RMG contracts and the FRB

'Evidence' a key word adge. For those still undecided and needing to commit one way or another the conflicting information being provided must make their decision more difficult. In the absence of a balanced public debate involving all interested parties this thread might help. The RMG incentive to sign up by a certain date amongst other things is being discredited by the FRB whilst the Federation's alternative is a response to an e-mail implying a rejection of the RMG offer. What is unfathomable is that if the FRB ultimately wish to negotiate on behalf of bookmakers with the RMG with a view to achieving a satisfactory deal how can the published condemnation of the RMG offer to individuals help their case. A good starting point it is NOT ! Is it true it was generally accepted at a meeting held in the North attended by FRB personnel that it would be ideal if  a single body acted in future to secure such agreements ? Was the stumbling block the composition of that body ? All stakeholders have to make their own mind up. Hopefully those decisions will be made on veritable information. Adge if the RMG already have enough signed up, which is quit possible, to comprise a 'sample' and hence an SP where does that leave everybody else ?

I think the FRB email which asks you to reply to their email as acceptance that they should look after you is really poor. This should have happened months ago if they wanted to intervene.

i would like to read the response from RMG to this latest correspondence.
as regards who has signed up , i don't have that information but i understand that the rails are well represented at all courses , many having signed or agreed to. everyone has a choice in that they do sign or they do not sign through whoever.
the FRB amusingly list their major achievement to course bookmakers as 1/ the 2012 licence agreements and 2/ the successful courtyard settlement.
if these are their major achievements for us all as the FRB suggest god help us

I tend to agree Davy the FRB response resembles fire fighting inasmuch it is an attempt to recover lost ground. On the other hand  the signatories to the agreement need to be confident they are not entering into a 'divide and rule' situation with RMG. The FRB 'achievements' that you quote adge can be perceived as such by some or concessions and climb downs by others. It would be good to hear others views on here to ascertain the preferred / better option. If as you say adge the RMG are going to respond let's hope it will bring more clarity and less 'smoke and mirrors'.

RMG don't need to respond.  They must be in a similar 'sure thing' situation to the FRB during the courtyard case!
By the way, if you post a reply to this then you are bound by the following terms and conditions - '1. Not allowed to top my prices when betting near me.  2.Must buy me a pint whenever you see me in a pub'.

the RMG have confirmed to the BRBA that they have received NO contact of any sort from the FRB for the past TEN weeks since the original draft for future data agreements was first circulated.

I for one have not signed for anybody yet am still undecided as to what to do for the best. worrys me that rmg offered me a £100 signing on fee tho!!!!if it sounds too good to be true it often is in my experience interested in others views as what to do for the best tho

The  response recently received by bookmakers from RMG to the critique of the proposed agreement by FRB if nothing else proves that RMG is taking this matter very seriously and the attempt to answer points of contention are worth reading. It remains the case that each individual will still need to make their own mind up on the matter however it is to be hoped that decisions will be made on the published facts rather than sentiment or apathy. Due to your anonymity dsf it will be difficult for anyone to abide by your terms and conditions. From your point scoring at the start of your 'post' I assume your decision is already made up. Incidentally I wonder if the numbers ( i.e total so far ) of those already committed to the FRB or directly to RMG were to be published whether that would sway some others ?

RMG seem happy with their numbers received. i see they have answered all the FRB questions and doubts very fully in their response.
i doubt you will hear anything from the FRB . they can't even give a clue as to what has happened to the £1.1 million they received from turf tv two months ago.

If what you are saying is correct adge - and I am not doubting you - that is very worrying. An explanation will surely be forthcoming to put minds at ease. Despite your mention of 'RMG subscribers' I suspect many are not in a hurry to nail their flag to the FRB or RMG mast.

Adge,
I have not seen the RMG response to the FRB questions, where can this be viewed?

i believe the  full version was sent to all associations by email.
i have read the full transcript which was sent to the BRBA

For whisky and others benefit adge in the event that the detail of the response does not reach the masses I do not suppose you feel able to impart the relevant information ? At the very least can you confirm that the early signing deadline has been put back to the 18th November by RMG ? I note from the 'views' lots of interest in this topic - shame not more posts.

i wish i could publish in full but my computer ability fails me [ what is it....copy and paste ? ]
i can confirm , though , that the letter sent out by the FRB to all bookmakers WAS the work of there solicitors  [ i have heard some doubted that ]
if you have a specific section  that you would like the response , democrat [ or anyone else ] , i can type it out

OH DEAR,THETRUTHURTS

DRAIN THE SWAMP.

