Government to review Maximum Stakes and prizes on FOBT'S

Can you C & P the text to here please Anaglogs, without having to register?

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web

There saying the coalition partners Lib Dem also Labour are putting the Tories under pressure to review Gambling laws for FOBT's and other arcade venues and will reject a DCMS select committee recommendation to increase the number of FOBT's allowed in betting shops and will talk to community groups as well as the gambling industry over the next 3 months, and will put forward a motion to have  tracking technology inserted in FOBT's to monitor patterns of play.

But it finishes off with the usual tom-tit the bookie industry says it will lead to 20 million job losses, riots on the street, anarchy, lawlessness, government overthrown and Bucks palace razed to the ground

"riots on the street, anarchy, lawlessness, government overthrown and Bucks palace razed to the ground"

Count me in, then.

Basically saying there will be no restriction/relaxation of FOBT regulations without proper evidence.

Or in other words your little crusade is up the creek as you've never been able to provide a single piece of credible independent evidence.

Why not start your credible evidence base now Gandalf, by explaining your claim it is possible to lose £14k in an hour on an FOBT.

clive clearly on alert!!

No time wasted!!

What would you accept as "credible independent evidence", Clive ?

will put forward a motion to have  tracking technology inserted in FOBT's to monitor patterns of play

Why do i get a feeling if it's a 3 month period that some machines may be out of action for 3 months

Talks over Medway's £200m gambling epidemic

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2013/january/15/talks_over_medways_gambling_e.aspx

Medway council is to hold top level talks with regulators to discuss the problems of betting machines that have been described as the “crack cocaine of gambling”.

Labour leader Cllr Vince Maple and community safety chief Cllr Mike O’Brien (Con) will discuss the impact of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals on people in the Towns with the Gambling Commission.

Last month the Medway Messenger reported shock figures which show that more than £200 million a year is gambled on the machines in Medway.
The terminals allow players to bet on the outcome of various games and events, including bingo and horse racing.

Stakes of up to £100 can be placed on each game or event, meaning it is possible to lose thousands of pounds on the machines within the space of an hour.

According to Fairer Gambling, there are a total of 1,335 across the three Medway parliamentary constituencies – Chatham and Aylesford, Rochester and Strood and Gillingham and Rainham.

Campaigners are advocating a reduction in the maximum stake from £100 to £2, and an increase in time between spins, as well as a reduction in the number of terminals in betting shops from four to one.

The councillors will meet the Commission, which regulates the industry for the government, on January 31.

Cllr O’Brien said he was “looking forward to working with all my colleagues in striving to remove this scourge from our community”.

He said: “We are worried because these machines are highly addictive and can leave people in serious financial trouble very quickly.”

Cllr Maple said:  “It is very easy for one person to lose thousands of pounds in a matter of minutes, which is why we want to make sure more is done to safeguard against the huge financial risk that fixed odds betting terminals represent.”

Earlier this month we featured the story of a 38-year-old man from Rochester, who said he gambled away £100,000 on the machines and lost two homes and his partner because of his addiction.

RGSB/RGT/Gambling Commission are all well funded organisations with responsibility to advise government and source independent research. Seems to me the gambling industry have donated circa £25million since 2007 for prevention, research and treatment and yet nobody can produce evidence one way or the other as to the impact of FOBTs.

What is clearly not independent is the drivel that AD copies and pastes as the mouthpiece of Derek Webb. Webb is anti FOBTs for purely commercial reasons and therefore everything he says should be treated accordingly. Before the fan club shout and scream of course the same applies to the claims made by the ABB and bookies, although at least they do tend to do it in a less hysterical fashion.

clive , why dont you copy and paste some articles that show fobts to be a good thing then

How politicians are cashing in on poverty

Neil Davenport   http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13255/

Campaigns against gambling machines and payday loans are the latest paternalistic signs of the new politics of pity.


A new twist has emerged in the on-going demonisation of poorer communities. After nearly two decades of hectoring low-income households on their eating, drinking and child-rearing choices, moral entrepreneurs are now fixated on their personal finances.

