Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
05 Jul 22
19:55
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Nov 00
The British government's gambling review white paper is expected in the coming weeks
1 of 1
By Bill Barber, Industry editor
UPDATED 7:11PM, JUL 5 2022
Racing's funding could be reduced by tens of millions of pounds due to proposals for affordability checks on punters believed to be in the British government’s gambling review, the sport has been warned.
It was reported last week that any checks proposed in the government's forthcoming gambling review white paper would be 'non intrusive', but there are concerns customers could still be required to provide personal financial documents.
However, with this government now threatened with collapse after the resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid on Tuesday evening, the publication of the white paper and the policy that lies behind it is thrown into deep uncertainty.
The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2,000 over a 90-day period.
It is also understood that ministers intend to bring forward the timing of a review of the levy system to this autumn, which would be regarded within British racing as a success for the sport's lobbying efforts.
However, Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) chief executive Michael Dugher claimed changes proposed by the government could still have "a drastic impact on the funding of the sport".
Affordability checks are set to be a feature of the government's proposals and have been the issue which has caused most concern for both punters and British racing's leadership.
It has been estimated the annual cost to the sport's revenues could reach as much as £100 million if the most draconian proposals at levels as low as a monthly loss of £100 were enacted, requiring intrusive checks on customers' financial information such as bank statements and wage slips.
Despite the government setting the threshold much higher, the BGC has claimed that a considerable number of racing bettors would still be caught up in such checks.
It also voiced concerns that the checks would still be intrusive, despite a report in The Times newspaper last week to the contrary, and called on ministers to direct the Gambling Commission to ensure they do not request sensitive financial information from punters.
The government is said to favour 'soft' credit checks, but customers would still have to agree to give credit reference agencies access to their financial information.
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher
Contacted by the Racing Post, Dugher said: "I have not seen the white paper but, from what we believe is the case, alarm bells should be ringing among punters and racing about what the real impact of the government's potential affordability checks would be.
"At BGC we have strongly supported enhanced spending checks for online gambling, and we've spent a lot of time talking to the government about that.
"It's really about ensuring two things. That the government is targeting checks and any restrictions for those who are at risk, those who are vulnerable and those who are showing signs of problem gambling, but they leave the vast majority of punters who do bet safely alone. The issue then becomes about what levels and the nature of the checks, and I think there is some concern."
Dugher said that gambling minister Chris Philp had told MPs the thresholds for affordability checks would be set "in the thousands".
He added: "To go for £2,000 but over 90 days is stretching the credibility of that assertion because what you are really looking at is £600-odd quid a month."
Dugher said the argument that such checks would not sweep up what he described as "genuine" punters "is just not true", and that while it was good the government understood the need for non-intrusive checks it now needed to follow through.
He added: "They've got to be explicit in the white paper and in the direction that they give to the Gambling Commission that checks at that kind of level genuinely have to be non-intrusive, and that they won't default to a demand for documentation – wage slips and bank statements.
"They need to be wary of the impact that asking customers for consent to access their private financial data has in terms of leading to an exodus of customers to the unsafe and unregulated black market."
Dugher argued another concern was the potential repercussions for racing, which is already witnessing the results of the cost of living crisis. The betting industry believes the consequences of checking documents on the levy would be between £20m and £30m.
He said: "They've come through two horrendous years and just at the point when they are still financially very weak and vulnerable, you could be seeing the government pulling the rug from under them in terms of what will amount to be a serious reduction in funding from betting."
The levy, British racing's central funding system, was last reformed in 2017 when it was extended to operators based overseas. That boosted annual yields to more than £90m.
The 2017 reforms are not officially up for review until 2024, but racing's leaders have been pressing for that date to be moved forward, with calls for the levy to be changed to a turnover-based model from gross profits, and for it to be extended to bets placed on foreign racing. It has been estimated the latter could add £30m a year to the levy yield.
The Racing Post understands that, as part of the white paper, the government has said that it recognises the contribution horseracing makes to Britain, that it wants to avoid the sport suffering any unintended consequences as a result of affordability checks and is therefore bringing forward the levy review to this autumn.
However, Dugher said: "We've no problem with discussions on levy reform beginning earlier, but racing shouldn't be fooled into believing that the bigger changes in the white paper couldn't potentially have a drastic impact on the funding of the sport.
"In terms of arguments about non-intrusive checks they shouldn't necessarily fall for it. The devil is very much in the detail here."
The white paper, which will set out the government's proposals for reform of gambling legislation to make it "fit for the digital age", is expected to be published before the summer recess begins on July 21.
Asked for comment by the Racing Post, a spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: "We are undertaking the most comprehensive review of gambling laws in 15 years to ensure they are fit for the digital age. We will be publishing a white paper as part of a review of gambling legislation in the coming weeks."
1 of 1
By Bill Barber, Industry editor
UPDATED 7:11PM, JUL 5 2022
Racing's funding could be reduced by tens of millions of pounds due to proposals for affordability checks on punters believed to be in the British government’s gambling review, the sport has been warned.
It was reported last week that any checks proposed in the government's forthcoming gambling review white paper would be 'non intrusive', but there are concerns customers could still be required to provide personal financial documents.
However, with this government now threatened with collapse after the resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid on Tuesday evening, the publication of the white paper and the policy that lies behind it is thrown into deep uncertainty.
