ATTENTION ALL ONCOURSE BOOKMAKERS

BY THE WAY IF ANYONE OF YOU THAT BETS OUTSIDE THE TOP TEN PICKS STANDS FOR WHAT THE BRBA PROPOSE TO DO IN THEIR LATEST LETTER, YOU DESERVE ALL THATS COMING, THEY WILL EFFECTIVELY KILL THE ONCOURSE BOOKMAKING GAME.

Surely if a racecourse can hold 20,000 people but they only let 5,000 punters in at the start you wouldn't bother turning up if you were outside the top 10 anyway so nothing to see here.......

YEP SO IF THATS THE CASE THE BOOKMAKERS CAN RETURN RUNNING ONE PITCH, JUDGED BY THEIR ATTENDANCE IN THAT RING ,NO PROBLEM

Depends how many they got in the top 10 I guess....

Depends how many they got in the top 10 I guess....

Will you be falling into line with all the other green up merchants in the ring  now fact?  The Racecourses won't want any above the machine prices as this could lead to a rush down to bookmaker joints putting at risk the social distancing policies in place

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FORTUNATE IN RESPECT OF MOST IF NOT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WERE PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING WITH THEIR PRICES BEFORE LOCKDOWN, SO NOTHING TOO SEE HERE

If the proposed reduction in numbers is successful it seems reasonable that once no limit is placed on the crowd that an amended, streamlined designated no. of books becomes a permanent arrangement. I am sure the BRBA will make their decisions on sound principles.

DEMOCRAT

Jun 4, 2020 -- 3:03PM, Racecourse Regular wrote:

Will you be falling into line with all the other green up merchants in the ring

Not much chance of the above I wouldnt worry

Was actually in reply to not putting anything up to equal or better the exchanges.

I note with some dismay that the Lockdown time hasn't helped Factmachine locate the Caps Lock key.

I think paris he wants CAPITAL punishment brought back for the BRBA  !!!

agreed paris , he who shouts the loudest generally has nothing to say

PARIS, ALWAYS REMEMBER SNAKES HARDLY MAKE A SOUND .

factmachine - I think you will find, whatever your argument, well structured, correctly spelt, correctly capitalised prose will help advance your case.

Perhaps you should try it.











AS OPPOSED TO SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.

'Please feel free to contact any of us if you want to discuss anything in the newsletter'....have the Northern Board learned NOTHING from the Pontefract debacle....your fellow bookmakers, who you profess to 'represent' SHOULD have been consulted BEFORE you 'put together a few ideas and sent them to the major racecourse groups as well as to 'responsible' and 'influential' individuals....whoever they may be !!!....what utter contempt you must have for some of your 'colleagues'

If and only IF only ten bookmakers required, would it not be fairest to select the 10 with best attendance previous year, regardless of pick

Barry....much will ultimately depend on how large a crowd the powers that be deem to be 'safe'....our fate is significantly linked to football....the Northern have proposed that regardless of crowd limit only TWO lines of SPACED out pitches be allowed !!!!!!....and yes,you are spot on, those who have supported a track to a significant degree, regardless of list position, SHOULD be treated with equal consideration !!!

I would support that proposal Barry. Another option could be to - assuming 10 books required - ask the first 10 on the list for the first meeting, 11 - 20 on the list for the second meeting and so on upto the designated number.Then go round again. Even FACT might support something like this -but dont bank on it !! PS If any chose not to attend then go through the list until the required number is achieved ie first meeting picks 7 and 9 'opted out'and picks 11 and 12 accept then the start point at the next meeting would be pick 13. AGT to administer.

BARRY, YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT FAIR AND THE ASSOCIATIONS DONT MIX, THE BRBA HAVE UNILATERALLY CONTACTED RACECOURSES WITHOUT THEIR MEMBERS KNOWLEDGE AND PUT FORWARD A PLAN I WOULD BE CERTAIN MOST OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE AGAINST,AT BEST AN ASTONISHING ACT OF CONTEMPT OF THE BRBA MEMBERSHIP!

actually , it was the other way round . the RCA contacted the BRBA and asked them to provide idea's on how to approach racing with crowds might best work , starting with a minimal attendance and a small number of bookmakers........but , hey , why spoil a good story

looking as though it won't happen before october at the earliest though unfortunately

AND THE BRBA THEN CONTACTED ALL MEMBERS VIA THE AGT SITE (EASY TO DO) AND CONSULTED AND CANVASSED OPINION OF THEIR MEMBERS BEFORE SPEAKING TO THE RACECOURSES,....... DIDNT THEY ????????????

