Levy is on profit Jeff, not turnover (though the BHA would like to see it return to a turnover based system.)
I agree that everyone affected should make their opinions known to the levy board. There are many articulate people here and we can debate the possible consequences and right and wrongs here until we're blue in the face but the only way we can attempt to influence the outcome is to make our opinions known to the levy board.
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
Given that the BHA would like to return to a turnover-based system, and given that they are judge, jury and executioner, does that not mean it's likely to happen?hgodden wrote:Levy is on profit Jeff, not turnover (though the BHA would like to see it return to a turnover based system.)
Jeff
Ferru123 wrote:Given that the BHA would like to return to a turnover-based system, and given that they are judge, jury and executioner, does that not mean it's likely to happen?hgodden wrote:Levy is on profit Jeff, not turnover (though the BHA would like to see it return to a turnover based system.)
Jeff
Fortunately they are not the ones who decide how much they get and from whom
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
"Each year, the Bookmakers' Committee formulates proposals for the next Levy Scheme in accordance with the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. They recommend the categories, rates, conditions and definitions of the Scheme for the following year and then forward them to the HBLB for consideration. The HBLB takes into account the funding needs of racing and the bookmakers' capacity to pay levy before any agreement is made. The Bookmakers' Committee prepare a forecast of the amount of on-course and off-course horseracing gross profit, both cash and credit, which is likely to be achieved in the levy year concerned. A Scheme is then prepared for the forthcoming Levy period commencing 1st April.
In the event that agreement of the Scheme cannot be reached by 31 October, the Scheme is automatically referred to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for determination, and their decision is imposed."
From the HBLB website.
If you go to the HBLB website you can read the proposals for the upcoming years Levy and to say the two sides are not in agreement is an understatement! Racing wants nearly double what it gets now and bookmakers want to give a fraction of what they give now
In the event that agreement of the Scheme cannot be reached by 31 October, the Scheme is automatically referred to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for determination, and their decision is imposed."
From the HBLB website.
If you go to the HBLB website you can read the proposals for the upcoming years Levy and to say the two sides are not in agreement is an understatement! Racing wants nearly double what it gets now and bookmakers want to give a fraction of what they give now
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Greg Wood Monday 19th July The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... ers-racing
Eight years on, and the bookies and racing are as far apart as ever
One of the most persuasive lines in the bookmaking industry's submission to the Levy Board last week – which argued for a significant cut in the Levy returned from betting to racing – was the one that suggested the betting and racing industries should "develop a modern relationship as business partners and move away from an adversarial approach", in order to "give them a shared interest in developing their businesses to their mutual benefit". Read it out of context, and you might almost imagine that after nearly half a century of skirmishing, common sense had finally broken out.
But as always, there is a problem. These were the words of Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, when she determined the 41st Levy scheme back in 2002, and switched the basis of the calculation from bookies' turnover to their gross profits. Since racing now had a vested interest in boosting bookies' profits, it seemed that it was now the punters that had most to worry about. Racing would boost betting, and vice versa, creating a virtuous circle for both industries. Yet somehow, between them, racing and the bookies have still managed to part company while 20 lengths clear and in sight of the finishing line.
Racing's own submission to the Levy Board, arguing for a huge increase in the Levy, is also available for inspection on the Board's website. When set beside each other, these two documents show just how much progress has been made since the switch to a profits-based Levy, which is, sadly, none whatsoever.
In fact, there is almost a sense of ritual about the way both sides of the debate go through the same, tired arguments that we have heard so many times before. There is, as always, bluster and self-righteous indignation, while inconvenient facts are simply ignored, and suppositions presented as certainties.
The bookies, for instance, make no mention of the widespread flight offshore to duck their responsibilities, and sometimes struggle to remain consistent from one page to the next. Paragraph 4.17, for instance, suggests that there is "relative independence between different betting products, i.e., the introduction of machines and other betting products do not decrease betting on horseracing". Yet on the same page, Paragraph 4.21 claims that "high costs will inevitably incentivise bookmakers to attempt to direct customers away from British horseracing towards more profitable products". They surely can't have it both ways.
