Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Bookmaker's were part of the problem imo! However that being said Uk racing is totally screwed imo! https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/flutter-chief-calls-for-major-change-and-claims-racing-has-become-unprofitable-for-bookmakers-ac30p8y2TVGX/
Show More
He has a fair point - it must be difficult to make a good profit from something you don't take bets on or promote.
Casino and slots doing ok though? Anyone for Bingo? Free spins on the Mugs of Gold?
Casino and slots doing ok though? Anyone for Bingo? Free spins on the Mugs of Gold?
Exactly if you are only prepared to take 50p bets on horses in 20 odd runner handicaps, how do you hope to ever make any money!
difficult to make a good profit with padi's bot placing all those losing £108 bets ...
just spunked a few more moving the Hun from 23 to 18.59 first beat.
just spunked a few more moving the Hun from 23 to 18.59 first beat.
Racing has no choice but to drop 10/15 least popular tracks.
Effectively making them flapping,point to point tracks.
Introduce minimum rating of 65 ish for the other tracks.
Someone needs to do the maths,thus forcing bigger fields.
It’s pointless screaming Hollywood Cobden,then say come racing to watch 6 class 6 sellers.30quid for 6 ice creams.
If no one is betting on them,then why give them media fees.
Every industry trims its cloth to be more slimline.
Attendance down 25%,betting the same.since 2000,yet new tracks opened and the one that did close Hereford,re opened.
These smaller tracks could then promote their product to match their audience.non league football has its base.
Bookies could still offer betting on these meetings,and pay them a percentage of turnover,not a fixed fee.
If a track does well and constantly increases turnover,promote them back into the main product,and maybe relegate the weakest
This is starting to happen anyway,priemer fixtures,late betting at Chepstow etc.
Because everyone is so nice to everyone,no one wants to deal with the problem of ,too many races,too many meetings,
Bookies were happy to fund it has it helped as back ground noise for the hey day of fobts.but now they won’t.
But core customers end up paying,no best price guaranteed etc,has bookies look to justify media rights
Effectively making them flapping,point to point tracks.
Introduce minimum rating of 65 ish for the other tracks.
Someone needs to do the maths,thus forcing bigger fields.
It’s pointless screaming Hollywood Cobden,then say come racing to watch 6 class 6 sellers.30quid for 6 ice creams.
If no one is betting on them,then why give them media fees.
Every industry trims its cloth to be more slimline.
Attendance down 25%,betting the same.since 2000,yet new tracks opened and the one that did close Hereford,re opened.
These smaller tracks could then promote their product to match their audience.non league football has its base.
Bookies could still offer betting on these meetings,and pay them a percentage of turnover,not a fixed fee.
If a track does well and constantly increases turnover,promote them back into the main product,and maybe relegate the weakest
This is starting to happen anyway,priemer fixtures,late betting at Chepstow etc.
Because everyone is so nice to everyone,no one wants to deal with the problem of ,too many races,too many meetings,
Bookies were happy to fund it has it helped as back ground noise for the hey day of fobts.but now they won’t.
But core customers end up paying,no best price guaranteed etc,has bookies look to justify media rights
A recipe for disaster for the same old reasons. Personal preferences but the people who spend fortunes owning horses rated below 65 are dismissed by all of this and result in thousands of lost jobs. Time for a redistribution of prize money in the sport would help though.
Shops have closed costing jobs,it’s just capitalism.supply and demand.
Open 10 new tracks then for horses rated 25-65 .no worries,flutter will pay.
At which point does someone do the maths.
Some trainers have packed in cos they didn’t have the owners,it’s just evolution economics.
The really keen owners would buy a slightly better horse to get into the full program,and,or still enjoy their day out at the flapping track.
Point to point has its horses,trainers,owners etc,there’s no difference,it’s where the line is drawn.
If the top end is struggling trim the industry.
It’s all the premier league footy did,even tried again with European super league.
Everyone accepts,not enough horses,too many races,now the bookies are pushing back,even though it was them who wanted a race every 5 mins.
This is the fall out of fobt 2quid stake limit.
Open 10 new tracks then for horses rated 25-65 .no worries,flutter will pay.
At which point does someone do the maths.
Some trainers have packed in cos they didn’t have the owners,it’s just evolution economics.
