ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS AT HAYDOCK

flash bookie what aces do you hold?

jimnast, didn't I spot you, on tv, having two out of the three pitches in the silver at Ludlow last week ?

roy
these figures are worse than u posted for catterick,
why dont u just stay at home on these days?
anyway you have a treat 2morrow wetherby are charging u 6 times for the badge they class this as a premier day.lol

all a gloomy assessment to cheer me as i set off on my 240 mile round trip to stratford on avon

the negotiators could have maybe got no increases at most courses but the racecourses wanted books to pay for all days , attend or not and an annual cheque in advance. some with better picks would like that but poorer picks would not but they are the ones sreaming. no win situation.
keep your aces to yourself , flash , or is that your bluff stategy

SPOT ON FLASH,ADGE ARE THE BOOKMAKERS WITH "BETTER PICKS" THAT "WOULD LIKE"TO PAY "AN ANUAL CHEQUE IN ADVANCE"THE VERY SAME ONES THAT DONT ATTEND OR RENT OUT THEIR PITCHES MIDWEEK BECAUSE THEY CANT MAKE IT PAY

jimnast,cant help but notice all the double picks you have,banngor,fontwell,chester,goodwood,leicester,ludlow,lingfield,newmarket,... probably missed some)not bad to say that you are against it,or are you just moving with the times?

240 mile round trip for what adge ? Am I misssing something ? Or is it 'cos you haven't paid your marketing fee ?

I've been back home from Stratford for about half an hour.  Went to the bookmakers open meeting, saw how many books and how many people, got back in car and off home.

the marketing fee for  kempton boxing day in the silve ring will sure see a huge drop in numbers. its ner impossible meeting to win at  as a rule, most books have somewhere else to go (ill be at fonterrs),noone goes any other meeting so whyy pa the fee.

so if u not attend at any meeting  over the year then u dont ave to pay the marketing fee

'Open meeting' wassy ? Please tell !

Sick

Newbury NH is the same as kempton. Thats why virtually every pitch above no 35 is for sale - they are unviable - when paying £300 for the badge.

Only question is whether the race course will care in the long run that less books will attend the big days.

Reading all the threads concerning oncourse bookmakers,you can only reach the conclusion that their representatives didn't negotiate good deals with  some of the courses.It appears to an onlooker that you got your security of tenure at a great cost.Perhaps your negotiators weren't very strong,considering courses HAVE to offer bookmakers prices,and an alternative,like pool betting.

I don't think they will care - the marketing fee and the increased multiple from the better picks will cover the shortfall. Even 25% less books would give the same income over the year.

Only time will tell. They would get increased multiple from those missing, if it were not for the way the "marketing fee" were charged.
I suspect you may be correct though.

You should have been able to negotiate a sliding scale for badge fees in relation to pick numbers,so that those in a "poor" pick don't pay the same as one of the big firms in a top pick.
  According to a reply to my suggestion of this months ago,it wasn't negotiable.Surely everything is negotiable.Cpllectively you had a strong hand,divisively,not so.
   So it appears you now have great security on pitches that aren't worth operating,and are probably losing value too!!!

UNBIASED YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD,YET SOME OF THE POSTERS ON HERE ARE CONVINCED THE NEGOTIATERS GOT US A "GREAT DEAL"WHEN THE FACT IS THE ONLY ONES THAT GOT "THE GREAT DEAL"WERE THE RACECOURSES.

THETRUTHHURTS

Totally agree with you. yesterdays marketing fee (approx £3500) straight to the bank this morning

Open meeting at Stratford before racing today demo as per AGT website.  Good bookmaker attendance, very positive meeting.

Perhaps the disgruntled ones could get unbiased to lead them? seems to have most things sorted imo.

AUCTION SITE SEEMS TO BE FREEZING   PROBABLY STOPPED ME BUYING SOMETHING I MIGHT REGRET

etratford report.....17 books [ 16 last year ]
weather far worse than the forecast i saw
business abysmal for 4 races [ weather related ], decent for 1 an good for the other 2.
the 2 good races a short price favourite won both but as places were good minor losses.
best part of M1 snarled up getting home..took almost 3 hours
marketing fee not charged until march 2013

at least the air was fresh.....onto wetherby tomorrow

Why not stay at home instead adge and watch Bargain Hunt - another trip likely to be Pointless !!! Any jocky report from today ? Were you vociferous at 'wassy's meeting' ?