For sheer bravado, though, it is impossible to beat the Horsemen's Group's claim that "the reasonable return from betting in the course of the 50th Levy scheme should be between £130m and £150m". In their submission, they even underline the figures, as if it will somehow increase the likelihood that they will be taken seriously. Government departments are being told to expect cuts of up to 40%, yet racing wants to award itself a 100% rise.
In the current climate, it seems almost embarrassing that racing can advance such a claim, and some of the justifications only make things worse. As ever, there are claims on money from foreign racing, and even virtual racing, as if the penny has yet to drop that virtual horses do not require virtual owners or virtual nosebags. And, of course, wistful comparisons with countries that operate pari-mutuel monopolies, as if that has any relevance to Britain, where there does not seem to be any shortage of horses, owners or racing in the record fixture list.
The current regime at the British Horseracing Authority has claimed in the past that it wants to sell racing as a sport in its own right, while glossing over, if not completely ignoring, its relationship with betting. Having spurned the opportunity offered by the profits-based Levy, these latest claims for a huge increase in Levy payments are starting to smack of desperation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... ers-racing
Eight years on, and the bookies and racing are as far apart as ever
One of the most persuasive lines in the bookmaking industry's submission to the Levy Board last week – which argued for a significant cut in the Levy returned from betting to racing – was the one that suggested the betting and racing industries should "develop a modern relationship as business partners and move away from an adversarial approach", in order to "give them a shared interest in developing their businesses to their mutual benefit". Read it out of context, and you might almost imagine that after nearly half a century of skirmishing, common sense had finally broken out.
But as always, there is a problem. These were the words of Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, when she determined the 41st Levy scheme back in 2002, and switched the basis of the calculation from bookies' turnover to their gross profits. Since racing now had a vested interest in boosting bookies' profits, it seemed that it was now the punters that had most to worry about. Racing would boost betting, and vice versa, creating a virtuous circle for both industries. Yet somehow, between them, racing and the bookies have still managed to part company while 20 lengths clear and in sight of the finishing line.
Racing's own submission to the Levy Board, arguing for a huge increase in the Levy, is also available for inspection on the Board's website. When set beside each other, these two documents show just how much progress has been made since the switch to a profits-based Levy, which is, sadly, none whatsoever.
In fact, there is almost a sense of ritual about the way both sides of the debate go through the same, tired arguments that we have heard so many times before. There is, as always, bluster and self-righteous indignation, while inconvenient facts are simply ignored, and suppositions presented as certainties.
The bookies, for instance, make no mention of the widespread flight offshore to duck their responsibilities, and sometimes struggle to remain consistent from one page to the next. Paragraph 4.17, for instance, suggests that there is "relative independence between different betting products, i.e., the introduction of machines and other betting products do not decrease betting on horseracing". Yet on the same page, Paragraph 4.21 claims that "high costs will inevitably incentivise bookmakers to attempt to direct customers away from British horseracing towards more profitable products". They surely can't have it both ways.
For sheer bravado, though, it is impossible to beat the Horsemen's Group's claim that "the reasonable return from betting in the course of the 50th Levy scheme should be between £130m and £150m". In their submission, they even underline the figures, as if it will somehow increase the likelihood that they will be taken seriously. Government departments are being told to expect cuts of up to 40%, yet racing wants to award itself a 100% rise.
In the current climate, it seems almost embarrassing that racing can advance such a claim, and some of the justifications only make things worse. As ever, there are claims on money from foreign racing, and even virtual racing, as if the penny has yet to drop that virtual horses do not require virtual owners or virtual nosebags. And, of course, wistful comparisons with countries that operate pari-mutuel monopolies, as if that has any relevance to Britain, where there does not seem to be any shortage of horses, owners or racing in the record fixture list.
