New PC charge now up to 60% from 18 July 2011
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Who are you contacting to get these replies Jeff? I have sent an email almost 24 hours ago and still haven't had a reply.
I sent my latest to [email protected] and CCed it to Niall Wass. There's nothing like CCing an email to a director to focus people's minds!andyfuller wrote:Who are you contacting to get these replies Jeff? I have sent an email almost 24 hours ago and still haven't had a reply.
Jeff
Speaking of emails, it can't hurt for people to email John Fingleton, the OFT's Chief Executive - [email protected]
Jeff
Jeff
-
superfrank
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:28 pm
Can someone please answer a couple of questions for me?
Has the 20% level been replaced, i.e. is it just 40-60% now when lifetime profits are above 250k?
Was there a lifetime profits element to the old 20% pc?
Is there any kind of personal allowance before pc becomes payable (other than the deduction for commission paid)?
Thanks.
SF
Has the 20% level been replaced, i.e. is it just 40-60% now when lifetime profits are above 250k?
Was there a lifetime profits element to the old 20% pc?
Is there any kind of personal allowance before pc becomes payable (other than the deduction for commission paid)?
Thanks.
SF
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
Maybe they should have targetted those 70 then rather than hitting some ridiculously low figure of £250K lifetime profits. But somehow I doubt those top 70 will be too affected by the changes.Ferru123 wrote:Betfair have told me the following (in an effort to convince me that it's worth my while learning how to trade, as I'll be able to earn lots of money before the charges will affect me):
"When looking at Betfair's top 70 winners combined from last year, these customers made a larger profit than Betfair."
Maybe their thinking is 'if you can't beat them, join them'...
Jeff
These top traders must be costing BF money/interfering with future revenue streams somehow - how is a mystery. This is not a money generating excercise - just a flushing out of top traders (for what ever reason).
I find it hard to believe that that the relationship between BF and top traders is so one sided though.
BF clearly have their reasons for being "anti trader" - but surely their are opportunities to be developed here.
Its my opinion that BF is too young a company and taking a highly judgmental position regarding traders not taking into account potential future income these guys could generate at a later stage in the exchanges life.
Its the crudeness of the PC which is so poorly thought out. If BF need to generate extra revenue from top traders there are more creative ways of doing it, at little/no cost to BF. Well run companies do this well - make you feel like a "special customer" whist charging a premium.
The risk of being labled the "betting company that takes up to 60% of your winnings" whilst also effectively closing the accounts of your top traders seems shockingly cavalier and short sighted.
Ignore the fact that this only affects certain traders - your average punter has so many other bookies to choose from negative publicity will quickly turn potential punters away.
As a shareholder you would want to hear more convincing arguments for doing this than the ones so far given to traders. I am not saying that they dont have their reasons, but why is everything so cloak and dagger with them?
I recently read that BF have had a lot of problems keeping their top execs and development bosses. Reports suggest the Current boss has also hinted that he wants to leave and return to the US. The Guardian reported that an internal survey apparently suggested that employees felt that there was a lack of direction within the company.
Maybe once BF finds a more stable footing a more positive outlook will be afforded to anyone who puts through 000'000s their exchange --- trader or not.
I find it hard to believe that that the relationship between BF and top traders is so one sided though.
BF clearly have their reasons for being "anti trader" - but surely their are opportunities to be developed here.
Its my opinion that BF is too young a company and taking a highly judgmental position regarding traders not taking into account potential future income these guys could generate at a later stage in the exchanges life.
Its the crudeness of the PC which is so poorly thought out. If BF need to generate extra revenue from top traders there are more creative ways of doing it, at little/no cost to BF. Well run companies do this well - make you feel like a "special customer" whist charging a premium.
The risk of being labled the "betting company that takes up to 60% of your winnings" whilst also effectively closing the accounts of your top traders seems shockingly cavalier and short sighted.
Ignore the fact that this only affects certain traders - your average punter has so many other bookies to choose from negative publicity will quickly turn potential punters away.
As a shareholder you would want to hear more convincing arguments for doing this than the ones so far given to traders. I am not saying that they dont have their reasons, but why is everything so cloak and dagger with them?
I recently read that BF have had a lot of problems keeping their top execs and development bosses. Reports suggest the Current boss has also hinted that he wants to leave and return to the US. The Guardian reported that an internal survey apparently suggested that employees felt that there was a lack of direction within the company.
Maybe once BF finds a more stable footing a more positive outlook will be afforded to anyone who puts through 000'000s their exchange --- trader or not.