The really keen owners would buy a slightly better horse to get into the full program,and,or still enjoy their day out at the flapping track.
Point to point has its horses,trainers,owners etc,there’s no difference,it’s where the line is drawn.
If the top end is struggling trim the industry.
It’s all the premier league footy did,even tried again with European super league.
Everyone accepts,not enough horses,too many races,now the bookies are pushing back,even though it was them who wanted a race every 5 mins.
This is the fall out of fobt 2quid stake limit.
If the big bookies (now greedy to the point of being obscene) ran bus or train companies, we'd have a load of transport in the rush hours, but then nothing in the off-peak times!
If the big outfits have to break even or lose money on the low grade stuff, tough luck. They make plenty on the big meetings with large fields and impossible to find winners.
But too many clever-dick pundits - and fantasist punters - think the answer is large fields with an outrageous over-round.
Why do bookies sponsor so many big field handicaps? Because of the over-rounds and because winner-finding is much harder.
Remember, a 5/2 (for example) winner in a field of 8 at a small track is exactly the same profit for a backer as a 5/2 winner in a field of 16 at a big gaff!
I just wish punters would keep records of their betting, analyse them, and then be realistic about where they make any money - or where they lose the least. In neither case will it be the big field handicaps so loved by the bookies.
If the big outfits have to break even or lose money on the low grade stuff, tough luck. They make plenty on the big meetings with large fields and impossible to find winners.
But too many clever-dick pundits - and fantasist punters - think the answer is large fields with an outrageous over-round.
Why do bookies sponsor so many big field handicaps? Because of the over-rounds and because winner-finding is much harder.
Remember, a 5/2 (for example) winner in a field of 8 at a small track is exactly the same profit for a backer as a 5/2 winner in a field of 16 at a big gaff!
I just wish punters would keep records of their betting, analyse them, and then be realistic about where they make any money - or where they lose the least. In neither case will it be the big field handicaps so loved by the bookies.
Whether you like the man or not I recall Barry Hearn being asked once how he would lmprove racing and his answer was a lot of racings problems were caused because of all the independent body's wanting a slice of the pie.
It quite true what Management says nobody can get on number reasons + restrictions = disaster cityville. My account with C is a classic example if you've lost that's not lost as lost more how much you have had on and withdrawn and ante post so don't do that anymore chunky AP bet means no money left almost immediately then their reminders which cheese me off just so much your limit is up stuff done your dosh for the month you have to wait for the 1st and the reset I just think that's that then cannot be arsed to even look now so you forget about them. How many more are doing that or similar? All needs a rethink be nobody left soon except the slot players. I've stopped a lot of recreational betting £50 on footie match for an interest just cannot be bothered now try and keep out of shops many are like homeless shelters now.
Why do bookies sponsor so many big field handicaps? Because of the over-rounds and because winner-finding is much harder. Bingo!
Can't see the problem regards field sizes, if you like betting in big handicaps ( which some do ) or if you prefer smaller fields either way the choice is yours.
We say that horse racing is struggling as an industry.? I don't believe a word of that. I'm convinced, its shareholders pushing media streams to gain traction for more profits. The BIG meetings will always cover racings finances, hundreds of millions are bet.
I understand prize money etc is poor in low grade racing, but that's because it's low grade. (I like low grade and top grade racing by the way) We still have plenty of owners shelling out hundreds of thousands for horses that will probably return to be a low grade handicapper.
We are also the 2nd best attended sport in the country, it's not where it once was crowd wise, but society has changed as regards of what to do with its time and money. Plus cost of living crisis and a global recession we are in, that is why attendances and betting turnover is down.
I understand prize money etc is poor in low grade racing, but that's because it's low grade. (I like low grade and top grade racing by the way) We still have plenty of owners shelling out hundreds of thousands for horses that will probably return to be a low grade handicapper.
We are also the 2nd best attended sport in the country, it's not where it once was crowd wise, but society has changed as regards of what to do with its time and money. Plus cost of living crisis and a global recession we are in, that is why attendances and betting turnover is down.
I am in a position where I could in theory afford to go racing every day but not to stay in an hotel every night.
There are 10 courses within driving distance for me and if there was a cull only Doncaster and York would DEFINITELY survive. As I avoid the big meetings at both of those my attendance at race meetings would go from perhaps 20 times a year to 5 at the most.