Last year, Stella Creasy MP made a name for herself by targeting ‘payday loans’ company, Wonga. The new year began with a report by Fairer Gambling condemning high-speed, high-stakes gambling machines for sucking £5 billion from ‘poorer communities’. Lucy Powell, Labour MP for Manchester Central, declared: ‘I think it is a moral question to ask whether it is a good thing that betting companies are targeting the poor and whether government lets them.’

Fairer Gambling argues that bookmakers have deliberately targeted the poorest areas with the highest unemployment and poverty. For example, in east London’s Bethnal Green and Bow, some 45 betting shops saw £243million placed in bets on the machines, dubiously dubbed the ‘crack cocaine of gambling’, which offer quickfire casino games allowing players to stake up to £100 on a 20-second spin of the wheel. Anti-gambling campaigners use radical-sounding language and statistics to disguise rather old-fashioned moralising. They complain that the profits made by betting shops, known as the gross gambling yield, in the 50 poorest constituencies was just over £173million. It all sounds very right on, targeting big gambling organisations and their big profits made ‘on the backs’ of ‘the poor’, but it’s nothing more than paternalistic attempts to save ‘the poor’ from their own inadequacies.

Betting shops and gambling in poorer districts have always held a voyeuristic fascination for well-off moralisers. It has long been held as proof that ‘the poor’ are naturally feckless and impulsive people who prefer get-rich-quick schemes to the values of thrift and hard work.  As Conservative MP for Wokingham, John Redwood put it, it is the ‘culture of the poor’ rather than betting companies that is to blame for gambling profits. Although Redwood’s predictable snobbery may be irksome, he at least places responsibility for gambling choices on the poor themselves. He recognises that, as morally autonomous individuals, it is they who decide to put coins into gambling machines.

That one was for Clive in case he spent 5 hours looking for a FOR

As you can see in todays Guardian why the bookies NEED FOBT's

Meanwhile declines in high street betting on horse racing have been masked by the lucrative impact of new slot machines, but some industry veterans fear even the high street bookmakers may soon start to feel the pain as online competition marches on.

Clive, please post the research showing the positive impact of FOBTs.

"RGSB/RGT/Gambling Commission are all well funded organisations with responsibility to advise government and source independent research"

This is where I find it hard to understand how any of these organisations are in any way, independent. They all report, directly or indirectly, to the government, and would not exist if bookmakers did not. The government makes money from bookmakers in taxes (though many do their damnedest to avoid it), FOBT winners (if they exist) do not pay tax. Which side is the government more likely to come down on ?

They are not independent, and exist only to be bookmakers apologist.

Their time is nearly up, thankfully.

InsiderTrader     15 Jan 13 13:23 
Clive, please post the research showing the positive impact of FOBTs.

He would.........BUT THERE IS NONE

Chelsea girl, much is swept under the carpet but is noticed by many higher up

"However, it would be wrong to impose any restrictions without clear evidence of harm." - Hugh Robertson Minister with responsibility for gambling, speaking yesterday.

You are attempting to ban something allegedly on the basis of the harm caused, yet can provide no evidence to support your claim. A fact the government have now recognised.

It would be ridiculous to ban everything that someone claims is harmful until such time as the accusation can be proved wrong. Espeically when as in this case the reason for the claim had nothing to do with social harm but is actually motivated by personal commercial interests.

The benefits of FOBTs are the same as other forms of gambling. Enjoyment,revenue for the exchequer, employment, rental income, business rates... and providing the BF forum sheep with something to bleat about..

I know for a fact having a friend who had a bookmakers that all shops can monitor all the machines balances
and states of play form the cashiers counter, but how many times is the pracice of spinning off £100 , 2-3
times a minute stopped in terms of Gambling problems , how about NEVER.

Well it looks like it will be made a little bit better and safer for punters with some limits in place.

Its a pound a go in arcades and stratch cards and £20 a spin is more than enough for an FOBT...

IF bookmakers were allowed to let punters place a house on a spin of an FOBT, I am
100 percent certain that estate agents would be out of buissness as well as other
retail competitiors on the high streets that bookmakers occupy...

