BRBA (FORMER NBPA) AT IT AGAIN WITH ONCOURSE BOOKS!

Surely they just helping those who think  it's viable to turn up off pick 65 and take 5 bets a race.... Reflects very badly on a racecourse midweek when there 15 bookmakers in a ring all doing nothing at some courses

do you expect to take much when you're at the end of the line with exactly the same prices as the 14 in front of you ?

RR,IF ITS NOT VIABLE THEN DONT TURN UP,BUT DONT EXPECT ME TO LET A BUNCH OF PROVEN SELF INTERESTED FIDDLERS TELL ME IF AND WHERE I CAN BET!

Factmachine you have been missing in action for a while, hope you are ok. I have missed your capitalised rants.

Feb 21, 2019 -- 3:19PM, hulk23 wrote:

do you expect to take much when you're at the end of the line with exactly the same prices as the 14 in front of you ?

Cheaper to get monkeys to press the buttons.

As it’s a simple task I’m surprised nobody has thought of this.

IM OK THANKS,NO RANTING HERE,JUST FACTS.

FACTS - Given racecourses mainly made up of recreational punters as opposed to proper punters, I have to admit, designated numbers are probably the way to go.

Otherwise it's a war of attrition to see who wont turn up.

DAVY= THE DESIGNATED NUMBER WAS SET WHEN THE PITCH HOLDER PURCHASED,IF THEY CANT MAKE IT PAY IN THE BEST PITCHES AND HAVING EVERYTHING IN THEIR FAVOUR THEN PACKING IN FOR THEM MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO, NOT THE REMOVAL OF COMPETITION AND CHOICE FOR PUNTERS!

BELIEVE IT OR NOT PICK EIGHTY IN TATTS AT CHELTENHAM PAYS THE SAME TO BET AS NUMBER ONE IN TATTS AND EVEN MORE STAGGERING NUMBER ONE ON THE RAILS

I have no strong view on this topic whatsoever but the records show the maximum number of books attending on the respective days over recent years and it would make sense to rationalise numbers and thus make the ring layout more appropriate and less fragmented. No pitch holders would be excluded or compromised.

IF NO PITCH HOLDER WOULD BE EXCLUDED OR COMPROMISED WHY CHANGE ANYTHING,WHATS THE PROBLEM ?????????

THE NUMBER OF BOOKS WILL CONTINUE TO DROP AS THE OUTRAGOUS EXPENSES CONTINUE TO RISE,THE MARKET WILL FIND ITS OWN LEVEL!

As I said before to streamline the configuration of the Ring.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ????????????

Oh dear I'll try to use words with less syllables for you. If say over the last three years or a period to suit you records show on a given day the max of bookmakers was 27 and the current Ring allows for 50 anchorage points if in agreement AGT would use only 27 predetermined ( oops that's a big word ) points. I believe a similar approach to this has been use at Chester Course Enclosure. If this means designated numbers are reduced so be it - as already stated I am ambivalent ( oops ) on the matter.

WE GOT THERE IN THE END DIDNT WE, WELL DONE YOU.SO YOUR IN FAVOUR OF NUMBER REDUCTION,WHY YOU DIDNT JUST SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE ????? NOT A SHOCK THOUGH IS IT GIVEN YOUR PREVIOUS

Kettle / pot. Pot / kettle springs to mind !!! To add fuel to your fire I believe a BRBA Director is visiting Ponte to meet with management next week on behalf of all pitch holders !

YOUR MATE DID A GREAT JOB LAST TIME HE MET THEM,ALL PITCH HOLDERS SHOULD BE PRESENT BUT THAT WOULDNT SUIT THE SELF INTEREST BRIGADE WOULD IT,NOW BACK TO YOUR FENCE PLEASE DEMO.

The 'fencing' ( get it ?? ) with you has to come to end regrettably Fact. Where's the white flag or should that be Kleenex ?

DEMO,I WILL BE STILL STOOD LONG LONG AFTER YOUVE THROWN THE TOWEL IN, IN MY POOR PICKS ,BETTING 1/4 ODDS 16 RUNNER HANDICAPS AND LAYING AND STANDING A DECENT BET,DONT WORRY ABOUT ME

Bit sarky some these comments or personal?

Take my beloved Yarmouth for example, 72 list positions in Tattersalls of which, on the majority of days, between 10 - 15 pitches would be worked and that's too many!

I guess it's found it's own level!

SO YOU ARE A REGULAR AT YARMOUTH,STOOD THERE FOR YEARS,LETS SAY IN PICK 40,THEN AN ASSOCIATION THATS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT YOU ,WANTS TO STOP YOU WORKING, AS USUAL YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP!