WHICH EVER SIDE YOU SIGN WITH ITS A LOSE, LOSE,BUT THE LAST PEOPLE I WOULD SIGN WITH WOULD BE THE FRB!

would be a fruitless exercise anyway as although the FRB have three times been contacted by RMG since june they , as of last friday , have failed to respond in any way with anything constructive or not.
the RMG state that they are very pleased with the level of acceptance forms received , hinting that there are or are close to enough bookmakers to form an sp already at all courses

the whole thing is a joke ed gretton the rmg man please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss!

never answers his phone

Q for foxy : - and your meaning is ? Q for adge : on that basis ie enough signed up for 'the sample' - are you saying RMG do not have the necessity to negotiate with FRB or any other body come to that ? If so where does that leave those not committed directly to RMG proposal ?

my meaning is somebody invites you to ring with any queries yet never answer there phone.

Oh dear ! See how you get on without reversing the charges !!

THE FRB ARE VERY GOOD AT "REVERSING THE CHARGES"

I thought this was a thread about the thunderbirds

Fab

i have no figures as to whether enough have signed to provide the sample but knowing that many prominent rails firm have or have promised to it seems fair to say that the sample will be reached probably everywhere.
the RMG welcomed input from the FRB and all other associations. i know the BRBA were very prominent in negotiations and also i understand that the southern and NAB responded . this all put the agreement invitations to bookmakers back for almost a month but the  FRB despite being invited choose not to get involved.
anyone who does not wish to be committed to the deal has a free choice.they can choose not to receive any revenue , but in fairness these contracts don't come into force for another six months so the deadline is a way off.

GHOSTOFALEXBIRD, EVEN INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COULDNT HELP THIS LOT!

"SORRY MR TRACEY,BUT THESE ARE BEYOND HELP". "OK VIRGIL,COME HOME"

how many are that flush that they can throw away the £100 bonus which will pass the deadline very soon.

Reminds me of double glazing salesmen.  "This price is only available if you sign tonight".

adge, I wouldn't say  no to the £100 but it wouldn't exactly change my life would it . I am not signing anything for anyone till I have got more info am not jumping into anything for the sake of £100,look before you leap is my take on it all!! I did 168 days in 2016 so I personaly have quite a bit at stake I feel.seems a lot of smoke and mirrors to me

HOBSONS CHOICE!

true , flash , but at least you can look forward to receiving more than £1500 more in data rights money in 2018 to what you will be getting for 2017 .

If we all sign directly with RMG will the FRB go bust?

by all accounts they are well on the way in that direction already , davy .
they received this years contribution of 1.1 million two months or so ago and can't or are unwilling to show where that balance is now.
already worrying times for anyone who has signed any contracts with them in the last year in my opinion

I agree the £100 is very incidental to the main issue. What is concerning is the ongoing lack of transparency and the fact that some individuals are better informed than others of relevant exchanges /correspondence between representative bodies and RMG. I fully respect adge that your position within BRBA enables you to make an informed decision regarding the 'data rights issue' whilst others have to read between the lines and decide on hearsay and more limited known facts. The so called 'confidentiality agreements' associated with previous disputes were frustrating to many to say the least. Surely this is not the case here and the 'floating voters' deserve to know the facts of the matter. I realise for some the decision is a no-brainer, for others still a brain teaser !

have you tried contacting the FRB to get any information . democrat , the BRBA directors will all respond immediately to any question or fact that bookmakers have concerns about.
on a lighter note ,  we had an extended two hour meeting with the gambling commission yesterday. always good to know that we have shared if not agreed views on the bookmaker values on racecourses. glad to have a day of rest today

Whilst appreciating your response and advice adge surely the preferred modus operandi has to be information and updates to all stakeholders by the 'main players' not individuals resolving personal concerns by 'rowing their own boat'. As for the reference to the recent BRBA work - well done for being proactive you seem to be sending out the right messages to those who are in your Association and those who are not.

A SINGLE NEW ORGANISATION IS REQUIRED,EVERYONE KNOWS IT,BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN,THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT SITUATIONS WILL NOT GIVE UP POWER DESPITE THEIR DISASTROUS RECORD (TO MUCH TO LOSE) UNFORTUNATELY ITS A CASE OF ALL ABOARD THE TITANIC!

Sign it, don't sign it, its like listening to two political parties both trying to further thier own aim, but only one of the parties is telling the truth. Which one?

I wouldn't be to sure even one was telling the truth it seems something the associations struggle with.

got another extended composition from the FRB in the post.more legal fees .
reads like the longest suicide note in history

The FRB's communique adge tries to justify via several points not responding positively to RMG. I gather RMG has put together a comprehensive response to all the points they think merit an answer. The recipients deserve to know both sides of 'the story' in order to arrive at a balanced decision.

democrat can I ask which way you are leaning towards signing I have done nothing as yet

DEMOCRAT PRIDES HIMSELF OVER THE SPLINTERS IN HIS BOTTOM.

