Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Wonder if/Looks like - this is going to be a replacement for the LEVY.
Show More
THE racing right is unworkable, will cause division and chaos and will massively damage the interests of horseracing, representatives of the betting industry were told on Monday.
Association of British Bookmakers chairman Paul Darling and the trade body's interim chief executive Martin Cruddace were both highly critical of the proposed replacement for the levy system, whereby bookmakers would have to pay for the right to take bets on racing, when they spoke at the body's annual meeting in London.
The right, racing's favoured mechanism for replacing the levy, is the subject of a government consultation which closed last week and both the sport and betting industry are waiting to hear whether the subject will be mentioned in Wednesday's Budget.
Darling, speaking at his first ABB agm, said he was conscious of the mutual interests of the two sides and pledged the ABB would continue to co-operate fully in any discussion about the funding of racing.
However, he added: "May I express a strong, deeply held, personal view about the racing right, drawing on two years at the Tote but I hope importantly six years as a government-appointed and independent member of the Levy Board? "The racing right will simply not work for one reason or another, or more likely - bearing in mind the complexity - several together. It will cause division and it will cause chaos.
"Any attempt to introduce a racing right will in my view - and I have thought about it very carefully, I hope with an open mind - massively damage the funding and interests of British horseracing, in the short, medium and long terms."
That view was echoed by Cruddace, who has stepped in for Dirk Vennix as chief executive this year while the ABB searches for a permanent replacement.
He said: "As we looked into it we realised that in fact the racing right is unworkable. As a legacy, by those who are responsible for its implementation, it is no better than leaving a fake Rembrandt thought to be an original.
"How will it play out? I think there will probably be an announcement this week. I think it will be generic and I think at that point the fight really starts."
Levy reform was just one of a number of issues Cruddace said the industry faced, along with the likes of the threat to gaming machines, the rise in machine games duty, media rights negotiations and increased powers over betting shops in Scotland.
The ABB has commissioned a report into the industry by accountancy firm KPMG which Cruddace said made for "very worrying reading".
He added: "It is clear that not only is the industry facing its most politically challenging time but also its most economically challenging time.
"Simply based on this month's increase in machine gaming duty, the number of shops - out of approximately 9,000 - systematically loss-making reaches 1,465, with 6,000 jobs at risk. With the potential impact of above £50 stake regulation [on machines] that figure increases by a further 217.
"In the face of such challenges, one of my key objectives as CEO will be to make sure that the ABB is able to speak with one voice for the industry, representing the industry as a whole, on these matters, and get the message as to those challenges to the heart of government. I think that is incredibly important given the situation we are in."
Darling said it had become clear the sector was being used as a "political football" but the ABB would work closely with the next government "to make sure decisions affecting our members are made on the basis of the facts and evidence, and the impact they could have are set out clearly".
He defended the betting shop industry and said the claim that it targeted deprived areas was "as absurd as it is insulting".
He concluded: "My key message is absolutely clear - responsible gambling is at the heart of all we do, now and into the future, and we are ready to work with anyone, any organisation, regulator, government to build on that agenda.
"The corollary of that is the industry needs to be treated fairly and we must and we will fight for that."
Association of British Bookmakers chairman Paul Darling and the trade body's interim chief executive Martin Cruddace were both highly critical of the proposed replacement for the levy system, whereby bookmakers would have to pay for the right to take bets on racing, when they spoke at the body's annual meeting in London.
The right, racing's favoured mechanism for replacing the levy, is the subject of a government consultation which closed last week and both the sport and betting industry are waiting to hear whether the subject will be mentioned in Wednesday's Budget.
Darling, speaking at his first ABB agm, said he was conscious of the mutual interests of the two sides and pledged the ABB would continue to co-operate fully in any discussion about the funding of racing.
However, he added: "May I express a strong, deeply held, personal view about the racing right, drawing on two years at the Tote but I hope importantly six years as a government-appointed and independent member of the Levy Board? "The racing right will simply not work for one reason or another, or more likely - bearing in mind the complexity - several together. It will cause division and it will cause chaos.
