You've just described the perfect outcome for the bookies (which Racing mistakenly thinks is also best for them). They want the ability to bet into near 100% books and the ability to trade in and out of positions for no cost to disappear. Their nirvana is bookies ripping 30% out of every single bet placed, no competition and no pressure on margins.hgodden wrote: What a load of crap surely they'd never take 10% from every lay bet on the exchanges, would effectively end trading on racing
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
-
RinTaaramae
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:06 pm
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Racing calls for 'fair return' from betting
BY RACINGPOST.COM STAFF 12:16PM 16 SEP 2010
RACING has introduced a new charter - billed as 'Racing United: Campaign for a Fair Levy' - and will seek the support of the public in a bid to secure the financial future of the sport following an 'unacceptable' fall in its funding.
The initiative - launched jointly by the BHA, the Racecourse Association (RCA) and Horsemen's Group - is aimed to close loopholes in the levysystem that has seen funding for racing drop by more than a third in two years from £115m to £75m in 2010.
Nic Coward, chief executive of the BHA, said on Thursday: "The launch of this public campaign is the latest step in pressing home racing's case, a comprehensive case that is built on rigorous analysis, and which we have been advocatingon behalf of the sport.
"Our objective is to secure what is right for the future of the whole sport, and the campaign is intended to leave no-one in any doubt as to the strength of support for it across the whole of racing and its followers."
Stephen Atkin, the chief executive of the RCA, has also thrown his weight behind the campaign.
He said: "The levy, in its current form, is failing to deliver afair return to horse racing because it has not kept pace with the modern betting market. It can and must be fixed.
"We join together with our fellow stakeholders in the sport in calling the government and the Levy Board to act now to right this wrong."
Anyone wishing to sign the petition can log onto www.racingunited.co.uk
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra ... 68071/top/
BY RACINGPOST.COM STAFF 12:16PM 16 SEP 2010
RACING has introduced a new charter - billed as 'Racing United: Campaign for a Fair Levy' - and will seek the support of the public in a bid to secure the financial future of the sport following an 'unacceptable' fall in its funding.
The initiative - launched jointly by the BHA, the Racecourse Association (RCA) and Horsemen's Group - is aimed to close loopholes in the levysystem that has seen funding for racing drop by more than a third in two years from £115m to £75m in 2010.
Nic Coward, chief executive of the BHA, said on Thursday: "The launch of this public campaign is the latest step in pressing home racing's case, a comprehensive case that is built on rigorous analysis, and which we have been advocatingon behalf of the sport.
"Our objective is to secure what is right for the future of the whole sport, and the campaign is intended to leave no-one in any doubt as to the strength of support for it across the whole of racing and its followers."
Stephen Atkin, the chief executive of the RCA, has also thrown his weight behind the campaign.
He said: "The levy, in its current form, is failing to deliver afair return to horse racing because it has not kept pace with the modern betting market. It can and must be fixed.
"We join together with our fellow stakeholders in the sport in calling the government and the Levy Board to act now to right this wrong."
Anyone wishing to sign the petition can log onto www.racingunited.co.uk
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra ... 68071/top/
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Just seen this on the list of people who have signed it:
Peter Webb, Owner and Breeder
Owning a house and having kids doesn't make you an Owner and Breeder in the horse racing world Peter
Peter Webb, Owner and Breeder
Owning a house and having kids doesn't make you an Owner and Breeder in the horse racing world Peter
Here is what they are actually proposing
"THE RACING UNITED CHARTER: CAMPAIGN FOR A FAIR LEVY
We the undersigned support British Horseracing. Racing contributes £3.4bn to the UK economy, directly and indirectly funds 100,000 jobs, and contributes significantly to the social and cultural life of the nation.
The betting industry enjoys more than £1bn a year in gross win from the right to take bets on British Horseracing. We support a fair return from all areas of the betting industry to Racing.
The Horserace Betting Levy is the current mechanism by which the betting industry is supposed to provide this fair return. Payments to Racing through the Levy have dropped by a third in two years from £115m to just £75m as a result of the majority of the betting industry exploiting loopholes in the system.