The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2,000 over a 90-day period.
It is also understood that ministers intend to bring forward the timing of a review of the levy system to this autumn, which would be regarded within British racing as a success for the sport's lobbying efforts.
However, Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) chief executive Michael Dugher claimed changes proposed by the government could still have "a drastic impact on the funding of the sport".
Affordability checks are set to be a feature of the government's proposals and have been the issue which has caused most concern for both punters and British racing's leadership.
It has been estimated the annual cost to the sport's revenues could reach as much as £100 million if the most draconian proposals at levels as low as a monthly loss of £100 were enacted, requiring intrusive checks on customers' financial information such as bank statements and wage slips.
Despite the government setting the threshold much higher, the BGC has claimed that a considerable number of racing bettors would still be caught up in such checks.
It also voiced concerns that the checks would still be intrusive, despite a report in The Times newspaper last week to the contrary, and called on ministers to direct the Gambling Commission to ensure they do not request sensitive financial information from punters.
The government is said to favour 'soft' credit checks, but customers would still have to agree to give credit reference agencies access to their financial information.
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher
Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher
Contacted by the Racing Post, Dugher said: "I have not seen the white paper but, from what we believe is the case, alarm bells should be ringing among punters and racing about what the real impact of the government's potential affordability checks would be.
"At BGC we have strongly supported enhanced spending checks for online gambling, and we've spent a lot of time talking to the government about that.
"It's really about ensuring two things. That the government is targeting checks and any restrictions for those who are at risk, those who are vulnerable and those who are showing signs of problem gambling, but they leave the vast majority of punters who do bet safely alone. The issue then becomes about what levels and the nature of the checks, and I think there is some concern."
Dugher said that gambling minister Chris Philp had told MPs the thresholds for affordability checks would be set "in the thousands".
He added: "To go for £2,000 but over 90 days is stretching the credibility of that assertion because what you are really looking at is £600-odd quid a month."
Dugher said the argument that such checks would not sweep up what he described as "genuine" punters "is just not true", and that while it was good the government understood the need for non-intrusive checks it now needed to follow through.
He added: "They've got to be explicit in the white paper and in the direction that they give to the Gambling Commission that checks at that kind of level genuinely have to be non-intrusive, and that they won't default to a demand for documentation – wage slips and bank statements.
"They need to be wary of the impact that asking customers for consent to access their private financial data has in terms of leading to an exodus of customers to the unsafe and unregulated black market."
Dugher argued another concern was the potential repercussions for racing, which is already witnessing the results of the cost of living crisis. The betting industry believes the consequences of checking documents on the levy would be between £20m and £30m.
He said: "They've come through two horrendous years and just at the point when they are still financially very weak and vulnerable, you could be seeing the government pulling the rug from under them in terms of what will amount to be a serious reduction in funding from betting."
The levy, British racing's central funding system, was last reformed in 2017 when it was extended to operators based overseas. That boosted annual yields to more than £90m.
The 2017 reforms are not officially up for review until 2024, but racing's leaders have been pressing for that date to be moved forward, with calls for the levy to be changed to a turnover-based model from gross profits, and for it to be extended to bets placed on foreign racing. It has been estimated the latter could add £30m a year to the levy yield.
The Racing Post understands that, as part of the white paper, the government has said that it recognises the contribution horseracing makes to Britain, that it wants to avoid the sport suffering any unintended consequences as a result of affordability checks and is therefore bringing forward the levy review to this autumn.
However, Dugher said: "We've no problem with discussions on levy reform beginning earlier, but racing shouldn't be fooled into believing that the bigger changes in the white paper couldn't potentially have a drastic impact on the funding of the sport.
"In terms of arguments about non-intrusive checks they shouldn't necessarily fall for it. The devil is very much in the detail here."
The white paper, which will set out the government's proposals for reform of gambling legislation to make it "fit for the digital age", is expected to be published before the summer recess begins on July 21.
Asked for comment by the Racing Post, a spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: "We are undertaking the most comprehensive review of gambling laws in 15 years to ensure they are fit for the digital age. We will be publishing a white paper as part of a review of gambling legislation in the coming weeks."
Show More
Not good news for punters making a living, as no one really escapes a period where they will be £2k down in a 3 month period at some point.
Soft credit checks could be the saviour of the intrusive paperwork checks for all of us, if we've no CCJs or adverse recent history, I know theyre already carried out elsewhere as Ive seen one on my credit report, strangely with a firm who Ive not used for well over a year.
Still a touch of scaremongering by the Post, given they reported the Government favour soft checks but then go on about intrusive checks without any foundation even though I do realise its still an option.
See what happens with the Government over the next few days and as to whether a big delay is on the cards with the Summer recess.
Soft credit checks could be the saviour of the intrusive paperwork checks for all of us, if we've no CCJs or adverse recent history, I know theyre already carried out elsewhere as Ive seen one on my credit report, strangely with a firm who Ive not used for well over a year.
Still a touch of scaremongering by the Post, given they reported the Government favour soft checks but then go on about intrusive checks without any foundation even though I do realise its still an option.
See what happens with the Government over the next few days and as to whether a big delay is on the cards with the Summer recess.
All very much what has been said before.
Surely all those quotes from Gaming Counsel CEO Michael DunGher - cannot have been made SINCE Rishi Sunak's Resignation.
The BEST line in the story is ...