"Any attempt to introduce a racing right will in my view - and I have thought about it very carefully, I hope with an open mind - massively damage the funding and interests of British horseracing, in the short, medium and long terms."
That view was echoed by Cruddace, who has stepped in for Dirk Vennix as chief executive this year while the ABB searches for a permanent replacement.
He said: "As we looked into it we realised that in fact the racing right is unworkable. As a legacy, by those who are responsible for its implementation, it is no better than leaving a fake Rembrandt thought to be an original.
"How will it play out? I think there will probably be an announcement this week. I think it will be generic and I think at that point the fight really starts."
Levy reform was just one of a number of issues Cruddace said the industry faced, along with the likes of the threat to gaming machines, the rise in machine games duty, media rights negotiations and increased powers over betting shops in Scotland.
The ABB has commissioned a report into the industry by accountancy firm KPMG which Cruddace said made for "very worrying reading".
He added: "It is clear that not only is the industry facing its most politically challenging time but also its most economically challenging time.
"Simply based on this month's increase in machine gaming duty, the number of shops - out of approximately 9,000 - systematically loss-making reaches 1,465, with 6,000 jobs at risk. With the potential impact of above £50 stake regulation [on machines] that figure increases by a further 217.
"In the face of such challenges, one of my key objectives as CEO will be to make sure that the ABB is able to speak with one voice for the industry, representing the industry as a whole, on these matters, and get the message as to those challenges to the heart of government. I think that is incredibly important given the situation we are in."
Darling said it had become clear the sector was being used as a "political football" but the ABB would work closely with the next government "to make sure decisions affecting our members are made on the basis of the facts and evidence, and the impact they could have are set out clearly".
He defended the betting shop industry and said the claim that it targeted deprived areas was "as absurd as it is insulting".
He concluded: "My key message is absolutely clear - responsible gambling is at the heart of all we do, now and into the future, and we are ready to work with anyone, any organisation, regulator, government to build on that agenda.
"The corollary of that is the industry needs to be treated fairly and we must and we will fight for that."
Attaching the levy to bookmakers profits has been a disaster.
It has led to the unedifying sight of the BHA cheering the fall of Annie Power on the basis it saved them a fortune.
It has led to stewards not disqualifying horses because this will cost bookmakers.
It has led to the unedifying sight of the BHA cheering the fall of Annie Power on the basis it saved them a fortune.
It has led to stewards not disqualifying horses because this will cost bookmakers.
I am inclined to think that this will lead to the death of the death of racing. Racing accounts for a small % of most books turnover and profits these days, as sports betting (mainly football) is now the driving factor.
Effectively this seems to split a gambling licence in to two parts; pay for a licence to take bets on all sports, and pay extra to take bets on racing. I think many will simply choose not to take the racing option, leaving punters with even less competition in the market.
Probably good news for Fred, as this is possibly the first step towards a US/French style Tote-only system
Effectively this seems to split a gambling licence in to two parts; pay for a licence to take bets on all sports, and pay extra to take bets on racing. I think many will simply choose not to take the racing option, leaving punters with even less competition in the market.
Probably good news for Fred, as this is possibly the first step towards a US/French style Tote-only system
so what if a bookmaker chooses only to take bets on saturdays or just the major meetings or ops out of unprofitable all weather meetings.
Are they allowed to pick and choose?
This just looks like a minefield
Are they allowed to pick and choose?
This just looks like a minefield
If the BOOKMAKERS are bleating about it -
- and their main defence is, " an attack on FOBTS," - meaning, they claim, fewer shops ..... then FINE.
Fewer shops means less compensation - when the Betting Shop industry is eventually Nationalised and replaced with a TOTE MONOPOLY that would greatly benefit racing, far more than any Levy or, "Racing Right."
Bring it on.
- and their main defence is, " an attack on FOBTS," - meaning, they claim, fewer shops ..... then FINE.
Fewer shops means less compensation - when the Betting Shop industry is eventually Nationalised and replaced with a TOTE MONOPOLY that would greatly benefit racing, far more than any Levy or, "Racing Right."
