Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Apr 13
22:55
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Racing's ruling body has not sold out to the bookies over FOBTs
Machines and betting shops are a risky issue for the BHA but their stance up until this point has been entirely respectable
Chris Cook
The Guardian, Sunday 14 April 2013
"If I ate cornflakes, I would have choked on them." Thus the reaction of a senior official at one of racing's representative bodies when confronted with a Racing Post headline last Thursday, declaring that 'Racing backs bookies in FOBTs battle'.
FOBTs, for readers who are not betting shop habitués, are 'Fixed Odds Betting Terminals', offering computerised roulette and other games of chance, allowing stakes of up to £100 and wins of up to £500 per play. They have become hugely important to British bookmakers, accounting for just over half of all income through betting shops in 2011, but are a source of concern for some campaigners, who fear they pose a particular danger to those at risk of a gambling problem.
Traditionally racing has regarded these machines with deep distrust, partly because they compete with the sport for the betting pound. This is a vital consideration, since bookmakers have to cough up a share of the profits made from bets on racing, but money is lost to the sport if it goes into the machines instead of being staked on the next at Chepstow.
But there is also a moral aspect to the distrust, surprising as this may be from an industry so dependent on gambling income. The feeling is that, by exercising judgment, any punter can hope to make a long-term profit from betting on racing. It is not logical to entertain such a hope if you bet on games of pure chance through a machine programmed to return only 97% of total stakes. A personal view is that no responsible government would allow its citizenry to be exposed to anything so closely resembling a numbers racket. I have enjoyed betting on racing for 20 years and believe it to be a respectable hobby for thinking people, whereas losing money on a spin of the wheel makes you a mug.
On Thursday the Post reported that the British Horseracing Authority had "urged the government not to slash the maximum stake" which may be staked through FOBTs. It was, the report said, a pragmatic approach, recognising the symbiosis between betting and racing. One leading bookmaker was moved to described the BHA's chief executive as "a top man". That symbiosis plainly exists. In addition to its share of betting profits, racing gets a similar sum in media rights income from the bookmakers in exchange for live pictures in shops. Every shop that closes means less money for racing and it is thought that any measure which reduces the profitability of FOBTs will render some shops unviable.
But that commercial interest would not save the BHA from enormous criticism if it had signed up to give its unqualified support for the bookmakers' right to make millions through FOBTs. Fortunately that is not quite what has happened. The BHA's submission to government agrees with the existing government line, that ministers "should await more detailed reviews on the impact of [FOBT] machines from the Responsible Gaming Trust before proposing to amend maximum stakes and prizes". Insisting on evidence that would justify any change is a respectable position and hardly one that amounts to a vigorous defence of FOBTs.
Still, I have to report continuing queasiness among some racing professionals, spooked by currently vitriolic campaigns to curtail the number of betting shops on high streets. A lot of people would much rather not see the acronyms BHA and FOBT in the same headline ever
Machines and betting shops are a risky issue for the BHA but their stance up until this point has been entirely respectable
Chris Cook
The Guardian, Sunday 14 April 2013
"If I ate cornflakes, I would have choked on them." Thus the reaction of a senior official at one of racing's representative bodies when confronted with a Racing Post headline last Thursday, declaring that 'Racing backs bookies in FOBTs battle'.
FOBTs, for readers who are not betting shop habitués, are 'Fixed Odds Betting Terminals', offering computerised roulette and other games of chance, allowing stakes of up to £100 and wins of up to £500 per play. They have become hugely important to British bookmakers, accounting for just over half of all income through betting shops in 2011, but are a source of concern for some campaigners, who fear they pose a particular danger to those at risk of a gambling problem.
Traditionally racing has regarded these machines with deep distrust, partly because they compete with the sport for the betting pound. This is a vital consideration, since bookmakers have to cough up a share of the profits made from bets on racing, but money is lost to the sport if it goes into the machines instead of being staked on the next at Chepstow.
