General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
A few developments could raise concerns of geniune professional punters seeking to make a profit from betting.
Firstly we have Betfair banding punters with their premium charge system. A few years ago you got nice invites to events if you were a premium client. Now if you win too much you get a premium tax from Betfair themselves.
We have a major bookmaker and the BHB with their judicial review with the levy board asking why winning layers on here do not pay the levy.
Thirdly we apparently have the ATO going after Zeljko Ranogajec. Even if you have people doing video analysis for you are you not just a punter (or are you a business?).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/taxman-targets-the-king-of-punters-zeljko-ranogajec/story-fn59nsif-1226229779154
AUSTRALIA'S biggest gambler, a reclusive maths wiz who bets more than $1 billion each year, is being examined by the Australian Taxation Office.
Tasmanian-born Zeljko Ranogajec accounts for between 6 and 8 per cent of Tabcorp's $10bn Australian betting turnover and is said by experts to be the world's biggest punter.
Now, the mysterious son of Croatian immigrants faces an ATO audit, according to his business partner and fellow gambler David Walsh.
Ranogajec recently helped fund Walsh's dream of building Hobart's newest tourist drawcard, the $70 million Museum of Old and New Art and Walsh says he feels deeply indebted to his former university colleague.
"He is being audited (by the tax office) at the moment but I am sure it will turn out amicably," Walsh tells The Weekend Australian.
"Does he owe them money? I suspect he reckons he doesn't and they reckon he does."
Top 50 Tech Rec Coverage
Walsh says he and Ranogajec have discussed the audit, which he says is due to be completed by next September.
"The assumption that he owes them money depends on the assumption that gambling is taxable and that has never happened in Australia," Walsh says.
"At this stage no gambler in Australian history has ever been taxable."
The Weekend Australian understands that the ATO has asked Ranogajec for financial records going back seven years. Ranogajec, who is in Europe with his wife and daughter, did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian and the ATO declined to comment, citing privacy provisions.
A man never spotted at racetracks or casinos, Ranogajec defies the image of the traditional flamboyant punter from the rich history of Australian thoroughbred racing. They wore expensive suits, had flash cars and dined at the best restaurants. They had names like "Hollywood" George Edser, the "Prince of Punters" Perc Galea, the "Filipino Fireball" Felipe Ysmael and Eddie "The Fireman" Birchley.
Ego drove them and, for some, was their downfall.
Not so Ranogajec. He has been dubbed the "Loch Ness Monster", simply because he is so rarely seen. Rivalled on the world stage only by a couple of Hong Kong's betting syndicates, he is the exact opposite of his punting rivals.
He is reclusive, loathes media attention and demands discretion from his employees and information and service providers.
He and his wife, Shelley Wilson, own properties across Australia including a $20m, 2000sq m waterfront property on two blocks at Sydney's Balmoral Beach.
Ranogajec is also believed to use the pseudonym John Wilson.
He has never granted an interview and has been nominated by racing websites as probably the world's biggest punter. A senior wagering source estimated the man known among the gambling elite simply by his Christian name, invests as much as $3bn across numerous international markets where pari mutuel (tote) systems operate, including the US, France, Britain and Hong Kong.
Besides horse racing, he bets on sport, lotteries and the stockmarket. Ranogajec has spent millions of dollars trying to find a legal way to "beat" lotto and has studied the stockmarket, looking for behavioural patterns and ways to manipulate share prices to his advantage under certain conditions.
In Australia, he bets on every thoroughbred race. There is no racing on Good Friday or Christmas Day, though you can bet a major race meeting in Japan tomorrow will not have escaped his attention.
Hundreds of bets are queued up in the TAB system and are placed in the final seconds as horses fill the barrier stalls, so that opportunistic betters cannot follow the money as the odds tumble. Win and place bets may fit into his repertoire, but the big money is in the exotics - trifectas (1st, 2nd, 3rd), quartets (the first four placegetters) and quaddies (the winners of four nominated races). These types of bets offer big pools and opportunities for big payouts.
At the major carnivals, when there is a lot of "mug money" wagered by uninformed and once-a-year punters, the rewards for Ranogajec are at their highest. A source at One Tote Tasmania said a file detailing his betting activities one Melbourne Cup Day was "an inch thick".
