There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 61 comments are related to the topic:
Boycott the Racing Post
Boycott the Racing Post
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 61
|
By:
I'd like the option of just buying the RP form/cards (i could live with the adverts too as i dont even notice them anyway) etc and not all the editorial rubbish for a reduced price, but that would be like wanting just the pictures and no presenters etc for ruk, they are not going to offer it because they know full well very few people actually want to pay for the 'value added' and they might not be in a job anymore
|
|
By:
@zipper -- goes something like this a punter goes into a betting shop ask for a bet on a horse race any race £ 80 on this 7/2 second fav .. the guy behind the counter say ok will have to my trader head office.... sorry you can have a £5 on at S/P.... ok is it ok if I put £300 in fobts ... no prob sir............
Sure, but boycotting the Racing Post won't change that, and nor will limiting stakes on FOBTs. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
@Rider -- sounds like you want the betting shop edition. Unfortunately you have to buy the standard edition as well, although you do not have to be a betting shop.
|
|
By:
Ramruma
Ramruma 29 Jan 18 13:30 Joined: 11 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 9,697 | Blogger: Ramruma's blog @zipper -- goes something like this a punter goes into a betting shop ask for a bet on a horse race any race £ 80 on this 7/2 second fav .. the guy behind the counter say ok will have to my trader head office.... sorry you can have a £5 on at S/P.... ok is it ok if I put £300 in fobts ... no prob sir............ Sure, but boycotting the Racing Post won't change that, and nor will limiting stakes on FOBTs. yes it will ramruna if the soft income stream from fbots get smaller they will have to go back to laying bets? |
|
By:
i meant in relation to fbots
|
|
By:
Are they trying to ban fembots now?
|
|
By:
The Racing Post is a sh!tty paper and not fit for purpose; its editor is past his use-by-date and tenure and ought to have been replaced ages ago; out of touch with racegoers and its contents generally are poor and boring. I've not bought a copy of the Racing Post for well over 15 years possibly 20 years, but I still go racing especially at big meetings.
|
|
By:
1986 a picture of Sonic Lady on the first day of the Craven meeting. What a paper that became. The introduction of Pricewise and value betting, sports betting. It seemed so much more advanced than the Sporting Life. I bought it every day for years.
Now I may buy 6 editions in a month it's not worth the price. |
|
By:
Its sole purpose is to benefit bookmakers at the expense of punters even to the extent that they will champion FOBT's which deflect betting money away from Racing and into one armed bandits.
I like the idea of referring to them from now on as one armed bandits |
|
By:
Because "one-armed bandits" makes them sound like the harmless slot machines most people used to play at the seaside? I expect the BBA would quite like that.
|
|
By:
What happened to the days when the bookmakers took on the punters..?
They are all cowards now. no bottle at all, relying solely on the FOBTS. if they go, some firms will go under, as they haven't got the staff who are clued up.. for the past 15 years ,They've employed Accountants, not Turf Accounts |
|
By:
Ive never touched the FPBTs but if as mooted it did go down to £2 a throw and I had £400 to play with I would (god forbid) play the cartoon horse racing or the dogs, as there is a greater element of chance involved (dogs knocked over at first bend etc.) But the point is I would still need the service's of a bookie so the monies will still be going into the satchels.
|
|
By:
What happened to the days when the bookmakers took on the punters..?
The FOBTs and Betfair happened (at more less the same time). The former prevented the need to react to the latter as they guaranteed risk free profit. Over time the off course books have become so complacent because of these risk free profits that racing is now merely the smokescreen to legitimise the shops being open. The supine and stupid BHA and their predecessors have supported the off course books because the 4 FOBT per shop rule has lead to the unintended consequence of more shops being opened with their consequent media payments going to racing. There we would have stayed but the new stake restrictions on the FOBTS changing everything. Thus the squealing of both ABB and the BHA |
|
By:
spot on pp
|
|
By:
The excuse the BHA and the sh1tty Racing Post are using that horse racing levy from the probable closure of the "crack cocaine" bookie shops from a £2 max limit per spin will be significantly reduced is an over exaggeration and scaremongering, to say the least. Of course the levy will be negatively affected, but to what degree is yet an unknown.
However, what I'd like to know is how many multiples of £20k per shop charged for pictures (media fee) each "crack cocaine" fobts bookie shop bring in? For instance, media fee of £20k per shop what is the profit from one of this "crack cocaine" fobt bookie shop bearing in mind minimal cumulative bets taken for other sports presently? I'd be astounded if net profit per shop contribution from fobts alone is not many multiples of media fee charged. Hopefully, the head honchos of these "crack cocaine" fobt bookie shops could furnish the Parliamentary Betting Committee this info next they meet. |
|
By:
Each FOBT makes on average around £1000 per week. The average number of FOBTs per shop is marginally less than the maximum permitted of 4.
Some might conclude the media rights payments of £30,000 pa plus other costs are worth £1000 x 4 X 52. I couldn't comment..... |
|
By:
Back of a ciggi paper calculation and assuming an average of 3.5 fobt per shop eg:-
Per annum income = 3.5 (fobt) x £1000 (profit) x 52 (wks) = £182 before operation costs. Assuming operation costs of £50k per annum = £(182 - 50)k = £130k net profit per shop. Multiply by 10k shops in the uk = 10k x £130k = £1,300,000,000 or £1.3bn sheer profit! No wonder the bookies are fighting for these easy but ill-gotten/no risk gains. |
|
By:
Reckon -
the average number of machines is nearer 3.9 per shop operating costs somewhat more than you suggest. Staff, rates, heating etc but nevertheless the RISK FREE profit is huge. Independents suffer doubly by paying more per shop than the big boys for media rights and been vulnerable to a run of poor FOBT results. If you're running scores of shops winning on the machines becomes, even over a short period, a statistical certainty. Going back to basics, i.e. bookmaking, will be a major shock to the rats! |
|
By:
I might have made a mistake with my calculation. Upping the number of fobts per shop to 3.9, expenses £50k per year/per shop and and factors remaining the same eg:-
Per Shop per wk = 3.9 (fobt) x £1k = £3.9k (before expenses) Net Profit per shop per yr = (£3.9 x 52)k = 202k - £50k = £152k Net Cumulative Profit for 10k shops in UK = (£152k x 10000) = £1.52bn or £1,520,000,000 That is colossal profit with no risk! |
|
By:
parispike
Talking about the big boys Sat having a glass of wine tonight and I get a phone call from an irate pal of mine who tried to get a bullseye on a 9/2 chance at Leicester today with korals. After a lengthy phone discussion he was offer £4 and coppers so he took it as it was all he could get, he was then informed that the minimum phone call stake was £10 so he was asked what else he wanted to back, the rest of the conversation I wouldn't be allowed to post  I was shipped out to a flag ship shop yesterday and looked at last weekends figures, shocked to see less than 300 slips last Saturday  without the fobts I don't think 50% of the shops would be running.  And the horse today got well beat  |
|
By:
I'm sure Simon Clare would deny this under oath and make you out to be a liar oh the reality of betting on Horse Racing
|