Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This bizarre and frankly somewhat sinister case continues with an article in the Independent today by Nick Townsend...
It seems to me Betfred are playing a Pontius Pilate role, given the opportunity to pay out but refused, and then passing the buck back to the commissioner saying they can't pay out and are purely following his lead? This kind of behaviour is not welcome for punters
How many of these boys working in Gibraltar are living in Spain like the head honchos? Are they paying tax in Spain? Who knows?
The great racing swindle?
Last year three of this man's horses romped home, winning his associates £3.9m. Most bookies paid up – but not Betfred online. Why? Nick Townsend visits Gibraltar to find out
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Three horses linked to Barney Curley won on the same day. Hundreds of bets had been placed
A sweltering lunchtime outside Gibraltar's Supreme Court, and Ray Pilley, a long-time resident and lawyer on The Rock, jocularly grumbles about the theft of just-ripened tomatoes from his garden.
There is unlikely to be an arrest. Barbary Apes have snuck in and swiped them. Crime only rarely gets too much more serious on the self-governing British territory, where, even on a short stroll, you'll almost invariably pass a constable – part of the British police force – on the beat. Theresa May, take note.
Yet, there is no shortage of employment for the 200 lawyers within a town whose income is derived predominantly from its magnet as an offshore base for financial interests and, particularly of late, internet gaming operators.
It is that which has brought former RAF pilot Pilley and his in-house QC Freddie Vasquez at Triay & Triay Lawyers to the courtroom, in pursuit of justice for their clients, the "Gibraltar Five".
What makes an increasingly acrimonious affair a cause célèbre is not merely that the central adversaries in the proceedings are the Newmarket-based Irish trainer and gambler Barney Curley, a bane of the bookmaking industry for four decades, and Phill Brear, a former top police officer in the UK – but that the case goes to the heart of offshore gaming and, what many claim, is the potential lack of protection for UK punters.
The quintet of punters, who do not include Curley – though four of them are related to him – are owed £823,272 by the offshore-based arm of Betfred – the UK betting operator which earlier this year bought the Tote.
Those winnings form part of a multimillion pound coup organised by Curley on 10 May last year when his associates placed hundreds of accumulator bets, mostly Yankees (a combination bet involving a four-horse accumulator and permed doubles and trebles), in betting shops on four horses running in four separate, modest races. Further wagers were placed online.
Three of the runners, Agapanthus, Savaranola and Sommersturm were trained by Curley. The fourth, Jeu De Roseau, formerly in training with him, was based with Chris Grant in Co Durham. Agapanthus and Savaranola won at Brighton and Wolverhampton respectively. Though Sommersturm – ironically the most fancied of the trio – was beaten at Wolverhampton, Jeu De Roseau followed up with victory at Towcester. But three winners were enough, with odds of 11-2, 4-1 and 25-1 having been obtained on those horses, to ensure total winnings, on paper, of £3.9m. If Sommersturm had gone in, too, the tally would have increased to an estimated £20m.
All betting shops in the UK eventually paid out, including Betfred – but not Betfred's online operation, which withheld winnings due to the five punters pending an investigation on the advice of Gibraltar Regulatory Authority led by Phill Brear.
The suggestion was that Curley was betting "by proxy" through his accomplices, "a clear deception", as it has been described by Brear, 54, an ex-Deputy Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire police.
However, their complaints over his handling of the dispute has led to legal representatives for the five punters seeking a judicial review of Brear's decision. The legal process will be followed closely by no fewer than 22 concerns, including bookmakers, online casinos, and the betting exchange, Betfair, that now operate from Gibraltar.
It is easy to see why such entities have flocked to The Rock. The benefits include just 1 per cent gaming tax on turnover, capped at £425,000, compared with 15 per cent on profits in the UK. Offshore companies also do not have to pay UK levels of VAT on costs like advertising and are not paying corporation tax to the UK government. Most crucially, offshore operations do not have to pay the 10.75 per cent betting levy on profits – although some do so voluntarily. This is income which is vital to the health of British racing.
One trenchant observer, Charlie Brooks, the former trainer, jockey and now newspaper columnist, recently described Gibraltar as "that parasitic rock which is sucking the blood out of British racing like a tick".
Conservative MP Matthew Hancock, whose constituency includes Newmarket, known as racing's "headquarters", told the Commons in July that "in the past few years, levy had fallen from £110m a year to £59m". He added: "Funding for horseracing has been in crisis and the problem has been in part that those [bookmakers] who make a profit from the sport through gambling have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely." He added: "Why should we allow the gambling industry to avoid tax in that way?"
John Penrose, the Heritage Minister, who is responsible for gambling, subsequently announced proposals that gambling should be taxed where it is consumed, not from where was it was supplied. However, that will not necessarily dispel immediate concerns over protection for punters in dispute with offshore-based operators.
Here, the British Horseracing Authority investigated and apparently found nothing untoward about the Curley coup. In addition, the Independent Betting Arbitration Service directed operators in the UK and in another offshore location, Alderney, to pay out winnings.
Brear, however, in a faxed letter received by the Racing Post in June that appeared to come from him, maintained that his was the only agency to conduct "a meaningful and proportionate investigation".
