|
By:
How would you propose funding the horseracing industry if you and impossible and the GC get your way honcho?
|
|
By:
If you feel that strongly about it, and all that the bookies produce is miseries, then why do you even bet?
Why not give up completely, and become a full on self righteous anti gambling campaigner? Good money too, if you get the right gig. Some of those anti gambling campaigners get paid 50k per year plus to come out and spout the same sort of stuff that you come out with on here. |
|
By:
Here we go. Another gambler that thinks racing depends on him. Racing will be fine thanks.
|
|
By:
Tell us how then honcho?
Do you have a clue? Share your wisdom instead of hot air!! |
|
By:
Deafened by the silence honcho which is a shame because there is a massive industry awaiting a solution to the devastation of the Levy which is a cert if you and the GC get your way, where do the missing millions come from iyo?
Only two possible solutions imo and that is the separation of the racing industry from casino type gaming or a TOTE monopoly which would probably make you and impossible happy, getting rid of those nasty bookies who force you to gamble? |
|
By:
truehoncho 21 Sep 23 19:32
Here we go. Another gambler that thinks racing depends on him. Racing will be fine thanks Why are you such a b@ll sack ffs |
|
By:
Deafened by the silence lol. I haven't spent all my dole and do have other things to do Cagliari.
You are the biggest b@llsack on here fartfromtheface. Racing generates over £4 billion annually and generates almost as tax much tax for the exchequer as it receives from bookies. No doubt racing would change but it would still go on. |
|
By:
I wouldn’t be totally against a tote monopoly.
However, it would be completely pointless under the gambling commissions current affordability plans. If everyone is going to have their accounts closed or their gambling spend severely restricted, then it makes no difference what system you bring in. The reason the BHA have been so quiet and so useless on this issue is that they have been promised their new levy in the white paper. I think they have only recently cottoned on though, that with so many people being forced out of betting through affordability checks, that there is going to be no money left to levy anyway. |
|
By:
Honcho is off to organise a pis$ up in a brewery, paying £5 a pint and selling it at £4, good luck honcho, let us know how you get on?
|
|
By:
truehoncho 21 Sep 23 20:00
Deafened by the silence lol. I haven't spent all my dole and do have other things to do Cagliari. You are the biggest b@llsack on here fartfromtheface. Racing generates over £4 billion annually and generates almost as tax much tax for the exchequer as it receives from bookies. No doubt racing would change but it would still go on. Lol |
|
By:
I think a TOTE monopoly off course would work for the industry Booster, leaving on course bookies alone in conjunction with this would have many advantages imo.
|
|
By:
I'd be lucky to get £4 for a pint from you lol.
There doesn't need to be a tote monopoly Rooster and I'm not supporting the affordability checks.My point is that the RP is not on the side of racing and is not differentiating it from other forms of gambling. There needs to be a racing industry plan to address the issue with as little impact on racing as possible. They are just not doing that, they are simply saying that if you want to gamble you should be able to. It won't work and everyone will be worse off. |
|
By:
At the moment the racing post is on the side of racing punters. It’s racing punters who are writing in the letters saying that they are getting their accounts closed and restricted because of the checks.
I know what you’re saying about differentiating between gaming and gambling, sports and slots. Every sports punter in the country has called for this. It’s the gambling commission that is refusing to acknowledge the difference. It wouldn’t matter if the racing post and bookmakers campaigned for the two to be split or not, it’s the GC that has decided they won’t split the two. They have been pressed on it many times, their answer is that it is too complicated to do, as some customers bet on both sports and slots, and that betting on sports can be just as dangerous and can still cause harm. Therefore, you have no choice but to campaign for the right to bet on everything. It’s your right to gamble, and not face checks, whatever you want to gamble on, or nothing. You could argue that the bookmakers are suited by this, but it is the gambling commission who have decided it. And even if you did get the two separated, what difference would it make? Slot players don’t want the checks any more than horse race and sports bettors do, and they have far more black market or unregulated operators to turn to. It doesn’t solve anything, apart from allowing sports bettors to continue betting as they want. Putting extra restrictions on slot players won’t do anything them to help them anyway. Just stops regulated bookmakers from profiting from them. Maybe that’s what people want? They don’t care about people losing money on slots, they just don’t want UKGC regulated bookmakers to profit from it? Perhaps that’s the point I’ve been missing? |
|
By:
You may be right Rooster but it's an argument that can't be won. There clearly is an issue with harmful gambling and there is no possibility of government doing nothing. If the racing industry can't get its message across and influence the GC to change its mind then affordability checks will be implemented (if they are not already).