Clive, Anaglog has you jumping through hoops (you're used to it), every factual post he makes, has you churning out the same words, that your master puts in your mouth. I am so glad that I was instrumental in you taking the time to run everything your master tells you to write, through a spellchecker, it doesn't make the lies that you write more believable but at least it makes them readable. Your life must have improved no end, since I took you under my wing and took time out of my busy life, in order to teach you how to spell and construct a grammatically correct sentence, in your native language. I was thinking of going online to find a template for a certificate for most improved in spelling and grammar and awarding it to you when printed off, you seem to like collecting pieces of paper that make you feel that you have achieved something, you could frame it and place it in pride of place alongside your online Diploma in P.R., at the very least, it would make you feel a little more confident when attempting to converse/write and communicate in your native language.

Presumably there will be a bookmakers 'stampede' to occupy the HMV premises shortly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzrvcPYTZqg

He has the neck to have a pop at Ruud Gullit's hair, is there no mirror Ladcrooks.

ROFL

Why do I have this picture in my head of Clive with his fingers in his ears, saying "blah, blah, blah" ?

Any evidence provided to you would simply be dismissed as bias, where as anything you and your bookmaker apologists say is fact, and should never be questioned.

I bet you don't have a forelock any more.

Nice Grammar Gandalf, but "wot no logical point regerding the issue" and you seem more like a type writer than a writer of a type.

Is clive really Mr Williams?

Not that I look forward to jousting pens with you lord gandalf

I didn't realise until I watched that video, that Clive was the same guy that used to spout his Ladbrokes nonsense on TV until he was jocked off by Rory Jiwani !!

I simply cant think of any degree or honours in the art of spelling, perhaps its too far advanced for the rest
of earths mortals that do meanial tasks like splitting the atom or landing people on the moon and how hum drum
we must all appear in modest sentances with smaller words.

Bf, go away, pollute somewhere else.

clive , surely you must know that not all forms of gambling are the same . do you ?

Fancy A Flutter?
By Steve James
News Editor http://www.yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/Fancy-A-Flutter

Sounds great, doesn't it? And for most of us it is - a few pounds wagered on the Grand National, a bit of a bet on the Lottery perhaps.

In many parts of Yorkshire and the wider country however, an altogether different kind of gambling is on the rise. Colossal amounts of money are being lost by people who can least afford it, with much of the betting taking place in deprived inner-city areas with high unemployment and ingrained social problems.

And Leeds and Bradford in particular have emerged as hotspots for a kind of gambling described as the 'crack cocaine' of the betting world.

FOBTs

High-speed, high-stakes gambling machines - the so-called Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) - are a relatively new feature in our high streets but Yorkshire now holds over 700 of the machines in cities across the county.

Figures recently released by campaigning charity Fairer Gambling show £5 billion was gambled nationally on FOBTs last year - with four times the amount bet in urban, deprived areas than more affluent, rural locations.

The figures for Leeds and Bradford are staggering. A total of £204,782,760 was bet on FOBTs in just two Leeds constituencies last year, with punters in Leeds Central (£132,729,567) and Leeds East (£72,053,193) feeding the equivalent of more than three quarters of the council tax collected in the whole of Leeds for the entire year (£268,335,000 collected) into the machines.

Put another way, this is about a quarter the size of Leeds Council's total wages bill. For Bradford, the £140 million plus fed into FOBTs in Bradford West and East tops its council's Regeneration & Culture spend and comes close to its capital outlay on Adult Services.

FOBTs are highly lucrative for the gambling industry. Quickfire casino games on these machines allow players to stake up to £100 on a 20-second spin of the wheel with prizes of £500. Gamblers can play with cash, credit or debit cards at the counter, and can theoretically lose up to £18,000 an hour.

Each FOBT is estimated to yield £900 a week on average for their owners, with the profit made last year by betting shop FOBTs in the 50 poorest constituencies just over £173m, according to Fairer Gambling.

'Desperate'

There are signs of growing disquiet about the effects of such gambling however, as some MPs are beginning to draw attention to the issue and its effects on their constituents.

'It's a business model which sucks money from the poorest communities,' said Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, whose constituents spent almost £200m on betting last year. Hundreds of public order offences committed outside betting shops every week were contributing to low-level social disorder, she said.