Though he has subsequently agreed that winnings could be released by Betfred – the company has not taken up that option – the faxed letter adds that the coup "was a fraudulent enterprise based on deceptions and the systematic misuse of inside information... to the substantial detriment of numerous online and 'bricks and mortar' bookmakers, at least one betting exchange and most of the customers who bet on these races."
Events have since taken an even more combative turn, with Pilley, the punters' lawyer, complaining in a letter to the Gibraltar Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, that this reference to his clients as "fraudsters" is "not what one would expect from the head of a regulatory authority" and demonstrated his "complete lack of objectivity".
Lawyers for the "Five" also employed a firm of private investigators to "observe" Brear over five days in July. He was even followed to the villa he owns in Spain, close to the Ryder Cup golf course of Valderrama, which he shares with his wife, Janet.
Most pertinently, however, the investigators' report detailed what it says are the Gambling Commissioner's meetings at Betfred's lawyers, Hassans, which, according to the punters' court contentions, supports their claim that confidentiality may have been breached, that Brear was seeking to support the gaming operators in resisting making out payments and that, in his role as a government official, he is not impartial.
Pilley's colleague, solicitor Andrew Montague maintained: "What my clients claim is that the Gambling Commissioner threw the rule book out the window and acted in his role as a government official in an ultra vires, biased and prejudicial manner. His decisions are flawed and unsustainable and must be challenged."
He added: "My clients instruct me that they are determined to get justice in Gibraltar no matter how long it takes. Who could blame them? After all, they are owed an awful lot of money – almost €1m."
Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the attendant negative publicity is unlikely to have been welcomed by Gibraltar's political leaders; nor, one suspects, Betfred or their rival offshore betting firms.
Though a controversial figure, Curley's gambling exploits are generally accepted as being a colourful thread in the tapestry of British and Irish horseracing. A spectacular coup he masterminded at the Irish racecourse of Bellewstown in 1975 won him £300,000 – the equivalent of around £2m today.
When I visited Brear's base at the Finance Ministry offices in Convent Place on the day of the first hearing, he said, during an interview, that he was unaware of being observed and photographed by private investigators.
I subsequently asked him for his response to the allegations made by the claimants. He has said he would not comment "as the matter is before the court".
I put it to him that he appeared to be on something of a crusade – one at odds with his counterparts in the UK – and suggested that he might have reacted to the fact that a major personality in British horseracing was behind the coup.
Perhaps curiously, for a man who was the UK Gambling Commission director of operations for two years and, in Gibraltar, oversees the activities of an online gaming industry, with a turnover of billions a year, Brear said: "Until this incident, I'd never heard of him."
Yet, presumably he recognised that major gambles have always been a feature of racing? "Absolutely," Brear retorted. "But let's remind ourselves that horse racing and dog racing are the only sports where participants can bet on themselves," he said. "Because of that, there are specific rules to make sure it's done fairly and transparently."
He added: "It isn't the case that a BHA licence-holder can arrange to have betting done on his behalf surreptitiously or furtively. It has to be done transparently. The rules around bets in UK and Gibraltar changed fundamentally in 2007 when they became enforceable contracts. The quaint traditions of the racecourse of the '50s and '60s belong in the 1950s and '60s. This is now a commercial business. It has to operate both within the commercial law and the criminal law."
Brear also denied that UK punters were vulnerable in the event of a dispute. "Millions of bets a week are placed through Gibraltar operators and the winnings are paid out very quickly," he said. "I can assure you that the regulations we have in place here are tighter than in the UK to ensure consumers are properly protected." He added: "There's a fantastic public interest story in all this. If you want to run it as 'poor old Barney', that's up to you. But as the evidence will eventually show, he's no Robin Hood."
Which will, no doubt, prompt some in the UK to quip that why Commissioner Brear appears to be adopting the stance of a Sheriff of Nottingham...
The cast and the races
Barney Curley
The legendary Irish trainer and gambler, 72, is a colourful racing character who in 1975 staged one of the greatest racing coups when he won a vast sum at Bellewstown after placing a wager on Yellow Sam – and then commandeering the only telephone at the track, thus stopping on-course bookies cutting the horse's starting price. He is also known for his charity, Direct Aid for Africa, that helps with homelessness in Africa.
Phill Brear
An ex-Deputy Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police, Brear, 54, is now the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner. Gibraltar is the home to many online gambling companies, including Betfred online, which refused to pay out to Curley associates.
The winners (on 10 May 2010)
Agapanthus 11-2 (trainer: B Curley)
Savaranola 4-1 (trainer: B Curley)
Jeu de Roseau 25-1 (trainer: C Grant, previous trainer: B Curley)
It seems to me Betfred are playing a Pontius Pilate role, given the opportunity to pay out but refused, and then passing the buck back to the commissioner saying they can't pay out and are purely following his lead? This kind of behaviour is not welcome for punters
How many of these boys working in Gibraltar are living in Spain like the head honchos? Are they paying tax in Spain? Who knows?
The great racing swindle?
