Forums

Irish Sports

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
lustrumm
05 Feb 12 12:26
Joined:
Date Joined: 22 Jan 10
| Topic/replies: 2,601 | Blogger: lustrumm's blog
Surprised there was no thread on this and no coverage at all in the Racing post.

Surely this will not be left to pass without a boycott or two after all that has gone for the last 5 years or so

http://www.irishracing.com/v5newsitem?prt=L&prid=58727

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
By:
never give up
When: 05 Feb 12 18:26
will other bookmakers stop laying off with them now ?
By:
acertaintybeat
When: 05 Feb 12 20:03
Heard today at the races that the court case is near completion or to that effect, didnt hear what the outcome would be though. I'm sure BOH wasnt impressed when they set up beside him last Fri, who did they buy there?
By:
never give up
When: 05 Feb 12 20:20
they bought  a pitch at the start,so that was alaways there pitch but never worked it til now
By:
never give up
When: 05 Feb 12 20:20
always
By:
wildmanfromborneo
When: 05 Feb 12 20:46
Never Give Up appears to be a bookmaker,it figures.
By:
lustrumm
When: 05 Feb 12 20:49
To answer the question for those that are now or don't remember Dundalk chose to ignore the old seniority rule at the new track and to sell new pitches with the Executive keeping the money. Laddies bought one of those.
BOH had a pitch at the old track so although breaking ranks was entitled at some level to operate there. He also had the Betting shop at the old track.
By:
joevalue147
When: 05 Feb 12 20:59
Lustrumm must be a bookmaker.
By:
never give up
When: 05 Feb 12 20:59

Feb 5, 2012 -- 8:03PM, acertaintybeat wrote:


Heard today at the races that the court case is near completion or to that effect, didnt hear what the outcome would be though. I'm sure BOH wasnt impressed when they set up beside him last Fri, who did they buy there?


wont affect any off the books working there as laddies are only there to shorten prices

By:
acertaintybeat
When: 05 Feb 12 21:03
They dont need a pitch there to shorten horses they send a rep to all the meetings!
By:
lustrumm
When: 05 Feb 12 21:30
used to make a book joe but that was over 10 years ago. Just an interested observer now and to be honest I have kind of half lost touch with the Dundalk situation. Reading the link I posted above reminded me of it. It may not even be an issue any more (different times now) but I remember going racing there at the start and getting abused going past the picket. I never once had a bet off a bookie there though.

On balance I would be with the track on this one but the old pitches were worth some compensation and perhaps the old seniority should have had the option to buy the new pitches and then be able to sell to the big firms if they wanted in. That might have worked.

Its a shame they made a mess of what is a good product and I wonder if the ring will ever have worth now. I certainly would want the likes of Darragh Fitzpatrick manipulating prices as his firm do at the AW tracks in the UK. That is the danger now
By:
joevalue147
When: 05 Feb 12 21:38
You say you certainly WOULD want Darragh Fitz manipulating prices so you must be happy out then???
By:
never give up
When: 05 Feb 12 21:54
typo imho
By:
lustrumm
When: 05 Feb 12 22:33
sorry typo and just to reply to an earlier post re Laddies already hedging at the track. Big diff. between walking around on the ground having bets and standing up on a joint. At least the people who have boycotted the place for 5 years now think so anyway.
By:
tom40
When: 06 Feb 12 12:10
not aware of what all the disputes are about but i was there on 11 nov (first time since sept 09) and observed the following

-there were only 6 layers in the ring
-there were hardly any punters betting.. a few fivers and tenners thats it
-i had an iphone with betfair and observed that the layers matched betfair on the first 2 regardless of whether they layed or not and were then totally out of the market on the rest(10/1 on hrses trading 23 on bf etc etc..).. no doubt about it the market was 100% determined by off course betting

conclusions/questions
-why would any punter go to the ring if he had access to bf?
-how could any layer make a profit?
-whats the point?..to return an sp?-could an sp not be returned based on online prices offered by the major layers?

as i live abroad and only go racing onle a year or so i am no espert on the subject but recent on course experiences have been saddening..even at big meetings the ring excitement i rembeber for years back is long gone
at punchestown last april i witnessed from the stands before the off prices shortening from 9/2 to 3/1 without a penny being layed in the ring (i was watching from the stands)..manipulation of sp? high volume of off course money?
By:
yummy
When: 06 Feb 12 12:15
Might be harder now for Ladbrokes to manipulate other rings after this move. Having said that they will probably load it on here and shorten it that way.
  The INBA have taken a stance on this issue for the last five years and I don't see them entertaining Ladbrokes business on course in the future.
By:
Anaglogs Daughter
When: 06 Feb 12 12:20
lustrumm     05 Feb 12 12:26 
Surprised there was no thread on this and no coverage at all in the Racing post.

To be fair to whoever posted it it was mentioned on the Dundalk thread friday night on the horse racing forum
By:
mrcombustible
When: 06 Feb 12 12:45
Does local bookie Frank Finnegan stand at Dundalk?