However, with this government now threatened with collapse after the resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid on Tuesday evening, the publication of the white paper and the policy that lies behind it is thrown into deep uncertainty.
That will DO.
Surely all those quotes from Gaming Counsel CEO Michael DunGher - cannot have been made SINCE Rishi Sunak's Resignation.
The BEST line in the story is ...
However, with this government now threatened with collapse after the resignations of the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak and health secretary Sajid Javid on Tuesday evening, the publication of the white paper and the policy that lies behind it is thrown into deep uncertainty.
That will DO.
Yes onlooker, that paragraph is all that counts at the moment.
This is where my ignorance kicks in and probably the Governments
Would a net loss include commission paid to Betfair as its money technically lost.
Also would it matter or be better to be off the individual personal rate on every bet and back onto paying premium charge on a weekly basis in any eventuality, or would it simply not matter.
Just wondering as the personal rate shows all commission off the profit at source where the premium charge doesn't and only shows the normal commission deducted. Therefore the profit and loss on your screen can look totally different.
Ie a win on 30% persinal rate on £100 will show up on p and l as £70, whereas on premium charge at 5% it would show as £95, and then you'd have a chunk deducted later on which doesn't show on the p and l
Would a net loss include commission paid to Betfair as its money technically lost.
Also would it matter or be better to be off the individual personal rate on every bet and back onto paying premium charge on a weekly basis in any eventuality, or would it simply not matter.
Just wondering as the personal rate shows all commission off the profit at source where the premium charge doesn't and only shows the normal commission deducted. Therefore the profit and loss on your screen can look totally different.
Ie a win on 30% persinal rate on £100 will show up on p and l as £70, whereas on premium charge at 5% it would show as £95, and then you'd have a chunk deducted later on which doesn't show on the p and l
Not sure that the Post's reporting of the need for intrusive personal checks at the £2,000 / 3 months mark is 'without any foundation', as you put it.
The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2,000 over a 90-day period.
Sounds plausible to me.
And 'net loss' pretty much confirms that commission paid would be treated as a loss to the punter. Because that's what it is, after all.
Grim.
The Racing Post understands that a proposal contained in the white paper places the threshold for enhanced checks at a net loss of £2,000 over a 90-day period.
Sounds plausible to me.
And 'net loss' pretty much confirms that commission paid would be treated as a loss to the punter. Because that's what it is, after all.
Grim.
The worst of it is that the proposal would still probably be an improvement on the current situation, where there is no way of knowing when you might be caught up in the dragnet.
If it is correct there will be sharing of information on punting levels and losses, at least the filthy arbers will be safe!
On the other hand...
Most Lloyds Bank customers have less than £500 of savings in their accounts, its chief executive said.
The head of the UK's biggest high street bank told the BBC: "80% of individuals and UK customers and families have less than £500 pounds worth of savings in their current account and their savings account."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62057301
Four fifths of Lloyds Bank customers, which is probably representative of four fifths of the population, have less than £500 savings. If they lose their jobs, or have to take a pay cut, they are stuffed.
How much can they afford to lose betting?
Most Lloyds Bank customers have less than £500 of savings in their accounts, its chief executive said.
The head of the UK's biggest high street bank told the BBC: "80% of individuals and UK customers and families have less than £500 pounds worth of savings in their current account and their savings account."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62057301
Four fifths of Lloyds Bank customers, which is probably representative of four fifths of the population, have less than £500 savings. If they lose their jobs, or have to take a pay cut, they are stuffed.
How much can they afford to lose betting?
well lets have no betting on line . betting shops only with a member ship card lets say you can only lose 300 a month,
SFB, they've no proof of intrusive checks being in the white paper.
Yes they report a loss of £2k over a 3 month period, before enhanced checks as I stated in my response and its factual reporting as far as they're aware.
These enhanced checks were reported only last week as soft credit checks.
Something they also put in this latest offering saying the government favour.
There is nothing in the report that says in their opinion its remotely changed, just that they fear it. Why do they fear it ?
That's why I say it's a bit of scaremongering.
I agree that commission will probably be looked on as a net loss, as its taken at source on the p and l.
I suppose what I was asking is what's the thought on premium charges, is that a net loss as it doesn't appear in your profit and loss account.
If its not going to be included then its likely to be better to come off personal rates where you pay your premium charge as a higher rate at source on each bet.
It would therefore be a disproportionate loss compared to those on premium charge.
Yes they report a loss of £2k over a 3 month period, before enhanced checks as I stated in my response and its factual reporting as far as they're aware.
These enhanced checks were reported only last week as soft credit checks.
Something they also put in this latest offering saying the government favour.
There is nothing in the report that says in their opinion its remotely changed, just that they fear it. Why do they fear it ?
That's why I say it's a bit of scaremongering.
I agree that commission will probably be looked on as a net loss, as its taken at source on the p and l.
I suppose what I was asking is what's the thought on premium charges, is that a net loss as it doesn't appear in your profit and loss account.
If its not going to be included then its likely to be better to come off personal rates where you pay your premium charge as a higher rate at source on each bet.
It would therefore be a disproportionate loss compared to those on premium charge.
‘Net’ just means wins minus losses.
It’s only a contrivance with the likes of bf conjuring new meaning so they can justify inventing money grabs of their own…it will have no bearing outside of bf.