Last year three of this man's horses romped home, winning his associates £3.9m. Most bookies paid up – but not Betfred online. Why? Nick Townsend visits Gibraltar to find out
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Three horses linked to Barney Curley won on the same day. Hundreds of bets had been placed
A sweltering lunchtime outside Gibraltar's Supreme Court, and Ray Pilley, a long-time resident and lawyer on The Rock, jocularly grumbles about the theft of just-ripened tomatoes from his garden.
There is unlikely to be an arrest. Barbary Apes have snuck in and swiped them. Crime only rarely gets too much more serious on the self-governing British territory, where, even on a short stroll, you'll almost invariably pass a constable – part of the British police force – on the beat. Theresa May, take note.
Yet, there is no shortage of employment for the 200 lawyers within a town whose income is derived predominantly from its magnet as an offshore base for financial interests and, particularly of late, internet gaming operators.
It is that which has brought former RAF pilot Pilley and his in-house QC Freddie Vasquez at Triay & Triay Lawyers to the courtroom, in pursuit of justice for their clients, the "Gibraltar Five".
What makes an increasingly acrimonious affair a cause célèbre is not merely that the central adversaries in the proceedings are the Newmarket-based Irish trainer and gambler Barney Curley, a bane of the bookmaking industry for four decades, and Phill Brear, a former top police officer in the UK – but that the case goes to the heart of offshore gaming and, what many claim, is the potential lack of protection for UK punters.
The quintet of punters, who do not include Curley – though four of them are related to him – are owed £823,272 by the offshore-based arm of Betfred – the UK betting operator which earlier this year bought the Tote.
Those winnings form part of a multimillion pound coup organised by Curley on 10 May last year when his associates placed hundreds of accumulator bets, mostly Yankees (a combination bet involving a four-horse accumulator and permed doubles and trebles), in betting shops on four horses running in four separate, modest races. Further wagers were placed online.
Three of the runners, Agapanthus, Savaranola and Sommersturm were trained by Curley. The fourth, Jeu De Roseau, formerly in training with him, was based with Chris Grant in Co Durham. Agapanthus and Savaranola won at Brighton and Wolverhampton respectively. Though Sommersturm – ironically the most fancied of the trio – was beaten at Wolverhampton, Jeu De Roseau followed up with victory at Towcester. But three winners were enough, with odds of 11-2, 4-1 and 25-1 having been obtained on those horses, to ensure total winnings, on paper, of £3.9m. If Sommersturm had gone in, too, the tally would have increased to an estimated £20m.
All betting shops in the UK eventually paid out, including Betfred – but not Betfred's online operation, which withheld winnings due to the five punters pending an investigation on the advice of Gibraltar Regulatory Authority led by Phill Brear.
The suggestion was that Curley was betting "by proxy" through his accomplices, "a clear deception", as it has been described by Brear, 54, an ex-Deputy Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire police.
However, their complaints over his handling of the dispute has led to legal representatives for the five punters seeking a judicial review of Brear's decision. The legal process will be followed closely by no fewer than 22 concerns, including bookmakers, online casinos, and the betting exchange, Betfair, that now operate from Gibraltar.
It is easy to see why such entities have flocked to The Rock. The benefits include just 1 per cent gaming tax on turnover, capped at £425,000, compared with 15 per cent on profits in the UK. Offshore companies also do not have to pay UK levels of VAT on costs like advertising and are not paying corporation tax to the UK government. Most crucially, offshore operations do not have to pay the 10.75 per cent betting levy on profits – although some do so voluntarily. This is income which is vital to the health of British racing.
One trenchant observer, Charlie Brooks, the former trainer, jockey and now newspaper columnist, recently described Gibraltar as "that parasitic rock which is sucking the blood out of British racing like a tick".
Conservative MP Matthew Hancock, whose constituency includes Newmarket, known as racing's "headquarters", told the Commons in July that "in the past few years, levy had fallen from £110m a year to £59m". He added: "Funding for horseracing has been in crisis and the problem has been in part that those [bookmakers] who make a profit from the sport through gambling have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely." He added: "Why should we allow the gambling industry to avoid tax in that way?"
John Penrose, the Heritage Minister, who is responsible for gambling, subsequently announced proposals that gambling should be taxed where it is consumed, not from where was it was supplied. However, that will not necessarily dispel immediate concerns over protection for punters in dispute with offshore-based operators.
Here, the British Horseracing Authority investigated and apparently found nothing untoward about the Curley coup. In addition, the Independent Betting Arbitration Service directed operators in the UK and in another offshore location, Alderney, to pay out winnings.
Brear, however, in a faxed letter received by the Racing Post in June that appeared to come from him, maintained that his was the only agency to conduct "a meaningful and proportionate investigation".
Though he has subsequently agreed that winnings could be released by Betfred – the company has not taken up that option – the faxed letter adds that the coup "was a fraudulent enterprise based on deceptions and the systematic misuse of inside information... to the substantial detriment of numerous online and 'bricks and mortar' bookmakers, at least one betting exchange and most of the customers who bet on these races."