I used love the old Dundalk, especially the Maytime Festival meeting on a Friday and a Saturday, the McArdle cup Chase and the Sweet Afton hunter chase, that was in the 70s and you would have about 40 bookmakers standing
By:
never give up
When: 06 Feb 12 16:36
no frank doesnt work there
By:
Ballhopper
When: 06 Feb 12 16:45
Don't think seniority had much to do with it to be honest. Wasn't there a "four grand" hello fee or something? It's all a long time ago now. Often heard it said that some bookies regretted the stance being taken and would have paid the four grand,and they thought the dispute would all be sorted out quickly enough.
By:
ReimerpYsatnaf
When: 06 Feb 12 16:49
NGU does Frank not stand in Dundalk at all anymore? Last time i was up there for for the International
By:
never give up
When: 06 Feb 12 16:51
dont know about the dogs pf but he doesnt work the horses there
By:
ReimerpYsatnaf
When: 06 Feb 12 16:54
Ta
By:
GANT007
When: 06 Feb 12 20:24
PF.......International night is different as the bookies from the horseracing earlier that day stay on to take bets........only ever 2 or 3 bookies at the normal dog meetings and they are inside in the bar area.
By:
steinbeck
When: 06 Feb 12 21:11
BALLHOPPER,seniority had everything to do with it,and it was "EIGHT GRAND" for the hello fee,and all bookmakers who are members of the I.N.B.A.that held a SENIORITY in DUNDALK did not regret the stance they took,and would not and did not pay  the "eight grand"and they did not think the dispute would be sorted out quickly.Their is legal proceedings on going and it will be for the judge to decide.Its a crying shame that this state of the art stadium with its top class facilities(except a proper betting market) that was partially funded with tax payers money via H.R.I.,who also broke rules by granting betting permits to certain bookmakers on the day of the opening is left in the state it is, been run for HIGH STREET BOOKMAKERS to rip off the same tax payers with carved up betting shows and manipulated S.P.s.FRANK FINNEGAN goes some nights and works with Jim McGivern.
By:
mincer11
When: 06 Feb 12 21:59
Steinbeck you seem well versed on this subject.There are a few things I cannot figure about this situation though.The racetrack was being built for years so why was the need to leave it until it was about to open to sort out the matter.The old racetrack was closed for in around 10 years so how did the bookmakers think that there old seniorities should be recognised.It was after all a completely new racecourse,an AW one in fact.If the Phoenix Park was to reopen tomorrow would the bookmakers that held seniorities there be entitled to slot in as if nothing ever happened,surely not.Lastly whatever sympathy that the Dundalk bookies may have garnered would have been obliterated by the stance they took in instructing their members not to do business with people who bet in Dundalk .Anybody who didn't comply was put on a list as a person who was to be blackballed along with the Dundalk dozen.They also wasted thousands on a needless legal action which hasn't a hope of ever being successful .All in all the INBA didn't cover themselves in glory in this sorry episode
By:
steinbeck
When: 07 Feb 12 10:52
Mincer the Phoenix Park was closed for few years and then reopened with new owners (i.e. magnier and co),then closed again and sold for building,the previous bookmakers seniorities stood then,and if horse racing returned to the park them same seniorities would still be recognised.Another example is Limerick racecourse closing and building a new racecourse near Patrickswell the old seniorities transferred to the new venue.Their is pitch rules and regulations in place with H.R.I.and A.I.R.and the I.N.B.A.to safe guard the seniorities at all racecourses.Regarding Dundalk their was already an existing seniority list and the new management chose not to recognise it with the help of H.R.I.who had a vested interested, at the last minute trying to strangle more money out of on course bookmakers.On course bookmakers bought and sold seniorities at the old Dundalk and paid registration fees to the racecourse and contributed plenty in pitch fees over the years,yet when the racecourse was closed they got no compensation.The same as TRALEE racecourse was closed as a deal had been done to sell the racecourse for 10 million by the share holders,which has since falling through, the on course bookmakers would not of got recompensed,the only thing on course bookmakers can hope for is tralee to reopen sometime in the future with the existing seniority list.As regarding your blackballing remark, i would not think the I.N.B.A.would instruct its members to take such action,as the bookmakers who bet in Dundalk are members of the I.N.B.A.,i think it was an individual decision by bookmakers who held a seniority at the racecourse and felt he had been robbed of his pitch by the Dundalk dozen as you so call them.
By:
mincer11
When: 07 Feb 12 11:53
Thank you for your reply steinbeck.You seem to be taking the bookies side in this argument which is fair enough if that is where your loyalties lie.Seriously though in this day and age do you honestly think that if Phoenix Park were to reopen then the people who were doing it would want to recognise a seniority list that is more than 25 years out of date.Are bookmakers that naieve to think that people would want to leave in 50 bookmakers for nothing to bet at a spanking new racecourse.Likewise Tralee would be the same,if it ever were to reopen then the consortium that were doing so would hardly want to recognise dated betting lists and not want to profit from new pitch allocations.The situation in Limerick came about because the INBA bluffed the executive at Patrickswell and managed to move the seniorities en block from Greenmount to Patrickswell.Had the pitches been auctioned at the time which they should have been then the racecourse which was, and still is ,being mismanaged would have got at least a seven figure sum for the track.Instead the clowns let all the bookies in for about £400 a head.Somebody who could count to ten wouldnt have made that decision but thats what Patrickswell did all the same.The INBA expected the Dundalk executive to fall for the same trick but sadly for them Martin wasnt as foolish as his Patrickswell counterpart,hence the stand off which they have now lost miserably.Lastly members of the INBA committee most certainly did instruct all their members that they were not to do business with anybody who bet in Dundalk and were left in no doubt to what was going to be the outcome should they choose not to comply.Should the Phoenix Park reopen by the way its going to take Terry Rogers a while to get used to the new computer system wont it.
By:
yummy
When: 07 Feb 12 12:39
Mincer

