THE BETTING BADGE AT CHELTENHAM

Strange question Barry but similar to your previous response some time ago. You seem to be suggesting the very best pick might consider betting in the worst position - strange notion indeed. As for open meetings wassy and consultation wassy dont go down that road. The point has been many may times in any other profession where similar negotiations were in progress any proposals would be put before those affected before the agrement became final. Your blind loyalty wassy should not blind you from the need to be open minded, objective and receptive of constructive comments.

If the situation had arisen that the racecourses had decided to give everyone their pitch purchase money back and start again with auctioning off all the pitches but with a new arrangement of sliding scales then I would accept your argument demo.  Everyone then would be free to make their own valuations and invest accordingly.  To suggest that it should be revisited now, after everyone has made purchases based on fixed fees, makes no sense to me at all.  It is all academic anyway, as we have legally binding 40 year contracts, signed by both parties, agreeing to pay the fixed fees.  It certainly could be looked at again in 40 years time though.

How some people are so easily led by others never ceases and take every word they say as gospel never ceases  to amaze me... Stick with us John and we will make sure you are ok

So wassy the iniquitous charges that are applied on some days which are felt most by those with 'lesser' picks is ok by you ? Contracts have been proved not to be worth the paper they are written on so your belief that this one is different if not naive is let's say 'interesting'. Are you a susbscriber wassy to the view regarding your fellow layers in in inferior picks 'If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen' - if so I'll reserve judgement if not then for once you and I are in the same camp. Shame I wont see you at Aintree this year - it would be an opportunity for you to buy me a drink to show there are no hard feelings !

And of Course the owners of the houses would have purchased them many years previous when the Council Tax Regime replaced the poll tax because that was identified as an unfair system.......

or deemed

HERE HERE DEMO!

Buy me one instead  demo!

With the exes I'll be paying I'll need all the help I can get! 

democrat buy a drink , that would certainly sober him up

As ever there are no hard feelings from this side Demo.  I know we disagree on a lot of things (apart from Jockey Wilson!!!) but I hope the argument, whether you agree or not, comes across as constructive.  Its OK all the bookmakers on here saying that our team should have done this or that.  What you have to remember is that we were not the only parties to the negotiation and the other side had a lot to say and very firm views of their own.

AS STATED BEFORE WASSY,THE NEGOTIATIONS NEEDED TO BE FAIR,TRANSPARENT AND ABOVE ALL OPEN,WHICH THEY PATENTLY WERE NOT!

And our negotiators, to my knowledge had no experience of 'negotiating'! Not an ideal qualification for representing the masses. I know in the past you have said there was no case law for the subject matter and those involved 'did their best'. It is difficult to dispute those points but some foresight into the impact on the less high profile operators would have gone a long way. As for you adge and 'buying a drink' I would bow to someone who has Honours in that department or should that be 'imbibing a drink' ?

AS FOR THE ARGUMENT OF WHY DIDNT YOU PUT YOURSELF FORWARD,U TRUST THAT THE PEOPLE DOING THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE DOING SO ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE AND NOT THE SELECT FEW!

As these threads are on an open forum,therefore there for all to read,a point missed is that the value of pitches is of no concern to the courses,and is  set by buyers and sellers.So,in no way are they connected to the badge fee.Also some pitches may have never been purchased post the opening up of pitch sales.
I mentioned over a year ago,probably a lot more than that,on here,that it cannot be correct that the top pitch pays the same badge fee as the lousiest pitch.Not good business practice.
  A multi-million pound company paying the same to stand as a small-time privateer trying to eek out a living in the back row,taking a tiny amount in stakes in comparison.
  One size fits all surely doesn't work for you guys.
Re boards on rails,I don't miss the scrum trying to get in and out of the betting ring at Ascot, pre boards,it was murder at times,put you off having a bet.

i was talking to one of the team yesterday [ he bet next door ] and he told me fhat he BOUGHT FIFTY FOUR [ yes 54 ] pitches whilst in the gents toilet at cheltenham last week. it seems some can find value anywhere

If things are so bad why do the poor downtrodden picks keep turning up? anyone would think the better picks had benefited with the new deal,we have suffered as much if not more from the deal but some of us are prepared to get on with it rather than bleating on here as if that will do any good,lol.

Best put your hard hat on ribero1.  Incoming abuse......