Events have since taken an even more combative turn, with Pilley, the punters' lawyer, complaining in a letter to the Gibraltar Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, that this reference to his clients as "fraudsters" is "not what one would expect from the head of a regulatory authority" and demonstrated his "complete lack of objectivity".
Lawyers for the "Five" also employed a firm of private investigators to "observe" Brear over five days in July. He was even followed to the villa he owns in Spain, close to the Ryder Cup golf course of Valderrama, which he shares with his wife, Janet.
Most pertinently, however, the investigators' report detailed what it says are the Gambling Commissioner's meetings at Betfred's lawyers, Hassans, which, according to the punters' court contentions, supports their claim that confidentiality may have been breached, that Brear was seeking to support the gaming operators in resisting making out payments and that, in his role as a government official, he is not impartial.
Pilley's colleague, solicitor Andrew Montague maintained: "What my clients claim is that the Gambling Commissioner threw the rule book out the window and acted in his role as a government official in an ultra vires, biased and prejudicial manner. His decisions are flawed and unsustainable and must be challenged."
He added: "My clients instruct me that they are determined to get justice in Gibraltar no matter how long it takes. Who could blame them? After all, they are owed an awful lot of money – almost €1m."
Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the attendant negative publicity is unlikely to have been welcomed by Gibraltar's political leaders; nor, one suspects, Betfred or their rival offshore betting firms.
Though a controversial figure, Curley's gambling exploits are generally accepted as being a colourful thread in the tapestry of British and Irish horseracing. A spectacular coup he masterminded at the Irish racecourse of Bellewstown in 1975 won him £300,000 – the equivalent of around £2m today.
When I visited Brear's base at the Finance Ministry offices in Convent Place on the day of the first hearing, he said, during an interview, that he was unaware of being observed and photographed by private investigators.
I subsequently asked him for his response to the allegations made by the claimants. He has said he would not comment "as the matter is before the court".
I put it to him that he appeared to be on something of a crusade – one at odds with his counterparts in the UK – and suggested that he might have reacted to the fact that a major personality in British horseracing was behind the coup.
Perhaps curiously, for a man who was the UK Gambling Commission director of operations for two years and, in Gibraltar, oversees the activities of an online gaming industry, with a turnover of billions a year, Brear said: "Until this incident, I'd never heard of him."
Yet, presumably he recognised that major gambles have always been a feature of racing? "Absolutely," Brear retorted. "But let's remind ourselves that horse racing and dog racing are the only sports where participants can bet on themselves," he said. "Because of that, there are specific rules to make sure it's done fairly and transparently."
He added: "It isn't the case that a BHA licence-holder can arrange to have betting done on his behalf surreptitiously or furtively. It has to be done transparently. The rules around bets in UK and Gibraltar changed fundamentally in 2007 when they became enforceable contracts. The quaint traditions of the racecourse of the '50s and '60s belong in the 1950s and '60s. This is now a commercial business. It has to operate both within the commercial law and the criminal law."
Brear also denied that UK punters were vulnerable in the event of a dispute. "Millions of bets a week are placed through Gibraltar operators and the winnings are paid out very quickly," he said. "I can assure you that the regulations we have in place here are tighter than in the UK to ensure consumers are properly protected." He added: "There's a fantastic public interest story in all this. If you want to run it as 'poor old Barney', that's up to you. But as the evidence will eventually show, he's no Robin Hood."
Which will, no doubt, prompt some in the UK to quip that why Commissioner Brear appears to be adopting the stance of a Sheriff of Nottingham...
The cast and the races
Barney Curley
The legendary Irish trainer and gambler, 72, is a colourful racing character who in 1975 staged one of the greatest racing coups when he won a vast sum at Bellewstown after placing a wager on Yellow Sam – and then commandeering the only telephone at the track, thus stopping on-course bookies cutting the horse's starting price. He is also known for his charity, Direct Aid for Africa, that helps with homelessness in Africa.
Phill Brear
An ex-Deputy Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police, Brear, 54, is now the Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner. Gibraltar is the home to many online gambling companies, including Betfred online, which refused to pay out to Curley associates.
The winners (on 10 May 2010)
Agapanthus 11-2 (trainer: B Curley)
Savaranola 4-1 (trainer: B Curley)
Jeu de Roseau 25-1 (trainer: C Grant, previous trainer: B Curley)
Show More
Whilst eveybody with an IQ higher than a chimp knows what Curley is.The fact remains that BetBaldie have chosen to hide behind Gibraltor Regs whilst paying out over here.
What an absolutely unprincipled verminous dog.
Why give BetBaldie or the Tote (now he owns them)any trade.
What an absolutely unprincipled verminous dog.
Why give BetBaldie or the Tote (now he owns them)any trade.
This case has little to nothing to do with Betfred and everything to do with the GRA and its standing.
On many forum's quotes from newspapers are immediately removed, not sure why this doesn't apply on here, just wondering?
Banks,
I totally disagree with your statement.
It has everything to do with BetBaldies refusal to payout Online when they have done so in their Shops.
I totally disagree with your statement.
