The Ralph Topping Interview In Today's Racing Post

Isn't it amazing how much coverage William Hill get in the Racing Post since it was bought from the Mirror Group.

Anyone would think that William Hill were actually shareholders in the Racing Post, rather than just advertisers, and that this piece of 'journalism' is yet another example of this 'newspaper' seeking to perpetuate an anti-punter commercial agenda on their behalf, imo.

As for restriction 'not happening every day', perhaps Ralph might like to explain why the maximum I can have online with his company on any horse currently racing, or yet to be born, is £0.00...

"There's not one shred of evidence produced in the last decade which would indicate machines are the cause of problem gambling"

Really Mr Topping ?

Racing Post giving space up to that drivel is a total embarrasment

"We are not knocking back that many punters.It is a myth,"

Really Mr Topping ?

Why doesn't it say "ADVERTISEMENT" above the article please?

machine player are not exclusive machine players

i think if you sit in any betting shop you will see that a minimum of 80% are strictly machine players .

a problem gambler is a problem gambler . it's a person thing , it's not a product thing

i would agree to a certain degree . but what he and the horse racing ( levy ) should be aware of is that any winnings a gambler makes on horse racing by a fobt player , they will lose it into the machines , which decreases the ammount of levy that is paid , but increases bookmakers profit

Punters don't get knocked back very often Topping ..... yeah right !! then why have a football coupon in the shops saying 7/4 Olympiacos and the MAXIMUM stake anyone can have is $40 to win £70 ..... that is until you change the price to 6/5 ..... FFS EVERY punter is being restricted  .... The £40 restriction was on all of your managers monitors ..... is that one of the BIG bets you wre on about ?? LOL LOL LOL

Not many getting knocked back from the FOBT's these days

What's totally obscene, is that the Racing Post is prepared to print this thoroughly cynical obfuscation without questioning any of it.

Though having said that, a world where you can bet without discrimination is very probably a daily reality to most of the guessers who work there...

What do you all expect.Topping's business is about getting punters money by hook or by crook.Fair play etc. just doesn't come into it.

Ralph Topping - "There's not been one shred of evidence produced...which would indicate machines are the cause of problem gambling...if people produced evidence...we would have no alternative as an industry than to act on that evidence."


Every one of william Hill's 2000+ shops has a file ofself-excluded problem gamblers. Most shops have more than a hundred entries by now. 99.5% are the result of machine play.

Is that evidence published?

hello ralph

So if a "self excluded" gambler comes into a shop and starts playing a machine,what happens ? Do the staff drag him off and pin him to the floor ?

offer him tea n biscuits imo

He also mentioned that further down the line Punters will have to pay a surcharge to bet on the racing product

"Every one of william Hill's 2000+ shops has a file ofself-excluded problem gamblers. Most shops have more than a hundred entries by now. 99.5% are the result of machine play."

How many self exclusions do betting websites have in comparison? Are you proposing they should be banned as well?

Where's Corbiewood when Ralph needs him?

I'd like to "self exclude" myself from being restricted or closed down.Is that possible !?

Where's Corbiewood when Ralph needs him?

Don't worry - right on cue, the other sad b*stard has turned up.

It's possible to go elsewhere... Be proud that you are one of those Ralph doesn't want to transact with, he's not hiding the fact by announcing it in the industry newspaper.

You can't force a business to transact with people on terms they don't want to.

mrcombustible
04 Dec 12 14:09
Joined:
18 Feb 02
| Topic/replies: 639 | Blogger: mrcombustible's blog
He also mentioned that further down the line Punters will have to pay a surcharge to bet on the racing product

...........

Already happens on Australian racing.

"Every one of william Hill's 2000+ shops has a file ofself-excluded problem gamblers. Most shops have more than a hundred entries by now. 99.5% are the result of machine play."

How many self exclusions do betting websites have in comparison? Are you proposing they should be banned as well?


Clive, I'm not proposing that they should be banned (I'd like to see them taxed at 50%). And the comparison you propose is irrelevant.

Ralph Topping - "There's not been one shred of evidence produced...which would indicate machines are the cause of problem gambling...if people produced evidence...we would have no alternative as an industry than to act on that evidence."

why then are the managers in betting shops  not allowed to call the police when a problem gambler wrecks a machine,threatens the staff and other punters,in some cases the staff are the ones who get sacked and thrown out of the shop.

its insanity beyond belief in this rancid industry

If you make self exclusion readily available then the number of those taking it up (for a variety of reasons)will increase.

The comparison is entirely appropriate as the alleged concern on here is down to problem gambling levels. Therefore are you proposing taxing betfair 50% as well?

i think he means taxing the machines at 50% and i suppose he means online as well

its insanity beyond belief in this rancid industry


When the media are corrupt, who is there to police the dishonest...?