Does that mean adge he knows something we dont ? It normally does !!!

the seller sought him out , democrat . i wish it had been me though

There cant be many people with 54 pitches to sell.  Perhaps BK are selling all of their 54 Huntingdon pitches?

Do they throw the step ladder in as well wassy ?

Have previously posted on another thread, but would anybody have any thoughts on a turnover tax on TOTAL TURNOVER rather than the present price escalator based on the cost of admission.It seems to me that racecourses are able to sell out big days on big meetings at any price, but as we know those people are often not coming to have a bet.In ten years chelt tatts could well be 100 to get in, and if the previous ten years are anything to go by, our turnover is likely to decline rather than increase.I believe a turnover tax would solve a lot of the present issues, increase margins and encourage racecourses to promote on course betting.

well one thing the negiators have seen to is that poorer picks are now rendered totally worthless ! luckily i do possess some decent pitches but also have some poor pitches too and under the new regime they are not worth a f****** dollar will the frb pull up a refund for me? as always the get richer and the poor get the f***** blame rant over

mugbookie, I believe this was one of the areas discussed while negotiating and it was dismissed immediately by the racecourses.  They would only have turnover tax ON TOP of the 6x.

Hello Wasnot- I think that the racecourses believe that every racecourse bookmaker is a millionaire, and win fortunes every day.I think what has happened this week at cheltenham where was it 16 pitches were vacant in tatts one day, could be the beginning of a wake up call if they have any interest in maintaining a bookmaker presense on course.I will state it again, racecourse entry fees keep rising and overall our turnover is static at best, what will the badge/marketing fee be at some of these racecourses in ten years time ? A turnover tax would halt the bet to nothing/ have it all back merchants and improve margins in the ring, improved ring margins equal more levy via the sp system, surely the racecourses could be convinced that the bigger picture is more important than the declining income and lack of atmosphere that driving bookmakers under would bring ?

I dont think they really care mugbookie, provided there are some bookies, but on their terms.  Whether there were 50 in tatts or 70 is just a pin prick in their finances for the festival.

If they dont care then everybody is in trouble, including them !

Exactly Wasnot.

Hello Ribero - We maybe just a pin prick to their finances, but racing is becoming less and less relevant to the offshore operator, the racing  industry is fast becoming a sprat to catch a mackeral. Coral evs SS as an example, outright levy destruction to promote a website full of casino games. Racing is our and the racecourses core product, the big betting operators increasingly have bigger more profitable fish to fry.

On the subject of racecourses thinking all bookmakers are millionaires is it any wonder when at uttoxeter on Saturday Thommo was interviewing rails bookmakers that was being shown on the big screens when one of them fanned out a wad of 15grand as though he was doing something clever

I agree mug,basically the game is fecked for a variety of reasons and it isn't going to get any better imo.

Saw that beatherder,stupid imo,although the bookmakers in question probably are millionaires!

Like I say Rib, what will Chester tatts be in ten years ? 60 pounds, what will cash turnover be ? I dont want to guess, but will become gradually unworkable for everybody under the present system. Turnover tax the only way now to encourage vibrant rings again.

Why would Chester worry about that?  Remember they are Chesterbet now.

Wasnot - no bookmakers no atmosphere - ask the french and yanks -If The racecourses believe that getting rid of on course books will result in massive Chesterbet turnover...oh dear !

Mug,they aren't getting rid of bookmakers are they? there may be less in time but as wasnot points out that will not bother them one iota.

GETTING RID OF ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS"THAT WONT BOTHER THEM ONE IOTA"WHAT AN AMAZING QUOTE,YEP THE PUNTERS WILL BE QUEUING TO GET ON THE TOTE OR CHESTERBET/BANGORBETU COULDNT WRITE IT

which rails bookmaker was it at uttoxeter

CORBETTS

RIB - I used to bet at SOUTHWELL  15 YEARS AGO , three lines of books, often 24 there, terrific atmosphere, lumps around - now limited atomosphere 8 books mostly taking buttons, it becomes a vicious circle, you yourself must have noticed, the racecourses need to realise a vibrant betting ring is a major part of their offering, failure to do so will result in terminal decline...even for chester and the like.

DISCOUNTED TICKETS ALREADY ON SALE FOR CHESTER MUG!

No one is saying they want rid of all on course books ffs.  What is being said is that the courses wont care if there are less of us.  I think they actually understand that no bookies = less customers.

mugbookie aw tracks have publicly already stated they can comfortably operate with nil punters.