If more 'open' meetings a la today's at Stratford had taken place at other courses prior to negotiations reaching an advanced stage would racecources have become aware of the feelings of the rank and file of bookmakers with the possiblity of a different agreement ?

today was a jocky free day and i don't get up in time to attend morning meetings.
the management did say the meeting was fruitful , whatever that means.
the management LAST year were made very aware that it was the £14 admission plus the car park not being free that kept punters away........they promptly put the charge up to £16 this year.

again it was a major topic of complaint so expect another price rise next meeting

If Stratford aren't collecting the marketing fee until next year, will it be calculated from the admission prices as at Sept 1st or next years prices which are likely to be a quid or two higher ?

And consequently a rise in the badge fee !! When the 'deal' was done adge was it ever considered/argued, given the trend of increased entry charges, that the badge fee could be frozen let's say for five years, or something along those lines ? Just a thought !

demo - there were 5 years of AGMs where anyone could come along to their association and put forward their point of view.  I feel that 2 months after contracts have been signed is a little too late.

Think your totally missing the point, Wasnot...
We all love a bit of after-timing, don't you know.

A question for you bookies:
Situation: 3 mins from the off, the 3-1 fav is drifting out to 4-1 now 5-1 on betfair. The on course market is almost empty, punters gone to the stands, why not offer at least 4-1? Might get a bet you would't of otherwise.
(My angle is that with best odds guaranteed with off course bookies I'm obviously hoping for a bigger win.)

(Taunton on Tuesday the busiest for a long time, 4 deep at paddock and busy ring (25-30 pitches)

dodger

12 months or so ago i thought it was the way forward as plenty of others were doing it including yourself,i no longer think its the way forward and would agree right now if it was put to a vote to ban more than one pitch in any ring.however if things stay the say then sometimes i may use 2 picks,what about you would you stop useing two pitches in the same ring ?

ian p

thats correct about ludlow but niether were flimping on the place terms like many in silver rings.

Norton
It's been said on here umpteen times,the show bears very little resemblence to the actual prices in the ring.If it was going out on here you can guarantee it would have been going out on the boards also.It isn't the oncourse lads fault that the true prices aren't transmitted.

"We're doomed!"

Norfolk
It's Charlie Hall day tomorrow.There'll be no doom & gloom off them Yorkshire Books tomorrow night.The world will suddenly be a better place & everything will hunky dorry.

Sadly, there are not enough days like it!

WETHERBY   FRIDAY will be classed as a FESTIVAL DAY

BOOKMAKERS BADGE FEE IS 6 TIMES ADDMISSION

another rip off day

Will it stop anyone coming roy?

norton ,
thanks for your input [ only 4 posts ]
if it drifts to 5/1 on here there will be plenty of 9/2 in the ring as books want the last copper coin.
unfortunately for office punters the books used for shows and sp don't reflect this as not in their interest to take the last few pounds and potentially cost the high street thousands.
this has been explained many times as allpoints says but armchair punters will never believe it because they don't want to.
roy ,
agreed entirely but won't stop a full ring of books attending , unfortunately

jimnast;i believe having 2 3 or 4 picks is here to stay,belive me it is the way forward,although saying that there are certain rings and courses i wouldnt entertain,instead of speading far and wide we should all be concentrating on the better tracks.good luck to all the boys at wetherby today.

Don't let your heart rule your head!

DEMOCRAT,HOW DARE U EVEN CONSIDER TALKING COMMON SENSE REGARDING THE WHISPERING CAMPAIGN/NEGOTIATIONS DONE ON OUR BEHALF!

roy ,
although i totally agree with you , wetherby insisted on 6 times for ALL days . it was only by continued negotiation and pressure that they relented and set the fee at 5 times plus a percentage at 6 .

Democrat's idea of the better(most expensive) the pick is the more a bookmaker should pay in fees is v amusing.Hopefully this system can be used in listed horse races.I pay £10k for a horse, some random person pays £150k, Surely that horse should carry 30lb more

HARRY,U BUY A HOUSE FOR 80K AND A "RANDOM PERSON" PAYS 8 MILLION,SO BY YOUR RECKONING THEY U SHOULD BOTH PAY THE SAME COMMUNITY CHARGE

No, but they both pay the same entry fees to race.

dodger

i shall take your advice and have 2 at ascot saturday,thats one you missed

Thanks TRUTH - wassy would rather focus on the 'timing' than the sentiment. As for suggesting that comments at AGM's was the way forward I am far from covinced. I hope one day wassy might, just might, agree that that the fait accompli that has been put in place could be improved upon. On a slightly different note it would appear that many courses are about to preclude bookmakers from being Members in the future. Any informed individuals out there who can confirm this to be a fact ?