Yes, I mean 50% instead of the 20% that will be taxed from Fobts from February.

Since you're inviting the comparison, Clive, 2000 x 100 = 200,000, albeit individuals can self-exclude from a number of shops (4 I think). There's no way that online exclusions compare to those numbers.

clive82

Ladbrokes Shop :-
==================
Mr FOBT walks in, good morning sir how are you today ? Would you like a coffee ? How about a couple of biscuits to go with it ? Would you like our new loyalty card ? Spend £1000 on the FOBTs and we give £10 free spins. Would you like another drink ?

Mr Horse Bettor comes in, (tut tut) hang on sir, give me a few mins to bring that price up on the screen, I need to phone it through (another 5 mins), sorry you cant have £100 win but you can have £10 at SP, please close the door on your way out.

Ralph read  your  comments in the Post ..now take a step back .. if Hills had a choice between  horse racing  or the FOBS  and nothing else  no footy  dart  snoocker  get the drift  ..
its a  two horse race for your estate
you are the top dog which one would you bump
come on you or your advisors read these foroms  so do the papers and tv boys

duke re taxing..50%.... it easy money and the  chancellor  knows that
hence  the tax   hey its still a mint for the bookies with shops ..

for the record  ive never played the fobs  went to Las Vegus drinks were free   dollies walking the floor yes sir no sir and i had a good few the Wife was playing the machine  all of a sudden  the bells started ringing  She won a Jackpot photos every were hi Sir  can we put you on the wall of winners
No thanks  i told him  take a look in there thats The Hall of Losers We moved on  to Dollywood   a great  time  its true

who the feck is this clive creature

I have read some of his drivel and the best news most could have is knowledge of him catching something pretty severe

What a clueless appologist this vile cretin is

Crawl back under you stone clive you prize wánker

PS save your reply, you are blocked you ponce

Ralph  by your own  addmision you have banned  certain punters  your words
We dont want thier  business because  they are too shrewd and too well  connected
Now  honest   how many punters have your firm ( Hills) banned  form playing  FOBS ....

feck me

Not only do we have clive the cretin ( Could be David Williams ) we have that other complete too Derek Thompson posting on this thread

Jesus , but at least we keep all the thieving lying bástards on one thread

That peice in the Post would be improved if I wiped my arse on it as the thing would make better eeading covered in shít

Well done the Racing Post , once again showing your utter contempt for punters with this pile of craap

I move on

Edward  .. its the land of free speech.. now grow up you  nobody .. could have said a .. hole  but nobody will do for now

I'd love to stop funding this sh1tty  mouthpiece for the bookmakers. But where else can I read my racing news and form in a newspaper? Seriously.

Galitzin   i agree   The Racing Post  cost  about £600 per year 
4 times more than any other news paper
and they resort to this crap ...

Galiltzin

Do it on line Sir....twitter gets all the news before the papers and there are numerous sites for form study....

keep your money out of the clutchs of that rancid rag

There was plenty of lobbying done here in Ireland to get FOBT's introduced but to no avail (so far). Never say never but the possibility today looks remote.

In many ways what the Post did today is not entirely cringeworthy: the issues were raised and the stock answers provided but I don't see anyone falling for the line that fobt's are not a problem. It's better to get the issues raised even if WH think there are gullible readers. Unfortunately those suffering from gullibility (and worse) are the betting shop joes.

It's time I gave twitter a go, Scared. Though I do need the hard copy for the journey to work. Zipper, it's worse than just the 600 nicker a year. I signed up to their website membership as it had something I needed but couldn't get in the paper. Membership was supposed to be monthly. Then I found out they billed me for the year. Bar stewards.

End of game boys  but  to pay £600  for  the bull you have in the Racing  Post   thats me  phone tonoght to cancell .. honest  .. f...ck em

Well Done Zipper .... the money's better in your pocket . Feck 'em !

I think the article will prove a rivetting read......... to anyone that has problems sleeping !

"Industry Editor" Bill Barber should take a long hard look at himself in the mirror for writing such rubbish...

To quote Topping as saying "the people who promote racing more than anybody else and who give exposure to the racing product are the bookmakers" is an absolute outrage....

Go into any of his firms shops and you will be lucky to glimpse an early price and venture in later and you will never see the racing results properly..

The Scottish Albino has done more to kill off horse race betting than anyone else.To be given space in the Trade Paper to peddle his lies is an absolute disgrace....

exactly zipper you bell end, that is why I exercised mine in summing up that apologist for everything that is bad about this sport.

You seem as clueless as that odious priick ( free speech or not ) considering 99% of you posts are moaning like a feckin baby forgive me if it takes me a while to get up off the floor after lmfao at YOU yfdc

Even the insults are starting to lack imagination..

Exclusions online dwarf those in shops, a fact which a 2 min internet search would show. But as usual the angry arbers don't let actual evidence interfere with a good old fashioned rant.