Betting on horses is not a perfect science. When champion mare Makybe Diva was preparing to win an unprecedented third Melbourne Cup in 2005, Ranogajec bet against her, laying her over an extended period leading up to the morning of the race. Trainer Lee Freedman threatened not to start Makybe Diva if the track was presented like a bitumen road. The Victoria Racing Club's ground staff watered the track enough to ensure it would remain forgiving in the warm conditions.
Makybe Diva duly ran and won. Ranogajec endured a loss that amounted to double figures with six zeroes on the end.
He has been known to diversify his gambling to include even scratch-and-win tickets. One anecdote relates to a company, keen to market a new theme with their scratchy tickets, getting in touch with Ranogajec. It was explained that a portion of the tickets had been sold, though tens of thousands remained and nobody had come forward with the major prize winning ticket and therefore it must be in the remainder.
Ranogajec bought them and paid someone to scratch the opaque covering off all the tickets. At the end of the exercise, it became evident that the winning ticket had been sold to a customer at a shop, who had discarded it, not realising it was a winner.
One bookmaking identity said Ranogajec could walk through Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall and nobody would recognise him or look at him twice.
He is known to bookmakers but is too big and too frequently successful for them to entertain his business.
He is responsible for more than $650m, or 8 per cent, of the annual turnover from Victorian and NSW-rooted company Tabcorp. That figure does not include Tote Tasmania, which is soon to be absorbed into Tatts' betting pools, with which he also conducts business and which control TAB betting in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Wagering outlets have courted Ranogajec with rebates of between 6 and 10 per cent on his turnover. He is betting exchange Betfair's biggest antipodean client, thought to be responsible for a third of the company's Australian operations.
Racing stewards have had, on rare occasions, the need to query his betting activities, but have never had suspicion of corrupt activity. In fact, they say he appears to have no connection with jockeys or trainers. The only thing that got him into strife punting was his cardcounting ability, which, although not illegal, saw him barred from gambling on blackjack tables at every casino in Australia.
One steward said his panel queried wagers on a horse to lose on Betfair, but Ranogajec produced proof that he had backed the same horse to win with TAB. The dividends were such that no matter whether the horse won or lost, Ranogajec had more than covered his outlay.
The 49-year-old has amassed his personal wealth from gambling, accelerated by a $7.5m Keno jackpot. He was a formidable blackjack player and began to accumulate his fortune at Wrest Point Casino. He joined forces with Walsh and two others at the University of Tasmania to develop the gambling empire. One of them died when accidentally run over by a car. Walsh is the only member of the group that remains involved with Ranogajec.
The key to Ranogajec's success is often said to be a slender profit margin. Another industry figure, who did not wish to be named, says: "If anybody tells you that you can't win on the punt, he (Ranogajec) is proof that you can."
Working on an annual turnover said to be $1bn, he grosses $10m for every 1 per cent of profit. One high-profile individual engaged an actuary to replicate Ranogajec's model, but to no avail and he eventually gave up.
Speaking to The Weekend Australian, one close observer of Ranogajec's business yesterday debunked that theory, saying that, with attractive rebates, it was possible to break even on a series of bets and profit close to 10 per cent with the rebate alone. When he gets a race "right" the profit can be as high as 15 per cent.
Walsh says he has been mates with Ranogajec for more than 30 years.
"I met him at Wrest Point which was then Australia's only casino," he says. "We weren't particularly serious about gambling. The casino was quite near the university and it was a fun thing to do. It was very much a recreational pastime."
Walsh says they enjoyed gambling as a hobby and, using the logic of probability, they began to prove that they could win.
"The confluence of enjoying gambling and being able to win meant we did more of it," he says. "It's what I still do today and it takes up the majority of my time.
"The difference between winning and losing is knife-edged. It can be a tiny percentage, so it is an interesting thing to try to figure out that percentage.
"There is nothing particularly profound about this. We've been successful but the rules are simple and there are a million books that tell you how to do it. You just need to know what the odds are."
Walsh says that Ranogajec has never had a run-in with the law over his gambling.
"And there is absolutely no reason why he should have," he says. "The way we gamble is completely at a stand off from the event."
