Why cant people respect what Betfair are doing with Premium Charge

But that cd be a definition of successful betting, againstthecrowd.

The new charge makes no distinction between the various ways that people can make money. Someone who is offering genuine liquidity (bets that might not otherwise at that point in time get matched) is treated equivalently to someone 'taking advantage' in yr term through a fast feed or more prompt market market info. or access.

That to me is one of the worse aspects of the charge.

So the obvious answer is to get rid of main winners/customers/ supporters and try & create a totally new customer base..

If you're gonna fake troll, then you're gonna have to do much better I'm afraid to say.

Well, the way to respect it wd be to leave...

I'm not sure that bf want all their existing customer base to desert.

And a lot of the stockbrokers put bf on the p/e they did because they thought the exchange model had a lot of headroom and might eventually supersede the fixed odds & overround model. w/ bf slowly abandoning the exchange model, some stockbrokers are going cool on the stock (and being one reason behind the price sinking).

And stockbrokers are renowned short term thinkers and renowned for getting it more wrong than right.

I don't believe in corporate share buy backs period, for whatever the reason.
Let the market settle these things without undue interference by insiders.

Fair play...

There is a group encouraging people to withdraw money..

See That reply from  Unemployable  .... 16  11..   2042
Thats the best advice you will ever get re shares .. and  i agree 100%

A lot of greedy peo0ple trying to take advantage of markets..

The Soviet Union tried to fix that problem.

As I recall it ended rather badly.

In response to the op original question, why cant people respect what rapists are doing ? ? ?

Don't like people moaning about them in a knee jerk fashion, then do the opposite.
Case closed.

It all depends on how they spend the extra monies raised I would think, don't you ?.
Lots on here are saying that their track record on this is pretty appalling, and that is a valid matter to be debating sensibly.
But just to say that BF wants these monies for some sort of pure greed target is just nonsensical imo.

And that's where money talks.
The Packers will kill it dead.
Note in all its history of rampant inside trading, Australia has never really had a big time inside trading/corporate fraud conviction.
Alan Bond was about as big as they have managed. Not too impressive to say the least.

Simple is as simple says.

Betfair was priced initially more on their long term potential than their short term results.  The implication that stick brokers are renowned for their short term thinking (which is an assumption you've made up)...I'm not sure how you are applying it as exemplified Betfair since they are priced on long term forecasts.

The assumption that stockbrokers (obv you mean advisory stockbrokers as distinct from execution only stiockbrokers) are renowned for getting it wrong more often than they get it right, is another assumption you've made up.  If you think about it, then for your assumption to be true, people would in the main, only seek their advice so as to do the opposite of what is recommended.  I don't think that's likely imho, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was more profitable than doing what they advise.

There is a standard formula for calculating a stock's price - Discounted future cashflow.

Essentially, its current profit to the nth power of its annual growth minus some discount. Where n is typically 20 (years).

Clearly even small changes in annual growth predictions will have a large effect on the stock price.

What you are seeing in the stock price is the effect of reduced expectations for future growth.

PXB - Exploiting legal loopholes is very different to breaking the law.

But i am interested in why there would be some kind of legal challenge as i don't see the benefits. Please can you advise where I am going wrong as I do not have your corporate law knowledge. My assumptions can be summarised as follows:

Punter - Your charges are unfair i'm taking you to court.
BF - No they are fine, go away.
Punter - They're not, courts here I come
BF - Look there's no need to do this let's settle out of court and here's a sweetner for not going to court
Punter - OK, woo hoo take that BF. Victory for the little man.
2 weeks pass
BF - Dear Punter we have decided to close your account and reimberse you your account money to you as you are a right pain and we don't like you. Please go away and never come back as you are no longer welcome here.
Punter - Oh bum, maybe i should have just accepted the charges.

Australia has an unfair contracts laws.

Essentially it voids any 'fine print' clauses that allow the vendor (BF in this case) to avoid fulfilling the primary conditions of a contract.

The only real defence BF would have is to explicitly inform customers about the pc and they haven't done that.

Australia also has the Tasmanian Gaming Commission supposed to regulate Betfair.

That outfit made the amazing ruling that the Sport of Kings isn't a sport - well maybe it is for Princess Mary.

However I have found that that outfit is hell bent on not ruffling Betfair's feathers so if anyone succeeds in getting any action from it, they are better than I.