But there is also a moral aspect to the distrust, surprising as this may be from an industry so dependent on gambling income. The feeling is that, by exercising judgment, any punter can hope to make a long-term profit from betting on racing. It is not logical to entertain such a hope if you bet on games of pure chance through a machine programmed to return only 97% of total stakes. A personal view is that no responsible government would allow its citizenry to be exposed to anything so closely resembling a numbers racket. I have enjoyed betting on racing for 20 years and believe it to be a respectable hobby for thinking people, whereas losing money on a spin of the wheel makes you a mug.
On Thursday the Post reported that the British Horseracing Authority had "urged the government not to slash the maximum stake" which may be staked through FOBTs. It was, the report said, a pragmatic approach, recognising the symbiosis between betting and racing. One leading bookmaker was moved to described the BHA's chief executive as "a top man". That symbiosis plainly exists. In addition to its share of betting profits, racing gets a similar sum in media rights income from the bookmakers in exchange for live pictures in shops. Every shop that closes means less money for racing and it is thought that any measure which reduces the profitability of FOBTs will render some shops unviable.
But that commercial interest would not save the BHA from enormous criticism if it had signed up to give its unqualified support for the bookmakers' right to make millions through FOBTs. Fortunately that is not quite what has happened. The BHA's submission to government agrees with the existing government line, that ministers "should await more detailed reviews on the impact of [FOBT] machines from the Responsible Gaming Trust before proposing to amend maximum stakes and prizes". Insisting on evidence that would justify any change is a respectable position and hardly one that amounts to a vigorous defence of FOBTs.
Still, I have to report continuing queasiness among some racing professionals, spooked by currently vitriolic campaigns to curtail the number of betting shops on high streets. A lot of people would much rather not see the acronyms BHA and FOBT in the same headline ever
Show More
Betting shop plans for Billet Road, Walthamstow, rejected by Waltham Forest Council
.
1Sunday 14th April 2013 in Waltham Forest By Daniel Binns http://www.guardian-series.co.uk.
A bid to open a new betting shop in Walthamstow has been rejected.
Applicant Chris Miller - from national chain William Hill - wanted permission to convert a shop at 204 Billet Road, but the plans were refused by Waltham Forest Council this week.
Officers, using delegated powers, said the area has "high levels" of anti-social behaviour and there was a risk that the proposed new business could make it worse.
They added: "The proposals would result in a net loss of retail units in the designated local retail parade which would reduce the potential range and choice of essential shops".
.
1Sunday 14th April 2013 in Waltham Forest By Daniel Binns http://www.guardian-series.co.uk.
A bid to open a new betting shop in Walthamstow has been rejected.
Applicant Chris Miller - from national chain William Hill - wanted permission to convert a shop at 204 Billet Road, but the plans were refused by Waltham Forest Council this week.
Officers, using delegated powers, said the area has "high levels" of anti-social behaviour and there was a risk that the proposed new business could make it worse.
They added: "The proposals would result in a net loss of retail units in the designated local retail parade which would reduce the potential range and choice of essential shops".
Must admit did not know that The Guardian was still going...
They have run through their cash pile quicker that a "recent arrival" on benefits.....
They have run through their cash pile quicker that a "recent arrival" on benefits.....
The feeling is that, by exercising judgment, any punter can hope to make a long-term profit from betting on racing
if only
if only
ebulGery
15 Apr 13 00:51
Joined:
08 May 10
| Topic/replies: 7,039 | Blogger: ebulGery's blog
The feeling is that, by exercising judgment, any punter can hope to make a long-term profit from betting on racing
if onlyCry
That is a totally realistic position for a racing journalist to take.
Have you ever heard of the likes of Jimbo McGrath ever being knocked back or even worse, having his accounts closed?
15 Apr 13 00:51
Joined:
08 May 10
| Topic/replies: 7,039 | Blogger: ebulGery's blog
The feeling is that, by exercising judgment, any punter can hope to make a long-term profit from betting on racing
if onlyCry
That is a totally realistic position for a racing journalist to take.