What a palarva. We have a White Paper the government can’t bring itself to actually release such is its own reluctance to interfere in enterprise, and a government hanging on a string due to giving an alleged sexual predator another chance…and a bunch of nincompoops in the wings rubbing their hands wanting to take over who don’t give the first f00k about the meaning of sustainability and write quits on post it notes about how they lost all the money.
It’s only a contrivance with the likes of bf conjuring new meaning so they can justify inventing money grabs of their own…it will have no bearing outside of bf.
What a palarva. We have a White Paper the government can’t bring itself to actually release such is its own reluctance to interfere in enterprise, and a government hanging on a string due to giving an alleged sexual predator another chance…and a bunch of nincompoops in the wings rubbing their hands wanting to take over who don’t give the first f00k about the meaning of sustainability and write quits on post it notes about how they lost all the money.
I think you've about summed it up Dusty, it's a right mess.
Lets be honest here. FOr 99 % of punters £2k over a 3 month period wont effect most of us
I think the segment it affect least are punters - in reference to the headline. Punters can easily go to offshore bookmakers and do what they want on a virtualy similar product and experience. Actually who it impacts most are 1. Uk facing bookmakers. 2. Racing 3. government (loss of revenue) 4. staff who work in uk facing bookmakers
What about exchanges?
Where there are no protected bookies (other than the suggestion of bookies using it to facilitate their positions)
On both sides punters create the markets so both will be under scrutiny rather than simply the backers under conventional betting.
Where there are no protected bookies (other than the suggestion of bookies using it to facilitate their positions)
On both sides punters create the markets so both will be under scrutiny rather than simply the backers under conventional betting.
It all could have been simplified had the distinction been made between types of gambling.
If they were after slots, then declare it.
If they were after slots, then declare it.
there are skins of BF exchange - but under Curacao licence
DCMS don't get it just like FOBTS if they insist on these draconian checks most like me will start betting with backstreet bookmakers who you can trust simple as that reporting of this has been so shambolic from day 1.
The mob who are doing this are the same mob who have promoted PC, wokism, climate change and leftie policies.
But instead of standing up to this torrent of attacks on our liberties, people have allowed them to flourish.
Indeed they've bent over backwards to avoid confrontation. And gag those who try to bring matters to our attention. I think most people are catching my drift in that respect.
And now this sector is reaping what they have helped to sow.
But instead of standing up to this torrent of attacks on our liberties, people have allowed them to flourish.
Indeed they've bent over backwards to avoid confrontation. And gag those who try to bring matters to our attention. I think most people are catching my drift in that respect.
And now this sector is reaping what they have helped to sow.
TT:
SFB, they've no proof of intrusive checks being in the white paper.
Yes they report a loss of £2k over a 3 month period, before enhanced checks as I stated in my response and its factual reporting as far as they're aware.
These enhanced checks were reported only last week as soft credit checks.
In other words, there's no proof either that checks will be limited just to soft credit checks! That was simply a story floated in The Times.
I don't know what will happen, but on balance I'd be surprised if the likes of Duncan Smith or that fat woman with the purple hair settle for a crackdown less harsh than the one the bookmakers are already imposing.
SFB, they've no proof of intrusive checks being in the white paper.
Yes they report a loss of £2k over a 3 month period, before enhanced checks as I stated in my response and its factual reporting as far as they're aware.
These enhanced checks were reported only last week as soft credit checks.
In other words, there's no proof either that checks will be limited just to soft credit checks! That was simply a story floated in The Times.
I don't know what will happen, but on balance I'd be surprised if the likes of Duncan Smith or that fat woman with the purple hair settle for a crackdown less harsh than the one the bookmakers are already imposing.
Trident:
Lets be honest here. FOr 99 % of punters £2k over a 3 month period wont effect most of us
__________
For goodness sake, who do you think puts up the money you get matched with on here? It will affect you, and every other punter, because there won't be any prices on here for you to take with your tenners.
_______________
Thats alot to lose for anyone over a 3 month period
No, it isn't. There really are punters out there who regularly lose two grand over a three second period, never mind a three month one. They're the ones who put up the prices for you to take.
Lets be honest here. FOr 99 % of punters £2k over a 3 month period wont effect most of us
__________
For goodness sake, who do you think puts up the money you get matched with on here? It will affect you, and every other punter, because there won't be any prices on here for you to take with your tenners.
_______________
Thats alot to lose for anyone over a 3 month period
No, it isn't. There really are punters out there who regularly lose two grand over a three second period, never mind a three month one. They're the ones who put up the prices for you to take.
TM…we did this the other day, ideology isn’t down to single party politics.
What happens at the point of having a losing quarter of over 2k anyway?
You provide details, but it doesn’t say what the formula is on how much disposable income is deemed acceptable, or for that matter at which point you can start gambling again.
What happens at the point of having a losing quarter of over 2k anyway?
You provide details, but it doesn’t say what the formula is on how much disposable income is deemed acceptable, or for that matter at which point you can start gambling again.
The 1000/1 layers would be out of action the first time one came in..........
For goodness sake, who do you think puts up the money you get matched with on here? It will affect you, and every other punter, because there won't be any prices on here for you to take with your tenners.
But then these 1% send documents for affordability...
But then these 1% send documents for affordability...
Trident, we don't HAVE the sodding documents, because we don't have a job. What part of 'professional punter' do you not under stand?