Aah ok THETRUTH i didn,t realise a £150k pick took up acres of ground and a £50 pick works on a postage stamp of sinking ground.

The fact that the returned prices bear little resemblance to the ring prices on many occasions suggests that there is a cartel arrangement at work .This is something the competition authorities should investigate since it is costing the off course punter millions of pounds every year.

The fact that the returned prices bear little resemblance to the ring prices on many occasions suggests that there is a cartel arrangement at work .This is something the competition authorities should investigate since it is costing the off course punter millions of pounds every year.

What did you think the AGMs were for Demo?  At the ARB all members got an invite and the number 1 item on the agenda each time was 'Negotiations'.  Open floor, honest answers.  We didn't have any more than 5 members ever bother to turn up.  They were asked if they had any questions or had any input.  Don't really see what else could have been done.  If the bookmakers can't be bothered to show up to the meetings they can't really complain that they didn't know what was going on or that there was some sort of covert operation going on.  If the rank and file aren't happy with the outcome of the negotiations then perhaps they should have taken the opportunity to have some input over the last 5 years.

Incidentally, I believe that the majority are OK with it.

What should have happened was individual negotiations with each individual operator as would happen in any line of other industry, the racecourses must now surely see that an arrangement where certain individuals are allowed to decide upon an arrangement collectively for a group of indivdualls.

Surely some legal eagle must know if this can be challenged under any act, if the Racecourses had enough people prepared to negotiate individual contracts with the relevant legal stature quoted at them, the whole arrangements that have been put in place would fall apart

Now Tenure Secured - Surely Nothing to stop this happening, the racecourses would employ an independent agent to manage the process

jimnast.glad to hear it,i hope your keeping norniron busy.

he is retired until easter,he doesnt like the cold.

ON the basis that the terms of the agreements can be amended, is it not time that EVERY racecourse has its own individual bookmakers committee that meets with racecourse management from time to time to discuss issues involving bookmaking at that INDIVIDUAL racecourse.I suggest that the bookmakers committee be made up of a representative from the rails,higher pick tatts,lower pick tatts and silver ring.It is painfully obvious that as time goes on the viability of trade at certain tracks will decline, thus, in order to maintain a suitable bookmaker attendance the terms of SOME contracts will have to renegotiated.The real problem with the contracts is that they have been negotiated on a onesizefitsall basis, cheltenham festival should not have similar terms to say chepstow nh which clearly has just one viable day for most picks.

good post mugbookie.

Sensible comment mugbookie - the structure that has been put in place should be considered as a prototype which after its first year should be subject to review to determine problem issues and its suitabilty to all parties involved. If a clause referring to such a 'review' was not included in the agreement then I'm afraid this was a big and regrettable omission. I cannot believe that what has been put in place will not be revisited in time for fine tuning and improvement with the interests of those with 'middling' picks being taken into consideration. On the other hand perhaps I can believe it !!!

none of us do jimnast.

demo;whats happening with chester?

I think you all need to talk to a member of the negotiating team to maybe get a bit of a reality check on were we were, what our team of legal advisers thooght and what we have achieved.

In terms of what was collectively negotiated, the terms of reference were always to try to achieve the best agreed contract terms possible, then to either recommend them to the bookmakers or not.  As has been explained before, it is up to each bookmaker to decide whether to sign the proposed contract or not.  Anyone is free to negotiate a different contract or different terms with the racecourses as individuals.

After the event is not the best time to be suggesting a different tack.

All well and good wassy - do I take it that you would be more than happy to still be driving around in a Model T  ? The point I am trying to make is - yes we have to start somewhere but please accept that now a greater number of minds have been brought to bear on 'the agreement' the comments being made are undestandable and justifiable. We all know the point you make about 'individual agreements' is both impractical and flawed in its concept. If an 'individual agreement' was put in place it could drive a coach and horses through what has been agreed 'in general' so please spare us any more of this particular piece of doctrine Let's move from the Model T to the Rolls Royce as soon as we can - this can only be done to quote 'after time' since it was impossible to be done 'in ignorance' of what was being proposed.

