There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 134 comments are related to the topic:
THE BETTING BADGE AT CHELTENHAM
THE BETTING BADGE AT CHELTENHAM
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 134
|
By:
AS WASNOT POINTS OUT I DO BELIEVE!
|
|
By:
ribero
hope you are well, and that your clerk is doing well. saw one of the most cringeworthy interviews i have ever seen this week at cheltenham, i dont know if you saw it, 2 bookmakers in the centaur what would their dads be thinking? they do not help themselves, see you in may at York. |
|
By:
Wasnot - The point I am trying to make is that we are part of their solution, not part of the problem. The off course off shore operators increasingly no longer care about racing....we do....the way its going half the racecourses could be housing estates in ten years.At every racecourse fewer books equals less atmosphere equals decline in attendance...a vicious circle of decline.
|
|
By:
ribero just a short while ago a leading member of some official racing excecutive that aw tracks do not need punters just fixtures.
|
|
By:
no worries ronnie,see you soon.
|
|
By:
Is'nt that what they have nearly got already miprix.
|
|
By:
BLOATER - spot on....what fools they are constantly devaluing their product to suit people who just dont care.
|
|
By:
Why should the low grade tracks care they are already paid by the race and hence want to staff to as minimum level as possible, if they get 10 paying customers and bookmakers they treat it as a bonus
|
|
By:
Ronnie Rails - I saw that interview as well - Pat will be turning in his grave
I'm afraid the lad is clueless! |
|
By:
545apg
Yep and so will John, used to bet with them both but would'nt touch these two with a barge pole. |
|
By:
Dont believe for a minute the racecourses rejected a turnover charge in stead of badge fees.I know for a fact the race courses in Ireland dived on an offer of 1 1/2% - 2% turnover charge in stead of pitch fees,only to be pressured by 6 or 7 so called big Bookmakers because they said they were doing most of the turnover on ordinary days and that they would withdraw sponsorship of races.It makes a level playing field for everybody.Should have a second look at the negotiation ?????
|
|
By:
Who was feathering who,s nests.
|
|
By:
from memory this was in the earlier stages of negotiating when the race courses position was that they wanted the fixed fee PLUS a percentage of turnover on top.
it was by hard negotiation that the turnover part was dropped |
|
By:
Adge - Do you not think that the turnover tax could be revisited, would solve a lot of issues, and benefit the racecourses with higher margins/levy ?
|
|
By:
maybe it can but not for at least two years.
the contracts took such a long time to get agreement it was a rush with many to get them done by the september deadline which is showing in weakness in some contract detail. i'm certain none of the racecourse bodies will have any aptitude to revisit the terms before then |
|
By:
Shame adge really, would make perfect sense for nearly all.
|
|
By:
At last adge some disclosure that the agreement was put in place in a hurried manner with ramifications that many now find difficult to countenance. Without question the matter needs to be revisited but by individuals duly elected and with a broader concern for those they represent.
|
|
By:
HERE HERE DEMO!
|
|
By:
Pre agreement and more importantly Exchanges front line pitches bet to a reasonable percentage and back line pitches priced up more attractively in order to take what public money they could and accept hedging money from those on front line. A workable scenario for all with badge fees less than the enhanced level of today. Realistic, optimum designated numbers had been agreed with racecourses to establish maximum number of layers and to safeguard against this number being exceeded contrary to others interests. Post agreement and the introduction of Exchanges prices on offer have become indistinguishable from front line to back with obvious implications for those with higher picks. The introduction of the revised multipliers and marketing fees etc. make the position of these operators even less tenable. As a result of latest developments in most cases the designated numbers will become meaningless i.e inferior picks cannot justify attending. Is this really what those who do not put self interest above everything else want? I hope and trust not !
|
|
By:
Now back in the real world...
|
|
By:
1000.0 at least that the racecourses will want to revisit the contracts after all the hassle it has caused them.
|
|
By:
no , democrat , you're wrong . the meat of the contracts were not put together in a hurried manner. in fact the consultations and negotiations dragged on and on. the part that may have been rushed was the final wording and collating to get the final document printed and out to the bookmakers.
however , a few points are being spotted which could have been worded better. i fear that there is a lot of wasted energy on this thread. the only thing i see changing in the next three years as the contracts are revisited is the marketing fee which , if you want to get your hopes up could be dropped. on another point the Northern BPA requested a face to face meeting with the gambling commission some 10 days ago. some of the major points raised and answered are now detailed on our website.[ click on the bottom of the index on the left of the home page marked gambling commission ] |
|
By:
WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT THE RACECOURSES WILL HAVE TO REVISIT THE CONTRACTS THAT CURRENTLY SUIT THE USUAL SUSPECTS THAT POST ON HERE,U REPRESENT A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE RING,FACT!
|
|
By:
Explain to me why they 'have to' again FACTMACHINE?
|
|
By:
keep on dreaming.
|
|
By:
this is hilarious although my favourite so far is that a turnover tax will mean we will all bet better!
|
|
By:
UNLIKE YOU AND YOUR CLAN,THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE RING KNOW THAT THE CURRENT AGREEMENT WITH THE RACECOURSES IS UNSUSTAINABLE,THATS WHY IT WILL BE CHALLENGED AND CHANGED.
|
|
By:
at present there are very few large punters about but what happens when one appears and wants two grand on a fav at 1/2.