That well known "leftie" - Iain Duncan Smith?
People like you who try to deflect attention away from the main point are part of the problem.
Like I said, ''you're reaping what you have sown.''
You deserve what you'll get.
People like you who try to deflect attention away from the main point are part of the problem.
Like I said, ''you're reaping what you have sown.''
You deserve what you'll get.
Dr Crippen06 Jul 22 13:08Joined: 16 Apr 02 | Topic/replies: 49,716 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
People like you who try to deflect attention away from the main point are part of the problem.
I'm pretty much the only person that has approached this topic (in dozens of previous threads) with an open mind.
Every other fecker just wants to focus on the bollix and lies being spread in the daily bookmakers scaremonger (The Racing Post) - which basically just involves copying and pasting scaremongering sh1te like this day after day after day:
"It has been estimated the annual cost to the sport's revenues could reach as much as £100 million if the most draconian proposals at levels as low as a monthly loss of £100 were enacted, requiring intrusive checks on customers' financial information such as bank statements and wage slips".
People like you who try to deflect attention away from the main point are part of the problem.
I'm pretty much the only person that has approached this topic (in dozens of previous threads) with an open mind.
Every other fecker just wants to focus on the bollix and lies being spread in the daily bookmakers scaremonger (The Racing Post) - which basically just involves copying and pasting scaremongering sh1te like this day after day after day:
"It has been estimated the annual cost to the sport's revenues could reach as much as £100 million if the most draconian proposals at levels as low as a monthly loss of £100 were enacted, requiring intrusive checks on customers' financial information such as bank statements and wage slips".
Every other fecker just wants to focus on the bollix and lies being spread in the daily bookmakers scaremonger (The Racing Post) - which basically just involves copying and pasting scaremongering sh1te like this day after day after day: Correct!
A lets not forget Racing Post is owned by all the bookmakers... They did this to themselves.. £5 roullete and £2 online slots stakes will hurt the shareholders badly over time imo.
A lets not forget Racing Post is owned by all the bookmakers... They did this to themselves.. £5 roullete and £2 online slots stakes will hurt the shareholders badly over time imo.
TM
You are content to gamble with the outcome knowing that if it ends ok you can supposedly dip your bread in it...but if it turns out badly you just shut up, and it will all be too late but you still get the satisfaction that the 'evil scum bookies' (or however else you termed them), got their just deserts.
You are content to gamble with the outcome knowing that if it ends ok you can supposedly dip your bread in it...but if it turns out badly you just shut up, and it will all be too late but you still get the satisfaction that the 'evil scum bookies' (or however else you termed them), got their just deserts.
The only people I see trying to deflect attention away from the problem and the point are the Racing Post, The Bookmakers and the people (lots on here) that have fallen for their propaganda, scaremongering and lies - which are all designed to outrage people into saving their on-line slots and casino games; by pretending that it's all about civil liberties.
That argument seems to ignore the fact that betting is already regulated (admittedly very badly!). As are car speed, drugs, guns, parking, banking, cigarettes, the stock market, health care, casinos, airlines, crime, fertilisers, and pretty much every other product or service you can think of, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's the price you pay for living in a civilised society.
If you don't like the idea of regulation - you probably need to feck off to some third world sh1t-hole, where you desire for survival of the fittest will be greeted by a kindly fella with a knife or gun that is fitter, stronger and bigger than you, raping your wife and stealing all of your worldly goods.
That argument seems to ignore the fact that betting is already regulated (admittedly very badly!). As are car speed, drugs, guns, parking, banking, cigarettes, the stock market, health care, casinos, airlines, crime, fertilisers, and pretty much every other product or service you can think of, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's the price you pay for living in a civilised society.
If you don't like the idea of regulation - you probably need to feck off to some third world sh1t-hole, where you desire for survival of the fittest will be greeted by a kindly fella with a knife or gun that is fitter, stronger and bigger than you, raping your wife and stealing all of your worldly goods.
saving their on-line slots and casino game They are finished. £5 roullete spins is pointless to big players.
Yes we have all heard what you think about all the blame merchants TM
But what of personal responsibility because Ive not heard you mention anything on that fron only that individuals are influenced by other's intent, taking advantage of defective people.
Yet all the examples you give run entirely differently to the proposals of interviening in betting.
The government know drinking kills, thats why they produce advice on units you need to remain under per week. But they dont stop people purchasing infinately many times those units.
But what of personal responsibility because Ive not heard you mention anything on that fron only that individuals are influenced by other's intent, taking advantage of defective people.
Yet all the examples you give run entirely differently to the proposals of interviening in betting.
The government know drinking kills, thats why they produce advice on units you need to remain under per week. But they dont stop people purchasing infinately many times those units.
Drinking isn't gambling and gambling isn't drinking - they both need regulating - but you wouldn't expect to see the same regulation for both (imo).
Really, the only things they have in common are that they are both addictive, can both be harmful, can both have a negative impact/cost the rest of society and most crucially: they both result in a massive tax grab!
Really, the only things they have in common are that they are both addictive, can both be harmful, can both have a negative impact/cost the rest of society and most crucially: they both result in a massive tax grab!
So they have quite a lot in common then.
Both damaging in their own right and some might argue drinking kills faster than gambling and is a greater danger to the wider public.
