There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 258 comments are related to the topic:
BOOKMAKER URGES CREATION OF A NEW BODY TO SAVE RING
BOOKMAKER URGES CREATION OF A NEW BODY TO SAVE RING
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 258
|
By:
cashless
steve clare has confirmed the £20 admin fee is in fact the agt fee not a jockey club racecourse fee. where is this meeting on sunday and is it behind closed doors ? |
|
By:
adge 01 May 13 19:02 Joined: 14 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 4,512 | Blogger: adge's blog mine was 118% on the win and 108% on the places zealot adge suffering from a bout of 'hexham flu'  |
|
By:
WALNUT CAKE TODAY????????????????????
|
|
By:
mrs taff not baking today
 |
|
By:
NO PROBS,I PREFER YOURS ANYWAY
  |
|
By:
Wasnot, thanks for the response. One the directors do have a duty of care, which means they should meet and agree that legal action. This didn't happen with the executive of the Rails, of which I am a member. RG went ahead with the challenge unilaterally. He may have consulted the ARB and NAB, I'm not currently aware he did- but it's worth checking. Second the question was - were the other associations consulted about the spend?
As to point two - secret ballot. Yes, I am in favour. I am convinced overwhelming support for latest gold flag arrangement. We would therefore be challenging something legally the majority are happy to endorse. that's just daft and unconstitutional |
|
By:
Regit, I've answered your point about mandate and ballot, of course i favour this and it's great to notice so many Bookmakers now see the need to step back from the current precipice and address the needs of their customers
Agree fully we need to engage with tracks. There are many issues we need them to understand and support. ie odious practice pitch rentals, marketing fee etc. As to one for one. This debate older than Cleeve Hill. It's been in place for a long time now and seems fair enough to me. I understand you don't agree, but it's unlikely to change see you at York |
|
By:
Geoff what exactly are you suggesting on Sunday, that Gold Flag terms become enforced at each track, or that local groups are set up to replace negotiating from central bodies?
|
|
By:
I suggest we let the lot of them go to the wall. For those foolish enough to be price insensitive have the Chesterbet model, at least the course makes all the dough and ploughs it back instead of guys taking it away in satchels. For those with a brain facilitate 4g so that exchanges etc can be accessed and of course for the casual player Chesterbet can also be accessed via 4G.
|
|
By:
Davy. I would like support of all sensible minded businessmen to agreeing to bet to standard terms (1/5 1.2.3.4 in 16-21 handicaps) and to engage fully with racetracks. This included reestablishing local meetings with tracks. National associations too devolved from the local arena
main point of these meetins? to help tracks understand our business and allow them to recommend things to us and us to them. Associations would remain, with directors working more solidly with their membership. No not everyone will agree on all matters. But we urgently need to draw back from the current cut throat environment. standardising place terms is a good start point. improves win margins. Remember the contentious races are generally handicaps. Anyone who chooses the win only option will be volunteering themselves out of 1/3rd the available business. The place book will generally no longer be overbroke and the customers will be much happier with a set arrangement |
|
By:
Geoff- Good Luck, the associations cannot remain in their current format, you need to have commercially aware individuals whom are representative of the views of the majority of those individuals they represent, and the majority of those sitting on the associations do not fit the bill (regardless of if they have been elected or not).
The way forward as you have proposed is local committees made up of those whom trade at that individual track with direct negotiation with one member of personnel at that particular track. The issues facing both sides can then be discussed openly and an arrangement reached which is hopefully agreeable to all whom trade at the track or if not at least the majority. |
|
By:
1/5 the odds 16 to 21 runners are'nt standard terms, do you really think your regular punters will be happy to accept ew terms that are worse than shop/online odds? The yellow flag hoisters on this point are no better or no worse than the 1/6 or 1/7 merchants
|
|
By:
I ONLY BET ABOUT 12 TIMES A YEAR ,COULD SOMEBODY PUT ME STRAIGHT,AT NEWMARKET ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY IF THERES A 16-21 HORSE HANDICAP WHAT EW TERMS IS ACCEPTABLE TO .....LETS STONE THE BASTARD BRIGADE .....IS IT 1-5TH 1-2-3-4???
|
|
By:
Geoff - Thanks for the response, good luck with that, seems to be make sense.
|
|
By:
Thanks RR.