There are 10 courses within driving distance for me and if there was a cull only Doncaster and York would DEFINITELY survive. As I avoid the big meetings at both of those my attendance at race meetings would go from perhaps 20 times a year to 5 at the most.
Also the age of the punter, does anyone under 40 follow the sport outside a good p1ss up at Cheltenham or RA and during the summer music festivals.
Can't see the 20 somethings having much interest in betting on the 2.10 at Beverley when they have a full football program to bet on.
Get rid of a few tracks and get some houses on them, Kempton or Sandown can't be far off
Can't see the 20 somethings having much interest in betting on the 2.10 at Beverley when they have a full football program to bet on.
Get rid of a few tracks and get some houses on them, Kempton or Sandown can't be far off
All of the racing industry if looking could see there was a problem brewing ages ago.
About 15 years ago there was a big push to promote all weather meetings especially on evenings so bookies had an excuse to keep their doors open as they had the FOBTS which had the roulette wheels etc in places casinos wouldn't get a licence. Also the reason you would see the same bookmaker set up another shop quite close by, as they were limited to FOBTs per shop / space.
If you actually went to one of those race meetings it was blatantly obvious that they were being run at a massive loss if they were being run on attendance. Sometimes I would say there was probably less than 20 people there that were not working at the course or connected to horses. I assume these were just propped up by the bookies through financial incentives whether to the course or BHA.
As Glasgow has mentioned the different bodies have a history of arguing over their share of the pie, and not necessarily what was good for racing and the long term interest of the sport. They are only starting to wake up as that once big pie, is now coming out of the oven a lot smaller, yet they are all still as hungry!
If the bookies are truly going to reduce the funding further, at what stage will horseracing have to look at reintroducing a TOTE system, and look after itself rather than rely on the goodwill of the bookies.
About 15 years ago there was a big push to promote all weather meetings especially on evenings so bookies had an excuse to keep their doors open as they had the FOBTS which had the roulette wheels etc in places casinos wouldn't get a licence. Also the reason you would see the same bookmaker set up another shop quite close by, as they were limited to FOBTs per shop / space.
If you actually went to one of those race meetings it was blatantly obvious that they were being run at a massive loss if they were being run on attendance. Sometimes I would say there was probably less than 20 people there that were not working at the course or connected to horses. I assume these were just propped up by the bookies through financial incentives whether to the course or BHA.
As Glasgow has mentioned the different bodies have a history of arguing over their share of the pie, and not necessarily what was good for racing and the long term interest of the sport. They are only starting to wake up as that once big pie, is now coming out of the oven a lot smaller, yet they are all still as hungry!
If the bookies are truly going to reduce the funding further, at what stage will horseracing have to look at reintroducing a TOTE system, and look after itself rather than rely on the goodwill of the bookies.
If the bookies walked away from Racing it would be game-over. There is no way the industry could be supported by the takeout on a Tote alone.
Funny how many comments over the years on here or in press saying that punters shouldn’t be considered as “they dont pay the bills” however this is reminder that they are crucial
Longbridge, I think a lot of this talk lately is scaremongering. The big giants are not walking away from racing anytime soon. And there is a reason why. Cheltenham and Ascot and the Grand National do produce many new punters that then go onto slots and other betting products.
No chance they leave racing in the next 20 years imo.
No chance they leave racing in the next 20 years imo.
I take your point Trident - but I think the "cost of acquisition" of a "punter" is ever decreasing for them with the internet, social media, barely regulated adverting, etc.
For sure racing was the original "gateway" to suck people in and "upsell" them - but I think media/technology now, means they don't need a gateway at all - they can attract the people they want directly to where they want them to be - i.e. slots and casino. No expensive and labour intensive "gateway" is required.
For sure racing was the original "gateway" to suck people in and "upsell" them - but I think media/technology now, means they don't need a gateway at all - they can attract the people they want directly to where they want them to be - i.e. slots and casino. No expensive and labour intensive "gateway" is required.
Jul 23, 2024 -- 1:34PM, The Management wrote:
I take your point Trident - but I think the "cost of acquisition" of a "punter" is ever decreasing for them with the internet, social media, barely regulated adverting, etc. For sure racing was the original "gateway" to suck people in and "upsell" them - but I think media/technology now, means they don't need a gateway at all - they can attract the people they want directly to where they want them to be - i.e. slots and casino. No expensive and labour intensive "gateway" is required.