Given that how come the adequate regulation isnt to restrict it to safe levels as advised by proper doctors?
But how about personal responsibilites, its fair to run the algorithm over everyone on gambling based on the frailties of the worst, yet not on the stockmarket?
Both damaging in their own right and some might argue drinking kills faster than gambling and is a greater danger to the wider public.
Given that how come the adequate regulation isnt to restrict it to safe levels as advised by proper doctors?
But how about personal responsibilites, its fair to run the algorithm over everyone on gambling based on the frailties of the worst, yet not on the stockmarket?
I don't have time for this today dusty - GL.
I stand by my over-arching point - that if "gaming" continues pretty much unregulated (or regulated badly) it will destroy "gambling" one way or another anyway. Be it through regulation or just because nobody will take a bet anymore because there are much easier, less risky ways to grab free money.
You see the white paper as a thing that might destroy gambling - but I see it that gambling is being destroyed anyway - so the white paper (if it properly regulates gaming) might just save it.
I stand by my over-arching point - that if "gaming" continues pretty much unregulated (or regulated badly) it will destroy "gambling" one way or another anyway. Be it through regulation or just because nobody will take a bet anymore because there are much easier, less risky ways to grab free money.
You see the white paper as a thing that might destroy gambling - but I see it that gambling is being destroyed anyway - so the white paper (if it properly regulates gaming) might just save it.
I agree with the sentiment regarding gaming/gambling....I just wish they had marked it's card rather than attempted to restrict as much gambling as they could.
And Id have liked to have heard just some critism of the individual....
But alas
And Id have liked to have heard just some critism of the individual....
But alas
Well it doesn't sound as bad as it could be. £2000 (net loss) spread over 3 months is a lot better than a £100 deposit in any month. If any of us lose £2k before the 3 months is up, we will just have to sit it out until the next three month period starts and then we can start again. I'm not saying that I like it (or approve of it), but we seem to have got away lightly this time.
But what about those on £100 a month max now ? Will they have that relaxed I wonder ?
If £2000 (net loss) spread over 3 months is the limit stated in the report (and possibly becomes law) £100 per month should not apply and betting companies will no longer have the right (or reason) to apply affordability checks on these persons.
so if you are a full time wagon and lose for a few months then you are supposed to sit it out for as long as the state decides? imagine you go through a wobbly patch like h taylor recently and cant get a bet on because of it. he is then expected to sit there and watch a boatload of winners go in while he is disqualified.
got away with what? you can be a massive winner long term but now you are prohibited from punting because of an arbitrary figure plucked from the ether. utter sh1te. its no business of anybodys if someone irons it out.
got away with what? you can be a massive winner long term but now you are prohibited from punting because of an arbitrary figure plucked from the ether. utter sh1te. its no business of anybodys if someone irons it out.
Its madness , my bar bill is more then 2k in 3 months next i won't be allowed to drink !!!!
What's next, 2k in 3 months on alcohol and tobacco? 2k on new purses? Everything that's not food or housing is just as disposable as gambling.
Does anybody know what the monthly limit is on brasses?
I'm just asking for a friend.
I'm just asking for a friend.
surprised to be considered a friend. funny gaff this forum.
Well it doesn't sound as bad as it could be. £2000 (net loss) spread over 3 months is a lot better than a £100 deposit in any month. If any of us lose £2k before the 3 months is up, we will just have to sit it out until the next three month period starts and then we can start again. I'm not saying that I like it (or approve of it), but we seem to have got away lightly this time Bingo!
I'm not speaking to professional punters here.
But in this economic atmosphere, who on earth could stand to lose £2000 in three months? Even the so called wealthy are struggling to pay bills.
£650 a month loss limit is reasonable imo
I'm not speaking to professional punters here.
But in this economic atmosphere, who on earth could stand to lose £2000 in three months? Even the so called wealthy are struggling to pay bills.
£650 a month loss limit is reasonable imo
I for one was convinced it was going to be £100 a month. I was wrong!
It’s still subjective as the White Paper still not released.
One thing is certain, you’d not want it to get delayed and then by some crazy turn of events result in a Labour government trashing it and starting again.
One thing is certain, you’d not want it to get delayed and then by some crazy turn of events result in a Labour government trashing it and starting again.
Really Trident? So you lay one horse at 20/1 for £100 and if he wins you're done for 3 months? Even if your BF balance still has £8000 left? That sounds reasonable?
Even if you're a top class backer, a £2k downswing can happen at any time and theny you can't back that winning 15/1 shot in the next race.
Even if you're a top class backer, a £2k downswing can happen at any time and theny you can't back that winning 15/1 shot in the next race.
Shirley the critical thing; even if any of the latest numbers being bandied about and leaked to the press as a "feeler" (£2k per 90 days) is more accurate than the previous scaremongering bookmaker nonsense that was being bandied about as gospel (£100 per month) by the Racing Post - the most crucial thing is whether that £2k is a loss limit or a deposit limit! (If indeed those are even the numbers!)
If it's a loss limit, we are indeed all fecked!, especially people with vaguely extreme MO's (laying very long or backing very short) as variance alone will stop you in your tracks no matter how successful you are long term.
If however, it is a deposit limit, given how long this has been in the offing and assuming successful people don't massively over expose themselves on a regular basis, it's significantly more manageable imo.