|
|
By:
Bookies funding horseracing? What a joke?
Horseracing has been undersold, and used by bookies to facilitate their objective well before fobt. Once liberalisation under the Blair government the emergence of fobt generated so much revenue and profit bookies could not give a hoot about horseracing. As such, bookies exercised their might to "stifle" horseracing; this was aided and abetted by Mr Rust and Mr MacArthur. These two characters have a lot to answer for the present predicament of horseracing in the Uk the result is the present predicament esp prize money. I'm sick and tired of being interrupted by the saturation of bookies adverts at night and early morning including those masquerading as 'GambleAware' reminders; I'm sick and tired of bookies sponsoring films; I'm also sick and tired of bookies website directing or encouraging me to play slots and games when I log on. At present I just want the bookies to be taken down a peg or two. I'd like to see horseracing being run for horseracing, and not bookies. i'd like to see the governors of horseracing develop a sense of pride, integrity, independence, competency and sell the sport for what it's worth, and not as a side dish by the bookies. As for the Racing Post it does not represent horseracing and punters like yours truly. The Racing Post is not fit for purpose; the journalism is sh1t; bias; lazy; out of touch; spineless. |
|
By:
Shops closing and move on line.jobs lost
This is the same as a lot of industry. Banks being the worst. Lottery,scratch cards,bingo,gaming machines are just as bad. Fobts and endless adverts caused all this.most non punters don’t want bookies adverts on tv. Maybe gambling needs to go like cigarettes,no advertising. Itv have live roulette on late at night. Racing is the least problematic,cos most new,younger punters can’t be bothered to look at form.they want easy betting. Football has now become the gateway drug into gambling. Like the diesel car announcement,it’s all bluster,then mild rules will be introduced. It’s all a storm in a tea cup stuff. |
|
By:
Punters fund horse racing. Stop people from betting, and horse racing loses its funding.
The lines have become too blurred between betting and gaming, but whoever you blame, the genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in now. Slots are here to stay. Even if you banned them from bookmakers sites, or forced the sports books and exchanges to have different websites to the casino , it makes no difference. People who want the casino will log onto that site, people who want the exchange will log on to that, people who want both will just have two windows open. Even if you did separate them, nothing would change. Bookmakers aren’t going to suddenly start laying winners. Liquidity on here isn’t going to suddenly shoot back up. The casino has been around and cross sold for many years now, I’m always getting offered free spins by betfair, but never use them. Never been on their casino once. Liquidity remained solid despite this for many years, it’s only in the last couple of years since the affordability checks have been bought in that it’s started to nosedive. The checks are clearly terrible for punters, and terrible for the sport. The anti gambling campaigners aren’t going to stop because sports and casino gets separated. The gambling commission are clearly on the side of the campaigners and prohibitionists. It’s obvious that he only acceptable form of gambling is going to be low staking recreational. Anyone else is going to get stopped. Whether or not horse racing can survive that, I seriously doubt. Maybe I’m wrong though, maybe there are enough regular small staking horse racing punters to keep the sport going. But just looking at the matched amounts per race on here, it looks like it’s going to be in serious trouble if this continues. |
|
By:
Punters fund horse racing. --- They absolutely do not. Its an urban myth. Punters fund the excess low grade hose racing that many on here deride at every opportunity. Horse racing funds itself and when gambling stops horse racing will carry on a little differently.
|
|
By:
Punters will go on course,but that won’t filter through to racing,has pitches pay a set fee irrelevant of trade.