I DONT THINK YOU COULD GET A CLEARER EXAMPLE OF AN ASSOCIATION NOT REPRESENTING IT MEMBERSHIP!

we have our own forum on our web page which is quite active on this subject

I BET IT IS, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED !

other points open to discussion are gambling commission and their annual fees [they claim that fees are set by statute ] and AGT and their expected and probable increases in charges. should be plenty to get your teeth into there , factmachine

IM AFRAID BY FAR AND AWAY THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE AS FAR AS LOT OF YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE CONCERNED WITH IS THE FACT THAT YOU ARE PUTTING A PLAN OF ACTION TOGETHER THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DISENFRANCHISE YOUR OWN MEMBERS, IF THEY HAVNT GOT ENOUGH TO CONTEND WITH WITHOUT THEIR OWN ASSOCIATION TRYING TO SHAFT THEM.

ADGE...Who are these 'responsible and influential individuals' ?  Why does the Northern board feel it appropriate that they have knowledge of your ideas before your OWN membership and the wider bookmaking community...whose investments/livelihoods are most affected ?

'NO MORE THAN TWO LINES OF BOOKS IN ANY ONE AREA'....So some of the new MAXIMUM tatts numbers regardless of designated numbers or permitted crowd are 15 Betfair chase day at Haydock...15 at Market Rasen on Boxing Day....and if this continues into next year 10 at Beverley....all meetings !!!!!

'BOOKMAKERS TO COME IN NUMBER ORDER OFF LIST'....certain bookmakers will end up with lots of work trading from very advantageous positions....others and their staff will have very limited amounts of work and will no doubt have to find alternative ways to support themselves and their families.

'NO OPT INS FROM OUTSIDE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER'....almost certainly illegal....It's very telling that whilst you seem perfectly happy to prevent a bookmaker with a single purchased list position from earning a living.... given the opportunity....no trading restrictions will apply during this time to bookmakers who hold multiple list positions !!!.

'NO MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE PER JOINT INCLUDING THE BOOKMAKER'... If ALL bookmakers and staff have to certify that they are covid free before setting foot on a racecourse....what difference does it make how many staff are on the joint ?....I've a sneaking suspicion that a spare pair of hands will come in very useful to the five bookmakers operating on the rails on Betfair Chase Day!!

'WE VERY MUCH HOPE THAT THESE MEASURES WE HAVE TAKEN AND SUGGESTIONS WE HAVE OFFERED GO SOME SMALL DISTANCE TO ALLEVIATING THE HARDSHIP THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE EXPERIENCING DURING THESE TERRIBLE TIMES'.....As Factmachine often says.....YOU....SIMPLY...COULD...NOT...MAKE...IT....UP.... !!!!

On a lighter note....It's amusing that the Gambling Commission is just about the only issue that on course bookmakers are in full agreement about....I've never ONCE heard any bookmaker say " that Gambling Commission are doing a sterling job.....and their fees are so reasonable ".....but these are interesting times.....and THEY probably live in hope.....on second thoughts.....probably NOT !!!

by far the number one issue is health and safety and complying with government regulations as we reach the time when racing with very limited attendances can resume
i can't foresee this being allowed before October though
the much more minor issue to you that the gambling commission is so far refusing to refund any part of licence costs for the current year and being prepared to hold their hand out again shortly in august for another donation is noted.
the BRBA also spent over £5,000 of members money on legal fees fighting the fines imposed on the ascot 7 . cases dropped , do you really believe that is a goodwill gesture.
the BRBA have also reduced their annual fees from £100 to £50 this year which means an annual loss....we all wish others would follow suit

Adge....All for health and safety and complying with government regulations.....but I am NOT a member of the BRBA....I do not want the BRBA to represent me in ANY discussions with racecourses....when the RCA contacted the BRBA for ideas regarding course bookmaking on resumption you should of made it clear to them that you do NOT represent all stake holders, and as a consequence, it would be only fair to undertake some form of consultation process to formulate ideas/suggestions that may be of benefit to ALL concerned.....That you did not even attempt.....despite investments/livelihoods being at stake...that's not REPRESENTATION....that's CONTEMPT.

I can assure you that the Gambling Commission and their fees are NOT a minor issue to me Adge...neither are the other business related expenses that I'm going to have to find this year...with very little on course work !!!!

hello mugbookie , pleased to hear you're fit and well
your list of examples appear to suggest the bookmakers will be largely reduced but punters will not
the betfair chase day and boxing day are way in the future so many changes could occur before then
as a stark earlier example doncaster are hoping to have just 500 hospitality customers on st leger day although others are still hoping to race in august.
we have to be more realistic , these are only suggested temporary measures to enable racing with public to return
to clarify the pitch layouts....front line using odd number pitches only with one bookmaker and one staff on opposite sides of the joint [ to as near as possible satisfy self distancing regulations] , no second lines because clearly any punters in front of a second line book would be too close to the frontline computer man
this doesn't mean that a third or fifth line can't be used. your beverley example for tatts would allow for tatts of 5 at the top end , 5 on the front line at the bottom end plus 8 on a third line near the fence but i do hope that 2021 will be back to normal and so will all original optimum numbers back in place.
a number of the BRBA directors have had conversations with their MP'S to try to get them onside for the earliest possible return , i suggest that yourself and factmachine do the same

Yes, thanks Adge, reasonably fit...and well...you ?