The current regime at the British Horseracing Authority has claimed in the past that it wants to sell racing as a sport in its own right, while glossing over, if not completely ignoring, its relationship with betting. Having spurned the opportunity offered by the profits-based Levy, these latest claims for a huge increase in Levy payments are starting to smack of desperation.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Think Greyhound racing is as well.Mug wrote:Is racing the only sport that is funded by gambling?
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Interesting blog post about how Ireland are looking to bring in a tax on all online gambling:
http://stephenmaher.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... l#comments
http://stephenmaher.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... l#comments
The article quotes William Hill as saying:
'We currently have 170 unprofitable shops, 50 of which will have their future under review before the end of the year.'
Let's put that into context. William Hill have over 2,300 branches according to their 2009 Annual Report (http://www.investis.com/wmh/investors/r ... ar2009.pdf). This means that over 90% of their branches are profitable or breaking even! And Hills's profit on turnover percentage suggests that their profitable branches more than pay for the unprofitable ones: 'During 2009, we generated a profit of £253.0m from revenue of £997.9m'. (Source: Annual Report 2009)
Their April 2010 Interim Management Report (http://www.williamhillplc.co.uk/wmh/inv ... -04-29.pdf) also paints a rosy picture:
• Group net revenue +1%, operating profit +3%
• William Hill Online growth gained momentum
- New accounts +31%, unique active players +15%
- Strong Sportsbook performance with turnover +51% and net revenue +79%
- Net revenue +25%, operating profit +51%
• Overall Retail turnover showed positive growth
- Turnover +4%
- Machines gross win +9%
- ‘Storm’ roll-out complete
- Maintaining focus on cost control with underlying costs +1%
- OTC gross win -11% against strong comparator in 2009
- Net revenue -4%, operating profit -13%
Jeff
'We currently have 170 unprofitable shops, 50 of which will have their future under review before the end of the year.'
Let's put that into context. William Hill have over 2,300 branches according to their 2009 Annual Report (http://www.investis.com/wmh/investors/r ... ar2009.pdf). This means that over 90% of their branches are profitable or breaking even! And Hills's profit on turnover percentage suggests that their profitable branches more than pay for the unprofitable ones: 'During 2009, we generated a profit of £253.0m from revenue of £997.9m'. (Source: Annual Report 2009)
Their April 2010 Interim Management Report (http://www.williamhillplc.co.uk/wmh/inv ... -04-29.pdf) also paints a rosy picture:
• Group net revenue +1%, operating profit +3%
• William Hill Online growth gained momentum
- New accounts +31%, unique active players +15%
- Strong Sportsbook performance with turnover +51% and net revenue +79%
- Net revenue +25%, operating profit +51%
• Overall Retail turnover showed positive growth
- Turnover +4%
- Machines gross win +9%
- ‘Storm’ roll-out complete
- Maintaining focus on cost control with underlying costs +1%
- OTC gross win -11% against strong comparator in 2009
- Net revenue -4%, operating profit -13%
Jeff
-
Rubik
Looks like the bookies are really out to get the exchanges.
http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/20 ... ndler.html
http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/20 ... ndler.html
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Unbelievable - 10 minute gap then 2 UK races going off at the same time then no UK race for 15 mins!!!
The sport deserves everything it gets (or doesn't get
)!
Edit: Sense prevails of sorts and they delay one meeting by 5 minutes. Who the feck scheduled them both to go off at the same time in the first place?
The sport deserves everything it gets (or doesn't get
)!Edit: Sense prevails of sorts and they delay one meeting by 5 minutes. Who the feck scheduled them both to go off at the same time in the first place?
What a load of crap surely they'd never take 10% from every lay bet on the exchanges, would effectively end trading on racingRubik wrote:Looks like the bookies are really out to get the exchanges.
http://www.sportismadeforbetting.com/20 ... ndler.html