The industry is 'preying on the vulnerable and desperate' said Joan Ruddock, the Labour MP for Lewisham and Deptford who has campaigned on the issue with fellow Tottenham MP David Lammy. Figures show their constituents gambled £320 million on FOBTs in 60 betting shops last year.

'The victims are the staff, often women, who work in these stores who are seeing aggressive behaviour as a result of these losses, and the individual gamblers themselves,' Mr Lammy said.

Planning Shake Up

Campaigners want to see the Government take a far more proactive stance in stopping the proliferation of betting shops and shaping our high streets for the better.


'At a time of economic uncertainty and record retail vacancies, we are proud to play our part in supporting jobs right across the UK.'

The Association of British Bookmakers


Two rulings in particular are problematic, they believe. Bookmakers limited to four FOBTs per shop have simply opened more shops on the high street, clustering in poorer areas, while listing bookmakers as 'financial services' in planning guidelines means that empty banks and building society premises can be taken over with little formality.

High street-renewal guru Mary Portas urged ministers to ensure every prospective bookmaker would have to apply for planning permission as part of her prescription for saving Britain's increasingly run-down shopping precincts.

Leeds Central MP and shadow local government spokesman Hilary Benn, whose constituency saw £132m gambled last year, said: 'There should be a separate use class order for betting shops under planning rules so that local communities and councils can decide how many shops they wish to have in their area. This will help deal with the problem of clustering. I do not support a relaxation of the current limit on the number of high-value machines.'

'False And Offensive'

The Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) have strongly rejected the idea that bookmakers target vulnerable communities as 'both false and offensive', while pointing to the employment their operations bring.

'Like any other retailer, we locate our shops where footfall is high and rents are affordable,' they say. 'These factors vary, which explains there can be different numbers of shops in different parts of the country.

'At a time of economic uncertainty and record retail vacancies, we are proud to play our part in supporting jobs right across the UK.'

Fairer Gambling, founded by Derek Webb, who established casino games developer Prime Table Games, have 'a commercial interest in running down high street bookies' ABB say.

'Betting shops have been located on our nation's high streets ever since off-course betting was first made legal in 1961,' they say. 'The betting industry would welcome an evidence-based debate, but the research presented is misleading. This inaccurate piece of research discredits their place in this debate.'

Update

The Campaign for Fairer Gambling campaign to have stakes on the machines limited to just £2 has been rejected by the Government.

Culture minister Hugh Robertson has rejected calls to restrict FOBTs and the betting shops where they are located, claiming new evidence would have to be brought forward before a change of mind was considered. Mr Robinson did however say the government would be prepared to bring in new laws to restrict the spread of betting shops.


Betting In Yorkshire In 2012

Leeds Central
Unemployment Ranking 2
Claimant Count. 7,278
Count of All Betting Shops. 35
FOBT Number 127
Total Money Gambled (£) 132,729,567

Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle
Unemployment Ranking 22
Claimant Count 5,077
Count of All Betting Shops 27
FOBT Number 98
Total Money Gambled (£) 102,391,380

Bradford West
Unemployment Ranking 9
Claimant Count 5,537
Count of All Betting Shops 24
FOBT Number 87
Total Money Gambled (£) 91,014,560

Great Grimbsy
Unemployment Ranking 47
Claimant Count 4,305
Count of All Betting Shops 21
FOBT Number 76
Total Money Gambled (£) 79,637,740

Kingston upon Hull East
Unemployment Ranking 28
Claimant Count 4,913
Count of All Betting Shops 20
FOBT Number 73
Total Money Gambled (£) 75,845,467



Millions of pounds gambled last year

Leeds East
Unemployment Ranking 34
Claimant Count 4,661
Count of All Betting Shops 19
FOBT Number 69
Total Money Gambled (£) 72,053,193

Kingston upon Hull North
Unemployment Ranking 18
Claimant Count 5,213
Count of All Betting Shops 16
FOBT Number 58
Total Money Gambled (£) 60,676,373