Cost of acquisition" of a "punter" is ever decreasing for them. I'm sure you're right about that The Management. One of the things wrong with racing for me is the racecourses are taking all the profits. But that Golden Goose is soon coming down, I've heard!
I posted in error on the other/similar thread - but in terms of "cost of acquisition":
They are no longer interested in a target audience that consisted of almost entirely middle aged/old men and had very limited hours of play - they can now go after every demographic (including women and young people), absolutely all of the time (24/7).
Horse Racing is not required and as a "gateway" is no longer part of the business plan or operating model.
They are no longer interested in a target audience that consisted of almost entirely middle aged/old men and had very limited hours of play - they can now go after every demographic (including women and young people), absolutely all of the time (24/7).
Horse Racing is not required and as a "gateway" is no longer part of the business plan or operating model.
Jul 23, 2024 -- 1:50PM, The Management wrote:
I posted in error on the other/similar thread - but in terms of "cost of acquisition":They are no longer interested in a target audience that consisted of almost entirely middle aged/old men and had very limited hours of play - they can now go after every demographic (including women and young people), absolutely all of the time (24/7).Horse Racing is not required and as a "gateway" is no longer part of the business plan or operating model.
Interesting thank you.
longbridge • July 23, 2024 1:10 PM BST
If the bookies walked away from Racing it would be game-over. There is no way the industry could be supported by the takeout on a Tote alone.
Agree, but unless the government is going to step in and regulate online gambling more, which could bring more punters to horse betting or football in the bookies. As well if you continue to see the bookies closing the accounts of the informed successful horse racing punter that is winning but has a genuine interest in the sport, and this is combined with 'horse racing in decline' and bookies reducing their share of payments you are going to create a vicious spiral.
At least if they had some sort of PMU like France or TAB like Australia the sport would have a mechanism to make sure a % of betting was reintroduced into the sport. Also as well you would give punters another way to get a bet on if they are being knocked back by the bookies.
It seems quite clear the bookmakers are looking at reducing their funding to the sport, if the people in charge of horse racing think they are bluffing as a negotiating tactic then time will tell.
Several posters have already mentioned ways to streamline the product which probably seems likely.
If the bookies walked away from Racing it would be game-over. There is no way the industry could be supported by the takeout on a Tote alone.
Agree, but unless the government is going to step in and regulate online gambling more, which could bring more punters to horse betting or football in the bookies. As well if you continue to see the bookies closing the accounts of the informed successful horse racing punter that is winning but has a genuine interest in the sport, and this is combined with 'horse racing in decline' and bookies reducing their share of payments you are going to create a vicious spiral.
At least if they had some sort of PMU like France or TAB like Australia the sport would have a mechanism to make sure a % of betting was reintroduced into the sport. Also as well you would give punters another way to get a bet on if they are being knocked back by the bookies.
It seems quite clear the bookmakers are looking at reducing their funding to the sport, if the people in charge of horse racing think they are bluffing as a negotiating tactic then time will tell.
Several posters have already mentioned ways to streamline the product which probably seems likely.
punters can bet here if they are knocked back by the bookies....the real problem is people aren't interested in betting on horseracing bookies or tote. Make it all PMU and you lose more punters. Only solution is give much less money to the smaller tracks running the low class races.
Bookies might be moaning.
Reuben Brothers wallowing in it.
Reuben Brothers wallowing in it.
Management you are so right. Years ago the people i knew who got into slots/casino all got there through horse racing. Now i see younger people in the pubs playing slots on bookmaker apps and if i ask them if they like a punts on the horses the vast majority say no.
A lot of the younger people I know 21/24 only rarely bet at the Cheltenham Festival on the the bus trip and only bet on football.
They have no interest in slot machines, casino games or horse racing.
Walked past the 2 bookies in town quite regularly and usually 1 person in either and sometimes no one and that includes a Saturday.
They have no interest in slot machines, casino games or horse racing.
Walked past the 2 bookies in town quite regularly and usually 1 person in either and sometimes no one and that includes a Saturday.
Was at a track last week and while watching the horses circle the paddock there was a bloke next to me (would say mid thirties) on his phone playing the slots.