Shops cater for the lower end bets. On line has a lot of competition from,slots,football etc. USA the biggest capitalist country in the world,seems happy to have a tote monopoly. Maybe pitch payments should be a percentage of trade/profit,rather than fixed fees. Same with oncourse shops,probably a fixed fee,so if they have a bumper day,the track or racing dosent benefit. So where’s the incentive to increase turnover from racing |
|
By:
How will that work, truehoncho?
No gambling, no media rights (who is going to subscribe to rtv and atr if they can’t bet?) No bookmakers sponsoring races. Where is the money going to come from? It may continue. Though it would be very niche. Be like showjumping. |
|
By:
A different site will suit me great; I do not need to navigate away each time I log on. I know where to find them if I need them. Gambling adverts are everywhere, and I want all forms of gambling adverts banned. I do not want to be bombarded by bookies adverts at night or any time either.
I've not used the London Underground for a long while now or since the pandemic Can anyone tell me whether bookies adverts are allowed on bill boards or the walls? I'm sure if a punter wants a serious bet on horseracing (a high street bookie is unlikely or willing to accommodate even prior to AC - he/she can go to the course; I did with greyhounds several decades ago; bookies version of AC will never get my cooperation. |
|
By:
unters will go on course,but that won’t filter through to racing,has pitches pay a set fee irrelevant of trade. -- More punters high pitch prices.
|
|
By:
True. I thought they pay 5 times admission price for a pitch,irrelevant of turnover,attendance,bets,etc.a fixed fee
|
|
By:
Rooster I don't think you realise how much money is in bloodstock. There's huge amounts of sponsorship money and huge amounts generated through attendances and hospitality. And lets be very clear, its not like these checks are going to stop gambling revenue just reduce it. Most owners could give a **** about prize money and the arabs could fund the sport all on their own. Its just total nonsense that is perpetrated by those on the gravy train.
|
|
By:
True. I thought they pay 5 times admission price for a pitch,irrelevant of turnover,attendance,bets,etc.a fixed fee -- Now, yes. But that would change if circumstances were different.
|
|
By:
Good fxcking grief
Imposs123 ‘ I'm a very small recreational punter’ ‘I want bookie adverts banned’ ‘I want bookies taken down a peg or two’ Also attacks the RP (as though there’s a slew of alternatives showing the proper funding options) Typical hand wringing liberal. Can’t control himself so wants the state to do it instead. Where’s the acknowledgment that ordering spend stipulations from the state level down is grist to the mill for bookies wanting to shut people down they simply don’t want as customers, or that the GC have not plan to address that issue? |
|
By:
Still don’t see how that would work, truehoncho.
Without betting, the sponsorship money would dry up. Viewing figures would crash. Attendances would be well down, so hospitality money would also dry up. For the majority of people, the main interest in horse racing is betting. The Arabs more or less are funding the sport on their own. What happens if they decide to only fund it in their own countries. It’s kind of happening already, what if they only supported racing in Dubai, Qatar and Saudi and refused to have runners in U.K. bloodstick industry, which does looks like a bit of a bubble anyway, will also burst. What if sheik mo. is the next to get cancelled ? If they chase him out, which could well happen in todays new woke world, then most of Newmarket would be unemployed. |
|
By:
Get real! The present "funding" and control and reliance of bookies have are causing a spiral decline in horseracing, punting and prize money. These are the 3 key components of the decline. Have anyone heard of "if something is not working, find a solution" eg rid-of key factors contributing to the decline ie take a leave of other countries where horseracing and punting are not in the same predicament as the UK.