Bring it on.
the chesterbet model is to be taken on by all courses the second the tote/betfred licences all run out in 2018.
jockeyclubracingbet already announced
jockeyclubracingbet already announced
^ OFF-Course TOTE Monopoloy - that is.
Exchanges to remain, as now.
Exchanges to remain, as now.
Extract from thee 2015 Budget:
2.152 Horserace Betting Right – The government will bring forward legislative proposals
to replace the 1963 Horserace Betting Levy with a new Horserace Betting Right. The new
authorisation scheme will apply to all bookmakers, wherever located, who take bets from British
customers on British racing and will be administered directly by the racing industry.
2.152 Horserace Betting Right – The government will bring forward legislative proposals
to replace the 1963 Horserace Betting Levy with a new Horserace Betting Right. The new
authorisation scheme will apply to all bookmakers, wherever located, who take bets from British
customers on British racing and will be administered directly by the racing industry.
"Any attempt to introduce a racing right will in my view - and I have thought about it very carefully, I hope with an open mind - massively damage the funding and interests of British horseracing, in the short, medium and long terms."
Translation: it might damage the interests of bookmakers.
Translation: it might damage the interests of bookmakers.
George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, delivers his Budget statement to the House of Commons.
Greg Wood
Wednesday 18 March 2015 16.36 GM
The abolition of the Levy system, which has returned money to racing from off-course betting for more than half a century, moved a significant step closer on Wednesday when George Osborne, the chancellor, used his Budget speech to announce that the government intends to introduce a Racing Right under which bookmakers will pay for the right to accept bets on British racing.
The creation of a Racing Right has been an ambition of the British Horseracing Authority for several years, as the growth of online betting has seen many major gambling firms relocate offshore, where they can avoid both betting duty and the Levy obligations that would attach to cash bets on the high street.
The government has recently moved to tax online bets on a “point of consumption” basis, and a Racing Right would, in theory at least, force offshore firms to pass a proportion of their racing profits back to the sport.
The chancellor’s announcement was made just six days after the conclusion of a consultation period on the proposed new Right. “In the week after [the] Cheltenham [Festival],” Osborne said, “we will support the British racing industry by introducing a Racing Right.”
The proposed scheme is believed to enjoy support on both sides of the house, encouraging racing administrators to believe that the necessary legislation will be introduced regardless of the outcome of the general election in May.
Clive Efford MP, the Labour spokesman with responsibility for racing, recently wrote to Helen Grant, the sports minister, to offer his own support for the Right, which according to the Budget document “will be administered directly by the racing industry”.
The BHA was quick to welcome the chancellor’s statement. “Today’s announcement is a welcome and tremendous boost for the tens of thousands of people across the country that derive their livelihoods from our sport,” Nick Rust, the Authority’s chief executive, said.
“The government, the minister for Sport and Tourism, Helen Grant MP, and politicians from the major parties all recognise the importance of a fair and sustainable funding mechanism for British racing. British racing has a collective desire for a modern and direct relationship with the betting industry, and believe that a Racing Right is the best solution to achieve this, and to secure the long-term prosperity of our sport and those within it.
“We are still in the situation whereby the vast majority of bets placed by punters outside of betting shops are making no contribution to the central finances of the sport. This is unsustainable, and there is recognition that this needs to change.”
However, the Association of British Bookmakers, which represents the overwhelming majority of high street bookmakers, suggested in a statement on Wednesday that the plan would prove to be “unworkable”.
A spokesperson for the ABB said: “Unfortunately, we believe the Racing Right is unworkable and the detail will derail it, leaving racing seriously underfunded for a considerable length of time. It will be mired in legal and other issues for many, many years.
“Arguably, the proceeds from the Right will not even be able to be distributed until legal certainty is obtained, with racing being the main loser.”
Matthew Hancock MP, whose constituency includes Newmarket, has been a leading proponent of the Racing Right for several years.
“This is a once-in-a-generation transformation which will trigger significant growth, jobs and international investment,” Hancock said. “I now look forward to seeing the details of the legislation and to a more secure future for our golden sport.”