Halifax
Unemployment Ranking 50
Claimant Count 4,294
Count of All Betting Shops 15
FOBT Number 55
Total Money Gambled (£) 56,884,100

Bradford East
Unemployment Ranking 13
Claimant Count 5,486
Count of All Betting Shops 13
FOBT Number 47
Total Money Gambled (£) 49,299,553

Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough
Unemployment Ranking 15
Claimant Count 5,380
Count of All Betting Shops 13
FOBT Number 47
Total Money Gambled (£) 49,299,553

there were 2 academics who were consultants to the Gambling Commissions British Gambling Prevalence Survey in 2010 . Dr Jim Orford said "these high risk forms of gambling shouldn't be so easily   available "

but Dr Mark Griffiths , Professor of Gambling at nottingham university said " i dont believe in banning machines , if you have a telephone or internet you can gamble on all sorts of activities . it's about the games themselves and the frequency you can play them"


clive , are you more qualified than these two Doctors ?

He has a Diploma in P.R. available through online study, a true academic is our Clive.

I am no fan of FOBTS or even Ladcrookes "Clive82" but Professor Of Gambling I ask you !!!

Jobs for the boys.... (Where can I apply.....)

Gandalf once again you talk an awful lot without actually saying anything. You claimed you can lose £14k an hour on an FOBT. How have you reached that conclusion?

Rcing if you are suggesting that different forms of gambling present different levels of harm I would agree. If you are suggesting there is a form of gambling which has no potential for harm I disagree.

Unfortunately the harm or otherwise of B2s is a complete smokesrceen for you and your band of merry men. You're only bothered about protecting a 1960s funding mechanism for racing, and the rest of them are only bothered about getting their grubby arbs on, ironically to the detriment of the Levy.

Rcing if you are suggesting that different forms of gambling present different levels of harm I would agree
that was all i was asking .

clive, there is no need to insult anyone .

you are right that i only care about the levy , but to think that others only care so they can get there bets on ,or are arbers is very narrow minded

Quite where our resident spellchecking Irish gypo fits in i'm unsure.

I'm beginning to think "Clive" actually believes what he is spouting ! Nobody could lie this consistently. A job in politics must be the next logical step in his career path. Indoctrination is alive and well in the 21st Century, it would seem.

Rcing I assume as a supporter of the levy that you strongly support the restriction of unprofitable customers by bookmakers.

Once again you stoop to racist offensive name calling "Irish Gypo", that neither upset or bother me, I love that I have you seething and dancing to my tune so much, that I can get you to reveal your true self, just by telling the truth about you. Love it, love it, love it.


Go and get some personal grooming lessons, have you seen yourself on TV lately, I have seen better presented cabbages in a Greengrocers.

Is your baldness hereditary or just as a result off all the head scratching you have done, when puzzling over the spelling of simple words.

A seething Clive82, love it.

to a point banned banks i understand and agree with the business point behind restrictions . but i do think there should be some legislation that each account should be able to have a maximum takeout which is stated in the t&c of each bookmaker , also in the t&c should be stated that if you win over x ammount your account will be closed or subject to these restrictions . what do you think about the point in bold type .

clive82, you say that arbing is to the detriment of the levy?

that's interesting, would you care to expand? or perhaps you have given away too much already

the mans a fool

Bookmakers that bet to acceptable over rounds and play the game dont have many unprofitable customers Banks,imo.

Problem is they they dont play the game.

Another offensive post with racist undertones by Clive82 deleted by Betfair. Ladcrooks must be so proud of this total and utter idiot.

Fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) were raised in the House of Commons yesterday when Culture Minister Hugh Robertson said that there appeared to be little evidence that they caused serious problems

This is the same Hugh Robertson

Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, is the next high-profile guest for a SJA Ladbrokes Lunch, being staged in central London on Thursday, June 7.

SJA Ladbrokes Lunches are open to all working media, as well as journalism students, sports officials and even politicians, though there is a strict limit on numbers we can accommodate, and priority is always given to SJA members and those first to book.