Then let Skybet and PP stop taking bets on all racing, if its not profitable for them.
They wont be missed.
They wont be missed.
As long as we have the exchange then why worry about bookmakers?
When i started work in the city in 1979, the people who all stuck together and got on, were those who all liked a bet on the horses,
45 years later we are all still best mates and enjoy racing, i ended up owning 2 betting shops and had shares in on course pitches.
My mates have gradually shied away from Racing as they've had restrictions and closure of accounts, none are arbers, some wouldn't know what it means.
After i sold my shops, my Saturdays and big midweek meetings were obsessed with buying the Racing post for about £1.50, looking at the price grid and working out where my lucky 15 would win more on the Guaranteed prices of which ever bookie returned more.
I'd be driving from one shop for one Lucky 15 and to another for another multiple, as they held the prices to 9.30 or 10am. Then they stopped the Guaranteed prices,
So i went online and used firms which Held there prices, then i got restricted or closed, some after 1 losing multiple.
So i got disillusioned. I stopped ordering the Racing Post every day, then Only on Saturdays, then i cancelled it altogether when it went over £4,
Now i hardly bet on multiples which was my favourite bet as i can't get on, even BF Multiples restrict me to 6p if i'm lucky.
SO GUESS WHAT.....I spend Saturdays and big Midweek meetings either going fishing or walking round a fete or going to watch my local non league team play.
AND THE FUNNY THING IS I DON'T MISS IT.
And that's what the Bookies should be worried about, the likes of me and my mates not bothering.
Because i tell you now, My son and his mates and many others in there early 20s are not bothering with horses after the stories we tell them
about restrictions and closures. They'll have a bet on the football for a fiver or tenner and that's it.
My son and his mates love the idea of going racing and having a day out, but after the second time they stopped going.
£30 to get in, £7.50 a pint, £15 for small fish and chips in a piece of cardboard and another £30 to get there.
My boy said, they spent £120 each before they had a bet. So that's not on the agenda any more.
Shame really, the bookmakers want EVERYONE TO LOSE, Anybody who breaks even is restricted.
If they have 10,000 punters and 9,999 lose and one wins, he'll be closed down. PURE GREED.
45 years later we are all still best mates and enjoy racing, i ended up owning 2 betting shops and had shares in on course pitches.
My mates have gradually shied away from Racing as they've had restrictions and closure of accounts, none are arbers, some wouldn't know what it means.
After i sold my shops, my Saturdays and big midweek meetings were obsessed with buying the Racing post for about £1.50, looking at the price grid and working out where my lucky 15 would win more on the Guaranteed prices of which ever bookie returned more.
I'd be driving from one shop for one Lucky 15 and to another for another multiple, as they held the prices to 9.30 or 10am. Then they stopped the Guaranteed prices,
So i went online and used firms which Held there prices, then i got restricted or closed, some after 1 losing multiple.
So i got disillusioned. I stopped ordering the Racing Post every day, then Only on Saturdays, then i cancelled it altogether when it went over £4,
Now i hardly bet on multiples which was my favourite bet as i can't get on, even BF Multiples restrict me to 6p if i'm lucky.
SO GUESS WHAT.....I spend Saturdays and big Midweek meetings either going fishing or walking round a fete or going to watch my local non league team play.
AND THE FUNNY THING IS I DON'T MISS IT.
And that's what the Bookies should be worried about, the likes of me and my mates not bothering.
Because i tell you now, My son and his mates and many others in there early 20s are not bothering with horses after the stories we tell them
about restrictions and closures. They'll have a bet on the football for a fiver or tenner and that's it.
My son and his mates love the idea of going racing and having a day out, but after the second time they stopped going.
£30 to get in, £7.50 a pint, £15 for small fish and chips in a piece of cardboard and another £30 to get there.
My boy said, they spent £120 each before they had a bet. So that's not on the agenda any more.
Shame really, the bookmakers want EVERYONE TO LOSE, Anybody who breaks even is restricted.
If they have 10,000 punters and 9,999 lose and one wins, he'll be closed down. PURE GREED.
Paddy and sky will not take a bet from me in fact I can only bet with one bookmaker online who will give me BOG
A betting company which is not taking horseracing bets is squealing horseracing is a loss-leader what else can they expect? Imagine a fish and chip shop sells only fish but not chips because there is no profit in chips.