Greg Wood
Wednesday 18 March 2015 16.36 GM
The abolition of the Levy system, which has returned money to racing from off-course betting for more than half a century, moved a significant step closer on Wednesday when George Osborne, the chancellor, used his Budget speech to announce that the government intends to introduce a Racing Right under which bookmakers will pay for the right to accept bets on British racing.
The creation of a Racing Right has been an ambition of the British Horseracing Authority for several years, as the growth of online betting has seen many major gambling firms relocate offshore, where they can avoid both betting duty and the Levy obligations that would attach to cash bets on the high street.
The government has recently moved to tax online bets on a “point of consumption” basis, and a Racing Right would, in theory at least, force offshore firms to pass a proportion of their racing profits back to the sport.
The chancellor’s announcement was made just six days after the conclusion of a consultation period on the proposed new Right. “In the week after [the] Cheltenham [Festival],” Osborne said, “we will support the British racing industry by introducing a Racing Right.”
The proposed scheme is believed to enjoy support on both sides of the house, encouraging racing administrators to believe that the necessary legislation will be introduced regardless of the outcome of the general election in May.
Clive Efford MP, the Labour spokesman with responsibility for racing, recently wrote to Helen Grant, the sports minister, to offer his own support for the Right, which according to the Budget document “will be administered directly by the racing industry”.
The BHA was quick to welcome the chancellor’s statement. “Today’s announcement is a welcome and tremendous boost for the tens of thousands of people across the country that derive their livelihoods from our sport,” Nick Rust, the Authority’s chief executive, said.
“The government, the minister for Sport and Tourism, Helen Grant MP, and politicians from the major parties all recognise the importance of a fair and sustainable funding mechanism for British racing. British racing has a collective desire for a modern and direct relationship with the betting industry, and believe that a Racing Right is the best solution to achieve this, and to secure the long-term prosperity of our sport and those within it.
“We are still in the situation whereby the vast majority of bets placed by punters outside of betting shops are making no contribution to the central finances of the sport. This is unsustainable, and there is recognition that this needs to change.”
However, the Association of British Bookmakers, which represents the overwhelming majority of high street bookmakers, suggested in a statement on Wednesday that the plan would prove to be “unworkable”.
A spokesperson for the ABB said: “Unfortunately, we believe the Racing Right is unworkable and the detail will derail it, leaving racing seriously underfunded for a considerable length of time. It will be mired in legal and other issues for many, many years.
“Arguably, the proceeds from the Right will not even be able to be distributed until legal certainty is obtained, with racing being the main loser.”
Matthew Hancock MP, whose constituency includes Newmarket, has been a leading proponent of the Racing Right for several years.
“This is a once-in-a-generation transformation which will trigger significant growth, jobs and international investment,” Hancock said. “I now look forward to seeing the details of the legislation and to a more secure future for our golden sport.”
Phillip Davies MP, the Tory renegade, and self styled 'friend of racing' in Parliament, must be spitting in his post lunch port.
It is disgusting that Greyhound racing appears to have been excluded once again. Despite providing many more races to the bookmakers than horse racing and a significant proportion of their turnover, it looks like the sport will continue it's slow spiral downwards. 
It will be mired in legal and other issues for many, many years
Typical bookmakers. I thought all they wanted was a level-playing field?
Typical bookmakers. I thought all they wanted was a level-playing field?
Its ok Stow, if this is introduced, horse racing will follow it down
If it means the High Street firms paying their dues via off shore ( Gibraltar for example ). I can't see the problem, other than, as usual, the Big 6 trying to find a way not too !
The big boys should be happy any foreign-based companies will have to sign in. But no,,,let's threaten legal action.
About 3 or 4 years ago there was a picture in the Racing Post of how Lads intended to shape a shop they tried to get licensed,but it was turned down under the existing regs.,because they didn't intend to show racing,just sports betting and fobt's.It looked pretty smart,and I think would have been successful had it been allowed.The cost of shops showing horse racing gets dearer and dearer,and is losing out to online at a growing rate,so it wasn't surprising that they wanted to experiment with this new concept.
Darling quotes - He defended the betting shop industry and said the claim that it targeted deprived areas was "as absurd as it is insulting". Oh absolutely Darling, couldn't agree more
.