As you post, if Beverley were to race... 18 would bet, that would exclude me and a number of others who attend nearly every meeting.Regarding spacing, pick 32 at Uttox would end up betting the middle of the second line past the gap....that would be unworkable with present expenses.

Our fortunes are inextricably linked to football...many small football/rugby clubs will go under if they do not see a significant four figure crowd this year.....one or two racecourses will be no doubt in the same boat....little doubt that the powers that be are already acutely aware of this....but I'll happily lobby my MP  to get YOU back into work Adge....them round the world cruises can be expensive...as I know
...

i'm fine , my car has covered 31 miles since the week after cheltenham as i am in lockdown.

if we get racing back i probably wouldn't be attending unless the situation dramatically improves. in fact many senior pitch holders are unlikely to reappear too soon.
i just hope next year returns to normal

Cant see it being worth turning up at any track off pick 32 for sometime to come.....

DEPENDS WHO IS OPERATING IT

just a final point from me to clarify if i said or hinted differently anywhere as there seems some confusion for some on this elsewhere

1/ the BRBA at no time have said or suggested what the bookmaker numbers would be . that is for the racecourse safety executive to decide on what pitches can be used on any one day
2/the phrase on the newsletter "bookmakers to come in order off the list " was inserted by the RCA course representative and NOT from the BRBA

In trying to clarify adge you have confused me -- not difficult. Is he 'RCA course representative' you refer to a bookmaker or somebody from the RCA itself ? If the latter why would they wish to get involved in your words 'the order off the list' ? As for'pick 32' I would have thought this pick is only worth working on major days on major tracks but I am sure somebody will put me right in that regard !!

clearly not the only one , democrat.
that part of the newsletter was first sent to the RCA for their thumbs up before being sent to the members and the RCA course representative edited it for the final proof accordingly.
then the whole newsletter was cleared by the BRBA solicitor before being distributed to the members.
obvious really , pleased it was pointed out to me . the term as written on the newsletter says "bookmakers to come in number order off the list ". now if any bookmaker had written that he would have said "bookmakers to be allocated in seniority order "

There we have it then adge  - your critics have got their answer and their wish - consultation did take place - with the RCA !! You are exonerated.

I've read somewhere this morning that hospitality, pubs, restaurants etc, would like the 2 metre rule reducing. Looks like that will come sooner rather than later so the consultations will have to start again and pick 32 will get a nice move up!!!

AND ITS ALSO AN EVEN NUMBER SO GETS TO BET ON THE FIRST MEETING

Careful now Artful, you know the plan is to get RID of Factmachine, not get him a 'nice move up'...

Latest news is that the RCA are giving serious consideration to a proposal whereby bookmakers who want to bet, turn up and fight it out.....when asked,7ft tall, black belt Peter Hardnut said  " that sounds like a very reasonable solution to me".....5ft tall Graham Bottlejob said " steady on now, Peter is a good friend of mine and I wouldn't want to upset him in ANY way.......let's stick with odd and even".....

Allocation of pitches should be done in alphabetical order of books - by Christian name. On reflection the alleged lack of consultation if true might have been done in order to keep costs/ expenses to a minimum - good thinking by and fair play to the BRBA !

DEMOCRAT,"LACK OF CONSULTATION IS TRUE"

THERES NO "ALLEGED" ABOUT ITS A FACT !

Afternoon Fact....More bad news from the BRBA, they've run out of hand sanitizer ....apparently they held an emergency board meeting last night and after consulting between themselves used it all up washing their hands of the newsletter put together by the...RCA....

ITS A PITY IT WASNT GLUE

THEY PROBABLY SHOWER IN THE STUFF IN THE HOPE THEY ARE ABSOLVED OF THEIR SINS

In response to the two previous posts organisations that are HANDS ON and STICK together cant be all bad !!!

MIND YOU IT COULD ALWAYS BE WORSE,THEY COULD AGREE TO A COMPLETE BETTING RING CLOSED DOWN AND NUMBERS REDUCED IN ANOTHER RING AT THE SAME COURSE WITHOUT CONSULTATION OF THEIR MEMBERS BUT I DONT THINK THEY WOOD STOOP THAT LOW ,WOULD THEY ???????

DEMOCRAT, YOU MEAN LIKE THE SS AND ISLAMIC STATE