It has everything to do with BetBaldies refusal to payout Online when they have done so in their Shops.
director of UK gambling commission, gambling commissioner for gibralter, deputy chief constable west yorkshire police.
never heard of barney curley.
but thousands of young kids in africa have.
never heard of barney curley.
but thousands of young kids in africa have.
"Most pertinently, however, the investigators' report detailed what it says are the Gambling Commissioner's meetings at Betfred's lawyers, Hassans, which, according to the punters' court contentions, supports their claim that confidentiality may have been breached, that Brear was seeking to support the gaming operators in resisting making out payments and that, in his role as a government official, he is not impartial".
Perhaps curiously, for a man who was the UK Gambling Commission director of operations for two years and, in Gibraltar, oversees the activities of an online gaming industry, with a turnover of billions a year, Brear said: "Until this incident, I'd never heard of him."
At the very least Brear's actions are questionable.
Perhaps curiously, for a man who was the UK Gambling Commission director of operations for two years and, in Gibraltar, oversees the activities of an online gaming industry, with a turnover of billions a year, Brear said: "Until this incident, I'd never heard of him."
At the very least Brear's actions are questionable.
Never heard of Curley !!!
Why is it the whole industry is now employing or actively trying to employ people in senior positions with zero knowledge or prior interest in betting/racing. It has become truly baffling.
Why is it the whole industry is now employing or actively trying to employ people in senior positions with zero knowledge or prior interest in betting/racing. It has become truly baffling.
Leviathan,
The reasons for having Brealey in charge should be cler to everybody with in IQ above single figures.
The reasons for having Brealey in charge should be cler to everybody with in IQ above single figures.
Bet baldie simply does not like paying out on a decent winning bet! He only paid out in shops as he would have lost his licence to accept bets. As the "BHA and IBAS found nothing untoward and instructed all UK bookmarkers to pay out" I think its disgusting he's trying to use loopholes to get out of paying out online. The British Goverment should step in here.
Correction,Whippy.
He is not trying to "knock",he is doing so !
He is not trying to "knock",he is doing so !
Yes, your quite correct. It really shouldn't have to come this though, with court action. I just hope the "Five" get the justice they deserve.
Whippy,
I would not use the word,"justice".However,they should be paid.
I would not use the word,"justice".However,they should be paid.
mannypac,, fk me, did you type all that, or just click copy and paste ?
Just out of interest, had the bets lost would Betfred have given the stake money back and if not would the GRA have told them to?
Exactly! Landing a coup is not an exact science and they could have all got beaten (like the most fancied one of the lot did) I wonder if they would have had their stakes returned by BetBaldie if this was the case? This whole situation gives the bookmaking industry, even the ones who have done the right thing and paid out, a very bad name.
I can't decide which loathsome creature i despise most, Baldfred or Curley. It's one of those matches where I hope they both lose.
It was a rhetorical question private bob, but I think you got that anyway. 
Who were you cheering for CJ when it was Mohamed Al-Fayed v (Mostyn) Neil Hamilton?
Who were you cheering for CJ when it was Mohamed Al-Fayed v (Mostyn) Neil Hamilton?
Well,CJ,you only have to ask yourself this.Were the bets legally accepted (and the whole of the UK Betting Industry accepts this).
If so,they must be honoured.
No matter how much you dislike Curley (and you are not alone) can alter this fact.
I would have closed my BetBaldie account had they not already done so.
I have closed my Tote Account.
I do not deal with "knockers".
If so,they must be honoured.
No matter how much you dislike Curley (and you are not alone) can alter this fact.
I would have closed my BetBaldie account had they not already done so.
I have closed my Tote Account.
I do not deal with "knockers".
they pay in the shops and dont pay online?
they havent a leg to stand on as far as i can see, just pay up, they are rancid.......worse than barney
they havent a leg to stand on as far as i can see, just pay up, they are rancid.......worse than barney
At least Curley is getting what his arrogance cherishes most, plenty of publicity.
I'm sure he would be far happier if they had just paid out without giving him any publicity at all.......I'm also equally sure he would have happily missed out on any publicity regarding his past gambles if it meant he could have got on as much money with his future bets as he later wanted to.
Thats why he and his buddy post links on youtube attacking the bookmaking industry not to mention how his buddy butchered the Curley McCririck set too on ATR to show Barney in a good light and Big Mac in a poor light the other 10 minutes where Curley was a stuttering fool and Big Mac was giving as good as he was getting found its way to Curleys Buddies cutting room floor.
Believe me he covets publicity look at me I'm the worlds greatest gambler, no your not Barney you're the worlds greatest bleep...
Believe me he covets publicity look at me I'm the worlds greatest gambler, no your not Barney you're the worlds greatest bleep...
Anything that shows Fat Mac in poor light is OK by me. 
Farcical situation where a lump of rock in the Med with a population of 28,000 (27,999 of whom,including Brear,know nothing about betting on horses)can influence the bald welcher's decision to withhold.Pay Barney Curley.
I love it when someone takes money of the "Bookies" , they should pay up ! great coup Barney well done!
Once you allow bookmakers to take bets on the internet from British punters but claim they are regulated by a somewhat obscure offshore authority ,then you are going down a slippery slope imo.