mmmalushka. good point. but these are 'minimum terms' any firm may improve on them at any time. Also will get support vast majority of Bookmakers. Support please |
|
By:
THE WAY I SEE IT IS THAT THE MAJORITY PUT THESE ASS-COMMITTEES THERE ,SO WHY DONT THE MAJORITY FK EM OFF
|
|
By:
ITS A 1/4 UNLESS YOU CAN UNFURL YOUR YELLOW FLAG FORGET ALL THIS OVERBROKE NONSENSE THE LOSING WIN PARTS OF THE EW BETS MORE THAN COMPENSATES FOR THAT.THINK OF IT AS CUSTOMER CARE.LEAVE THE FIDDLING TO THE YELLOWFLAGMEN
|
|
By:
A typical 16 runner hcap at hq is 116% win and 84% place at 1/4 odds. How does that stack up in your opinion mmm? If you bet to more than 116% win you would take nothing.
|
|
By:
Once you have got that sorted you can then move on to the influence of technology, smartphone growth, where are the next generation of racecourse customers going to come form, where do the racecourses see themselves in 10-15 years and what are they doing by way of attracting the
 |
|
By:
BUT MAMMY ITS BEEN MENTIONED 1-5TH 1234
|
|
By:
WASSY WHAT TERMS WILL BEON YOURBOARD 1-5..1-4
|
|
By:
If you are stupid enough to take 4/1 on course when you can get 4.2 or more on here then at least have your money go to the course directly and not to a bookmaker
|
|
By:
ILL TAKE THE 4-1 LOLOLOLOL
|
|
By:
That's 4.2/1 by the way in case you are confused. There is clearly something going on here, the cleverly orchestrated gathering of bookmaker friendly/racing unfriendly participants. Racing and in particular courses have an ideal opportunity to show this lot the door and grow a pair in order to take control of their own income streams. Lets hope they have the sense to do it.
|
|
By:
NICE CHAP
|
|
By:
Olias, they could develop a massive income stream once 4g is implemented if choosing a certain partner and put an income sharing stream in place but it would surely be very unfair on the recent contracts that have been negotiated with the on-course books...... but since when has anything in business been fair.
|
|
By:
WASNOT - Pre 2005 everybody bet 1/4 1234 or win only....and most...lived to tell the tale...I bet 1/4 1234 and alter my win prices for circa 100% on places... if EVERYBODY bet 1/4 1234, they too would have to alter their win prices to reflect the place %...anybody who suggests otherwise is simply making excuses for poor,damaging practises.
|
|
By:
LETS TALK SENSE .......IF I GO 1-4 AND BET TO 100%ON THE PLACE TERMS THEN IM STRUGGLING TO TAKE MONEY .....AGREE?
|
|
By:
Spot On Mug you just keep altering Win Prices to fit the Place Book to close as 100% as possible
|
|
By:
Oliasofsunhillow 4.2/1 after commission of 5% works out marginally less than 4/1 you thick fukker,and thats forgetting about the winners tax that some people have to pay. The mugbookie is right,you either bet to standard terms that off course shops do,or just forget about it. There should be none of this 1/5 odds 4 places nonsense.
|
|
By:
SO U GOT ONE AT 8-1 AND NEXT DOORS GOT 9 AT A 1-5......OR WORST STILL 1-6TH .....THEN ME WHOS PLAYING THE GAME DOESNT LAY IT
|
|
By:
AND I MAY STATE IVE NEVER BET A 1-5TH THE ODDS EVER IN MY LIFE WHEN THE SITUATION HAS PRESENTED ITS SELF ....WIN ONLY -YES BUT NEVER 1-5TH
|
|
By:
Jimeem are you telling me that the punter after commission is better off on course than on here
|
|
By:
IUF HES ON 5% ......YES HE IS
|
|
By:
Bookmakers operate a 100% winners tax by the way although I would not concern yourself too much with that Jimeen
|
|
By:
A TENNER AT 5.2 WINS 42£ LESS 5% IS WORSE THEN 4-1 WITH THE BOOK
|
|
By:
OOPS
|
|
By:
You are better off on here even with 5% comm and of course you wont be on 5% or if you are go purple and pay less comm
|
|
By:
On average 5/1 shots are 7% above this price on here
|
|
By:
YEAH OK
 |