AND THE BOOKS THAT WANT YOU OFF ARE PROBABLY RUNNING TWO,THREE FOUR PITCHES

factmachine,

Posting in CAPS does not emphasise your point but makes it more difficult to read,imo.

The only way forward would be...
If bookies  were allowed 1 member of staff in for free,
Betting badge £20 midweek £50 bigger meetings,
Only 1 pitch per bookie.
Exchanges banned for bookies and punters.
£5 entrance for punters.

But if  75% of bookies weren't allowed exchanges, they'd go skint or have to sell, as they wouldn't know how to make a book

it will come that tracks will have to pay bookmakers to bet like they do with greyhound track bookmakers

Feb 21, 2019 -- 6:36PM, factmachine wrote:

THE NUMBER OF BOOKS WILL CONTINUE TO DROP AS THE OUTRAGOUS EXPENSES CONTINUE TO RISE,THE MARKET WILL FIND ITS OWN LEVEL!

Exactly, majority clueless

It’s a minimum wage ish job.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING IN 2006 WHEN RACECOURSES TRIED TO STEEL BOOKMAKERS PITCHES, IF THE RACECOURSES HAD REDUCED THE NUMBER IN ALL TATTS RINGS TO 20 BOOKS,I WONDER IF THE ASSOCIATIONS WOULD HAVE SET UP A FIGHTING FUND ????

Which racecourses/rings do the BRBA board consider it 'appropriate' to disenfranchise their fellow bookmakers ?

ALL RACECOURSES NEED TO BE MADE AWARE OF WHAT THESE ASSOCIATIONS ARE ALL ABOUT,WHICH IS SELF INTEREST!

I THINK CHELTENHAM WAS HIGH ON THEIR LIST MUG!

good afternoon , FACTMACHINE , sorry that i'm late on the scene as i only returned from my round the world cruise last evening.
catching up today with my mail i've realised that is an updating circular from the BRBA board that you have been reading
if you read it again you will work out that after a discussion from the floor at the AGM the membership unanimously from memory voted that the BRBA should discuss with racecourses the need to reduce bookmaker numbers on many midweek dates
as usual you have got the wrong end of the stick again.the mandate was given to the BRBA directors by their membership
perhaps you should attend the AGM in future and hear the FACTS instead of making wild conclusions that then make you post inaccuracies on here

ADGE YOU SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED BUT AS SEEN WITH THE PONTY NEGOTIATIONS YOU HAVE THE SKIN OF A RHINO,DONT YOU REMEMBER TELLING ONE OF YOUR BOOKMAKING COLLEAGUES THAT THE BRBA "ARE AGAINST NUMBER REDUCTION" ?????

i'm still in holiday mood , factmachine . i'm sure after nearly three months off i'll be ready for cheltenham though.
as i said , read the letter again. it's not the BRBA directors but members who are full time bookmakers who voted for this

adge • February 27, 2019 1:10 PM GMT
good afternoon , FACTMACHINE , sorry that i'm late on the scene as i only returned from my round the world cruise last evening.

It must be good 'up north' Alan!

Adge...Does a show of hands at a sparsely attended BRBA meeting constitute a mandate to unilaterally negotiate the possible disenfranchisement of fellow bookmakers ?

Replies: 38
mugbookie
mugbookie 27 Feb 19 19:14 Joined: 27 May 12 | Topic/replies: 571 | Blogger: mugbookie's blog
Adge...Does a show of hands at a sparsely attended BRBA meeting constitute a mandate to unilaterally negotiate the possible disenfranchisement of fellow bookmakers ?

I agree 100% , everyone knew the numbers when they purchased the pitches , to take pitches off people just because they don’t attend very often is a disgrace .

THE BRBA DONT JUST WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE BOOKMAKERS WHO RARELY ATTEND,BUT BOOKMAKERS WHO REGULARLY ATTEND AS WELL!

In the past minor Rings have closed meaning the loss of pitches for a whole raft of bookmakers. Boards have been permitted on rails. In other words the goalposts have moved and do move ! Are the current designated nos. to apply ad infinitum or are they subject to 'change' in the same way as the aforementioned precedents ? As I have said before fair, judicial use of the attendance records over a number of years should result in not one bookmaker being 'excluded' on any race day. Moreover the objective of having a more compact, contiguous Ring layout would be achieved.

SO IF "NOT ONE BOOKMAKER BEING EXCLUDED ON ANY RACE DAY" IS THE OBJECTIVE" WHY REDUCE THE NUMBER,WHATS THE POINT???????????

Read the last sentence Fact ! The school of thought is a scattered pitch here and a scattered pitch there does not make good viewing. I simply make the point - if you think differently then take it up with your trade body and put your counter argument.

