There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Chris Wright has become the latest prominent figure to express his frustration with affordability checks saying it is “ridiculous” he is being asked for personal financial details to bet but can spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on coverings for his mares.
Wright, the co-founder of Chrysalis Records and the former majority owner of Queens Park Rangers and Wasps rugby club, said he had been hit with a demand for sensitive financial information by a bookmaker “out of the blue” at the weekend.
He said: “I don’t know what prompted it and I thought, ‘Oh my God, what am I going to do?’ I don’t want to divulge any of the information they are asking for. My affairs are quite complicated and they are for me, not for anyone else. So if I have to stop betting then I’ll have to stop betting and that’ll be it.
“I’m not a massive punter by any means and sometimes I’ll bet more and sometimes I’ll bet less. I do it for fun and if I can’t bet then it’ll be less fun, but I won’t be stopping having horses or anything. I wouldn’t even know if I’m up or down after all the years I’ve been betting as, for me, it’s something fun to do.”
In an earlier tweet, Wright had highlighted the request from a bookmaker to present "all my personal financial details so I can continue to have a £50 each way bet" while being able to spend much more on horses.
Bookmakers have been imposing intrusive affordability checks on punters under pressure from the Gambling Commission, which is running a consultation on proposals for the government’s gambling review.
Wright drew the comparison between his spend on his horses and his betting and the levels of checks he had to face for each. He said: “Wonderful Tonight has a foal by Frankel and is in foal to Frankel, touch wood. We have another mare in foal to Lope De Vega and other valuable mares on the stud.
"I just think it’s ridiculous that I have to provide all this information to have a £50 each-way bet, but I can go to the sales and spend half a million on a mare, spend another £325,000 covering the mare and that’s fine.”
Barry Hearn: leading sports promoter is concerned by affordability checks
Barry Hearn: "The whole thing smacks of Big Brother"
Credit: Gareth Copley
Wright’s concerns were echoed by Barry Hearn, an owner-breeder alongside his wife Sue of Gold Cup winner Subjectivist, who warned the over-zealous implementation of affordability checks would have a shattering impact on racing.
At the helm of Matchroom Sport, Hearn has led to a revolution in darts, boxing and snooker but he expressed concern for the future of Britain's third most-watched sport in 2022, racing, if the proposals, currently the focus of a Gambling Commission consultation which closes on October 18, come into force.
He said: “The impact on racing is going to be massive. The industry isn’t completely reliant on betting but it's a major part of the activities and finances. I don’t think there’s enough money going into racing from betting at the moment but this whole thing could be very damaging – if revenue is down it has a chain reaction and racing will be hit. The blanket ban simply doesn’t work, betting is there to be enjoyed and this will kill it.
“If I'm asked for a check I won’t be passing on my information. I'm simply not prepared to be questioned about my finances, it’s private and should stay private. The principal is directly against, I believe, the rule of law. My privacy is more important to me than the ability to gamble and I expect there are a lot of people out there who feel the same. The whole thing smacks of Big Brother.”
Wright, the co-founder of Chrysalis Records and the former majority owner of Queens Park Rangers and Wasps rugby club, said he had been hit with a demand for sensitive financial information by a bookmaker “out of the blue” at the weekend.
He said: “I don’t know what prompted it and I thought, ‘Oh my God, what am I going to do?’ I don’t want to divulge any of the information they are asking for. My affairs are quite complicated and they are for me, not for anyone else. So if I have to stop betting then I’ll have to stop betting and that’ll be it.
“I’m not a massive punter by any means and sometimes I’ll bet more and sometimes I’ll bet less. I do it for fun and if I can’t bet then it’ll be less fun, but I won’t be stopping having horses or anything. I wouldn’t even know if I’m up or down after all the years I’ve been betting as, for me, it’s something fun to do.”
In an earlier tweet, Wright had highlighted the request from a bookmaker to present "all my personal financial details so I can continue to have a £50 each way bet" while being able to spend much more on horses.
Bookmakers have been imposing intrusive affordability checks on punters under pressure from the Gambling Commission, which is running a consultation on proposals for the government’s gambling review.