Truth,where is this amazing quote please?

Unfortunately things have changed mug as you well know so it's no good looking back 15 years i'm afraid.

AS WASNOT POINTS OUT I DO BELIEVE!

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.

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.

ribero just a short while ago a leading member of some official racing excecutive that aw tracks do not need punters just fixtures.

no worries ronnie,see you soon.

Is'nt that what they have nearly got already miprix.

BLOATER - spot on....what fools they are constantly devaluing their product to suit people who just dont care.

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

Ronnie Rails - I saw that interview as well - Pat will be turning in his grave
I'm afraid the lad is clueless!

545apg

Yep and so will John, used to bet with them both but would'nt touch these two with a barge pole.

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 ?????

Who was feathering who,s nests.

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

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 ?

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

Shame adge really, would make perfect sense for nearly all.

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.

HERE HERE DEMO!

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 !

Now back in the real world...

1000.0 at least that the racecourses will want to revisit the contracts after all the hassle it has caused them.

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 ]

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!

Explain to me why they 'have to' again FACTMACHINE?

keep on dreaming.

this is hilarious although my favourite so far is that a turnover tax will mean we will all bet better!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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 !

it seems someone on high is monitoring this thread as selected posts are being removed or sensored.
i was just about to complement edwardwoodwardwould on his post regarding crying bookmakers after the effort cheltenham put in to get tuesdays racing on for them and his post vanished before my eyes. very strange

yes - didn't seem much wrong with the post to me - strange

it seems the very mention of tote monopoly must have been too much but i'm sure we can fight our own battles on that thought

Did you know your old mate SOGY has been banned for a month adge ?

can't be because of his tipping...no i didn't , democrat

agree there....the ONLY long term solution to all the ills of on-course bookmaking is to make the racecourse MARKET exactly that...unrelated to exchange betting and formed by the opinions of those bookmakers who are good enough to survive. Hedging has to stay within that market....punters will return because they will be pitting their wits against the old enemy...not against automated clueless fools who are gradually killing themselves off by short term stupidity..

Of course lights, no exchange use on course would transform betting rings, but even less likely to happen than a turnover tax.

Big Bookmakers call all the shots,if they dont wont something to happen it wont (i.e.turnover tax).The more expensive it is to bet in fixed fees the better,as middle of the road,and end of line pitches will fall by the wayside,as the expense of them could not be sustained.Festival meetings will always have their Quota of Bookmakers, albeit a lot less than presently,but the bread and butter meetings will only have a handful of Bookmakers,the dead wood will have been weeded out and they have it to themselfs. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED....These people do not care who they put out of business... It happened in Ireland and the Betting Rings are now Decimated.Racecourse Pitch Lists that once had 100 Bookmakers on them has now dwindled down to 25 to 30 Bookmakers,the Festivals held up for few years but its now starting to affect them too, because of the Exorbitant Fixed Pitch fees brought in by "GUESS WHO" so called "BIG BOOKMAKERS"... They sabotaged a deal on 1 and 1/2% turnover tax,because it would have been to costly on them, with threats to racecourses that they would withdraw from sponsorship. The Majority of middle and end of line Bookmakers were put out of business, and others just had to walk away.The same trends seem to be setting into the U.K.now...Always beware of the negotiating teams "SELF INTEREST",i am alright fcuk the small man...

well the only time i was aware of 1.5% turnover tax being a possibility was in the early negotiations with ascot racecourse and even then it was based on a badge fee of TEN times the admission price PLUS 1.5% of gross turnover.
this , as we all know , was defeated.
but i wouldn't let facts get in the way , steinbeck . actually ascot WOULD like the number of bookmakers reduced by 50% as they consider us unsightly at the royal meeting

Wonder how unsightly ascot would be if the Bookmakers boycotted the rest of ascots meetings,Flat and N.H..Same applies to all them festival meetings..

STEIN,THE USUAL SUSPECTS DONT THINK LIKE THAT AND I WOULD GUESS WOULD BE THE LAST TO WALK OFF.

apparently one northern layers considering dropping the daily rate of £70 a day for his workmen down to 60 lololololololol

should get some girls. they think £40 is top money

Looks like I'm overpaying

ADGE - THOUGHT THIS WAS  A BOOKMAKING THREAD......WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO WITH YOUR MONEY IS YOUR AFFAIR