We, the undersigned, call upon the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Government to take swift and appropriate action to:
1. Close loopholes in the Levy system by:
a) No longer permitting the offshore betting industry to avoid its Levy obligations
b) Ensuring betting exchanges and their bookmaker (business) users pay a fair commercial return to British Racing
c) Scrapping threshold rules that currently exempt more than 60% of betting shops from paying the full rate of Levy
d) Including payments for customers in Britain placing bets on overseas racing
2. Ensure that Racing’s return from the Levy in 2011 is between £130m and £150m – Racing has built a strong case backed by extensive legal and economic analysis
Racing has been committed, over the past few years, to modernising the Levy to address the loopholes above, but the betting industry has thus far failed to support our efforts. If the betting industry continues to oppose this vital modernisation we are committed to the suitable replacement of the Levy with the creation of a modern market in which betting operators wanting to offer a bet must enter into enforceable contracts for the right to do so."
....................................................
What I want to know is, how exactly are they intending to define exchange 'bookmaker (business)' users? And what kind of levy exactly are they proposing, a turnover based levy, a gross profits levy or a net profits levy? Unless you know something we don't Peter, surely voting for this is like a turkey voting for xmas?!
If they start classifying everyone who pays the PC as a 'business' user then how long will it be before the government starts asking for tax as well? For every £100 made currently we pay 22%, so add to that say 10% levy (as long as we're talking about a net profits levy, a gross levy on lays only would effectively end trading on racing) and tax and you end up banking roughly half what would have made 2 years ago.
"THE RACING UNITED CHARTER: CAMPAIGN FOR A FAIR LEVY
We the undersigned support British Horseracing. Racing contributes £3.4bn to the UK economy, directly and indirectly funds 100,000 jobs, and contributes significantly to the social and cultural life of the nation.
The betting industry enjoys more than £1bn a year in gross win from the right to take bets on British Horseracing. We support a fair return from all areas of the betting industry to Racing.
The Horserace Betting Levy is the current mechanism by which the betting industry is supposed to provide this fair return. Payments to Racing through the Levy have dropped by a third in two years from £115m to just £75m as a result of the majority of the betting industry exploiting loopholes in the system.
We, the undersigned, call upon the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Government to take swift and appropriate action to:
1. Close loopholes in the Levy system by:
a) No longer permitting the offshore betting industry to avoid its Levy obligations
b) Ensuring betting exchanges and their bookmaker (business) users pay a fair commercial return to British Racing
c) Scrapping threshold rules that currently exempt more than 60% of betting shops from paying the full rate of Levy
d) Including payments for customers in Britain placing bets on overseas racing
2. Ensure that Racing’s return from the Levy in 2011 is between £130m and £150m – Racing has built a strong case backed by extensive legal and economic analysis
Racing has been committed, over the past few years, to modernising the Levy to address the loopholes above, but the betting industry has thus far failed to support our efforts. If the betting industry continues to oppose this vital modernisation we are committed to the suitable replacement of the Levy with the creation of a modern market in which betting operators wanting to offer a bet must enter into enforceable contracts for the right to do so."
....................................................
What I want to know is, how exactly are they intending to define exchange 'bookmaker (business)' users? And what kind of levy exactly are they proposing, a turnover based levy, a gross profits levy or a net profits levy? Unless you know something we don't Peter, surely voting for this is like a turkey voting for xmas?!
If they start classifying everyone who pays the PC as a 'business' user then how long will it be before the government starts asking for tax as well? For every £100 made currently we pay 22%, so add to that say 10% levy (as long as we're talking about a net profits levy, a gross levy on lays only would effectively end trading on racing) and tax and you end up banking roughly half what would have made 2 years ago.
Betfair already pay the levy, so as long as all Betfair customers are treated the same way then it wouldn't make sense to impose, in effect, a double levy. If you receive a dividend from a corporation, it has already been taxed so you can't pay tax again on it. You get a dividend credit against other taxes. Browns change of this rule for pensions was a massive tax hit that most people completely missed. But it was the biggest hike and tax on investment ever seen.
If the rules on the levy did change, then people's behavior would change for sure. So it is doubtful if a change would actually yield what they expect. Look at what happened to pensions.
Their best target is the offshore side of things, that is deliberate avoidance. If they succeed in changing UK behavouir or levy funding to the detriment of offshore issues then it most speed up people moving offshore. You can't have that issue outstanding.
If the rules on the levy did change, then people's behavior would change for sure. So it is doubtful if a change would actually yield what they expect. Look at what happened to pensions.