.
I remember that - unbiased.
Didn't Ladblokes want TWO shops NEXT DOOR to each other - But with only ONE taking Racing bets, and showing the racing - and the other Sports bets and, of course, a further FOUR FOBTs
Had they let it through then there were others who would have applied for a similar Betting Shop (NON-Racing Licence)
Another was something like a bloke who ran a Cafe, or Sandwich bar, who was going to put FOBTs in there - were he granted a NON-Racing licence.
Didn't Ladblokes want TWO shops NEXT DOOR to each other - But with only ONE taking Racing bets, and showing the racing - and the other Sports bets and, of course, a further FOUR FOBTs
Had they let it through then there were others who would have applied for a similar Betting Shop (NON-Racing Licence)
Another was something like a bloke who ran a Cafe, or Sandwich bar, who was going to put FOBTs in there - were he granted a NON-Racing licence.
No onlooker,that was another area,but it is legal to have separate entrances as the shops will be say,18 and 18a,and qualify for a double dose of fobt's.
The machines and sports shop would have been easy to staff too,it looked pretty smart.
The machines and sports shop would have been easy to staff too,it looked pretty smart.
They wanted to put shops within shops didn't they to get the FOBT count up?
In the early 2000's Ladbrokes opened a shop in the S E with forty FOBT's..... the legislation was changed to limit it to four per shop, no matter what size !
It wouldn't surprise me if a decent size chain applies for a High St licence to retail sports betting and machines only. Leaving the horse division on line only or creating a sole online horse racing operation based out of one of the tax havens. Horseracing punting is dying (like the dogs) because of distrust in the connections, bookies refusal to take risk, struggle to get on, for newbies the work and study involved in getting a handle on the sport and so on. An off course tote monopoly is getting nearer and obviously it wouldn't be left under the control of the bald one. Large competitive markets will look after themselves as punters will punt no matter who has to pay out and diversify to understand the obvious nuances of pool betting. And rakes of between 5%-10% max paying the running costs and with its cut Racing will pay for itself and its own needs if the product is appealing and competitive.
They wanted to put shops within shops didn't they to get the FOBT count up?
Yes, Cheltenham town centre - subdividing an existing unit.
Parasites.
Mar 18, 2015 -- 6:30PM, Stow_judge wrote:
It is disgusting that Greyhound racing appears to have been excluded once again. Despite providing many more races to the bookmakers than horse racing and a significant proportion of their turnover, it looks like the sport will continue it's slow spiral downwards.
100% correct
It wouldn't surprise me if a decent size chain applies for a High St licence to retail sports betting and machines only.
People dont spend all day in betting shops playing on football/rugby/cricket/golf/tennis.
Once you know that the FOBTs empty your pockets with total detachment, what else is there to turn to?
Oh yes, nags & dogs.
People dont spend all day in betting shops playing on football/rugby/cricket/golf/tennis.
Once you know that the FOBTs empty your pockets with total detachment, what else is there to turn to?
Oh yes, nags & dogs.
Halcyon Days,
Where was the shop with 40 fobts? (Before the limit came in)
Where was the shop with 40 fobts? (Before the limit came in)
the hypothetical firm would keep certain branches open for racing footfall but if punters came in placed their bets and left as they do when doing the lottery then staffing levels would be decreased substantially as would the need to open from 8.30am until 10pm. A core day opening from 11am until 8pm would suffice to take sports bets in cash.
Those who loiter in shops all day ( apart from the lost and homeless ) spend little betting nowadays. It is more of a social club,catching up, buying their illegal tobacco and reading the Racing Post. The savings in wages and overheads would weigh favourably against lost mug punter horse/dogs trade. In Coventry the shops are struggling imo, often empty hoping for a passing machine punter to put feed £20 into one of the dormant receptacles.