Have you ever heard of the likes of Jimbo McGrath ever being knocked back or even worse, having his accounts closed?
The Racing Post article from last Thursday about FOBT's
PDF form
if you're betting in-running at the mo not advisable to download in case it slows your P.C.
http://www.stopthefobts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/here.pdf
PDF form
if you're betting in-running at the mo not advisable to download in case it slows your P.C.
http://www.stopthefobts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/here.pdf
Row over Bournemouth Square betting shop plan
Monday 15th April 2013 in News By Arron Hendy http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10355683.Row_over_Bournemouth_Square_betting_shop_plan/
A NEW betting shop next to Bournemouth Square would create ‘a bad image’ and could ‘open the floodgates’, it is warned.
The Betfred chain of bookmakers has applied for a betting premises licence at the site of the old Santander bank at the start of Old Christchurch Road.
Bob Chapman, ward councillor for central Bournemouth, said bookies should be kept out of the ‘prime location’ with children around the bus stops outside.
He said: “It’s the last thing we need there as this would give Bournemouth a bad image.”
Cllr Chapman said other town centres have seen a number of betting shops clustered together and he feared having a Betfred would ‘open the floodgates’.
There are Betfred shops at the Triangle and further up Old Christchurch Road towards the Lansdowne, as well as a Ladbrokes at The Triangle, a Coral in Post Office Road and a William Hill in Gervis Place.
Cllr Chapman said those were in ‘more discreet’ locations.
No planning application for change of use is required when a bank or building society is changed into a betting shop.
Paul Clarke, chairman of Bourne-mouth Accommodation and Hotel association, said: “Whilst it is probably not the ideal replacement of what was there before it does provide an alternative choice to shops and if run by a reputable bookmakers may add value to the area.”
A Betfred spokesman declined to comment
Monday 15th April 2013 in News By Arron Hendy http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10355683.Row_over_Bournemouth_Square_betting_shop_plan/
A NEW betting shop next to Bournemouth Square would create ‘a bad image’ and could ‘open the floodgates’, it is warned.
The Betfred chain of bookmakers has applied for a betting premises licence at the site of the old Santander bank at the start of Old Christchurch Road.
Bob Chapman, ward councillor for central Bournemouth, said bookies should be kept out of the ‘prime location’ with children around the bus stops outside.
He said: “It’s the last thing we need there as this would give Bournemouth a bad image.”
Cllr Chapman said other town centres have seen a number of betting shops clustered together and he feared having a Betfred would ‘open the floodgates’.
There are Betfred shops at the Triangle and further up Old Christchurch Road towards the Lansdowne, as well as a Ladbrokes at The Triangle, a Coral in Post Office Road and a William Hill in Gervis Place.
Cllr Chapman said those were in ‘more discreet’ locations.
No planning application for change of use is required when a bank or building society is changed into a betting shop.
Paul Clarke, chairman of Bourne-mouth Accommodation and Hotel association, said: “Whilst it is probably not the ideal replacement of what was there before it does provide an alternative choice to shops and if run by a reputable bookmakers may add value to the area.”
A Betfred spokesman declined to comment
"and if run by a reputable bookmakers may add value to the area.”
“It’s the last thing we need there as this would give Bournemouth a bad image.”
You have to laugh at how spectacularly poorly advised these attention seeking councillors are. The comment above is a dream come true for even the most inept of licensing lawyers. A more cynical person may go as far to suggest the bookies put them up to it! Comical.
You have to laugh at how spectacularly poorly advised these attention seeking councillors are. The comment above is a dream come true for even the most inept of licensing lawyers. A more cynical person may go as far to suggest the bookies put them up to it! Comical.
So your a puppet for Baldie then Clive,i wondered who pulled your strings
No empirical evidence??? . .this poll wasn't taking by bookmakers or groups such as GRASP but by the BBC... BUT still bookies wont have it because it doesn't suit them.
In an questionnaire undertaken by BBC South East, 138 people in Chatham and Medway over 6 days in March answered questions on their gambling.