Wright drew the comparison between his spend on his horses and his betting and the levels of checks he had to face for each. He said: “Wonderful Tonight has a foal by Frankel and is in foal to Frankel, touch wood. We have another mare in foal to Lope De Vega and other valuable mares on the stud.
"I just think it’s ridiculous that I have to provide all this information to have a £50 each-way bet, but I can go to the sales and spend half a million on a mare, spend another £325,000 covering the mare and that’s fine.”
Barry Hearn: leading sports promoter is concerned by affordability checks
Barry Hearn: "The whole thing smacks of Big Brother"
Credit: Gareth Copley
Wright’s concerns were echoed by Barry Hearn, an owner-breeder alongside his wife Sue of Gold Cup winner Subjectivist, who warned the over-zealous implementation of affordability checks would have a shattering impact on racing.
At the helm of Matchroom Sport, Hearn has led to a revolution in darts, boxing and snooker but he expressed concern for the future of Britain's third most-watched sport in 2022, racing, if the proposals, currently the focus of a Gambling Commission consultation which closes on October 18, come into force.
He said: “The impact on racing is going to be massive. The industry isn’t completely reliant on betting but it's a major part of the activities and finances. I don’t think there’s enough money going into racing from betting at the moment but this whole thing could be very damaging – if revenue is down it has a chain reaction and racing will be hit. The blanket ban simply doesn’t work, betting is there to be enjoyed and this will kill it.
“If I'm asked for a check I won’t be passing on my information. I'm simply not prepared to be questioned about my finances, it’s private and should stay private. The principal is directly against, I believe, the rule of law. My privacy is more important to me than the ability to gamble and I expect there are a lot of people out there who feel the same. The whole thing smacks of Big Brother.”
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 69
|
By:
Just HOW can anybody -
- be they from the gormless Gambling Commission - The Government (Department of Culture Media Sport- and (add) NO Idea about Punting) - even contemplate trying to DEFEND their proposed stance against someone who can ... " ... go to the sales and spend half a million on a mare, and spend another £325,000 covering the mare and that’s fine.” Yet "cannot have a £50 each-way bet" That is - [/b] Entirely NONSENSICAL[/b] - in ANYBODY'S book, or way of thinking. |
|
By:
Its slowly sinking in what a huge impact these draconian measures will make, just afraid the boat has already sailed.
|
|
By:
Titanic
|
|
By:
Sheer madness, simple as that.
|
|
By:
Completely opaque with both regulator and government attempting to claim it is a response to help the financially vulnerable, unilaterally in gambling only.
While both attempting to take credit for it, while accepting no blame and arguing final arbitration resides with the bookmaker (and ultimate responsibility) with no opportunity for the individual to contest it and therefore safeguard against abuse. It’s a total dog’s dinner and reason needs to be heard. |
|
By:
Everything about it is an amateurish balls up. Money would come very easy if you were betting against these idiots.
|
|
By:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/features/series/how-the-white-paper-miscalculated-the-impact-of-affordability-checks-on-racing-aiGHT8C4BrTU/
The simplistic balls up in those calculations from people who have absolutely no idea of the gambling industry is a real head in hands job. It's so unprofessional. You can see why the HS2 estimates were miles out. |
|
By:
Geoff Banks
@geoffbanksbet If you are A housewife or husband Unemployed Pensioner Live in low income area statistically Refuse share your data Your finances are necessarily complex and evidently do not want to share your financial position with a gaming giant? YOU WILL FAIL GAMBLING COMMISSION LED AFFORDABILITY CHECKS How frictionless is that? |
|
By:
Yet if you're a pensioner you could have a 5k bet at the races ?
|
|
By:
howard 05 Oct 23 13:30
Yet if you're a pensioner you could have a 5k bet at the races ? So might other people, wouldn't they? |
|
By:
Not likely. It's pensioners that are loaded
 |
|
By:
Has the VAR team team been called in
YET?  |
|
By:
Over-zealous and intrusive are the two descriptions used very regularly by recreational and seasoned horseracing punters to describe the way Affordability Checks (AC) has been applied and enforced by bookies on their own accord and not at the behest of the Gambling Commission (GC) to make up for the bookies' past lackadaisical approach to problem gambling and money laundering practices and penalties incurred repeatedly and regularly by bookies.