Walsh says the industry is "better off" for the money that people such as Ranogajec pump into it.
The Weekend Australian visited Ranogajec's double-fronted property in Mosman. A neighbour said they had never seen him there. A tenant in another Mosman property belonging to the Ranogajecs had not heard of him. Ranogajec's wife is the landlord.
A lavish home on Coronation Avenue, Mosman - possibly the Ranogajecs' primary residence - was bought for $5.96m in a dispersal of assets of Brad Cooper, a central figure in the HIH scandal.
Level 3, 495 Harris Street in Sydney's Ultimo - the building that houses Tabcorp's NSW regional office - is the registered address of some of Ranogajec's businesses, including Minefield Investments, Paziti Holdings and Razson Pty Ltd.
According to one insider who spoke to The Weekend Australian, Ranogajec has left Australia to live in England. He says the move allows the mega-punter to better control his global operation from a central location.
Walsh confirms Ranogajec is in Europe with his family "looking for betting opportunities".
'He won't be back for awhile," he says.
Firstly we have Betfair banding punters with their premium charge system. A few years ago you got nice invites to events if you were a premium client. Now if you win too much you get a premium tax from Betfair themselves.
We have a major bookmaker and the BHB with their judicial review with the levy board asking why winning layers on here do not pay the levy.
Thirdly we apparently have the ATO going after Zeljko Ranogajec. Even if you have people doing video analysis for you are you not just a punter (or are you a business?).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/taxman-targets-the-king-of-punters-zeljko-ranogajec/story-fn59nsif-1226229779154
AUSTRALIA'S biggest gambler, a reclusive maths wiz who bets more than $1 billion each year, is being examined by the Australian Taxation Office.
Tasmanian-born Zeljko Ranogajec accounts for between 6 and 8 per cent of Tabcorp's $10bn Australian betting turnover and is said by experts to be the world's biggest punter.
Now, the mysterious son of Croatian immigrants faces an ATO audit, according to his business partner and fellow gambler David Walsh.
Ranogajec recently helped fund Walsh's dream of building Hobart's newest tourist drawcard, the $70 million Museum of Old and New Art and Walsh says he feels deeply indebted to his former university colleague.
"He is being audited (by the tax office) at the moment but I am sure it will turn out amicably," Walsh tells The Weekend Australian.
"Does he owe them money? I suspect he reckons he doesn't and they reckon he does."
Top 50 Tech Rec Coverage
Walsh says he and Ranogajec have discussed the audit, which he says is due to be completed by next September.
"The assumption that he owes them money depends on the assumption that gambling is taxable and that has never happened in Australia," Walsh says.
"At this stage no gambler in Australian history has ever been taxable."
The Weekend Australian understands that the ATO has asked Ranogajec for financial records going back seven years. Ranogajec, who is in Europe with his wife and daughter, did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian and the ATO declined to comment, citing privacy provisions.
A man never spotted at racetracks or casinos, Ranogajec defies the image of the traditional flamboyant punter from the rich history of Australian thoroughbred racing. They wore expensive suits, had flash cars and dined at the best restaurants. They had names like "Hollywood" George Edser, the "Prince of Punters" Perc Galea, the "Filipino Fireball" Felipe Ysmael and Eddie "The Fireman" Birchley.
Ego drove them and, for some, was their downfall.
Not so Ranogajec. He has been dubbed the "Loch Ness Monster", simply because he is so rarely seen. Rivalled on the world stage only by a couple of Hong Kong's betting syndicates, he is the exact opposite of his punting rivals.
He is reclusive, loathes media attention and demands discretion from his employees and information and service providers.
He and his wife, Shelley Wilson, own properties across Australia including a $20m, 2000sq m waterfront property on two blocks at Sydney's Balmoral Beach.
Ranogajec is also believed to use the pseudonym John Wilson.
He has never granted an interview and has been nominated by racing websites as probably the world's biggest punter. A senior wagering source estimated the man known among the gambling elite simply by his Christian name, invests as much as $3bn across numerous international markets where pari mutuel (tote) systems operate, including the US, France, Britain and Hong Kong.
Besides horse racing, he bets on sport, lotteries and the stockmarket. Ranogajec has spent millions of dollars trying to find a legal way to "beat" lotto and has studied the stockmarket, looking for behavioural patterns and ways to manipulate share prices to his advantage under certain conditions.