You can ask Flash - have yet to commit. When I see you we can discuss. It will be most unfortunate if this issue has the effect of polarising those concerned. Fact sees delayed decision making to be worthy of his derision. To be as decisive and forthright as him good self must be such an asset, on the other hand ......... perhaps not.

well said wasnot regards Ed Thompson have to say I have made my mind up and signed with the FRB yesterday

anyone who has multiple pitches on all weather tracks may benefit by the FRB deal but attending 76 days per year on the few tracks contracted is beyond 95% of bookmakers

adge, what you said was that the FRB received 1.1 million two months ago.  That is misleading.  It gives the impression that the FRB had a load of bookmaker cash that has now gone missing which simply is not the case.  I'm not a big fan of nit picking and playing politics at a time when bookmakers should be pulling together and I don't think airing our laundry in public is a great idea.  I know from my recent conversations that a large number of the more substantial on course bookmakers have signed intent with the FRB and I have also done so.

FRB is a limited company and if anyone has any concerns about the income and expenditure of the company then audited accounts are filed at companies house for anyone to access.

actually they only provide unaudited financial statements [ the very minimum standard ]
as i am an accountant myself i would love to see their full accounts but only summaries are declared. even so these accounts to sept 2017 are eagerly awaited but won't be available until after the final deadline for the RMG contracts.
i do agree that this is not best fueled on here but these RMG contracts are important.
one important item is OUR declared money spent on professional and legal fees for 2015 and 2016 combined which is £539,729 . frightening when you add the 2017 unknown rumoured amount which has the bulk of the ill fated courtyard fees

Maybe its just me but I don't think 500 grand for fees for the entire industry for 2 years when we are under constant attack is frightening, in the context of 400 bookmakers plus thousands of workers' livelihoods during a difficult time.  I also have been given a ballpark figure for the courtyard costs and it wasn't as much as has been rumored on here.  I'm hoping to have an accurate figure soon.  I'll let you know.

Sorry for going off topic lads but I have a wee question for all on course books on here. I might be going to a meeting in the near future and would like to ask any bookie if they would take a C.S.F. bet from a punter?

The last meeting I attended was Edinburgh in the mid eighties and the only book who would take this bet from me was a rails bookmaker who traded by the name MACBET.

Is it still possible even though this may 'interfere' with a books overround?

Hi Stewarty.  There are a few on course who take forecasts every race, offering fixed odds but you will have to ask about CSF.

Billies take CSF, just ask for a f/c bet

Thanks for the reply wasnot. The problem with that is if they bet say.....1/2  7/2 and 7/2 in a three runner race giving an overround of approx. 110%, at a guess I'm thinking they may go 2/1 both the Fav to beat one of the 7/2 chances when in reality there are six permutations and perhaps better visiting a few books before racing starts and getting on the C.S.F. one fancies?

** I give 2/1 only as an example.

Billies take CSF, just ask for a f/c bet


In that case intheknow, at a guess, lads and Korals might do the same given they will take this bet in any of there offices?

In a 3 runner race I think you'll find all perms up on the board.  If a boards bookie has a sign up saying forecasts taken but displays no forecasts on the board then you will be on at CSF.

Stewarty B - I don't know about the other firms policies, but Billies have a lot more pitches on-course so are more likely to be there when you are

stewarty b
sad to say corals don't have many pitches these days
regards
Ronnie.

If a boards bookie has a sign up saying forecasts taken but displays no forecasts on the board then you will be on at CSF



That's something I would ask beforehand wasnot because although 99% of on course books are well above board there might be a bad apple giving a punter who is not clued up exacta odds which we all know are a rip off.

Thanks for all replies lads.

I would be dismayed & disgusted if any bookie tried to pay out a f/c at tote exacta dividends, Many will take CSF but you will generally need to ask or as Wasnot says, many will have their own f/c odds displayed on races with smaller fields

Indeed intheknow. Here is just one disgusting example. (nothing to do with on course books I may add)......