Or a bus company only operates routes that are profitable at certain times but does not operate other times. Similarly, train companies.
The transport regulator will tell these picky transport companies to sling their hook ie sod-off and return their franchises.
Why does the betting/gaming regulator not do that with bookies? There are far too many bookies and insufficient customers, according to Flutter. If so, those that do not want horseracing bets can apply for a licence to trade other betting alternatives eg slots, football, blackjack, etc.
How difficult is the above? Not the slightest, I'll say.
Or a bus company only operates routes that are profitable at certain times but does not operate other times. Similarly, train companies.
The transport regulator will tell these picky transport companies to sling their hook ie sod-off and return their franchises.
Why does the betting/gaming regulator not do that with bookies? There are far too many bookies and insufficient customers, according to Flutter. If so, those that do not want horseracing bets can apply for a licence to trade other betting alternatives eg slots, football, blackjack, etc.
How difficult is the above? Not the slightest, I'll say.
The bookies must know the stats,if they’re anaylising them enough.
They ll know from new accounts ,age of customer,then what they bet on,plus what they drift into betting on.
Football is now the gateway drug,then some drift into racing,add in stag do type racegoer.
Not many 18 yr olds open an account to bet on racing,unlike 30 years ago,when that was the only thing to bet on,not even sure if they bet on footy in the 1980s.
And the only reason 18 yr olds got involved was cos,they could leagally enter a shop,like buying a pint.
They ll know from new accounts ,age of customer,then what they bet on,plus what they drift into betting on.
Football is now the gateway drug,then some drift into racing,add in stag do type racegoer.
Not many 18 yr olds open an account to bet on racing,unlike 30 years ago,when that was the only thing to bet on,not even sure if they bet on footy in the 1980s.
And the only reason 18 yr olds got involved was cos,they could leagally enter a shop,like buying a pint.
"Football is now the gateway drug, then some drift into racing, add in stag do type racegoer"
If so, just exclude themselves from horseracing. Let their other counterparts take horseracing bets. I'm very sure there are bookies ready and willing eg The Exchange and possibly newcomers probably from overseas eg Australia.
If so, just exclude themselves from horseracing. Let their other counterparts take horseracing bets. I'm very sure there are bookies ready and willing eg The Exchange and possibly newcomers probably from overseas eg Australia.
I'm with comingupthehill.
Young people bet on football because they know football, they're enthusiastic about it, they follow it, long before they could bet on it.
How many people who bet on racing had any interest in horses before they found it as a betting medium? And found it as a betting medium because it was the only show in town?
As for restricting accounts - if Flutter (etc) are genuinely not making money on racing betting, how would they make more by taking any/more/bigger bets from winning racing punters?
Young people bet on football because they know football, they're enthusiastic about it, they follow it, long before they could bet on it.
How many people who bet on racing had any interest in horses before they found it as a betting medium? And found it as a betting medium because it was the only show in town?
As for restricting accounts - if Flutter (etc) are genuinely not making money on racing betting, how would they make more by taking any/more/bigger bets from winning racing punters?
Betting on horses for 50 years. I would never have persevered unless I thought I could beat the bookies. I'm back to where I was 40 years ago, except then I had to contend with 4% course and 9% shop- tax.
What that means is that the bookies are now taking the percentages in between. How is it acceptable that bookies work on a % per runner model? Then flood the mkt with the highest % races?
I was lucky enough to get a second chance with 365.**
Honestly, if it was not for the bumper profits it generates in the Orient facilitating their great offers on domestic racing, I would probably give up:- I'm not that good and I don't find it that interesting; and have no interest in losing.
What that means is that the bookies are now taking the percentages in between. How is it acceptable that bookies work on a % per runner model? Then flood the mkt with the highest % races?
I was lucky enough to get a second chance with 365.**
Honestly, if it was not for the bumper profits it generates in the Orient facilitating their great offers on domestic racing, I would probably give up:- I'm not that good and I don't find it that interesting; and have no interest in losing.
It would be interesting to compare prices for the same races 40 years ago and now (for similar field sizes) and see if the market overround % has indeed increased.
But - to play devil's advocate - the bookies are being taxed to replace the tax the punter used to pay, so it shouldn't be surprising if it comes out the same in the wash?