The results have no statistical or representative value, the BBC South East said.
Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines.
Twelve people said they played the machines every day and 27 said they played once or twice a week. Four said they spent more than £200 a day.
Four of the machine-players said they had debts of more than £5,000. Ten of the non-FOTB players said they owed similar amounts.
If a maximum stake of £2 was introduced, 35 FOTB players said they would be less likely to play.
'No validity'
Prof Jim Orford from Gambling Watch UK, said: "I have been convinced for a long time that gambling can be just as addictive as substances like alcohol addiction or drug addiction. My own view is that they shouldn't be on the high street."
Bookmakers said that staff are trained so that they can identify and help problem gamblers.
Dirk Vennix from Association of British Bookmakers, said: "One problem gambler is one problem gambler too many, and we take these issues seriously."
In a statement, bookmakers, William Hill, said: "This survey conducted on behalf of BBC South East is neither statistically significant, academically sound, comprehensive or balanced.
"There is no evidential correlation between higher stake levels and problem gambling.
"We do not consider any of the findings to have validity."
The Brighton gambler said: "It just takes everything from you, mentally, emotionally, physically, and it takes you to a lot of dark places. "
In an questionnaire undertaken by BBC South East, 138 people in Chatham and Medway over 6 days in March answered questions on their gambling.
The results have no statistical or representative value, the BBC South East said.
Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines.
Twelve people said they played the machines every day and 27 said they played once or twice a week. Four said they spent more than £200 a day.
Four of the machine-players said they had debts of more than £5,000. Ten of the non-FOTB players said they owed similar amounts.
If a maximum stake of £2 was introduced, 35 FOTB players said they would be less likely to play.
'No validity'
Prof Jim Orford from Gambling Watch UK, said: "I have been convinced for a long time that gambling can be just as addictive as substances like alcohol addiction or drug addiction. My own view is that they shouldn't be on the high street."
Bookmakers said that staff are trained so that they can identify and help problem gamblers.
Dirk Vennix from Association of British Bookmakers, said: "One problem gambler is one problem gambler too many, and we take these issues seriously."
In a statement, bookmakers, William Hill, said: "This survey conducted on behalf of BBC South East is neither statistically significant, academically sound, comprehensive or balanced.
"There is no evidential correlation between higher stake levels and problem gambling.
"We do not consider any of the findings to have validity."
The Brighton gambler said: "It just takes everything from you, mentally, emotionally, physically, and it takes you to a lot of dark places. "
"The results have no statistical or representative value, the BBC South East said."
Perhaps they think this is a pertinent point made by the people conducting the 'survey.'
Perhaps they think this is a pertinent point made by the people conducting the 'survey.'
I can't see Dirk Vennix lasting too much longer with the ABB
Dirk Vennix from Association of British Bookmakers, said: "One problem gambler is one problem gambler too many, and we take these issues seriously
Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines
Dirk Vennix from Association of British Bookmakers, said: "One problem gambler is one problem gambler too many, and we take these issues seriously
Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines
"The results have no statistical or representative value, the BBC South East said."
The results have no statistical or representative value, the BBC South East said.
"Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines.
Twelve people said they played the machines every day and 27 said they played once or twice a week. Four said they spent more than £200 a day.
Four of the machine-players said they had debts of more than £5,000. Ten of the non-FOTB players said they owed similar amounts.
If a maximum stake of £2 was introduced, 35 FOTB players said they would be less likely to play"
Those quotation marks make all the difference.
"Of the 138 questioned, 69 had played on FOBTs, with 19 saying they were addicted.
Of the 20 people questioned who said they had a "gambling problem", 14 were players of the machines.
Twelve people said they played the machines every day and 27 said they played once or twice a week. Four said they spent more than £200 a day.
Four of the machine-players said they had debts of more than £5,000. Ten of the non-FOTB players said they owed similar amounts.
If a maximum stake of £2 was introduced, 35 FOTB players said they would be less likely to play"
Those quotation marks make all the difference.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539