The BHA should make it clear what the situation is, in order to inform the British Racing enthusiast which internet companies are not subject to the British Racing Authouritys when ruling on wagers in races taking place in Britain.
The BHA should make it clear what the situation is, in order to inform the British Racing enthusiast which internet companies are not subject to the British Racing Authouritys when ruling on wagers in races taking place in Britain.
...Stop press... Bookmaker and all round 'bad egg' Baldfred stoops lower still by opening an FOBT facility at a children's playground in Manchester:
Brear had never heard of Curley? What was he doing during his two years with the gambling commission?
Oh,hang on a minute,he's yet another ex-policeman who's landed a sinecure.That explains it.
Oh,hang on a minute,he's yet another ex-policeman who's landed a sinecure.That explains it.
I dont really know what to think here. It is a double edged sword. Barney Curley should not be allowed on a race track let alone be able to land a coup like this. He should of been warned off the race track years ago. Every man and his dog knows Barney is dodgy and every man knows what happened on 10th of May was fraudulent.
But this sort of thing Happens all the time in UK racing, im not really sure this Brear bloke has the authority to with-hold the payments. The only way i will support his actions would be if it opened up an overall inquiry to the integrity of British Horseracing in which case characters like Curley would not have to opportunity to land coups like this.
But this sort of thing Happens all the time in UK racing, im not really sure this Brear bloke has the authority to with-hold the payments. The only way i will support his actions would be if it opened up an overall inquiry to the integrity of British Horseracing in which case characters like Curley would not have to opportunity to land coups like this.
Ser Marcel --- "what happened on 10th May was fraudulent".How so ??
Just have to look at the form of the horses. Was a massive coup. Horses not being run on their merit then coming out and running like world beaters when a coup has obviuosly been set up to me is fraudulent.
every time a punter goes to sort the form and sees a Barney Curley runner or many other trainers for that matter they have to weigh up what the trainers intentions are, ie whether the horse is off that day or not. This is not right.
"Though a controversial figure, Curley's gambling exploits are generally accepted as being a colourful thread in the tapestry of British and Irish horseracing. A spectacular coup he masterminded at the Irish racecourse of Bellewstown in 1975 won him £300,000 – the equivalent of around £2m today."
If this is the general psyche of the British punting population then no wonder racing over there is slowly dying. integrity is not a word associated with bristish and Irish racing and this must change for the long term sustainability of the sport.
every time a punter goes to sort the form and sees a Barney Curley runner or many other trainers for that matter they have to weigh up what the trainers intentions are, ie whether the horse is off that day or not. This is not right.
"Though a controversial figure, Curley's gambling exploits are generally accepted as being a colourful thread in the tapestry of British and Irish horseracing. A spectacular coup he masterminded at the Irish racecourse of Bellewstown in 1975 won him £300,000 – the equivalent of around £2m today."
If this is the general psyche of the British punting population then no wonder racing over there is slowly dying. integrity is not a word associated with bristish and Irish racing and this must change for the long term sustainability of the sport.
If you were in on it you would have f......... lapped it up .
Well done Mr Curley!
Well done Mr Curley!
I agree that it is difficult to decide what is right.
Should it be the right and privilege of every racing insider ( trainer, owner, jockey ) to bend the rules in order to set up a big payday?
I have the feeling that you cannot impose a set of rules to prevent it.
What is the bookmaker's natural defence (aside from simply not paying out) to such a coup? It can only be to reduce the prices to bring the payout down.
Should it be the right and privilege of every racing insider ( trainer, owner, jockey ) to bend the rules in order to set up a big payday?
I have the feeling that you cannot impose a set of rules to prevent it.
What is the bookmaker's natural defence (aside from simply not paying out) to such a coup? It can only be to reduce the prices to bring the payout down.
"Perhaps curiously, for a man who was the UK Gambling Commission director of operations for two years and, in Gibraltar, oversees the activities of an online gaming industry, with a turnover of billions a year, Brear said: "Until this incident, I'd never heard of him."
Really? I mean, really?
I wish I could get on the gravy train that morons like this seem to
Really? I mean, really?
I wish I could get on the gravy train that morons like this seem to
Serg Marcel --Massive coup it was,but that does not make it fraudulent.Fraud is against the law,and this clearly was not.
Match fixing is considered fraudulent and also against the law, so why is this not? It is basically match fixing
The last horse in the gamble that day, apparently considered the best chance of the lot traded at short odds on near the off. from memory it was trading well over 6-7 throughout the whole day. Was this horse set up to be layed? we dont know, and again it really surprises me that characters like curley seem to be welcomed with open arms in UK racing
Nothing in todays racing post about the court case in Gibraltar,Could that be due to bald fred now advertising again in the racing post?
there seems to be a misconception that curley is the peoples champion of punting,the man is not to be trusted and i personally do not bet in any race he has a runner in
What people think of Curley is an irrelevance here.
What should be concentrated on is the fact that the third biggest bookmaker in the UK has knocked...welshed...refused to pay...stolen...and that is a disgrace.
As a reward he has been sold the Tote...so if he can knock punters then he could easily do another Woodrow Wyatt.