As such, whose fault is that? Gambling Commission (GC) or scumbag greedy bookies? The latter is doing so to use recreational and seasoned horseracing punters with no history of problem gambling or money laundering to reflect their might, and to inflict unnecessary inconvenience and pain on these punters - easy defenceless targets and victims. There is absolutely no plausible or sensible reason otherwise. The bookies do not want to understand or to accept what frictionless Affordability Checks actually mean. The bookies are just imposing their form/version of AC not recognisable by GC or recreational and seasoned punters. The use of an appropriate independent external service to administer AC is all that is required; a qualified body governed by the FCA code of conduct (not bookies paid stooges). QED! |
|
By:
impossible - have you actually read what the GC is proposing? and how its propositions completely expose their lack of understanding of both the gambling industry and sports betting. It is not sports or financial gambling that is the problem, it is casino style slot gaming that is causing the issues.
that aint to say that the betting operators arent helping themselves in their greedy attempts - just take Virgen Bets radio adverts as an example of how they want their customers to operate: " can't make your mind up?, then try one of our pre-built bet builder options to place your bets". This is shameful. |
|
By:
'bettysboy', I've, but it's opened to interpretation. What the bookies are doing is ott - they know it - and even their Racing Post paid stooges intimated it was to negate future bookies mega fines ie the bookies want to be seen to be doing something effective to counter problem gambling and money laundering. All very well, but is it over-zealous and intrusive? 100% the present AC applied by the bookies are; the bookies have not been mandated to apply AC - the bookies have taken upon themselves ie they jumped the gun; the bookies also executed "their" version of AC.
Do you not think AC is necessary when bookies repeatedly allow their "special" clients to blow £1000s in a short period of time? This lack of "judgement" and greed are irresponsible and sticking 2-fingers to money laundering (ML). But, are these recreational and seasoned horseracing punters eg you or I or high-net-worth owners? Nope. The reigns of Mr Rust (BHA) and Mr MacArthur (GC) and to a lesser extent the Racing Post with their business strategy aligned with bookies have given rise to AC - not horseracing recreational/seasoned punters/owners. To be perfectly honest I'd like to see a total ban on betting adverts (including Gambleaware reminders) and bookies sponsored films/programmes, etc, on mainstream media, mobile and electronic apparatus eg laptop/tablet/etc. The bookies cannot be tasked to determine who and how an individual can or cannot bet, period. |
|
By:
What happens to the bookies profits if they loose the (losing) recreational punters due to this AC?
I don't know what % of their profits are the fellas having a bet with a pint but would they be bothered to compete the AC to continue having the bets? and if I'm to be believe most people claim that the bookies restrict their bets to pennies, the bookies must have millions of user loosing pennies, to account for the vast profits that the bookies report. What does the bookie get out of this? Where is the upside for them, other than a box ticking exercise to satisfy a license requirement |
|
By:
The bookies do not care about horsearcing; their sponsorship of horsearacing on mainstream media is to increase exposure of the casino games (not horseracing). The bookies are stifling horseracing in the UK; the account closures and bet restrictions have already diminished Levy contribution to horseracing prior to AC. Hence the present derisory prize monies.
And, do the bookies care? Not a smidgeon. They are still closing accounts and restricting bets of recreational and seasoned punters including those long term losing ones. The bookies are killing horseracing in the UK. This is a fact! |
|
By:
but leaving horse racing aside, looking at sports betting the same restrictions apply?
So the punters loosing on slots/football/tennis/bingo/poker will have the same restrictions and probably they won't provide the AC documents either. be interesting to see the % of profits coming from this group. As an investor in a bookies plc, id be asking the question of what is the plan to replace this revenue stream. If its just a UK license restriction, what would stop the bookies moving offshore and satelliting into the UK |
|
By:
The bookies have consistently profited between £1bn and 2bn per year from fobt and casino games, if memory serves, loads more than horseracing over the last 15 years at least or since the Labour Party opened up Gambling and allowed fobts with £100 per spin.