Racing needs the bookies far more than the High St needs Racing. As it stands the High St will survive without Racing, Racing cannot survive without the High St levy. The BHA should be proactive and cut off the product and ask Govt to enforce an off course Tote monopoly (it won't happen overnight but could be in place by 2018 as bets can be taken in the corner shops and pay points throughout the country), if it has faith in the product the punters will follow. Minimal retail outlets required because of the network of e-payment machines already in place giving retailers 1%-2% commission on stakes. Instead they will exist on the crumbs handed down from the High St because mediation and appeasement is the British way.
Those who loiter in shops all day ( apart from the lost and homeless ) spend little betting nowadays. It is more of a social club,catching up, buying their illegal tobacco and reading the Racing Post. The savings in wages and overheads would weigh favourably against lost mug punter horse/dogs trade. In Coventry the shops are struggling imo, often empty hoping for a passing machine punter to put feed £20 into one of the dormant receptacles.
Racing needs the bookies far more than the High St needs Racing. As it stands the High St will survive without Racing, Racing cannot survive without the High St levy. The BHA should be proactive and cut off the product and ask Govt to enforce an off course Tote monopoly (it won't happen overnight but could be in place by 2018 as bets can be taken in the corner shops and pay points throughout the country), if it has faith in the product the punters will follow. Minimal retail outlets required because of the network of e-payment machines already in place giving retailers 1%-2% commission on stakes. Instead they will exist on the crumbs handed down from the High St because mediation and appeasement is the British way.
Isn't it strange that almost everyone who advocates a Tote monopoly for the betterment of the racing industry thinks that everything else should be closed down EXCEPT the exchanges. Why should they be exempt ?
if off course includes the exchange then so be it, or maybe all layers on Exchanges should pay a non refundable premium of £10k in advance of a calendar year to Racing in order to lay bets and then 15% of gross profit. Plenty of other sports for exchange players to play on rather than horses. With commissions from layers plus from BF itself then Racing could support itself or via the tote monopoly.
Does Racing deserve to survive though? With its quangos taking ever more from the coffers and adding very little. Racing for Change, what is the point? The BHA have prostituted themselves to the High St for peanuts so could such a body that isn't fit for purpose be trusted to look after profits from a tote monopoly?
Does Racing deserve to survive though? With its quangos taking ever more from the coffers and adding very little. Racing for Change, what is the point? The BHA have prostituted themselves to the High St for peanuts so could such a body that isn't fit for purpose be trusted to look after profits from a tote monopoly?
ph
The trouble is that this Government are talking about charging a " levy " towards any sport on which betting takes place. A minefield springs to mind.
The trouble is that this Government are talking about charging a " levy " towards any sport on which betting takes place. A minefield springs to mind.
porfavor 19 Mar 15 14:21
Isn't it strange that almost everyone who advocates a Tote monopoly for the betterment of the racing industry thinks that everything else should be closed down EXCEPT the exchanges. Why should they be exempt?
Why would you not want exchanges?
Isn't it strange that almost everyone who advocates a Tote monopoly for the betterment of the racing industry thinks that everything else should be closed down EXCEPT the exchanges. Why should they be exempt?
Why would you not want exchanges?
I think that those wanting a Tote monopoly should look up the meaning of the word " monopoly ".
No other country on this planet has their horse racing run by bookmakers end of think about it bookies only join in ANYTHING if it suits them
zipper
That's as may be, but if a Tote monopoly is what racing wants, then EVERYBODY has to pay the price - Betting Shops and Exchanges. You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you.
That's as may be, but if a Tote monopoly is what racing wants, then EVERYBODY has to pay the price - Betting Shops and Exchanges. You can't pick and choose the bits that suit you.
porfavor you have a point but as long has the big 3 call the tune that's why we have small fields, micky mouse racing , horses running for 2k ..bent racing
its cost 2k a month to keep a horse any horse and 40% of em never win a race ....
its cost 2k a month to keep a horse any horse and 40% of em never win a race ....