It's all still speculation and of course taking huge amounts of mug money out of the exchange markets is (financially) a bad thing for many players - but BF have been syphoning mug money out of the market for a very long time via PC, lack of Exchange marketing and pushing mugs towards gaming products rather than the exchange.
by the Racing Post - the most crucial thing is whether that £2k is a loss limit or a deposit limit! (If indeed those are even the numbers!)If it's a loss limit, we are indeed all fecked!, especially people with vaguely extreme MO's (laying very long or backing very short) as variance alone will stop you in your tracks no matter how successful you are long term.
If however, it is a deposit limit, given how long this has been in the offing and assuming successful people don't massively over expose themselves on a regular basis, it's significantly more manageable imo.
It's all still speculation and of course taking huge amounts of mug money out of the exchange markets is (financially) a bad thing for many players - but BF have been syphoning mug money out of the market for a very long time via PC, lack of Exchange marketing and pushing mugs towards gaming products rather than the exchange.
I read it pretty simply as £2000 net loss over 3 months, so it’s a continual account over a rolling 90 day period, when you fall into a deficit of -£2000 within that 3 month period it automatically triggers.
Any restriction is bad, considering this was to do the work those minorities wouldn’t do themselves to help themselves…
But the real question is what is the % amount of disposable income the grand oversees determine you are allowed to lose before being stopped?
Totally unilaterally from any other single element in the Western society, telling you you have spent too much losing at betting and now won’t be allowed to lose anymore.
Any restriction is bad, considering this was to do the work those minorities wouldn’t do themselves to help themselves…
But the real question is what is the % amount of disposable income the grand oversees determine you are allowed to lose before being stopped?
Totally unilaterally from any other single element in the Western society, telling you you have spent too much losing at betting and now won’t be allowed to lose anymore.
Chris Philp now resigned, further delaying the White Paper.
So it’s now thrown it up in the air yet again, with the potential of a ‘wet’ taking over.
Todays decision re Boris is horrendous news for the betting industry. Just when it looked like some form of sensible decision was being taken. Get the wrong replacement in and that 2k a month figure might become less than a ton!
Take comfort from two things imo:
1) The economy if fecked (again)!
2) The tax grab is enormous.
1) The economy if fecked (again)!
2) The tax grab is enormous.
The most worrying part of the opening statement as far as exchanges are concerned is not the question of deposit limits(although bad), but the mention of levy on turnover and not gross profits.
'The 2017 reforms are not officially up for review until 2024, but racing's leaders have been pressing for that date to be moved forward, with calls for the levy to be changed to a turnover-based model from gross profits, and for it to be extended to bets placed on foreign racing. It has been estimated the latter could add £30m a year to the levy yield'.
If a levy comes in on turnover, exchanges will be fecked. The big bookmakers have been angling for this for years
'The 2017 reforms are not officially up for review until 2024, but racing's leaders have been pressing for that date to be moved forward, with calls for the levy to be changed to a turnover-based model from gross profits, and for it to be extended to bets placed on foreign racing. It has been estimated the latter could add £30m a year to the levy yield'.
If a levy comes in on turnover, exchanges will be fecked. The big bookmakers have been angling for this for years
Llamedos - if that were to happen, surely BF just reverts to the (tried and tested) defence, that they aren't a "bookmaker", they are a platform or an "IT Company" (try not to laugh when we next crash!).
Not sure if that argument still washes given how active they are in their own markets and given all the addictive gaming sh1te that they have bolted onto the site since the last time this was claimed.
Not sure if that argument still washes given how active they are in their own markets and given all the addictive gaming sh1te that they have bolted onto the site since the last time this was claimed.
They are licensed as a bookmaker, although they are matching individuals bets on the Exchange, when you place the bet either backing or laying you are placing it with Betfair
Opens the door again to layers on here requiring a bookmaker's licence.
Betfair won that battle 20 years ago by arguing that they are indeed a bookmaker.
Betfair won that battle 20 years ago by arguing that they are indeed a bookmaker.
By which I mean Betfair won that battle by arguing that they (Betfair) are a bookmaker.
Screaming - I'd argue that what they are doing (on the exchange only) is interchangeable depending on the quality of your legal team and the definition that suits them best under the prevalent conditions!
Given that either definition could be problematic and either label (if proven) would have to stick for a while - it seems more likely (to me) - that the exchange model just gets looked at differently. If not - then maybe the end of the world is nigh!
Given that either definition could be problematic and either label (if proven) would have to stick for a while - it seems more likely (to me) - that the exchange model just gets looked at differently. If not - then maybe the end of the world is nigh!
They reckon it's there to be signed off.
At a questions and answer session this morning, it was asked who's remit will they be following on affordability checks, the Governments or GC, no answer given.
It could be Government says soft background credit check and they still ask for paperwork due to GC setting a different set of rules, as I think Governments may be a minimum requirement.
Think they're still trying to publish it in this window before the summer recess
At a questions and answer session this morning, it was asked who's remit will they be following on affordability checks, the Governments or GC, no answer given.
It could be Government says soft background credit check and they still ask for paperwork due to GC setting a different set of rules, as I think Governments may be a minimum requirement.
Think they're still trying to publish it in this window before the summer recess
Anyone should be happy with the 2k over 3 month period, for those that use the Sportsbook on here they should get an accurate summary in place for that.