In Australia, he bets on every thoroughbred race. There is no racing on Good Friday or Christmas Day, though you can bet a major race meeting in Japan tomorrow will not have escaped his attention.
Hundreds of bets are queued up in the TAB system and are placed in the final seconds as horses fill the barrier stalls, so that opportunistic betters cannot follow the money as the odds tumble. Win and place bets may fit into his repertoire, but the big money is in the exotics - trifectas (1st, 2nd, 3rd), quartets (the first four placegetters) and quaddies (the winners of four nominated races). These types of bets offer big pools and opportunities for big payouts.
At the major carnivals, when there is a lot of "mug money" wagered by uninformed and once-a-year punters, the rewards for Ranogajec are at their highest. A source at One Tote Tasmania said a file detailing his betting activities one Melbourne Cup Day was "an inch thick".
Betting on horses is not a perfect science. When champion mare Makybe Diva was preparing to win an unprecedented third Melbourne Cup in 2005, Ranogajec bet against her, laying her over an extended period leading up to the morning of the race. Trainer Lee Freedman threatened not to start Makybe Diva if the track was presented like a bitumen road. The Victoria Racing Club's ground staff watered the track enough to ensure it would remain forgiving in the warm conditions.
Makybe Diva duly ran and won. Ranogajec endured a loss that amounted to double figures with six zeroes on the end.
He has been known to diversify his gambling to include even scratch-and-win tickets. One anecdote relates to a company, keen to market a new theme with their scratchy tickets, getting in touch with Ranogajec. It was explained that a portion of the tickets had been sold, though tens of thousands remained and nobody had come forward with the major prize winning ticket and therefore it must be in the remainder.
Ranogajec bought them and paid someone to scratch the opaque covering off all the tickets. At the end of the exercise, it became evident that the winning ticket had been sold to a customer at a shop, who had discarded it, not realising it was a winner.
One bookmaking identity said Ranogajec could walk through Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall and nobody would recognise him or look at him twice.
He is known to bookmakers but is too big and too frequently successful for them to entertain his business.
He is responsible for more than $650m, or 8 per cent, of the annual turnover from Victorian and NSW-rooted company Tabcorp. That figure does not include Tote Tasmania, which is soon to be absorbed into Tatts' betting pools, with which he also conducts business and which control TAB betting in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Wagering outlets have courted Ranogajec with rebates of between 6 and 10 per cent on his turnover. He is betting exchange Betfair's biggest antipodean client, thought to be responsible for a third of the company's Australian operations.
Racing stewards have had, on rare occasions, the need to query his betting activities, but have never had suspicion of corrupt activity. In fact, they say he appears to have no connection with jockeys or trainers. The only thing that got him into strife punting was his cardcounting ability, which, although not illegal, saw him barred from gambling on blackjack tables at every casino in Australia.
One steward said his panel queried wagers on a horse to lose on Betfair, but Ranogajec produced proof that he had backed the same horse to win with TAB. The dividends were such that no matter whether the horse won or lost, Ranogajec had more than covered his outlay.
The 49-year-old has amassed his personal wealth from gambling, accelerated by a $7.5m Keno jackpot. He was a formidable blackjack player and began to accumulate his fortune at Wrest Point Casino. He joined forces with Walsh and two others at the University of Tasmania to develop the gambling empire. One of them died when accidentally run over by a car. Walsh is the only member of the group that remains involved with Ranogajec.
The key to Ranogajec's success is often said to be a slender profit margin. Another industry figure, who did not wish to be named, says: "If anybody tells you that you can't win on the punt, he (Ranogajec) is proof that you can."
Working on an annual turnover said to be $1bn, he grosses $10m for every 1 per cent of profit. One high-profile individual engaged an actuary to replicate Ranogajec's model, but to no avail and he eventually gave up.
Speaking to The Weekend Australian, one close observer of Ranogajec's business yesterday debunked that theory, saying that, with attractive rebates, it was possible to break even on a series of bets and profit close to 10 per cent with the rebate alone. When he gets a race "right" the profit can be as high as 15 per cent.