Their best target is the offshore side of things, that is deliberate avoidance. If they succeed in changing UK behavouir or levy funding to the detriment of offshore issues then it most speed up people moving offshore. You can't have that issue outstanding.
Will Hill stick the knife in, while forgetting they offshore their business!
http://www.gamingintelligence.com/busin ... on-betfair
http://www.gamingintelligence.com/busin ... on-betfair
For starters, how could it be logistically implemented?Bet Angel wrote:Will Hill stick the knife in, while forgetting they offshore their business!
http://www.gamingintelligence.com/busin ... on-betfair
Surely they wouldn't start imposing a levy on Joe Bloggs who just fancies laying a few horses?
Secondly, couldn't traders who are classified as bookmakers on Betfair just move to the Channel Islands, or Gibralter like the major bookies?
Thirdly, Betfair is a global community. They couldn't impose a levy on traders based in Italy etc, so what's stopping traders opening a Italian bank account etc
Lastly, can I just confirm the levy applies to Horse Racing bets?
If so, traders will just move to football & tennis won't they?
-
rogerpalmtree
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:56 pm
"Betfair [were] processing more transactions per day last year than all European stock exchanges combined, with some of their clients making many thousands of transactions and data requests on a daily basis."
wtf has the number of data requests got to do with anything!!!! BA makes about 15 a second while refreshing at 200ms but all you are doing is refreshing the market. how is this even remotely relevant to their argument? Or is it, as I suspect, just an attempt to add in something completely irrelivant with the hope that if they make enough irrelivant points it will seem that there is more to their argument than there actually is?
Also, I don't know about percentages but I would imagine there is a fair few traders who had absolutely no interest in horse racing before exchanges came about, (me included), so the idea that every trader is somehow contributing less to racing than they were 10 years ago is a bit wierd since I'd imagine a fair few weren't contributing anything to racing before betfair came about.
wtf has the number of data requests got to do with anything!!!! BA makes about 15 a second while refreshing at 200ms but all you are doing is refreshing the market. how is this even remotely relevant to their argument? Or is it, as I suspect, just an attempt to add in something completely irrelivant with the hope that if they make enough irrelivant points it will seem that there is more to their argument than there actually is?
Also, I don't know about percentages but I would imagine there is a fair few traders who had absolutely no interest in horse racing before exchanges came about, (me included), so the idea that every trader is somehow contributing less to racing than they were 10 years ago is a bit wierd since I'd imagine a fair few weren't contributing anything to racing before betfair came about.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
The problem is that the more people say it the more the uneducated believe it, just like the turnover figure on a BF market means nothing but people trying to argue something claim it actually represents what is being put at risk as they don't understand what it really means and don't want to. If you watched RUK last night even Dave Nevison is starting to believe the number of data requests and bets means that you must be running a business - have a look at my email to them: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2551rogerpalmtree wrote:"Betfair [were] wtf has the number of data requests got to do with anything!!!!
The way the Horserace Betting Levy is determined looks set to change following the announcement that 19 out of 55 Government quangos are to be abolished or reformed.
Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, believes there is no longer any need for any political involvement.
A statement released from the DCMS said: "We plan to remove the role of the secretary of state from determining the Levy scheme to give the body greater independence and help further to reduce Government involvement in horseracing.
"What will we put in its place? That's yet to be decided.
"Ministers will discuss the options with the Levy Board and the Racing and Betting industries with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible.
"An announcement will be made on all this in due course."
Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, believes there is no longer any need for any political involvement.
A statement released from the DCMS said: "We plan to remove the role of the secretary of state from determining the Levy scheme to give the body greater independence and help further to reduce Government involvement in horseracing.
"What will we put in its place? That's yet to be decided.
"Ministers will discuss the options with the Levy Board and the Racing and Betting industries with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible.
"An announcement will be made on all this in due course."
Any idea when we can expect an announcement on the next scheme?Bet Angel wrote:The way the Horserace Betting Levy is determined looks set to change following the announcement that 19 out of 55 Government quangos are to be abolished or reformed.
Jeremy Hunt, the secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, believes there is no longer any need for any political involvement.
A statement released from the DCMS said: "We plan to remove the role of the secretary of state from determining the Levy scheme to give the body greater independence and help further to reduce Government involvement in horseracing.