But, the problem gambling and fobt addiction have been almost entirely confined to these two platforms, not horseracing unless there was a mystery Terry Ramsden (Mk2) and his friends. As such, why the over-zealousness and intrusive AC on horseracing punters? The bookies' stooge ie Racing Post never one used fobt and casino addicts mega losers as an example to beat AC, always horesracing. Why? Let's have a public debate on live mainstream media to ascertain which party/ies is/are lying the most and being disingenuous. |
|
By:
Many racecourse bookies will take debit cards and some will also take £1000+ bets. The bank won't stop the payment/s but off course you get checks coming in.
|
|
By:
It's been pointed out a dozen times impossible, they want to kill gambling (as we know it). As they want to eventually restructure society based on the social credit system.
You just have to look over the last couple of decades or so, how things that regular working people used to enjoy have been killed off, or in the process of being killed off. Movies, sport, going to the pub, comedy, television. They are coming for your car and your annual holiday. They are coming for your perfectly working heating system. Online forums will be killed off, so we won't even be able to discuss it! |
|
By:
all my personal financial details so I can continue to have a £50 each way bet
go to the racecourse Chris. you can have £50,000 each way no questions asked .... all about protecting the guaranteed casino income. track boys don't have this luxury, so they don't ask questions. |
|
By:
£10 on a horse. where you get the money from ??
£10 on number 23 at the roulette. make it £100 and we'll give you 50 free spins on Rainbow Riches |
|
By:
Cider I do agree there is a bigger picture that most on this forum and in society haven't woken up to. But bread and circuses will continue the latter mainly on tv. Middle class lifestyle to go. And the jabs may have been a test.
|
|
By:
Salami slicing is really effective.
There's two parts to it though. Mostly, people are in absolute oblivion (or denial) about what is happening. But even if the majority woke up, I doubt it could be halted or reversed. |
|
By:
Well I have filled in the survey.
I don't particularly mind them doing credit checks in the background ( though it does sound a bit sinister ). I don't believe that they won't affect credit ratings,but that has no relevance to me. I have said though that I will no longer bet online if I am asked to send my details ( bank statements,savings accounts etc ) to a bookie ffs. I will continue to go racing 10 times or so a year,whilst my health doesn't worsen but I never bet bet more than a tenner on course. Haven't been in a bookies for years so no probs there. |
|
By:
Oct 6, 2023 -- 1:46PM, howard wrote:
Cider I do agree there is a bigger picture that most on this forum and in society haven't woken up to. ---------------------- You could say exactly the same about ... The Gambling Commission - and the Government.  |
|
By:
A couple of things are clearly happening, the books are picking out high profile customers who they know will make plenty of noise on their behalf and they are also using the affordability excuse as a way to get rid of customers that are not wanted.
|
|
By:
Does anyone know that a money transfer eg money into your bank account is seen as a loan but a bank transfer from a credit card to another is not? The former will light up your credit rating score like a searchlight.
I'll never give my financial details to scumbag bookies who are not FCA regulated. My motto is trust the bookies at your peril! |
|
By:
The credit 'score' is irrelevant. It's just marketing. MTs are no obstacle either, if you have an otherwise strong profile. What is a serious negative is using a CC at a cashpoint.
|
|
By:
Get the tinfoil hats out as is always the case on Affordability threads on here, a huge conspiracy including a Government that may not be this time next year etc.
Got a job yet Cider or still working from the Govt paid for bedsit? |
|
By:
Why do people like CagliariG let their 5yo kids get hold of their betfair log in?
Grow up, ffs. |
|
By:
Why don't conspiracy nuts like you have a reasoned debate about the reality of what is actually happening Cider?
|
|
By:
You state that credit checks are purely marketing..........explain?
|
|
By:
What are you claiming, that the GC are so ridiculously stupid that they know absolutely nothing about gambling? That this type of social engineering won't kill off normal gamblers, and sport that relies on it?
If you want to debate it on your terms, you have to assume best intent. I don't. I don't believe for a second that their only motivation is to stop supposed addicts. |
|
By:
Credit scores are marketing. They mean jack shyte. It's only your credit report that gets checked. Individual businesses might have their own internal mechanism for scoring potential customers, but it's not the score that you see.
|
|
By:
Well that was a non answer Cider, try answering the question asked if you are capable?
|
|
By:
Cat or GC got your tongue?
|