thing Aussie racing needs right now
One thing Aussie racing has offered over the last few years has been good quality betting options through Aussie corporate bookies, tote and Betfair. Now the Aussie corporate bookies have been mostly bought out by poor quality UK/Irish bookies so that positive for Aussie racing is gone too. The TABs have sold out the regular punter by paying massive rebates to some big punters so the tote is now a poor place to bet
V'Landys is timing his move badly in raising the price of a bet. He is raising the price at exactly the time when the quality of the racing as a betting medium is dropping fast. I can only see turnover on Aussie racing dropping badly over the next few years
V'Landys and co still have a chance to get Aussie racing back on track if they act quickly to improve quality. But that won't happen
RIP Aussie racing
One thing Aussie racing has offered over the last few years has been good quality betting options through Aussie corporate bookies, tote and Betfair. Now the Aussie corporate bookies have been mostly bought out by poor quality UK/Irish bookies so that positive for Aussie racing is gone too. The TABs have sold out the regular punter by paying massive rebates to some big punters so the tote is now a poor place to bet
V'Landys is timing his move badly in raising the price of a bet. He is raising the price at exactly the time when the quality of the racing as a betting medium is dropping fast. I can only see turnover on Aussie racing dropping badly over the next few years
V'Landys and co still have a chance to get Aussie racing back on track if they act quickly to improve quality. But that won't happen
RIP Aussie racing
the quality of racing, good or bad is irrelevant to the issue of %
1.5% of turnover on the exchange model, must be close to unteneable.
B/f can not continue to bet into NSW (even if they win at it), if they do all other jurisdictions will want more
1.5% of turnover on the exchange model, must be close to unteneable.
B/f can not continue to bet into NSW (even if they win at it), if they do all other jurisdictions will want more
Well my .02c about time they let their customers know wtf is happening. There will only be so many centrelink forms. How about upgrading Melbournes sectional times for the punters. Make a play plzzzzzzzzz.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539