I sincerely hope none of you think the bookies are good for horseracing, horseracing industry and punting. How can adequate funding be adequate from the Levy if "bookies" do not take bets, restrict bets or close down "recreational" accounts? Bookies and its paid-mouthpiece ie the Racing Post (if in doubt look at its contents) and the numerous tipsters encouraging readers to bet; several tipsters tipping different selections on the same race. These are not "professionals" but gray-trainers of bookies. I do not say that about Timeform or Sporting Life, do I? Harsh and crass it might seem. But, a radical approach to horseracing, funding and punting is necessary to kick this archaic present system loaded for the scumbag bookies; the same bookies pedalling the "crack cocaine" of gambling on the high streets. Again, if in doubt, why has no bookies reps even the paid/bookie sponsored Racing Post organised a live debate on tv on the effects of fobts on the high street and users? Every manager I've spoken to in the past) agreed fobt is the "crack cocaine" of gambling, and are solely or mainly funding the existence of the shops in the high street. I enjoy a bet. But, no where as much as in the past. Do I care? Not really, there are so many other alternatives recreational activities around. The main cause of the present scenario is the scumbag bookies and their greed. The media esp tv is saturated with their "reminders" that bookies are open, and a "jackpot" is around the corner. But, what the adverts do not say is the "probability" of that happening or the chance is manipulated ie the bookies control whether you win or not win, period! Again, if in doubt, ask the players of bookies' promotional free spins. |
|
By:
You live in an utter dreamland.
The harsh reality of life is that if you can’t/don’t like it then don’t get involved. Inspirational nonsense about how you’d like to see things has nothing to do with grounded reality. The very element of of using such arguments was false from the beginning. The belief that this whole focus was all things to all men, that every fix would happen as a result - what I called TM’s chocolate box of wants. Well those you appeal to have no interest in making rainbow happy lands of gamblers who only win and get accommodated, they actually are happy if more people just stop, the ramifications of that affect don’t bother these people. This is evidenced by the GC having no plan for arbitration ffs. As for the RP/and bookie reptiles owing punters something, that’s unreal. It’s a trade mag not a punters benefit. You have to help yourself not rely on others. Imposs123 you just showing your vindictiveness, you should just walk away. The vast majority want the choice to choose, all other arguments are staged by those wanting control. Horse racing needs a funding mechanism (football has the artificial one of being in total deficit and running on rich oligarch’s ‘stolen’ money) racing needs something equally unpleasant to keep going, that’s fckn idiots who are too stupid for their own good. |
|
By:
Timeform and the sporting life are both owned by bookmakers?!
Which TV channel is going to host this live debate? And what are you expecting them to say? Your views are just insane waffle. I don’t even think you know what you’re fighting for. You just seem to hate the racing post, hate bookmakers, hate FOBTs, and keep saying crack cocaine. Maybe you should give up gambling, smoke some crack instead. |
|
By:
Identify the problem, then bin the cause. Post this fix the problem - in this order.
Scumbag bookies can afford to pay "promoters/presenters" on mainstream media; Racing Post/; etc, yet pittance prize money. If necessary, I'm willing to forego 1->2% of any winning/stake towards funding horseracing in the interim whilst scumbag bookies are binned. Be radical; be innovative; be creative; grasp changes. The present scenario is heading towards implosion. Heed it, do something about it. Remember, the present scenario will not get better or go away. Do something, anything that does not have scumbag bookies in-charge. The scumbag bookies are the major cause of the present scenario! |
|
By:
I know SportingLife and Timeform are owned by scumbag bookies. However, they are not as sycophantic as the Racing Post. Do punters need all 3 of them? I do not use them, and I've been a punter since the days of Dancing Brave/Shergar/Desert Orchid/Ekbalco. Maybe 1 (if any) is adequate given the info on internet and specialist sites.
Please do not remind me there will be job losses. These days no job is for life eg pandemic. Be innovative; be creative; re-invent oneself. Unless one is elderly and/or disabled. |
|
By:
Christ imposs123 gone bonkers.