SO GOOD OLD BRBA DIRECTOR ADGE IS CRUISING THE WORLD ON HMS SNAKE,WHILST PUTTING INTO PLACE WITH HIS FELLOW SELF INTEREST DIRECTORS THE REDUCTION OR REMOVAL OF OTHER BOOKMAKERS LIVELIHOODS THAT BET BEHIND THEM,LOVELY JUBBLY!

"MY TRADE BODY"

If you are continually at odds with them why do you renew your membership?

INSURANCE LIKE THE MAJORITY DO,FACT!

BUT LIKE THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS WE ARE NEVER CONSULTED REGARDING THE SELF INTEREST BRIGADES POLICIES,I CANT THINK WHY ???

THE RACECOURSES ARE BECOMING AWARE THAT THE BRBA AND OTHER ASSOCIATIONS DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS,THEY ARE BEING FOUND OUT FOR WHAT THEY ARE!

Racecourses need to consult with somebody. Who do you suggest ?

THATS WHY LIAISON COMMITTEES WERE SET UP,BUT THE SNAKES MANAGED TO GET ONTO SOME OF THOSE,EVEN SO THE RACECOURSES HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AGENDAS,AND THEY NOW KNOW THAT THE "ASSOCIATIONS" DONT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY.

mugbookie, mug1 ,
the answer to both your comments is NONE. you are being misled by bluster by the opening poster.
but if bookmakers take the trouble to attend their own associations agm where they are free to ask any question on any bookmaking subject and voice their opinion accordingly , the board of directors have the duty to listen and move forward on any vote taken.
factmachine as usual has got the wrong end of the stick with the exact mandate the floor gave . i will explain the next time i see you.
incidentally , the BRBA have a directors meeting a week after cheltenham if anyone has a subject they would like to bring up

further , the BRBA also have a forum on their own website where any topic such as this would be answered in detail within 48 hours to any member...........so if factmachine does want answers it is not difficult for him to get them

Thanks for the explanation Adge. I am not sure that your comments will make factmachine less intransigent - you/we will know when he next posts. Dare I suggest that the BRBA consider leaving the designated nos. untouched and instead empower, with AGT approval, the BRM to tailor the Ring layout  to the no. of bookmakers in attendance. In fact the pitches to be used could be predetermined depending on how many books turned up. As previously stated akin to off days in the Chester Course enclosure. If this proposal is counter to the decision made at the BRBA AGM then it would need to go on the back burner.

ADGE THE REASON MOST BOOKMAKERS DONT ATTEND BOOKMAKER ASSOCIATION MEETINGS (ESPECIALLY YOURS) IS FOR THE VERY REASONS HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE,YOU SAID IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST THAT= membership unanimously from memory voted that the BRBA should discuss with racecourses the need to reduce bookmaker numbers on many midweek dates THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE,IN THE BRBA LETTER SENT OUT TO MEMBERS INCLUDING MYSELF THIS WAS THE FIRST I AND OTHER MEMBERS HAD HEARD OF THIS OUTRAGEOUS INTENDED COURSE OF ACTION,THE LETTERS NUMBER ONE MANDATE READS AS FOLLOWS =Reduction in bookmaker numbers (where appropriate) CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHERE IVE GOT THE WRONG END OF THE STICK ?????? AS FOR YOUR SIDEKICK DEMOCRAT,JUST THE USUAL GARBLED NONSENSE!

MIND YOU AT LEAST YOU SENT A LETTER TO MEMBERS WARNING THEM OF THE SELF INTEREST BRIGADES NEXT MOVE WHICH IS A STEP FORWARD FROM LAST YEARS DISGRACEFUL PONTYFRACT FIASCO!

Point proven !!

100%

Adge....Let me get this straight....NO bookmakers will be disenfranchised.....but the BRBA has been given a mandate by it's membership to discuss the NEED to reduce bookmaker numbers on many midweek meetings......if NOBODY is going to be disenfranchised.....why exactly is there a NEED to discuss number reduction at all ?


DEMO.....Whose objective is it to have a more 'compact and contiguous' ring layout....certainly not mine !!!!....the dynamic of many rings changes on an almost daily basis....often dependant on weather/marquee/bar location.....good luck finding ANY BRM  who WANTS to get involved in TELLING bookmakers where they HAVE TO  ply their trade on a daily basis....just consider the fun and games we have in the Walton every year !!!!!

no , you still don't grasp it do you . i'll leave you to scratch your head as to how both those statements are correct, especially as no one has any plan to reduce any designated numbers at any racecourse

ADGE....'nobody has any plans to reduce designated numbers'....but the Brba have a mandate to dicuss' bookmaker number reductions'....??????

I HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN,,,,,,,,YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP

MUG : Not sure what you mean by 'fun and games'in the Walton. Is that not the model I am given to believe  might be pursued elsewhere i.e the no. of pitches being equal to the no.of bookmakers. Nothing could be simpler but as I have already said, unlike some,I do not have a STRONG VIEW. Ooops lapsed into capitals there - it must be catching !!

correct , mugbookie

Hope this confrontation isn't tempting you to get the holiday books out again Adge |!!

and i've had a busy day today too , democrat

Demo....The ring dynamic at many tracks changes on an almost daily basis....some days a bar maybe open other days the same bar is closed.....that changes the dynamic of a ring....the grass at York....on a sunny day many top picks want to bet there.....when it's lashing down....NOBODY wants to bet there.....one size does not fit all !!!!!!

ADGE.....did the BRBA make inquiries with AGT about reintroducing the opt in / opt out system

MUG,I BELIEVE THE SELF INTEREST BRIGADE HAVE EYES ON THE COURSE PITCHES AT YORK,WATCH THIS SPACE!

I think you have answered your own question Mug inasmuch that certain facilities and well populated areas will always attract a quorum of bookmakers. This is not the 'problem'. My understanding, and I might be wrong, is that odd pitches remote from the main bodies are to be discouraged. I stress I might be wrong - and unlike some am prepared to make that admission.

i've been on holiday for the last two months but i'm pretty sure that is a total non starter. we did float the idea about three years ago but AGT then said that would be much too costly then.

ADGE....I understand that it was mentioned at your AGM  last year.....the same meeting where 'number reductions' were discussed and voted on !

'Costly' ? In what way ?

AGT i believe gave a cost figure of about 3k per week but i don't believe they have the stomach for re introducing the idea from their office. as i say this was a few years ago.
it could have been brought up again , i don't remember it being though. AGT don't have the funds sloshing about as they did in the clive reams days

MORAL OF THE STORY ,DONT BELIEVE A WORD THE SELF INTEREST BRIGADE SAY EVEN WHEN ITS DOWN IN BLACK AND WHITE ON BRBA HEADED PAPER "2018 AGMS MANDATE BEING 1= REDUCTION IN BOOKMAKER NUMBERS (WHERE APPROPRIATE)", ALSO WHEN THEY USE WORDS LIKE "UNANIMOUS" HAVING SPOKE TO THREE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE AGM THAT VOTED AGAINST NUMBER REDUCTION THEN THAT ISNT "UNANIMOUS" JUDGING BY THE PREVIOUS WAY SOME DIRECTORS HAVE CONDUCTED THEMSELFS THE TIME MEMBERS SHOULD BE WORRIED IS WHEN THESE PEOPLE GO INTO "PRIVATE MEETINGS" WITH RACECOURSES TO BENEFIT THEIR OWN POSITIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER BOOKMAKERS (PONTY),AND JUST A LITTLE REMINDER BOYS,MOST TRACKS HAVE FOUND YOU OUT

at least now you have spoken to those members who were present the penny now will have finally dropped as to what the mandate given was about and not the wild assumptions that you made and posted on here , factmachine.
you know , that as i mentioned earlier, you could have questioned this whole subject on the BRBA forum and got a clear and specific answer , instead of imagining something that is not true and thus unsettling others on here.

"UNSETTLING OTHERS ON HERE" YOU HAVE CONTRADICTED YOURSELF ON HERE ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS THIS FORUM, AND HAVING SPOKEN TO THESE INDIVIDUALS THEY WERE AND STILL ARE 100% AGAINST YOUR PROPOSALS AS WOULD BE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR MEMBERS (NOT THAT THAT MATTERS TO YOU),WHY THE WHISPERS ON A CLOSED FORUM,WHATS THE PROBLEM, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE ?????????

IF YOUR NOT AGAINST NUMBER REDUCTION, WHY ALTER THE CURRENT SYSTEM ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Instead of arguing amongst yourselves, why not ask the course-what do punters want? Fewer bookmakers means less revenue for course, less competition and will result in smaller crowds.

Instead of arguing amongst yourselves, why not ask the course-what do punters want? Fewer bookmakers means less revenue for course, less competition and will result in smaller crowds.

Instead of arguing amongst yourselves, why not ask the course-what do punters want? Fewer bookmakers means less revenue for course, less competition and will result in smaller crowds.

YOUVE JUST ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION AND YOUR SPOT ON, BUT WHEN YOUR OWN TRADE ASSOCIATION ACT IN A WAY THAT IS DETRIMENTAL TO ITS MEMBERS AND HAVE A PROVEN RECORD OF SELF INTEREST,SOMEONE HAS TO CAST A LIGHT ON ITS ACTIVITIES.