Attendance at this two-course lunch at the Olde **** Tavern in Fleet Street costs £12 (including VAT) for SJA members, and £24 (including VAT) for non-members. If anyone has any complaints about the level of VAT charged, we suggest that they take it up with the minister…


A former officer in the Life Guards who saw active service in Northern Ireland and Sarajevo, Hugh Robertson was first elected to parliament as the Conservative MP for Faversham and Mid Kent in 2001. After several years as the shadow minister for sport, as he told the SJA Sporting Question Time Debate in March 2010, he wanted no other job in government than the sport portfolio.

Robertson was duly  appointed Minister for Sport and the Olympics when the Coalition came to power in May 2010.

Robertson is a keen cricketer who has played for the MCC, he was a county-standard hockey player and, most importantly, he supports Chelsea.

Our usual lunch protocols will apply – after we have enjoyed two-course lunch at the Olde **** Tavern on Fleet Street, the minister will answer questions on an on-the-record basis (unless our guest specifically asks to go off-the-record on any point, in which case we expect that request to be honoured).

This SJA lunch, generously sponsored by Ladbrokes, represents an outstanding opportunity for feature writers, chief sports writers and correspondents from regional as well as national newspapers and broadcasters for some headline-grabbing copy.

Payment for the lunch needs to be made by cheque (payable to “SJA”), and needs to be made in advance of the lunch. Anyone requiring a VAT invoice needs to advise us, and they will be sent such by the Treasurer.

Rights-free images from the event will be made available on request.

All attendees are also expected to ensure that they make mention of Ladbrokes and the Sports Journalists’ Association event in their published or broadcast reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW TO BOOK
The SJA lunch will take place in a private room at the Olde **** Tavern on Fleet Street, EC4Y 1AA, directly opposite the Royal Courts of Justice. The venue is served by several rail and Tube stations, include Charing Cross, Embankment, Temple and City Thameslink.

Lunch will start from 12.30pm.

Places are expected to be in great demand and will be allocated on a first-come, first-reserved basis, with preference given to SJA members.

The cost is £12 (including VAT) for fully paid-up SJA members, and £24 (including VAT) for non-members, to include a two-course meal and coffee. Guests are expected to buy their own drinks.

Contact Steven Downes by email to stevenWdownes@btinternet.com (please indicate whether a vegetarian meal is required or if you have other special dietary requirements; these have to be ordered in advance), and write “Hugh Robertson lunch” in the subject field of your email.
Payment, with cheques payable to the SJA, may be made on the day, or can be sent to the Treasurer, Randall Northam, 1 Evelyn Court, Malvern Road, Cheltenham, GL50 2JR.
Payment may be expected from anyone who books a place at this lunch but does not attend.

A guest of Ladbrokes ...unbefeckinlievable

All attendees are also expected to ensure that they make mention of Ladbrokes and the Sports Journalists’ Association event in their published or broadcast reports. . But not Hugh Robertson i presume

Only those with a strong stomach and an appetite for bullshlt need attend.

Employment, clive?

One reason the mgt. of the bookies love the FOBTs so much is that they drastically cut staffing costs, needing only one person at most to take the punter's money and return his winnings (or remains of his stake).

At busy times in the afternoon with a shop full of 2 quid punters on the horses, offices needed three or four staff for less return.

I am sure clive82 will remind Mr Robertson to declare it on the House Register of Members Interests.

The thing that people like clive don't understand is that the computerisation of bookmaking, odds setting and risk management is bad for all but an absolutely tiny fraction of a bookie's employees, say a number in single figs.

Let's say you had some skill in compiling odds. Your job is now done by a screenscaper off the bf prices and a risk management algorithm.

Let's say you are an area manager. Instead of finding staff with a desire to look after the punter, you look for anyone biddable enough to restrict arbers and refer bets and uninterested enough not to learn about the mechanics of the betting market.

Let's say you are an inhouse website developer. Your work is outsourced to a partner with experience designing a casino or bought off the peg.

The only poss. justification for clive defending high st FOBTs so strongly is that he thinks he's in line for something like Walter Glynn's job.

Banks, I wd like to get back to the time when bookmakers and punters bet to their divergent views.

Pie in the sky I know, but if there were a mechanism for a freeze-out from the exchanges for a certain period for any punter taking a price, I wd like the books to agree to lay any punter up to a max. takeout on any runner, any event.