Walsh says he has been mates with Ranogajec for more than 30 years.
"I met him at Wrest Point which was then Australia's only casino," he says. "We weren't particularly serious about gambling. The casino was quite near the university and it was a fun thing to do. It was very much a recreational pastime."
Walsh says they enjoyed gambling as a hobby and, using the logic of probability, they began to prove that they could win.
"The confluence of enjoying gambling and being able to win meant we did more of it," he says. "It's what I still do today and it takes up the majority of my time.
"The difference between winning and losing is knife-edged. It can be a tiny percentage, so it is an interesting thing to try to figure out that percentage.
"There is nothing particularly profound about this. We've been successful but the rules are simple and there are a million books that tell you how to do it. You just need to know what the odds are."
Walsh says that Ranogajec has never had a run-in with the law over his gambling.
"And there is absolutely no reason why he should have," he says. "The way we gamble is completely at a stand off from the event."
Walsh says the industry is "better off" for the money that people such as Ranogajec pump into it.
The Weekend Australian visited Ranogajec's double-fronted property in Mosman. A neighbour said they had never seen him there. A tenant in another Mosman property belonging to the Ranogajecs had not heard of him. Ranogajec's wife is the landlord.
A lavish home on Coronation Avenue, Mosman - possibly the Ranogajecs' primary residence - was bought for $5.96m in a dispersal of assets of Brad Cooper, a central figure in the HIH scandal.
Level 3, 495 Harris Street in Sydney's Ultimo - the building that houses Tabcorp's NSW regional office - is the registered address of some of Ranogajec's businesses, including Minefield Investments, Paziti Holdings and Razson Pty Ltd.
According to one insider who spoke to The Weekend Australian, Ranogajec has left Australia to live in England. He says the move allows the mega-punter to better control his global operation from a central location.
Walsh confirms Ranogajec is in Europe with his family "looking for betting opportunities".
'He won't be back for awhile," he says.
Show More
I'm sure betfair "innovation" will find a way to make this a reality. Very few winners on betfair are gambling.
Expecting all forms of gambling to be taxed is a bit like expecting crime to be as well because the whole operation would be impossible to track, end of subject except to say that "crime never pays " and perhaps only 0.5% of gambling ?
I would suspect someone who has had the kind of success this chap has would also be successful fighting any tax claims against him.
Tracked fairly easily imo. More likely though they'll just reimpose a turnover tax. The OFT did say they wouldn't allow the BHA and bookmakers to agree to a turnover levy because it discriminated against exchanges but betfair have since fecked off to avoid paying taxes. It will all depend on what they (and the EU) come up with to combat the offshore tax dodgers.
There will come a day when the cheats will reminisce about the good old 60% days.
Will the day ever come where one punter with an opinion can bet against another punter with an opinion without the skimmers and taxman getting involved?
Fng The OFT did say they wouldn't allow the BHA and bookmakers to agree to a turnover levy because it discriminated against exchanges but betfair have since fecked off to avoid paying taxes. It will all depend on what they (and the EU) come up with to combat the offshore tax dodgers.
Not sure what the link is between the BHA not getting its levy expectation that is based on government policy decisions years ago and betting companies moving there operations offshore to get better tax benefits?
From what I can see it seems like Betfair and the other bookmakers sponsor many, many horse races
and betfair even pays a contribution to the levy though it doesn't do business currently the same way as a bookmaker.
There is a lack of sponsorship in horse racing of course but surely this is inline with companies being hit by the global recession and owners not having as much money to get involved with the sport so its a very complex problem and not one that can be blamed on anyone player in the racing world and needs careful thought to find solutions that help all involved!
Not sure what the link is between the BHA not getting its levy expectation that is based on government policy decisions years ago and betting companies moving there operations offshore to get better tax benefits?
From what I can see it seems like Betfair and the other bookmakers sponsor many, many horse races
and betfair even pays a contribution to the levy though it doesn't do business currently the same way as a bookmaker.
There is a lack of sponsorship in horse racing of course but surely this is inline with companies being hit by the global recession and owners not having as much money to get involved with the sport so its a very complex problem and not one that can be blamed on anyone player in the racing world and needs careful thought to find solutions that help all involved!