But - to play devil's advocate - the bookies are being taxed to replace the tax the punter used to pay, so it shouldn't be surprising if it comes out the same in the wash?
Minimum bet limits were a saviour for many Australian punters. Faced with a situation where bookmakers simply refused to let them on if they had a successful record, they were suddenly free to bet (to the specified limit, anyway) and bookmakers had to accept.
Minimum bet limits for racing are implemented by racing authorities, and are therefore state-based. In Australia, if bookmakers wish to take bets on racing, they are required to sign agreements with racing authorities. Minimum bet limits have been implemented as part of these agreements.
As a result, these limits aren’t uniform across all racing nationally.
Minimum bet limits here would sort out the gangster outfits who are simply opening up under the guise of being a bookmaker, then refusing to take any sports bets .... but you're free to play the slots. So basically operating as an online casino with a bookmakers licence.
Minimum bet limits for racing are implemented by racing authorities, and are therefore state-based. In Australia, if bookmakers wish to take bets on racing, they are required to sign agreements with racing authorities. Minimum bet limits have been implemented as part of these agreements.
As a result, these limits aren’t uniform across all racing nationally.
Minimum bet limits here would sort out the gangster outfits who are simply opening up under the guise of being a bookmaker, then refusing to take any sports bets .... but you're free to play the slots. So basically operating as an online casino with a bookmakers licence.
Flutter are just posturing has media rights due up for renewal.
When they say make nowt from racing.
They could mean,our overheads are 100 million,and we only make 100 million from racing ,so we break even,but they don’t include all footy,sports bets,they are lumping all their overheads onto racing,even though they only take 30/40% of their trade from racing.
Think the over round arguement is irrelevant,,crowds like big hcps,so why not let bookies sponsor them.
The tax is irrelevant,they only pay it on profits,so if breaking even they pay no tax,if they make 50 million,they could just give Barry Orr a 50 million bonus,to avoid tax.
The thread is,major change needed by flutter,what change do they want,why not tell us..basically just want to pay less media right by the look of it.
Like I said posturing.
When they say make nowt from racing.
They could mean,our overheads are 100 million,and we only make 100 million from racing ,so we break even,but they don’t include all footy,sports bets,they are lumping all their overheads onto racing,even though they only take 30/40% of their trade from racing.
Think the over round arguement is irrelevant,,crowds like big hcps,so why not let bookies sponsor them.
The tax is irrelevant,they only pay it on profits,so if breaking even they pay no tax,if they make 50 million,they could just give Barry Orr a 50 million bonus,to avoid tax.
The thread is,major change needed by flutter,what change do they want,why not tell us..basically just want to pay less media right by the look of it.
Like I said posturing.
Jul 23, 2024 -- 7:04PM, hulk23 wrote:
Minimum bet limits were a saviour for many Australian punters. Faced with a situation where bookmakers simply refused to let them on if they had a successful record, they were suddenly free to bet (to the specified limit, anyway) and bookmakers had to accept.Minimum bet limits for racing are implemented by racing authorities, and are therefore state-based. In Australia, if bookmakers wish to take bets on racing, they are required to sign agreements with racing authorities. Minimum bet limits have been implemented as part of these agreements.As a result, these limits aren’t uniform across all racing nationally. Minimum bet limits here would sort out the gangster outfits who are simply opening up under the guise of being a bookmaker, then refusing to take any sports bets .... but you're free to play the slots.
On the Flutter "we make nothing from Racing" thing.
I had a look at their 2023 Annual Report online. Their total UK and Ireland revenue from Sportsbook and "other" (which I guess is Exchange) excluding "iGaming" is about £1.2bn.
I think it's fair to assume half of that is Football? So ~£600m to share out between Racing, Cricket, Tennis, Golf etc.
That feels of the right order of magnitude for £140m in Levy, sponsorship and other Racing costs to wipe out the profit on that?
I had a look at their 2023 Annual Report online. Their total UK and Ireland revenue from Sportsbook and "other" (which I guess is Exchange) excluding "iGaming" is about £1.2bn.
I think it's fair to assume half of that is Football? So ~£600m to share out between Racing, Cricket, Tennis, Golf etc.
That feels of the right order of magnitude for £140m in Levy, sponsorship and other Racing costs to wipe out the profit on that?