I dont think we will ever agree on this demo.  The greater number of minds could have easily found out which way the negotiations were heading by talking to the negotiators or attending AGMs.  I do understand where you are coming from but what we would like and what was achievable are very different things.  We had the best advisors in the business on our side and what we think is right and fair is not always so in the eyes of the law or to an independent arbitor.

I hear what you say wassy but perhaps some of the problem was how the issues were described/argued with the so called 'advisors'. Dont forget in this particular case there was no case law and therefore the 'advisors' would have more than likely expressed opinions rather than given hard evidenced guidance. I appreciate your point about 'talking' to negotiators but as expressed before the most professional approach would have been for negotiations to have been documented and made available to 'all' via a website page, possibly, that could have been password protected to avoid 'unwanted' access. Please do not criticise this as 'hindsight' - more involvement and consultation at the time could have brought due rewards. Nothing personal wassy - your views appreciated.

Wassy - It is not for the person whom is having something negotiated on their behalf (in hindsight many did'nt even know what was being negotiated on their behalf) to approach the negotiator/s

I am sure you will agree more the job of the negotiators to come to the rank and file, If it had been flashed up in lights prior to  the association's meetings that you describe what was being discussed then many more would have attended I am sure you will agree.

Adge's suggestion of the Forum opening up ASAP is massive progress then move on to the next step to email round an agenda for forthcoming meetings to all members, that way they can see what is being discussed and make a decision as to if to attend.

This is the 21st century now after all

Understand what you are saying guys and no offence taken demo, you know me :)  These were extraordinary circumstances as it was unclear on either side what we actually had bought going in to the negotiations, although the Select Committee agreed it was 'something' and that 'something' could not just be nicked off us.

Putting stuff on here was difficult as we believe the racecourses read every word we put down so a forum, even password protected, was considered too dangerous.

The negotiators were trying to find areas of broad agreement.  We would have been happier to recommend a contract a year or so ago but there are two sides to a negotiation.

Is that a hint of a concession there wassy that the agreement could have been different as in better perhaps ? Your views on where we go from here would be of interest - I trust it will not be 'we've made our bed and we'll have to lie on it' ! While we are at it 'Do the racecourses really want bookmakers?' If the answer is not a million percent 'yes' the 50 year tenure concession is not worth the paper it is written on !!

Of course the 'agreement' could have been better.  We would always be happier paying less and getting longer tenure.  Do the racecourses want bookmakers?  They will all answer yes to that, guess you have to make your own minds up on whether its true or not.  Some I'm sure do, the others would get a shock at the fall in attendances if we werent there to provide atmosphere and colour!

What I was getting at was that if we could have concluded the negotiations earlier it would have given bookmakers more time to negotiate their own deal if they weren't happy.  Unfortunately a year ago the 2 sides were miles apart and I don't think the bookmakers would have been very happy with what was on offer!

I am also noting with interest the prices being achieved by the positions going through the auction.  Some people dont think these pitches are unworkable at the terms on offer.

If Ranleigh were our legal advisers no wonder the agreements seem to overwhelmingly favour a relatively small group of members.The RCA have always played a delaying game and when this became apparent we should have taken legal action against the RCA.

Were you not happy with Ranelagh then chatto?  Would you have taken legal action against the RCA if our legal advisors advised against it?

Let me guess preferred T&Cs.Top 10 picks pay £500 per day,Martyn of leicester should pay a grand though for obvious reasons.All picks from his down to the car park pay a fiver.

Come off it Harry the cr*p pitches still expected to pay a fiver ? Now that would be 'money without work' !!

The cr@p pitches are fetching more than their reserve at auction currently.  Interesting.

Does that mean the reserve is too low or that with no sales for such a long time means there is a demand to be satisfied ?