Another thread motivated by complete self interest half heartedly disguised as a genuine concern for problem gamblers.

Clive,


good evening. Are you suggesting that everyone who enters a betting shop to back a horse/dog etc. is an arber  ?

Post the link then, clive...

Btw, exclusions per shop, twenty at most, imvho !

The most I ever had at any one time was six, but accept city centre shops would have a lot more !

.. and after the six months was up.... yep you've guessed it !   

The published stats show that even the tiny amount of online sites left in the UK generate approx 50% more exclusions then shops. Add to that betfair, Hills, Ladbrokes, Coral, Betfred... the numbers won't even be in the same ball park.

Halcyon - No i am not, that would be as daft as suggesting everyone who goes in a shop gets their bets knocked back or everyone who decides to play FOBTs has a problem with gambling.

Oh I see, its only the ^ poster's above !

everyone who decides to play FOBTs has a problem with gambling

the thing is more likely that the people that play fobts dont have a problem with gambling , but do have a problem with fobts

I was in an ex shop of mine last month and the people who had self-excluded would have made the William Hill cashiers in Scotland that had the Albino Topping chance their arm with him blush...

There were at least a hundred and no wonder the shop was dead.If ever there was an industry that wanted to kill itself then it is the "Betting Shop" In times of yore (when I was in charge) the place would have been packed with losers and SOME winners and the profits were enormous.Now even the machines were quiet...

Exclude your best punters and the shop will be dead.Unless of course you are in favour of mass immigration with potential new mugs...

Yeap, 2.7% of billions is a lot of dough !


Maybe, the vast majority don't understand simple arithmetic !

homefortea,


good evening. As I understand it FOBT profits for the BIG 6 are holding up !



I think you'd have to accept that horse racing as we know it is a dying sport !  ?

If you say that's how the figures divide, Clive, you're the expert.
But if nearly all the exclusions in the shop relate to machine misery (and I don't suppose you're disputing that as a fact) that shows where the problem lies.

FOBTs static, Football growing, Sports Betting growing, Horse Racing T/O 10% down year on year ! That's been the case I believe, for the last few years ?

if fobts were banned , would levy rise ?

Most of the people who self exclude have a problem with betting on FOBTs FACT  !

Harold, in time yes !

clive82....

The problem is that online gamblers can do their conkers and can do so via their cards etc...

The mugs on the machines are doing cash !! They are the ones who can least afford it and are more likely to thieve to get their fix.I can look after myself but people like yourself who are paid to bend over and take it are at risk.Surely you must appreciate that is a risk too far....

According to the published GC stats the £680m losses incurred with UK regulated online firms generated 36,764 self exclusions. This compares with £2.78bn losses in betting shops leading to 21,029 exclusions.

That equates to 1 exclusion for every £132k lost in betting shops and 1 exclusion for every £18k lost online.

Online betting therefore has over 7 times more exclusions than betting shops do pro rata to money spent.

Time for an investigation into the harm caused by internet gambling?

^ or to ''cosh'' a cashier to get their (?) cash back  !   

halcyon , levy is down because all winnings from horse racing bets goes into fobt's and not recycled back into horse racing bets , so levy loses out , but bookmaker gets it back withour having to pay levy

harold mate, read my ^ post above !

Good point B B  .

banned banks , does it say how many are female compared to male ?

women dont like to go into betting shops but are more than happy to gamble online .

sorry halcyon ,typing before i read it

B B, that would suggest that a high percentage of the losses on FOBTs is from the proceeds of crime......  namely drug dealing  !

* are

It doesn't break the numbers down any more than this.

There are bound to be a higher percentage of women self excluded online but no idea what percentage that would be.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/Industry%20Statistics%20-%20June%202012.pdf

B B  ?

Hello Bon Viveur...

Surely you cannot believe anything that the GC says can you.....

Not wishing to argue but surely ticking a box online must be easier that going into your local "Bookmaker" and telling them that you wish to self-exclude.Then being told to fill in a form and bring in a photograph and then watch while some half-wit on minimum wage pastes it into a book that is then passed around the local punters ...

You are really only joking banned_banks....surely....

Starbucks - Amazon and other companies ; along with numerous stars and celebrities have been criticised for paying an unfair amount of tax to the UK government and little is said about the numerous offshore bookmakers that continue to accept bets on horseracing in this country via their Malta & Gibratar bases ( for example ) and not pay an appropriate - if any - Levy to help the UK racing economy....... they are parasites. If they are based offshore then they should pay the taxes or not be allowed to take bets on UK racing.

Surely if you are taking number of exclusions as the very narrow measurement of problem gambling then actually the stats show online betting is far more dangerous then the shops. Not sure how you believe letting people use credit cards reduces that risk!