"What will we put in its place? That's yet to be decided.
"Ministers will discuss the options with the Levy Board and the Racing and Betting industries with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible.
"An announcement will be made on all this in due course."
Just seen this from the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... g-row.html
Betfair's £1bn flotation reignites racing row
The horse-racing industry has proposed that Betfair clients should be pursued through the courts if necessary to force them to make a contribution to their funding of the sport by as much as £24m a year.
Racing's submission to the Horserace Betting Levy Board has coincided with Betfair's announcement last week that it planned a £1bn-plus flotation and evidence that the Inland Revenue is monitoring its clients. The float has reignited the row between racing and Betfair over its contribution to the sport.
In its 50-page submission, the industry claims Betfair's site relies for its liquidity on at least 6,375 users "carrying on a business of receiving or negotiating bets". It argues that they should be categorised as bookmakers – and therefore liable to pay 10pc of their gross profits towards funding the sport.
Racing claims that, on the most conservative analysis, such users should pay at least £6m a year, rising to as much as £24m. Rival bookmaker William Hill claims Betfair short-changes the industry by "at least £30m per annum".
Even the lowest figure would broadly double the funding contribution from Betfair and its clients. The betting exchange paid £6.1m last year – 10pc of its gross profits from the UK commission it takes from matching those backing and laying horses. It also made a £1.25m voluntary contribution partly to reflect revenue from international customers betting on UK racing. Last year, Betfair profits fell to £17.8m from £47.5m pre-tax after a step-up in investment.
In a controversial proposal, the industry recommends the Levy Board uses draconian legal powers – known as "Norwich Pharmacal" disclosure orders – to force Betfair to reveal users who are effectively running a business on its site. The Levy Board, racing said, should then proceed against them to "recover the potential levy liability".
Reinforcing its view that the site is populated by professional bookies, racing highlights a poll by Betfair itself in which 17.7pc of its customers said the reason they bet was to generate "primary income".
Sources close to Betfair hit back, saying the submissions by racing and William Hill were based on "figures plucked out of the air".
Betfair's own submission to the Levy Board stresses that the Treasury examined its client base in 2004 and 2005 and concluded that while "some users do bet in high volume, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... g-row.html
Betfair's £1bn flotation reignites racing row
The horse-racing industry has proposed that Betfair clients should be pursued through the courts if necessary to force them to make a contribution to their funding of the sport by as much as £24m a year.
Racing's submission to the Horserace Betting Levy Board has coincided with Betfair's announcement last week that it planned a £1bn-plus flotation and evidence that the Inland Revenue is monitoring its clients. The float has reignited the row between racing and Betfair over its contribution to the sport.
In its 50-page submission, the industry claims Betfair's site relies for its liquidity on at least 6,375 users "carrying on a business of receiving or negotiating bets". It argues that they should be categorised as bookmakers – and therefore liable to pay 10pc of their gross profits towards funding the sport.
Racing claims that, on the most conservative analysis, such users should pay at least £6m a year, rising to as much as £24m. Rival bookmaker William Hill claims Betfair short-changes the industry by "at least £30m per annum".
Even the lowest figure would broadly double the funding contribution from Betfair and its clients. The betting exchange paid £6.1m last year – 10pc of its gross profits from the UK commission it takes from matching those backing and laying horses. It also made a £1.25m voluntary contribution partly to reflect revenue from international customers betting on UK racing. Last year, Betfair profits fell to £17.8m from £47.5m pre-tax after a step-up in investment.
In a controversial proposal, the industry recommends the Levy Board uses draconian legal powers – known as "Norwich Pharmacal" disclosure orders – to force Betfair to reveal users who are effectively running a business on its site. The Levy Board, racing said, should then proceed against them to "recover the potential levy liability".
Reinforcing its view that the site is populated by professional bookies, racing highlights a poll by Betfair itself in which 17.7pc of its customers said the reason they bet was to generate "primary income".
Sources close to Betfair hit back, saying the submissions by racing and William Hill were based on "figures plucked out of the air".
Betfair's own submission to the Levy Board stresses that the Treasury examined its client base in 2004 and 2005 and concluded that while "some users do bet in high volume, there is not sufficient evidence to characterise these users as running a business, as opposed to merely being high-volume gamblers".
.