Think it will be a major issue for full timers. Most won't have the requisite paperwork should they go that way, and not soft credit checks.
Wouldn't be sure either that once you're asked you can just sit and wait it out without having to send it in to get the account reactivated.
Bit of a headache if you can't access your funds either.
Fingers crossed here for deposits not net loss, but more in hope than expectation
Wouldn't be sure either that once you're asked you can just sit and wait it out without having to send it in to get the account reactivated.
Bit of a headache if you can't access your funds either.
Fingers crossed here for deposits not net loss, but more in hope than expectation
Can't possibly be deposits over net...otherwise you could have deposited 2100 and won 100,000 and they'd want paperwork.
Or you could have deposited 1,999 and lost the lot and they wouldn't want any paperwork.
Or you could have deposited 1,999 and lost the lot and they wouldn't want any paperwork.
what if you are on someone elses account, as many are? you are unlikely to get them to hand over docs when they dont use it. asking for a friend.
Whichever way they go, the solution will still be an absolute dog's dinner and the contrived nature indicative of how ill fitting it will be. It still wont address the fact a central database will be required at a time of strict data handling rules.
No wonder they are taking so long over it, all to save a few bed wetters.
What they should have done is add a test on each site before anyone can bet akin to the theory test in driving that you have to show competence and an understanding of probability.
Fail and you get shuffled off away from the rest of the adults.
No wonder they are taking so long over it, all to save a few bed wetters.
What they should have done is add a test on each site before anyone can bet akin to the theory test in driving that you have to show competence and an understanding of probability.
Fail and you get shuffled off away from the rest of the adults.
Duffy I'm not sure I follow your thinking on that.
Net deposits pretty much is the way most firms deal at the minute over a period of time.
I know my 365 is a certain deposit limit over a rolling 30 day period.
I agree they wouldn't want paperwork if you'd deposited and lost £1999, and that's fine.
They wouldn't let you deposit £2100 in the first place, max would be £2000 net deposit in a 3 month period and if you won £100k they also wouldn't be checking you.
If they're saying you can lose £2000 in a rolling 3 month period, then surely if you win in that same period any amount you'd still be able to use that as well
You're not thinking of lifetime are you ?
Net deposits pretty much is the way most firms deal at the minute over a period of time.
I know my 365 is a certain deposit limit over a rolling 30 day period.
I agree they wouldn't want paperwork if you'd deposited and lost £1999, and that's fine.
They wouldn't let you deposit £2100 in the first place, max would be £2000 net deposit in a 3 month period and if you won £100k they also wouldn't be checking you.
If they're saying you can lose £2000 in a rolling 3 month period, then surely if you win in that same period any amount you'd still be able to use that as well
You're not thinking of lifetime are you ?
Yeah, that would be good on the slots.
Q. Over time you are guaranteed to lose all your money, do you still want to proceed?
Q. Over time you are guaranteed to lose all your money, do you still want to proceed?
By law the suppliers have to show what the return rate is as a % on those things
It would be a test to show the user understood the damn thing before sponking their money away...if they understood it and still chose to play longterm then there might then be a further test for sectioning
It would be a test to show the user understood the damn thing before sponking their money away...if they understood it and still chose to play longterm then there might then be a further test for sectioning
tt,
if you deposit 2,000 but during that period you had withdrawn significantly more...not have it sat in the account still.
Deposit 2,000, win and withdraw, let's say 10,000 along the way , then at some point you are back down to zero and need to deposit, do they want paperwork even though you are 8k in front?....surely not I say.
if you deposit 2,000 but during that period you had withdrawn significantly more...not have it sat in the account still.
Deposit 2,000, win and withdraw, let's say 10,000 along the way , then at some point you are back down to zero and need to deposit, do they want paperwork even though you are 8k in front?....surely not I say.
No it's net deposits, you can deposit and withdraw as much as you like over the 3 month period, but as soon as you reach +2k deposits then it wouldnt process the request.
That's hiw mine works at 365
That's hiw mine works at 365
That's fine then, I'm not pro, far from it, so perhaps it will affect them, but it's never affected me in the time I've been on here and wouldn't ever.
Deposit limits are already in place for most on BF unless you provide all your financials.
£100/mth deposit otherwise.
£100/mth deposit otherwise.
usually have large portfolio of cheltenham ante post bets could easily be 2k down the tuesday im guessing im not alone
when I said no exceptions that's in relation to what type of bets you place
not sure how to
most on here have had the call - if you're not prepared to divulge all your financial details, then the max to deposit a month will be £100
most on here have had the call - if you're not prepared to divulge all your financial details, then the max to deposit a month will be £100
But that will be superseded with the actual requirements in the paper wont it?
That is if infact it was accurate that the GC recommendations werent overcooking it on the back of undercooking it allowing bookies to do what they want.
That is if infact it was accurate that the GC recommendations werent overcooking it on the back of undercooking it allowing bookies to do what they want.
no idea
if that was the case, why haven't BF & others told the GC to fcuk off & say let's see what the govt says?
if that was the case, why haven't BF & others told the GC to fcuk off & say let's see what the govt says?
That wouldnt have been very clever would it?
They were trying to curry favour to lessen the impact of the finding after being labelled as irresponsible...that isnt going to win over any friends is it?
They were trying to curry favour to lessen the impact of the finding after being labelled as irresponsible...that isnt going to win over any friends is it?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539