The simple point is people on here bang on incessently about FOBTs needing to be banned and yet never mention other forms of gambling ie. scratch cards, spreadbetting, betting exchanges... The reason being they don't actually give a monkeys about problem gambling, they are motivated by some twisted logic that if you cut off Ralph's FOBT revenue stream he will suddenly start accepting their bets.

Some at least have the honesty to accept that is what motivates them, rather then the other sheep like homefortea who just follow the crowd because they can't think for themselves.

B B, that would suggest that a high percentage of the losses on FOBTs is from the proceeds of crime......  namely drug dealing  !


Why?  Because people appear "happier" to lose the money in shops?

Not sure you can draw that conclusion directly from the stats.

Clive, do you manage a betting shop  ?

No Sir !   Because people who earn (sic)) several thousands pounds a day can't deposit it in a bank !

No, I play FOBTs in them and don't want anybody taking that choice away from me.

A number of bigwigs within the industry reckon that a lot of shops would close if the machines were removed from the shops ; this is utter rubbish ..... Betting Shops survived and even prospered before they were installed and they would continue to do so as the bookmakers would need to show some balls and start to accept a decent wager again........ will this happen ???? I don't think so.

if you cut off Ralph's FOBT revenue stream he will suddenly start accepting their bets.

clive , are you interested in horse racing ?

Clive,you are not a very intelligent person.

This data gathered solely from your posts.hth

GT-MOLE

A number of bigwigs within the industry reckon that a lot of shops would close if the machines were removed from the shops ; this is utter rubbish ..... Betting Shops survived and even prospered before they were installed and they would continue to do so as the bookmakers would need to show some balls and start to accept a decent wager again........

Betting shops survived before machines however that was also before BF and before internet betting was a major factor. Remove machines and the intenet and yes I agree that they would be able to revert to the way they were in terms of accepting decent bets.

Unfortunately that is impossible so we are left with machines and lots of shops or no machines and fewer shops and even more restrictions.

GT you are clearly a very intelligent person, I can tell by your cutting wit and incisive deconstruction of my argument.

Go phone your mum and tell her you wrote something funny on the internet.

Bollox BB,Independents were being squeezed out systematically by the then Big 3 as long ago as the 60s.

What you say regarding machines etc,60% minimum shops would close without them.nap

clive82 surely you are not having a pop at me..

I have never followed anyone.....

I will put things simply even for a moron like yourself....

If Albino Ralph was not allowed FOBTS in his shops then he would have to make up 50% of his profits from elsewhere ...Period..

If the Scottish Cashier Romeo could find those profits from other than horse racing then I will lick his boots...

Bollox BB,Independents were being squeezed out systematically by the then Big 3 as long ago as the 60s.


Not sure what relevance that has to my comments.

banned_banks...


Please stop peddling that lie.For some reason (from what I read on here it is because the new breed of Area Managers do not understand betting) if there were no FOBTS then "Bookmakers" would have to start taking bets to maintain turnover...

However I must admit that they have no staff that understand betting so bring it on...

I may even make a comeback....

I'd love to stop funding this sh1tty  mouthpiece for the bookmakers. But where else can I read my racing news and form in a newspaper? Seriously.


Sweet f**k. What news? The report NOTHING!
Only use of the RP is the form database on the website. The rest is tripe

Shops reverting back to taking bets BB?

Clue,small Indie.......liabilities running up.......hedge account........all the snouts had a dip in the trough........small and large.

It was called BOOKMAKING......TURF ACCOUNTANCY.......bets taken.........books balanced.

i sincerely hope that he contracts a terminal illness

an absolute cretin

Too bad,PG..........retract that ffs?

couldnt give a flying **** about him

bookies are the lowest of the low.

skint and clueless? we'll accommodate you no problem

show half a brain and they dont want to know and you'll be restricted to the hilt.

so bollocks to all the "not very PC" crap....i hope he drops down dead in front of his wife and kids, he's a lying parasite bastard.

You are right imvho.

And now tough talking Paulie to complete the set of total tools...

PG you are clearly a very angry little man. Not sure it is a PC thing to not wish people die in front of their family, it's just a case of being a member of the human race.

An established independant should be able to make money.

I have heard 'Gross Win Per FOBT termiinal' is nearing across the board
at £1000 per week, some key shops are close to £2000 per terminal.

A shrewd independant need only take £10,0000 OTC at £1400 profit per week
weening out unprofitable bets of course.

With betfair and the arber 'now a thing of the past' they have never had it
so good !

Just spoken to a pal of mine who used to work for Mecca Bookmakers in the dim and distant...

The Head Of Who You Cannot Get On With (William Hill) was apparently at "College" and used to work as a Saturday settler for Mecca Bookmakers and was paid "cash in hand"......

Does this mean that the rancid firm can be charged back taxes...