Could be either.  The reserves seem plenty high enough to me.

now i know what the lot of you are doing all day long while a few of us [ too many today ] are out in the wind and rain and cold watching one favourite followed by another come home first , then get stuck in traffic trying to get home.
we have a NBPA directors meeting on sunday with our new NAB president travelling up for a chat . i have noted some points raised [ more welcome ] , we do consider having closer ties with our northern racecourses which is welcmed by both sides and i do intend making far more of our website which has been stagnent for too long , already being implemented but i don't have the technical knowhow myself
i won today btw

how many books today adge and how was buisness

i think there were 28 books.in fairness wetherby is one of my best pitches so was good business [ 506 slips ] but most would say it was poor as the weather deterioated rapidly during the afternoon

SPOKE TO A BOOKMAKER WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING WITH STRATFORD RACECOURSE(STANDS IN A PROMINENT PITCH)WHEN I ASKED HOW THE MEETING WENT HIS REPLY WAS "VERY CONSTRUCTIVE"WITH THE RACECOURSE "REALLY MAKING AN EFFORT"I THEN ASKED WHAT WAS THE BEST THING THEY PUT ON THE TABLE TO WHICH THE REPLY WAS"WITH THE MARKETING FEE CASH THEY ARE GOING TO PUT A PAGE IN THE RACE CARD(WHICH VERY FEW BUY)TO SHOW PUNTERS HOW TO BET WITH BOOKMAKERS"

The favs win and adge wins - there's a surprise !! The habits of his 'rep' are rubbing off on him. As for 'the marketing fee' picking up on TRUTH's point - it's either a big con. or a

continued - serious attempt by the racecourses to enhance bookmakers' business - only time will tell. Once again another element of 'the agreement' that should be reviewed in time to assess whether it is justified.

continued - serious attempt by the racecourses to enhance bookmakers' business - only time will tell. Once again another element of 'the agreement' that should be reviewed in time to assess whether it is justified.

Not a good day with the keyboard ! Aaaagh

charlie hall day...a good punter card [ small fields and poor odds percentages ]not a bookmaker card
was much busier two or three years ago but still a cracking day for business , ruby did his best to ruin it as the punters charged in heads down for his two
what annoys me is punters who fail to act like gentlemen. we took a grand bet on the big winner at 11/10 and checking the bundle while the race was run found only £920. we bundled it back together and when he collected gave him his bundle back and 1100 counted out of mine. he put the 1100 straight in his pocket and proceeded to count the bundle....then turned away and said nothing....lets all other gentleman punters down.
anyway enjoyed the day , level of business and general atmosphere....taking six days off now until next saturday

You should have only paid the punter his £920 + his winnings of £1012

He's ended up getting 6/5 to his money

Don't do it again - you'll give bookies a bad name

agreed - make the ring bizzy earn his money, you can always get hold of him when a NH race is taking place

Gives me an idea for the old "bundle of newspaper between 2 £20 notes" jape.

adge • November 3, 2012 7:29 PM GMT

I am astounded that having, 'checked the bundle', you did not challenge him when he came up to draw!

I would have paid him 11/10 to his £920 as 545APG previously stated!

Alan, you are a very naughty boy!

I shall have all my back bets with you in future adge - let nobody say these Yorkshire people are tight with money - adge has proved different !

THE TROUBLE WITH ADGES POSITION IS ONCE HE ACCEPTS THE BET,GIVES THE PUNTER HIS TICKET,AND DOESNT INFORM THE RING BIZZIE BEFORE THE RACE HAS CONCLUDED THEN HE HASNT GOT A LEG TO STAND ON,OTHER THAN CONFRONTING THE PUNTER WHO WILL SWEAR ON HIS MOTHERS LIFE THAT HE PAYED THE CORRECT STAKE.WE ALL KNOW AS ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS U ARE FAIR GAME TO BE RIPPED OFF AS HAS BEEN SEEN WITH THE RACECOURSE NEGOTIATIONS

THETRUTHHURTS,

Good point!

You must always inform the AGT ring official!

That's if you can find the little c*nt!

always keep their phone numbers in your mobile, it saves a lot of hassle

I KNOW HILLS ARE TERRIFIED OF LAYING A BET,BUT I THINK HAVING ALL THE PUNTERS TELEPHONE NUMBERS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

THETRUTHHURTS • November 4, 2012 11:18 AM GMT
I KNOW HILLS ARE TERRIFIED OF LAYING A BET,BUT I THINK HAVING ALL THE PUNTERS TELEPHONE NUMBERS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

"IT SAVES A LOT OF HASSLE" WHEN THEY TRY TO GET ON THOUGH

takes customer service to a new level though