No, longbridge, more money bet on football etc but better margin on horseracing.
No horseracing, no betfair.
No horseracing, no betfair.
Maybe..but you’ll never see the books.
Imagine flutter says,we now don’t take bets on racing,but lump on the footy.
A bacon butty shop,might break even on its bacon buttys,but rake it in on their egg buttys.
Racing covers their core overheads,so it’s their bread and butty(pardon the pun).plus racing punters drift into over sports.
But the main reason is,how possibly could they advertise they re a bookie,but don’t bet on horse racing,a bit embarrassing.
Imagine flutter says,we now don’t take bets on racing,but lump on the footy.
A bacon butty shop,might break even on its bacon buttys,but rake it in on their egg buttys.
Racing covers their core overheads,so it’s their bread and butty(pardon the pun).plus racing punters drift into over sports.
But the main reason is,how possibly could they advertise they re a bookie,but don’t bet on horse racing,a bit embarrassing.
Bookies cannot pick and choose what bets they'd like to accept. Other industry providers eg retail, transport, energy, etc, do not, why bookies?
If the kitchen is too hot, just get out, bookies. And, stop whinging. Your service is not a necessity or an incentive. As such, leave if you so choose. You're no great loss. Alternatives aplenty.
If the kitchen is too hot, just get out, bookies. And, stop whinging. Your service is not a necessity or an incentive. As such, leave if you so choose. You're no great loss. Alternatives aplenty.
They're only after addicted slot addicts these days. They don't want punters backing their judgement on live sports. Win or lose. They want you to lose your money THEIR way not YOUR way..
But they can only attract these punters from their customer base,so they have to offer racing,even if it’s a loss leader,which is laughable,to attract them.
Their other problem is,
They have a lot of vip punters,who bet a lot.which they can afford to lose.so they re scared of not offering odds in a class 6 seller in case one of these punters wants a bet on it,otherwise he might go elsewhere.
Can’t really say to him,unlucky this week at chelt mate,only 100k down ,then say sorry got no odds on the seller at sedgfield tonight cos we don’t make any money on these races.
Their other problem is,
They have a lot of vip punters,who bet a lot.which they can afford to lose.so they re scared of not offering odds in a class 6 seller in case one of these punters wants a bet on it,otherwise he might go elsewhere.
Can’t really say to him,unlucky this week at chelt mate,only 100k down ,then say sorry got no odds on the seller at sedgfield tonight cos we don’t make any money on these races.
dambuster has hit the nail on the head.
Bookies churning through the punters and binning any they think might cost them a few quid, this is obvious with account closures and restrictions. This in turn is turning a lot of people who genuinely like horse racing away from the sport along with high costs at the course.
Same will happen with horseracing levy / sponsorship, they're a business and if racing is blowing them money and not drawing in additional revenue and punters they will continue dropping their input.
If the BHA / horseracing decision makers are relying on the bookies to be kind hearted and keep pumping it in they are in for a rough ride.
Bookies churning through the punters and binning any they think might cost them a few quid, this is obvious with account closures and restrictions. This in turn is turning a lot of people who genuinely like horse racing away from the sport along with high costs at the course.
Same will happen with horseracing levy / sponsorship, they're a business and if racing is blowing them money and not drawing in additional revenue and punters they will continue dropping their input.
If the BHA / horseracing decision makers are relying on the bookies to be kind hearted and keep pumping it in they are in for a rough ride.
unitedbiscuits
Betfair haven't broken out their sport-by-sport revenue since forever - in 2011 they said Football revenue had overtaken Racing, but that was in the Exchange-only days.
I thought - but don't know for sure - that Football was higher-margin for sportsbooks than Racing due to the growth of "same game multis" and the like?
Betfair haven't broken out their sport-by-sport revenue since forever - in 2011 they said Football revenue had overtaken Racing, but that was in the Exchange-only days.
I thought - but don't know for sure - that Football was higher-margin for sportsbooks than Racing due to the growth of "same game multis" and the like?
"Yes transfer money from Wolverhampton to Ascot." That's the way it's going sparrow right or wrong. Fred Done said 2 weeks ago racecourses will go. Racecourses have all been in the same league. That will change. But the good news is when the smaller tracks get less money and "drop out " they may be able to race when they want to.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539