He’s watching trainspotting now-‘choose life’ The reality is the regulator isn’t the punters friend either, and certainly has no interest for racing’s future. Don’t believe regulators look after those you don’t like? Well just look at the telecommunications sector. The regulator rubber stamping the wholesale overcharging of customers under the remit of extending services. In any other walk of life that would be called a cartel, price fixing in the worst example (CPI + 3.9% annually, in contract, no alternatives) Technology like for like gets cheaper because of Moore’s Law, except it doesn’t in the telecommunications sector, it just goes up and up, all underwritten by the regulator. So don’t think siding with the regulator is good for punters because it ain’t. |
|
By:
The RP's failure to report and challenge restrictions does not disqualify them from doing so on AC's. It might rankle, but we (and the industry itself), need ALL the help we can get right now.
|
|
By:
Andrew Rhodes could probably write everything he knows about gambling on the back of a postage stamp, that appears to be an alarming fact - but of course he is still correct when he says the Racing Post coverage has been imbalanced.
All they (The Racing Post) have done, is constantly print the same very poorly constructed (copy and paste) article every day for months and months on end, repeating the words "intrusive" and "draconian" at every opportunity. They have also printed a few letters from "Outraged of Newmarket" but sadly the author of those letters has usually managed to make himself sound like a "problem gambler" anyway! I think you have to accept that they (the racing Post) are just hopelessly out of their depth. What's more surprising (to me) is that if you accept they are just the "mouthpiece" of the Bookmakers (Michael Dugher, the BGC, etc), which of course they are; then you have to conclude (given where we find ourselves) that the bookmakers have either got it horribly wrong or are also hopelessly out of their depth. Otherwise how do you explain that a cross party rag-tag bunch of "liberalist, woke, hand-wringing, amateur do-gooders", appears to have completely outwitted and outmanoeuvred a multi-billion pound industry? |
|
By:
The checks maybe are draconian and definitely are intrusive. You will probably never have to go through them as you don’t even bet, but if you did, you will see just how intrusive they are. People aren’t just making it up, the kind of information being asked for is completely unnecessary.
All The Guardian and the BBC, and even the Mail have done is print stories of gambling addicts and suicides. Where is the balance in that? They have outwitted a multi billion pound industry, mainly because that industry doesn’t really care as they are global entities. And the anti gambling campaigners have had the whole of the media on their side(apart from the racing post) and have done a fantastic job in blowing the problem out of all proportion and convincing people that everybody who has ever lost money gambling is a problem gambler or a potential addict who needs saving from themselves. |
|
By:
Slightly of topic but when was the last time bookmakers advertised prices in the racing post all you get now is free bet offers extra places offers and podcast advertisements,could this be the odds compilers are not up to it or do the online/shops realise that by the time the paper is looked at the prices may not be there because the exchanges say there wrong ?
|
|
By:
Probably the latter, Jimnast. Waste of time putting last nights prices in the morning paper. Do they not print the price wise boxes on a Saturday any more?
They have updated odds comparison tables on the website for every race. |
|
By:
That’s a pretty accurate summation BR; the people who do the least betting being the most vocal in calling out the need for systemic analysis of everyone’s freedom to choose.
While being deadly silent on the aspect of reviewing whether bookies implementing the rules are being too overly judicious. I don’t see it as bookies getting punished when they can cut away anyone under the premise that ultimately they are helping, who’s to say they arn’t is nobody reviews it? The GC have given them the power to decide if they want to wave the restrictions based on the information they have. And nobody is telling me the 80% of mug bets that will never get their collar felt because as the French chancellor once said ‘take just enough feathers as to not kill the goose’. Do bookies care if racing vanishes? I doubt it. |
|
By:
On a cost basis horse racing must be far and away the greatest expenditure in terms of offering a service.
6-8 race meetings, on average 3-6 meetings a day, numerous runners run under various conditions on idiosyncratic courses. Just give em coin toss games of chance and they won’t need to employ anyone. |