Having first used the words "Irish gypo", you are now insinuating that someone might be a stalking paedophile ! They let you work in PR ? Unbelievable.

Second offensive post deleted today Clive, heartbreaking, especially when you think about how long it takes you to write them, have someone check that your grammar hasn't let you down yet again and then you have to run your every word through a spellchecker.

It wasn't an insinuation.

Who is Walter Glynn is he any relation to Richard?

Careful clive if it wasn't an insinuation it must have been meant as a statement of fact.

"It wasn't an insinuation."

No doubt you have "empirical evidence" (the ABB like to use this expression a lot) then, Clive. No ? I thought not. It's quite amazing that the bookmaking fraternity asks for evidence against FOBT's, but it quite willing to spout their own pontifications at will, without any said evidence, and never explains exactly what sort of evidence they actually want. It's just a game of words to them.

I don't work for any gambling company, but as an observer they appear to be winning the 'game of words' as today's announcement confirms there will be no further restriction of FOBTS without evidence (which doesn't exist.)

A cynic may even suggest that the select committee recomendations have actually helped the bookmaking lobby achieve their real aim which was to protect their existing entitlements. All the effort has gone into stopping any further relaxation, an outcome which was never realistically going to happen as no Minister would put their name to a potential ticking time bomb when they see 'Minister for Gambling' merely as a stepping stone to bigger posts.

clive , since banned banks may be busy .
what do you think about this
i do think there should be some legislation that each account should be able to have a maximum takeout which is stated in the t&c of each bookmaker , also in the t&c should be stated that if you win over x ammount your account will be closed or subject to these restrictions

Richard Glynn, that's the guy.

clive, my guess will be that Ladcrooks will change and you'll find yourself having defended obsolete business practices that will be seen as slightly shameful.

Lads are probably about to buy the other exchange and have a close relationship with butler, a commission-model site run by your former CEO, as well as with other fixed odds operators (w/out suggesting any collusion on price-setting). They've gone all-out for FOBT growth, partly because rents on the high st have been historically low, partly to provide ballast with the stock market critical of their failed foreign expansion plans and partly because they thought they had a captive market in shop customers who wd accept poor sports betting prices.

Now the govt. is about to consider restricting FOBTs and price-insensitive shop punters are not going to provide any massive influx of new money.

The future in bookmaking is going to be making an exchange or commission model work for you. Sure, laddies will have as many FOBTs as it can get away w/ but it can't place them at the heart of its business strategy.

rcing, they wdn't stand for it, they wd lose to the arber on a losing run or to the arber placing excellent-value multiples.

Eventually a multiple wd hit and breach the ceiling above which restrictions wd apply; in the meantime the firm wd have carried a massive trading loss.

clive, if you don't work for any bookmaking company, what on earth are you doing here?

Are you a professional contrarian w/ too much time on yr hands?

I'm not so sure that the big 4 didn't hope to have more machines in the shops. Many gambling ministers, arguably Penrose and certainly Caborn, have been on the way down and have been susceptible to having the wool pulled over their eyes by the industry.

My feeling is that the announcement of 'no more than four machines' and a review of betting patterns marks a defeat for bookies.

perhaps clive is actually hugh robertson, that would explain a lot.

if he isn't and it were true that he does not work in or for the betting industry then he is certifiable imo

Clive can't possibly admit to who he is, but you might ask yourself why anyone would want the odious David Williams (just my opinion) of Ladbrokes as their avatar.

If Ladbrokes were to witness his racist comments, even they might be prone to act, and sack the man immediately.

No, Clive has to pretend to be someone else, but his ego is so big, he just had to have an avatar of his hero. Himself.

WFT...clives ego certainly matches that of a certain laddies employee.

I really hope for his sake that he either works for Lads or does outsourced PR for them.

But he should think what happens to middle-ranking members of the old guard when a new broom comes in. They get swept away.

Rumours about the imminent demise of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) continue to circulate in Whitehall and Westminster...Oh good

clive do us all a favour and take your head for a sh1t

Clive...Managing Director of Global Draw..