take this scenario


A man works in a job. The company closes down lets everyone go ..no redundancy... reopens and hires new employees

Is it any different to the bookies at Dundalk who actually paid for their seniorities (their job) and would also have to pay a registration fee for their seniorities to the race course via the HRI
By:
Kelly
When: 07 Feb 12 13:51
Remember that , Mrcombustible .  Those were the days .

From what I have observed , the book percentages at Dundalk are by the bookies , for the bookies .
By:
mincer11
When: 07 Feb 12 14:57
Take this scenario yummy,a business closes down for 10 years or in the case of the phoenix park maybe 25.Somebody comes in to try and get a business going and finds there are 50 employees out the front picketing because they havent got their jobs back.You cannot be serious surely,the people that were trying to get Dundalk up and running couldnt have cared less about the bookmakers at the old racecourse.It was a completely new racecourse an AW one even,had nothing whatsoever to do with the old one.Were the old caterers kept on,parking staff etc,its fairly unlikely so why should bookies have a divine right to stroll in after 10 years as if nothing had changed.
By:
robo
When: 07 Feb 12 15:06
its quite apparent, that mincer has some sort of dislike for the bookmaker profession may be you failed in this field mincer
By:
yummy
When: 07 Feb 12 15:11
mincer

Landlord closes the shopping centre

Reopens and resells all the units after kicking out the existing tenants

no key money
By:
yummy
When: 07 Feb 12 15:11
mincer

Landlord closes the shopping centre

Reopens and resells all the units after kicking out the existing tenants

no key money
By:
yummy
When: 07 Feb 12 15:22
the bookie has paid

for his unit i.e the pitch

to register the leasehold with his landlord i.e pitch registration fee which goes to the racecourse

an annual rent whether he trades or  not  i.e  daily pitch fee which is set at at 5 times the multi

You say that the INBA have lost their case

Wasn't aware that it had reached that stage. Any link to where I can read more about that
By:
yummy
When: 07 Feb 12 15:26
Caterers did not buy the kitchens from which they operated

If they had built and paid for the buildings from which thwy operated, in other words made a capital investment they too would have a divine right to look trade when the racecourse reopened
By:
ambush
When: 07 Feb 12 17:06
right or wrong ,i know that of the two,the bookmakers are more anxious to have their day in court.i think it was more complicated than just having their old pitches back.the pitches were given out on permit numbers.thats why john kelly who as far  as im aware  didnt hold  a full permit(HE HAD ONE FOR PTOPS AND OUTSIDE ENCLOSURES
By:
ambush
When: 07 Feb 12 17:14
sorry ,it only half sent. he bet outside in galway and bellewstown.he had the lowest number permit,so he became the number 1 bookie in the ring.someone will clarify if that is wrong.dont know if he bet at the old dundalk,so a man who worked maybe  8 days a year is no 1 bookie in the ring.good luck to him,
By:
mincer11
When: 07 Feb 12 17:25
The bookmakers are anxious to have a day in court is possibly correct ambush,these would be the same bookmakers who have put thousands and thousands into legal peoples pockets in a bid to get the right to ply their trade in pitches that are now worthless.This would be the same organisation who decided to make that unforgettably generous offer to the affected punters in that Listowel fiasco.Each punter was given 10 euro by the association on top of getting his stake back from HRI,a truly magnanimous gesture and the person who gave that the thumbs up should really take a bow.I know of somebody who had a pitch in Tralee and he's hoping they will build houses on it and maybe the builder will be so kind as to give him a nice 3 bedroom detached as a small measure of compensation for his immeasurable loss.Yummy your example of the landlord isnt applicable here,these premises were closed for 10 years and more and there were seperate entities involved.
By:
ambush
When: 07 Feb 12 17:39
i think at this stage it will be readies that the affected bookies will be after.reading the bookmakers return figures in the form book for dundalk reads grim.dont think many will want their old pitches back if they were offered them.
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com