Agetur UK Novices' Hurdle
2m½f, Class 4, £4,548.60
Going: Good To Soft
Claimantakinforgan
30/100F
Lostintranslation
5/2
Windshear
33/1
9 ran NR: Mere Ironmonger (self certificate) Distances: 2¼l, 16l, 2½l Time: 4m 1.80s (slow by 13.80s) Total SP: 132%
Winning jockey: Nico de Boinville
Winning trainer: Nicky Henderson
Win: £1.10 Pl: £1.02, £1.10, £7.20 Ex: £1.40 CSF: £1.81 Trifecta: £13.50

** 2/5 as opposed to 4/5.

STEWARTY,AND IF YOU PUT THE YOUR BET ON WITH HILLS THEY WONT HAVE TO RING IT THROUGH IF ITS LESS THAN £25

REGARDING THE FRB,IF YOU SIGN WITH THEM GOOD LUCK,THE "CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE" WAS THE LAST STRAW FOR MOST!

WHEN ONE OF THE FRB BOARD TELLS YOU AT AN OPEN BOOKMAKERS MEETING THE MARKETING FEE "WAS A GREAT DEAL" I THINK THAT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE FRB.

Wassy for you to say 500 grand was a justifiable expense is 'interesting'. To say it was used to preserve the future of the on course industry is somewhat of an exaggeration. Many at the time were on record as thinking it right and proper if a consultation process with bookmakers had been carried out prior to such a sum being expended. Good to see you back contributing to the forum though wassy - I know you are conscious of being 'got at' when you express your views

Hello again demo.  the 500k was for the whole of 2015 and 2016 for ALL professional fees.  I don't know if the figure is correct but if it is then its 250k a year during turbulent times.  This would not be solely for the courtyard.  What is not quantifiable is where we would all be if we hadn't spent the money.  What challenges did we head off?  What challenges were stopped in their tracks because we took legal opinion and knew our rights?  I think its a bit hasty to suggest the money was squandered.

Lot of surmise and supposition there wassy. Do you think the current schism between various associations will ultimately bring unity and sensibility or actually undermine the future negotiating process? Always good to exchange views wassy even if I seldom see you on course.

it has to , democrat. far too many " personalities " shall we say at present , unfortunately

Could it be the one with least to lose adge ? You, as one of the cognoscenti tell us.

i have been asked by a couple of sources about the statement made by wasnot that " a large number of the more substantial on course bookmakers have signed intent with the FRB "
as no names have been mentioned we would wonder who ? certainly not high street rails firms such as ladbrokes / corals who are already signed up with the RMG.

I'm not in a position to name names obviously adge.  The bookmakers in question have pitches all over the country.  Not a few silver ring pitches in the north.

Obviously not, He said substantial !

yes , REDROB , at my weight maybe i could say i was substantial too

It may be a very brief contract if GVC take over Ladbroke Coral.

Hints and inferences are still persisting here I see. Considering your IT skills do not stretch to copy and pasting adge could you get one of your cohorts with the required to skills to post the RMG response to the FRB concerns ? At least then facts could be discussed rather than mights and maybes !

Substancial !what ever next?

it's five full pages , democrat. most don't have the skill to even find the betfair forum !

i do believe , though , that it makes no difference as the RMG are determined to pay bookmakers direct to ensure they all get the full amount rather than a percentage after expenses and salaries as has happened with the FRB.

Are you saying adge the FRB will need to provide RMG with the necessary information in order for payments to be made ?

no , they get the bookmaker daily attendance records direct from the AGT.

That tells them who to pay not how to pay.

so far both the turf tv and the TPP deals that i am currently contracted to are working like clockwork with the payments paid quarterly direct into my bank account...the last quarter being £676 and £275 respectively...i expect the new turf tv deal next year to be just as simple and straight forward

With all that dosh adge I trust you treated the dominoes team tonight !!

every little helps with my trip to mexico next week , democrat

Will any of the associations do anything about the situation at Hereford where 3 books that were in the numbers are now out of the numbers due to the old stand been closed there is plenty of room in tats to add them on ,or does it not suit those who like to fight other wrong doings

I THINK YOU KNOW THE ANSWER FOXY,IF THE NUMBER WAS TAKEN OFF THE FIRST THREE ON THE TATTS/RAILS LIST,THE ASSOCIATIONS WOULD BE TELLING US (NOT ASKING) WE ARE GOING TO COURT,ALL OF THEM NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!

you need to speak to danny mcnab of the west of england bookmakers association , foxy , as hereford is their area.maybe also the AGT ring manager also has a duty in not reducing numbers except on a temporary basis

Given the circumstances you describe foxy surely increasing the designated no. in Tatts from 27 to 30 does not seem unreasonable ? Or does some inappropriate rule exist that prevents such an application of common sense ? I would hope the JCR's inception of bookmaker liaison committees would provide a mechanism whereby such an occurrence on a JCR course could be discussed and determined properly.

problem is democrat hereford is not jcr as for hoping dm to do anything thats a  non starter ,i have long excepted bookmakers will not help fellow bookmakers the whole situation is rancid.