General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Dec 11
03:53
Joined:
Date Joined:
17 Jul 11
Betfair has launched a withering attack on the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and rival William Hill for pursuing a joint legal action that eats into the sport’s already scant prize money.
How can hills using BHA as a stooge hope to make all betfair customers pay 10 percent in gross profits to the
BHA in court when hills themselves avoid paying a penny in levy for their online horse betting operations
by operating off-shore!
betfair although currently not liable to pay levy due to their marginal profit exchange model still
pay a voluntary sum amounting to £6,500,000 to the BHA even though they made only 25 million in
net profit.
surely everyone can see straight through hills plan to try and derail a betting rival unfairly
using a body that although receiving money fairly from hills is being underpaid by hills
and other standard bookmakers by operating off-shore!
Furthermore most betfair customers do not have the ability to move abroad to make them
more able to pay money to the BHA and cannot be held responsible for legislation
when being gamblers they are currently not expected to be paper chased for
for profits they may or may not be able to maintain.
One can only feel sorry for the BHA being manipulated by hills this way and for the criticism this
behavior will invite from the wider gambling community towards the BHA sleeping so close
to a major bookmaker!
How can hills using BHA as a stooge hope to make all betfair customers pay 10 percent in gross profits to the
BHA in court when hills themselves avoid paying a penny in levy for their online horse betting operations
by operating off-shore!
betfair although currently not liable to pay levy due to their marginal profit exchange model still
pay a voluntary sum amounting to £6,500,000 to the BHA even though they made only 25 million in
net profit.
surely everyone can see straight through hills plan to try and derail a betting rival unfairly
using a body that although receiving money fairly from hills is being underpaid by hills
and other standard bookmakers by operating off-shore!
Furthermore most betfair customers do not have the ability to move abroad to make them
more able to pay money to the BHA and cannot be held responsible for legislation
when being gamblers they are currently not expected to be paper chased for
for profits they may or may not be able to maintain.
One can only feel sorry for the BHA being manipulated by hills this way and for the criticism this
behavior will invite from the wider gambling community towards the BHA sleeping so close
to a major bookmaker!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 9
|
By:
Ralph Topping, Bill Hill chief executive, said Betfair was “looking at this, entirely from their point of view. We have a Cruddace index at William Hill. The more he bleats the more confident we are of our case”.
|
|
By:
When the ten percent tax on all bets was abolished on-course as well as off-course this was seen as a
major victory for the punter, even though bookmakers have managed to gobble up the extra cash by ramping up their over-rounds, not noticed by the averaged punter... Now we are being led to believe that if we choose to bet in an exchange rather than a bookmaker we should have to pay a new ten-percent levy while the bookmakers on-line pay nothing to the BHA and that hills using the BHA as a springboard in court is further proof that we are betting in the wrong place and the wrong way because we don't go in hills shops. Any fair and able minded judge will smell a rat a mile off in court and quickly realize why hills never won a queens award for industry! |
|
By:
"if all winning punters that use betfair are to be classed as bookmakers then we would be in the favorable position to rake 25% from all our matched bets prices before risk and guarantee ourselves a profit plus live off-shore and not pay anything to the BHA, just like hills do now plus we would be able to take our rival customers to court using the BHA and rub them out of business!"
it all amounts to shameful but not unexpected behavior from dirty playing bookmakers with soiled hands. |
|
By:
if anyone placing a bet and winning is a bookmaker then is that to be those that lay or back as this will also effect all persons betting in all hills shops, or are they exempt because hills only pay what there expected to pay in levy after avoidance and yet betfair customers already effectively pay a voluntary one where ever they happen to live or bet, even on course when using a mobile app!
Seems like the waters will only get mudded in court and the mud will stick on hills expectedly and the poor BHA regrettably. |
|
By:
Over the years the bookmakers efforts to discredit and tarnish BF have always sunk pretty much without trace - but they have always been able to rely on BF to regularly sabotage their own Brand more effectively than any court or competitor could ever manage to do.
I have never seen a brand build up so much brand value and advocacy as BF did between 2000-2003 so quickly - but equally I have never seen a company self destruct so much brand value and advocacy so quickly and quite so effectively. |
|
By:
perhaps the whole process is the melting pot that will make for a better betfair long term, as currently a gap has emerged in time between exchange acceptance and appraisal and exchange company
ethos and accountability long term that requires a clearer long term objective. |
|
By:
defining times!
|
|
By:
one thing is clear, the betting exchange as an alternative betting vechicle to standard bookmakers for gamblers is a starship that has amazed all.
|
|
By:
You have to laugh at Alistair Campbell here.
|