Unfortunately off course bookmakers do not share your sense of fairness, porfavor.
sparrow this how it works greed
couple a story in the express a women last 6 million playing Bingo
don't tell me the site bingo, and the bank her bank did not know .. she was a part time account on 20k
couple a story in the express a women last 6 million playing Bingo
don't tell me the site bingo, and the bank her bank did not know .. she was a part time account on 20k
am not against bookmakers if they lay a bet or are prepared to. If they price up a race (generally following the machine rather than employ and trust odds compilers) then lay it to lose £25k (in this modern era a televised link to liabilities could easily be broadcast in the shop) instead of giving 100s of punters a peck at £50-£80 then broadcasting live liability the first to act can take the lot if desired. Then they can chop it or make the other prices more attractive thus acting like bookmakers. TBF as the High St operates at the moment it doesn't bother me if horses are taken from them. Horse punters then bet into monopolised pools or visit the track to bet with bookies. The High St doesn't care for British Horseracing (prize money levels prove this over the last 25 years) so Racing shouldn't care to take only one option away from the High St outlets.
porfavor 19 Mar 15 14:21
Isn't it strange that almost everyone who advocates a Tote monopoly for the betterment of the racing industry thinks that everything else should be closed down EXCEPT the exchanges. Why should they be exempt ?
------------------
Because ...
If the 'Bookmakers' are NOT prepared to bet on HORSE RACING - or do NOT wish to do so ...
Then they should NOT be allowed to do so.
EXCHANGEs and their Players ARE (by contrast)prepared to bet on HORSE RACING - so should still be ALLOWED.
If a Supermarket decreed (like the Bookmakers wish to dictate) that they were NOT prepared to sell Fresh Foods - because of the potential wastage - but were prepared to ONLY sell TINNED Food (the Food equivalent of FOBTs) ...
Then, just how long would that Supermarket last ...... 'Two minutes' would be the colloquial answer.
Customers would go ELSEWHERE for their FRESH Food.
That ELSEWHERE - in the HORSE RACING Betting Market - would be ..... the EXCHANGES.
Isn't it strange that almost everyone who advocates a Tote monopoly for the betterment of the racing industry thinks that everything else should be closed down EXCEPT the exchanges. Why should they be exempt ?
------------------
Because ...
If the 'Bookmakers' are NOT prepared to bet on HORSE RACING - or do NOT wish to do so ...
Then they should NOT be allowed to do so.
EXCHANGEs and their Players ARE (by contrast)prepared to bet on HORSE RACING - so should still be ALLOWED.
If a Supermarket decreed (like the Bookmakers wish to dictate) that they were NOT prepared to sell Fresh Foods - because of the potential wastage - but were prepared to ONLY sell TINNED Food (the Food equivalent of FOBTs) ...
Then, just how long would that Supermarket last ...... 'Two minutes' would be the colloquial answer.
Customers would go ELSEWHERE for their FRESH Food.
That ELSEWHERE - in the HORSE RACING Betting Market - would be ..... the EXCHANGES.
I think that the off-course industry could do itself a huge favour by not offering Morning prices. They do not want to lay them but are terrified that the shop next door will pinch one of their customers. Morning prices are tailor-made for the exchanges. Once the market has settled down and live shows are coming from the Racecourses then the betting shops SHOULD be prepared to lay these prices to a decent stake.
@ph.'s plan to enable sharks over ordinary punters might not sound so attractive to the average betting shop denizen. He is right about the big bookies not caring about racing though.
the high street shops with out the fobs hundreds would close .
. horse bets are only a tiny amount
. horse bets are only a tiny amount
ramruna there has to be some transparency to what they are prepared to lay and the technology is there and a £25k liability across 900 shops or 1900 isn't a big risk considering lots smaller punters are having a couple of quid counterbalancing their book. However as ramruna says the sharks may take the majority of the price, if the sheep want to take decreased prices then so be it. Porfavor your point about not pricing up until say half an hour before the first race is valid and to extend it don't offer early prices about any race you aren't comfortable laying. If that means going back to h'cap prices only in advance then I'm ok with that,generally the form has some substance to it.
If the bad shape races scare the books then change the place odds on odds on races (1/6th or 1/7th so the price is respective of the real place chance. Or go win only or bet without. These markets can't be too hard to price effectively.
If the bad shape races scare the books then change the place odds on odds on races (1/6th or 1/7th so the price is respective of the real place chance. Or go win only or bet without. These markets can't be too hard to price effectively.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539