Not sure what the link is between the BHA not getting its levy expectation that is based on government policy decisions years ago and betting companies moving there operations offshore to get better tax benefits?
I'm assuming the way the OFT saw it in those days was the way the government seen it. I'm also assuming that there's no longer any need for the government to see it that way as there's no longer any British interests to protect.
I'm assuming the way the OFT saw it in those days was the way the government seen it. I'm also assuming that there's no longer any need for the government to see it that way as there's no longer any British interests to protect.
Will the day ever come where one punter with an opinion can bet against another punter with an opinion without the skimmers and taxman getting involved?
Skimmers yes, taxman no (imo).
Skimmers yes, taxman no (imo).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8976183/Betfair-hits-out-over-legal-action.html
Betfair hits out over legal action
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.
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.
Bookies pay about 10pc of gross profits in levy but not on offshore internet betting. Although offshore, Betfair made a £6.5m voluntary contribution last year.
Alistair Osborne
By Alistair Osborne, Business editor
8:00AM GMT 26 Dec 2011
Comments3 Comments
The betting exchange operator has lambasted the pair for pursuing a judicial review of the Horserace Betting Levy Board – the body that collects money from bookmakers to fund the sport. They are challenging its decision that betting exchange punters cannot be classified as “leviable bookmakers”.
Martin Cruddace, Betfair’s chief legal officer, said the BHA was itself disappointed with the latest £72.4m annual settlement. Yet, its action could cost the Levy Board and BHA a total £3.5m in legal fees. Betfair reckons its costs for first-stage litigation will amount to £1.7m.
“It is important owners, trainers and others within the sport are aware that the BHA, the sports regulator, is in this committed love-in with William Hill that will cost the industry over £3m in prize money,” Mr Cruddace said.
Bookies pay about 10pc of gross profits in levy but not on offshore internet betting. Although offshore, Betfair made a £6.5m voluntary contribution last year.
Mr Cruddace said: “It may be William Hill can pay these sickeningly large legal fees as it refuses to pay a penny in levy from the tens of millions profit it makes from its online business, but the Levy Board – who have no choice but to defend the action – and the BHA cannot.”
Douglas Erskine Crum, the Levy Board chief executive, estimated its initial costs to be “between £300,000 and £600,000”, though that could rise with appeals. The Levy Board said last June that it had received legal advice from Lord Pannick QC and Michael Fordham QC that “customers of betting exchanges do not constitute leviable bookmakers under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963”.
Mr Cruddace warned that should the BHA and William Hill lose the case, “we will be seeking costs against them. So the BHA is risking even more millions”.
A BHA spokesman said other QCs had disagreed on the interpretation of the 1963 Act and it was “fair that it should be for the courts to decide”. He said the BHA had capped its costs at “a far more modest level than has been speculated”.
Ralph Topping, William 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”.
Betfair hits out over legal action
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.
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.
Bookies pay about 10pc of gross profits in levy but not on offshore internet betting. Although offshore, Betfair made a £6.5m voluntary contribution last year.
Alistair Osborne
By Alistair Osborne, Business editor
8:00AM GMT 26 Dec 2011
Comments3 Comments
The betting exchange operator has lambasted the pair for pursuing a judicial review of the Horserace Betting Levy Board – the body that collects money from bookmakers to fund the sport. They are challenging its decision that betting exchange punters cannot be classified as “leviable bookmakers”.
Martin Cruddace, Betfair’s chief legal officer, said the BHA was itself disappointed with the latest £72.4m annual settlement. Yet, its action could cost the Levy Board and BHA a total £3.5m in legal fees. Betfair reckons its costs for first-stage litigation will amount to £1.7m.
“It is important owners, trainers and others within the sport are aware that the BHA, the sports regulator, is in this committed love-in with William Hill that will cost the industry over £3m in prize money,” Mr Cruddace said.
Bookies pay about 10pc of gross profits in levy but not on offshore internet betting. Although offshore, Betfair made a £6.5m voluntary contribution last year.
Mr Cruddace said: “It may be William Hill can pay these sickeningly large legal fees as it refuses to pay a penny in levy from the tens of millions profit it makes from its online business, but the Levy Board – who have no choice but to defend the action – and the BHA cannot.”