If the racing and betting business was worth ten bob he`d be barred from the game.
What should be concentrated on is the fact that the third biggest bookmaker in the UK has knocked...welshed...refused to pay...stolen...and that is a disgrace.
As a reward he has been sold the Tote...so if he can knock punters then he could easily do another Woodrow Wyatt.
If the racing and betting business was worth ten bob he`d be barred from the game.
The whole game is based of integrity of bookmakers, which when it comes to paying out winning bets 99.999999999999% are totally honest.
Betslaphead is a Manc chancer, and lets face facts he has previous form when it comes to his integrity regarding the paying of bets.
Betslaphead is a Manc chancer, and lets face facts he has previous form when it comes to his integrity regarding the paying of bets.
Even if it was fraudulent (which it wasn't) it goes to show it's not an exact science by the fact that the shortest priced horse of his 4 selections was beaten.
Like i said earlier its a double edged sword. What Curley did happens to a lesser extent every day in UK horse racing, and i think it need to be stopped. And i would have to believe they dont have the authority to refuse the payouts, which is why it is going to court.
i also think all this offshore business with all the corparates setting up in Gibralter is a disgrace and is wleching, cheating the sport itself. So much money that these companies make from the game should be reinvested back into racing, then trainers would not need to resort to these tactics in trying to land the big coup.
i also think all this offshore business with all the corparates setting up in Gibralter is a disgrace and is wleching, cheating the sport itself. So much money that these companies make from the game should be reinvested back into racing, then trainers would not need to resort to these tactics in trying to land the big coup.
and again how much did Curley make from laying that last short horse? that got absolutely smashed in the betting. Of course alot of it might of been all up money, but alot would of been innocent punters (some would say lemmings) following what they though was an honest gamble. The very fact these questions are asked when characters like curley are involved is a joke.
I think it was fraud. I believe previously the winning horses were not run on their merits and as a result handicapped to win. we are talking about alot of money and i couldnt trust the british authorities as far as i could throw them, so the fact that some sort of investigation went on into the running and found no wrong doing is something i give no credence to at all.
I think it was fraud. I believe previously the winning horses were not run on their merits and as a result handicapped to win. we are talking about alot of money and i couldnt trust the british authorities as far as i could throw them, so the fact that some sort of investigation went on into the running and found no wrong doing is something i give no credence to at all.
Perhaps a journalist that hasn't been corrupted into silence by the bookmaking industry should ask themsleves WHY Curley might have to disguise the bets he wanted to make.
Because if you watch any racing TV programme, read any newspaper, or pick up any piece of bookmakers' literature, there is never any mention whatsover of bookmakers refusing to take anyone's bets...
Because if you watch any racing TV programme, read any newspaper, or pick up any piece of bookmakers' literature, there is never any mention whatsover of bookmakers refusing to take anyone's bets...
Most Firms in Gibraltar don't play by the rules - as a former Employee (well "self employed" when they chopped me with no warning) I know this unfortunately.
Corrupt place.
Corrupt place.
Former Employee of Real Madrid Sponsors that should say.
Well considering they reportedly won £3.9 million and it would have been £20 million had the other horse won then assuming they were laying it (which I doubt) they must have been doing so to some size of liability!
The shortie that got beaten was was the 3rd leg anyway but after the first 2 went in then you would expect the 3rd and 4th both to shorten and all 4 went off as favourites at 2/1, 11/10, 1/3 and 6/4 although they were obviously on early and got bigger prices.
The loser was in an amateur riders race and was ridden by Mr D L Queally (who I'm not familiar with but assume could be related to Tom Queally) but anything can happen in these amateur rider races where it's not always the best horse that wins when the jockey plays a bigger part than usual and Simon Walker won that race and he's one of, if not the best amateur riding in the UK.
The shortie that got beaten was was the 3rd leg anyway but after the first 2 went in then you would expect the 3rd and 4th both to shorten and all 4 went off as favourites at 2/1, 11/10, 1/3 and 6/4 although they were obviously on early and got bigger prices.
The loser was in an amateur riders race and was ridden by Mr D L Queally (who I'm not familiar with but assume could be related to Tom Queally) but anything can happen in these amateur rider races where it's not always the best horse that wins when the jockey plays a bigger part than usual and Simon Walker won that race and he's one of, if not the best amateur riding in the UK.
Think a big point has been missed here: What was the commissioner doing in Betfred's lawyers office?
And from my (very limited) knowledge of how this works- what about handing out licences to firms who effectively operate in Spain.. with staff living there... Is this aiding and abetting?
Much too comfortable an arrangement for my liking. I'll be watching this case v closely- some BIG questions to be answered and goes right to the heart of UK betting and consequently UK horseracing.
And from my (very limited) knowledge of how this works- what about handing out licences to firms who effectively operate in Spain.. with staff living there... Is this aiding and abetting?
Much too comfortable an arrangement for my liking. I'll be watching this case v closely- some BIG questions to be answered and goes right to the heart of UK betting and consequently UK horseracing.
Think a big point has been missed here: What was the commissioner doing in Betfred's lawyers office?