"sorry, i can't take that because of a turnover tax implication " it couldn't work fairly. and i don't see where the contracts suit me , factmachine , but i've had to accept them and get on with it. |
|
By:
Er right,a few empty pitches in cheltenham tatts which unfortunately apart from the front line has been absolutely useless for years which i agree is very dissapointing for the best festival of the year but as if cheltenham will care.
everywhere else i go there seem to be more books than ever including many from the poorer picks so you will have to enlighten us please fact. |
|
By:
Do you honestly think that situation will continue in the forseeable future rib ? You seem to find a very serious subject 'hilarious' which is curious. Being one of the "I'm alright Jack' brigade does nobody any credit. Life for those who have just began their time in the Ring in recent years in mediocre pitches is not rosy and they deserve empathy not disregard.
|
|
By:
To be fair demo, I think it was the arguments that ribero1 was finding hilarious, not the plight of other bookmakers. The argument that there has been some sort of stitch up, with negotiators feathering their own nests and deliberately forcing the poorer picks out of business is as insulting as it is untrue. Negotiation is a 2 way business and what I find laughable is the idea that we could have just dictated how and what we pay to the racecourses and that they would just accept it. Reality check please gentlemen.
|
|
By:
Wassy- When you look at any racecourse, some are so far divorced from commercial reality it is unbelievable as they have been funded by the Jockey Club central reserves for years, suddenly when the negotiations with bookmakers occur they are the best negotiators you have ever seen and want to drive the hardest bargain possible
 If they had an independent negotiator acting for them (I am unsure if they did but believe some consultancy was involved due to bringing a sense of impartiality then exactly the same i.e independent negotiator should have been in place from the other side. |
|
By:
Fair point wassy but as you know from the past layers have never stood together - no pun intended. If only there was more magnanimity and concern shown for the plight of others by those better off then the status quo would be improved. Those who champion causes for others which might be more costly or disadvantageous to themselves are few and far between. Do you think wassy if someone with mediocre pitches had been part of the negotiating team that the outcome might have been slightly different ?
|
|
By:
Whats hilarious is that these threads come up from time to time from the usual suspects and they think the racecourses care and are suddenley going to rip up the contracts,no chance imo,as for being an "i'm alright jack" i am certainly not,over 100k ripped off the value of my pitches overnight,increased fees,less business,it isn't going to get any better but i'm prepared to get on with it and will have to alter things,tighten my belt etc,i bought a pitch a year ago its back on the market at 1/3rd less,that's the way things are.we have all got to get on with it as we see fit,good luck with the revolution.
|
|
By:
I honestly don't demo, no. The people negotiating for the RCA were hand picked for the job and knew exactly what they were doing. I also think our side picked the strongest negotiators available too. I don't think an independent person, who knew nothing about our business, would have faired any better. In fact, I think they would have done a lot worse.
|
|
By:
Rib - I know of no other business where an individual operator can have terms imposed on them to which they have had no say on/ had them imposed upon them by a select group........ I am no legal expert but that very fact doesn't seem right to me
|
|
By:
RIBERO - You may find it hilarious but a turnover tax will mean we bet better..Let me enlighten you......We have all no doubt bet next to a machine trader constantly betting to almost nothing and having every bet back on the machine who will be 4/1 when it is 5.1 on the machine.....400/100 please....certainly sir....410/100 back...do you want it again ?...horse wins £1.80 profit net profit happy days....now lets say he has to pay a turnover tax of say 3% on the £100....£1.20 net loss on the bet....disaster ! is he now going to go 4/1 when its 5.1 on the machine unless he actually WANTS to lay a 400/100...I think not.A turnover tax will ensure that individuals only lay the size of bet that suits them...and that should suit everybody surely Ribero ?
ADGE - obviously those with the better picks would end up paying more, but I would advocate a sliding downward scale from say an initial 3% down to 1/2%, individuals like yourself would no doubt benefit enormously from not betting next to bookmakers betting to nothing,doing high turnover and having every bet back on the machine. |
|
By:
The "I'm alright Jack" was meant as a comparison to others whose existence in the Ring is at risk not a statement of value of pitches etc. rib. Evolution a preferable word to 'revolution'. I was surprised wassy by your phrase 'our side picked' since I was unaware of any selection process and thought the negotiators were the most opportunistic at the time regarding putting themselves forward with some of them having the most to lose if no rights of tenure were agreed. The rest is history.
|
|
By:
Mugbookie...your logic about a turnover tax is correct apart from one key fact....Why on earth do you think "betting better" i.e to bigger margins/shorter prices about the front end of the market, will bring more punters to the racetrack??? You are living in another age I'm afraid....the racecourse market is dying a rapid death because it cannot compete with prices offered by exchanges/bookmakers on the web... "bettting better" sounds good but it will alienate further the remaining few on-course punters that are left imvho...
|
|
By:
Lights you are right, but margins HAVE to improve on course, you know full well that the zero margins of the exchanges is an unsustainable business model even for them.The off shore operators, both exchange and traditional bookmaker now have a significant tax/levy/expense advantage that is just plain unfair to any uk based operators.We cannot compete on price against firms offshore who are now debasing racing to promote casino websites....and roulette machines !
|