Douglas Erskine Crum, the Levy Board chief executive, estimated its initial costs to be “between £300,000 and £600,000”, though that could rise with appeals. The Levy Board said last June that it had received legal advice from Lord Pannick QC and Michael Fordham QC that “customers of betting exchanges do not constitute leviable bookmakers under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963”.
Mr Cruddace warned that should the BHA and William Hill lose the case, “we will be seeking costs against them. So the BHA is risking even more millions”.
A BHA spokesman said other QCs had disagreed on the interpretation of the 1963 Act and it was “fair that it should be for the courts to decide”. He said the BHA had capped its costs at “a far more modest level than has been speculated”.
Ralph Topping, William 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”.
Any judge will see straight through this legal action as a direct attack on Betfairs right to operate as an exchange and for its players to be classed as exchange players and not bookmakers, one would expect that its William hills that will spend its huge resources on the attack instad of giving more money to the perceived cash strapped BHA, total outrage and another case of bookmakers walking under doors from under-stones in its business affairs!
Hope it turns into a fight to the death with betfair exposing the bookmaker's "thou shalt not win rule" and bookmakers exposing betfair's long list of very shady practices.
The mechanism that has effected the levy payment to BHA the most is the leading high street bookmaking operators paying less on the basis that now, a lot higher percentage of their business goes through the FOBT and not racing sports, on this basis how can one bookmaker come forward and make the BHA point the finger at betfair as not paying enough, who not only do not operate as a bookmaker in the same way and not required to pay but pay a contribution out of their own pockets!
Perhaps a fairer tax that could then pay money too the BHA would be linked to how adictive that type of gambling is and therfore FOBTs which are the most addictive would then have to pay there fairer share as arent cigarettes and alcohol taxed now the same way relative to there effect on peoples health and the burden that puts on society and the health service, FOBT operators and casinos beware!
Frog
I think your question is too specific, and as such defeats itself
PROFITABLE - yes HMRC might want to tax it
BUSINESS - is not defined by profit
they cant define that you are "business like" which they currently need to do based on profit as one of the parameters...
as such, I doubt they will try anythting.
also what is the UK wide "pot" to be taxed even if they could succeed? 100M 200M 300M 400M?
40% of that for opening up a world of legals challanges and every "business like" losers wanting to offset it...
following on from two high profile tax evasion cases failing...
no civil servant is going to runig his career by making that agressive decision, and I WOULD ARGUE ANYONE WITH THE BALLS TO DO IT, is not working for HMRC
I think your question is too specific, and as such defeats itself
PROFITABLE - yes HMRC might want to tax it
BUSINESS - is not defined by profit
they cant define that you are "business like" which they currently need to do based on profit as one of the parameters...
as such, I doubt they will try anythting.
also what is the UK wide "pot" to be taxed even if they could succeed? 100M 200M 300M 400M?
40% of that for opening up a world of legals challanges and every "business like" losers wanting to offset it...
following on from two high profile tax evasion cases failing...
no civil servant is going to runig his career by making that agressive decision, and I WOULD ARGUE ANYONE WITH THE BALLS TO DO IT, is not working for HMRC
It could easily be taxed, they tax it elsewhere e.g. Spain but it would need a change to the law and I was told by a tax accountant that the amount of revenue they could realise from the small number of successful gamblers renders it quite a small fish in the list of fish to fry.
Magician,
The ATO people must have more balls than the HMRC?
The ATO people must have more balls than the HMRC?
Frog
I have very minimal knowledge on ATO, and the tax staus of AUS, but you are probably correct.
I have very minimal knowledge on ATO, and the tax staus of AUS, but you are probably correct.
a few years ago a pro punter was targeted by the inland revenue for tax on his profits, he argued that if the inland revenue were to tax his profits, then he could claim rebates for his losses.
the case was thrown out
the case was thrown out
I have been in the situation Magician describes - and after 12 months the 'civil servant' gave up, much to do with his career, rather than the validity of his argument
I dont believe gambling will ever be taxed in this country, but..... if BF was the taxman, they would do it retrospectively over a lifetimes profit ....... but moan when the Greeks do it to them!!