And from my (very limited) knowledge of how this works- what about handing out licences to firms who effectively operate in Spain.. with staff living there... Is this aiding and abetting?
Much too comfortable an arrangement for my liking. I'll be watching this case v closely- some BIG questions to be answered and goes right to the heart of UK betting and consequently UK horseracing.
And from my (very limited) knowledge of how this works- what about handing out licences to firms who effectively operate in Spain.. with staff living there... Is this aiding and abetting?
Much too comfortable an arrangement for my liking. I'll be watching this case v closely- some BIG questions to be answered and goes right to the heart of UK betting and consequently UK horseracing.
The whole game is based of integrity of bookmakers, which when it comes to paying out winning bets 99.999999999999% are totally honest.
I would say that is more like 75% now - certainly very, very hard to withdraw from many books and many are happy to cancel bets with no reason. Those tend to be ones based offshore.
I would say that is more like 75% now - certainly very, very hard to withdraw from many books and many are happy to cancel bets with no reason. Those tend to be ones based offshore.
Do Betferd hold on to the stake money or has that been returned??
ALL these replies miss the point.
He has bought a national institution fro not paying. Why did the govt.allow this?
Could not possibly have raised that much cash legit
He has bought a national institution fro not paying. Why did the govt.allow this?
Could not possibly have raised that much cash legit
I don't like bookmakers but I sure as hell despise cheating trainers, ask yourself who is your real foe, is it the bookie or the trainer?
A bookie doesn't stop a horse, end of argument!
A bookie doesn't stop a horse, end of argument!
Well considering I said I don't like bookies?, I'm just pointing out something that seems to go over the head of most punters, its not the bookie who stops the horses but the trainer, so how come the bookie is public enemy No.1?
Preying on addicts?
Creating young addicts as soon as they hit 18?
Not laying fair bets?
Using bullying tactics when involved in disputes?
Obviously all bookies ain't the same.
Creating young addicts as soon as they hit 18?
Not laying fair bets?
Using bullying tactics when involved in disputes?
Obviously all bookies ain't the same.
when you have a bet do you worry that the bookie has stopped the horse or does the trainer send shivers down your spine?
No but I do worry that in 18 years I will be telling my Nephew to keep well away from the e-mails offering £20 free spin or the nice lady in the Bookies offering him £10 free play on Roulette.
If you are a bookie presumably you have not stopped a horse
If you not a bookie how do you know that horses have not been stoped by bookies.
As to real foe,get real Barney Curley puts enoughf money into the game and can do as he wishes, he's able to place and punt when his horses are right and dosent have to answer to anyone and fair play to him
If you not a bookie how do you know that horses have not been stoped by bookies.
As to real foe,get real Barney Curley puts enoughf money into the game and can do as he wishes, he's able to place and punt when his horses are right and dosent have to answer to anyone and fair play to him
About 3 years ago Roddick was fav in a Tennis Comp - he was 7/4 across the books but BetFred were 9/4.
He pulled out before his first match and all bets were losers.
What a coincidence Fred was top price.
He pulled out before his first match and all bets were losers.
What a coincidence Fred was top price.
pretty weak arguments, when the bet is struck the bookie is an afterthought the trainer is now as he was before you struck the bet the enigma that all punters have to face everyday.
Believe me the trainer is and always will be the biggest stumbling block for any punter big or small.
The jockey who often comes in for no end of stick might just have been riding to the trainers orders?
Believe me the trainer is and always will be the biggest stumbling block for any punter big or small.
The jockey who often comes in for no end of stick might just have been riding to the trainers orders?
See your point but the game is a mix of information and form.
SergeantMarcel Joined: 07 May 10
Replies: 144 12 Oct 11 15:16
"and again how much did Curley make from laying that last short horse? "
If Mr. Curley owned the horse how could he lay it........
Replies: 144 12 Oct 11 15:16
"and again how much did Curley make from laying that last short horse? "
If Mr. Curley owned the horse how could he lay it........
SergeantMarcel Joined: 07 May 10
Replies: 144 12 Oct 11 15:16
"and again how much did Curley make from laying that last short horse? "
oh oh
Replies: 144 12 Oct 11 15:16
"and again how much did Curley make from laying that last short horse? "
oh oh
We are talking about Barney Curley here, could you even dare to think he would miss such a golden goose like the ability to profit by laying his horses to lose?
I wonder who the third or fourth party is?, what has to come into consideration is the person who owns the purple exchange??
I wonder who the third or fourth party is?, what has to come into consideration is the person who owns the purple exchange??
was their any unusual betting patterns shown up on the exchanges and if so surley persons would have been investigated and brought to our knowledge
The government has to stop this offshore farce. A law has to bought in saying the bookies pay tax where their product is consumed. Then they will have to contribute to the product that brings in their greatest profit.
silvergreaser 13 Oct 11 01:15
when you have a bet do you worry that the bookie has stopped the horse or does the trainer send shivers down your spine?
When you have a bet do you worry that the bookie will stop the payout?
when you have a bet do you worry that the bookie has stopped the horse or does the trainer send shivers down your spine?
When you have a bet do you worry that the bookie will stop the payout?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539