Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
"Racing Queensland has announced their Race Information Fees for the 2012-13 racing season which will see most bookmakers paying a premium for turnover on the Queensland winter carnival next year. The racing administrator has implemented what it calls the "Net Assessable Turnover model”.
The Net Assessable Turnover model will see wagering operators pay 1 percent for the first $5 million of annual wagering turnover. If turnover is greater than $5 million the fee will increase to 1.5 percent and 2 percent for its premium product during the months of May and June, provided more than $5 million is turned over.
Racing Queensland is also giving wagering operators the option to elect a gross revenue model. If they are to take up that option they will pay 20 percent of their gross revenue. If a bookmaker takes up that option it would be a requirement that the fee payable is greater than the "Race Information Fees” paid, or would have been paid, in the previous financial year under the Net Assessable Turnover model."
What are the implications for Betfair? The optional model sounds promising, but my understanding is that unless BF bans traders like on NSW racing, the NAT model would still apply.
The Net Assessable Turnover model will see wagering operators pay 1 percent for the first $5 million of annual wagering turnover. If turnover is greater than $5 million the fee will increase to 1.5 percent and 2 percent for its premium product during the months of May and June, provided more than $5 million is turned over.
Racing Queensland is also giving wagering operators the option to elect a gross revenue model. If they are to take up that option they will pay 20 percent of their gross revenue. If a bookmaker takes up that option it would be a requirement that the fee payable is greater than the "Race Information Fees” paid, or would have been paid, in the previous financial year under the Net Assessable Turnover model."
What are the implications for Betfair? The optional model sounds promising, but my understanding is that unless BF bans traders like on NSW racing, the NAT model would still apply.
Show More
This is just like NSW...
BF would clearly have to pay more under the turnover model.
It's almost an 'up yours'.
There goes Brisbane trading from Sunday...
BF would clearly have to pay more under the turnover model.
It's almost an 'up yours'.
There goes Brisbane trading from Sunday...
It was all so simple , when the decision came down.
Pull out of NSW and hope that it effected scab turnover. (and other jurisdictions would see the result)
it is not so simple now.
they will all want what NSW have, and that is not tenable for B'/F.
either b/f folds because expenses become too high
or they fold because customers become too scarce.
Pull out of NSW and hope that it effected scab turnover. (and other jurisdictions would see the result)
it is not so simple now.
they will all want what NSW have, and that is not tenable for B'/F.
either b/f folds because expenses become too high
or they fold because customers become too scarce.
interesting - thanks Aronpeace - i wonder if they differentiate between bookmakers and betting exchanges, if they do this could be a win for Betfair by allowing them to pay 20% of gross revenue
strong mail that the rates here will go up again soon........
BF thought they got thru putting them up last time with little fanfare so will go again...
BF thought they got thru putting them up last time with little fanfare so will go again...
Womble, confirmed y'day it's the same as NSW, even though it 'sounds' better above.
The 'back-bets' are not considered in Betfair's calculations so the gross revenue model would be far less than turnover.
I know what Barney is saying but either way it really seems like racing wants to stick it up Betfair - and protect other interests (T.A.B). In a warped way it's understandable, but it's also beyond a joke in terms of the long-term.
Came across a good article from a player in North America. Even he gets it!
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.ca/2012/06/australias-turnover-tax-abcs-of.htm...
The 'back-bets' are not considered in Betfair's calculations so the gross revenue model would be far less than turnover.
I know what Barney is saying but either way it really seems like racing wants to stick it up Betfair - and protect other interests (T.A.B). In a warped way it's understandable, but it's also beyond a joke in terms of the long-term.
Came across a good article from a player in North America. Even he gets it!
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.ca/2012/06/australias-turnover-tax-abcs-of.htm...
here's a better link to that blog:
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.ca/2012/06/australias-turnover-tax-abcs-of.html
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.ca/2012/06/australias-turnover-tax-abcs-of.html
Something that interested me was the speed at which after the High Court ruling some racing bodies decided that not only would they charge turnover but they would have a premium charge during carnivals. Cannot remember reading anything about this during the long process leading up to the court case.
It tends to indicate they are not worried about their clients being price sensitive.
It tends to indicate they are not worried about their clients being price sensitive.
I see from the above that Racing Queeensland has the $5m cut off, no doubt to persuade on course bookies to stay. Didn't NSW try this?? I thought they gave up this argument at the Federal Court. Obviously not
Agree with Barneys post. They have not made smart business decisions here
There is no way this ends happily ever after for Betfair punters.
Betfair should forget about the traders and simply have markets where punters who want to back or lay can do so. Once they do this they can afford a turnover charge no problems as their model is more efficient than a traditional bookie business model
Charge commission per runner rather than per market
Charge commission per runner rather than per market
Might be a stupid question, but has Betfair announced anywhere what you have to do to be considered a "trader" I understand why they don't like them. I assume there is a volume measure
I'm a straight out horse punter but I do leave a really low lay bet in play as a safety measure to cover going down in a tight finish. I have not been contacted, so obviously this "trade" doesn't worry them.
King Mug the problem with you solution will be if there is a significant impact on liquidity.
I'm a straight out horse punter but I do leave a really low lay bet in play as a safety measure to cover going down in a tight finish. I have not been contacted, so obviously this "trade" doesn't worry them.
King Mug the problem with you solution will be if there is a significant impact on liquidity.
Guys, looks like we're a bit slow to begin. Check this out: http://www.racingandsports.com.au/racing/rsNewsArt.asp?NID=198673
from the link posted by aronpeace
Western Australia's racing authorities have adopted a scheme that allows wagering operators to choose whether they pay product fees based on 1.5% of turnover or 20% of gross revenue.
“In reality, the WA model allows Betfair to “choose” to pay either 20% of revenue or 60% of revenue based on 1.5% turnover,” Twaits wrote in a Betfair blog.
“No surprises for guessing which model we've respectively chosen in WA.
“Our payments in WA have been made under protest pending the outcome of litigation in NSW.”
Looks like Queensland has gone the same way
Western Australia's racing authorities have adopted a scheme that allows wagering operators to choose whether they pay product fees based on 1.5% of turnover or 20% of gross revenue.
“In reality, the WA model allows Betfair to “choose” to pay either 20% of revenue or 60% of revenue based on 1.5% turnover,” Twaits wrote in a Betfair blog.
“No surprises for guessing which model we've respectively chosen in WA.
“Our payments in WA have been made under protest pending the outcome of litigation in NSW.”
Looks like Queensland has gone the same way
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539