I dont believe gambling will ever be taxed in this country, but..... if BF was the taxman, they would do it retrospectively over a lifetimes profit ....... but moan when the Greeks do it to them!!
http://canlii.ca/en/ca/tcc/doc/2006/2006tcc680/2006tcc680.html
These brothers in Canada made $5,500,000 betting on sports. They had a string of helpers. In fact, "15 paid helpers." Revenue Canada tried to tax each of them for $2.75 Million and argued they were operating business. Tax court threw it out. Graham v. Green, paragraph 29.
These brothers in Canada made $5,500,000 betting on sports. They had a string of helpers. In fact, "15 paid helpers." Revenue Canada tried to tax each of them for $2.75 Million and argued they were operating business. Tax court threw it out. Graham v. Green, paragraph 29.
Has anybody with a mere percentile business brain considered that ,(1) bookmakers do use exchanges secretly and openly to arbitraging favorites. (2) Most favorites on exchanges are pounded down to near industry prices due probably directly from this activity. (3) Betfair has no control on who may or may not be arbitraging prices across different betting platforms (4)Bookmakers can enjoy and do enjoy hidden profits by operating over exchange prices (5) Betfairs only defense of reserves and capital account values against continual draining by advantaged players is to charge the largest players at a different rate than the vast majority of customers.
When william hills and other firms acuse betfair customers of being bookmakers they do so with good reason as even at racecourse level bookmakers lay off and arb on exchanges, the big firms do this too enjoying the benifits of exchange pricing and then being hard nosed enough to say all the normal customers are bookmakers While they cream millions of gbp off them!
Smell the coffee mr average betfair customer and give BF a break and some respects for trying to put value and winning first to the general public.
Smell the coffee mr average betfair customer and give BF a break and some respects for trying to put value and winning first to the general public.
bf_fananatic 21 Mar 12 11:14
When william hills and other firms acuse betfair customers of being bookmakers
_______________
yeah ,but no customer on here is ever going to get away with W-H1lls prices .
When william hills and other firms acuse betfair customers of being bookmakers
_______________
yeah ,but no customer on here is ever going to get away with W-H1lls prices .
Betfair customers take on all the risk with -0.5% over-round disadvantage along with 2-5% commission charges, how on earth does this make all of us customers bookmakers?
Mr William hills can offer 11/4 on a popular favourite, get large bets placed on the runner by UNKNOWN punters, use office money sent to the trackside to lower the price, then lay it off at a higher price on the exchange and if it wins then who's to know that when they paid out they kept a huge amount of the stake because they got a better price secretly somewhere else, and then they spend profits taking betfair to court and trying to make betfair look like villians.
William Hills years ago were on the ropes and I along with many prayed they would go under because the staff in the shops displayed the same greedy nature as the firm, lets hope betfair can do the job for us
Mr William hills can offer 11/4 on a popular favourite, get large bets placed on the runner by UNKNOWN punters, use office money sent to the trackside to lower the price, then lay it off at a higher price on the exchange and if it wins then who's to know that when they paid out they kept a huge amount of the stake because they got a better price secretly somewhere else, and then they spend profits taking betfair to court and trying to make betfair look like villians.
William Hills years ago were on the ropes and I along with many prayed they would go under because the staff in the shops displayed the same greedy nature as the firm, lets hope betfair can do the job for us
you couldn't call Bookmakers 'gamblers' in even the slightest sense - Cash converters and Wonga .com probably take bigger risks
the greedy living off the needy, some things never change.
You have to give Betfair credit that even though it started off as a marginal profit business it has been in the ring with many heavyweights of the betting world and not only mananged to stay on its feet but blooded the nose of many of its rivals, I for on hope there success continues and will always support them for there ethos on betting and allowing winners and for being a brillaint idea that amazes all, now and long into the future.
fanatic
I give Betfair huge credit for many things, but that doesn't mean they are the be all and end all forever!!
Introducing the X matching unannounced and introducing PC against retrospective profits (some over several years) shows they are not running on the original idea - but on a greedy financial institution that now answers to shareholders
I give Betfair huge credit for many things, but that doesn't mean they are the be all and end all forever!!
Introducing the X matching unannounced and introducing PC against retrospective profits (some over several years) shows they are not running on the original idea - but on a greedy financial institution that now answers to shareholders
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539