I'd like to jump back one final time to look at the new premium charges from a monopoly abuse point of view again. I know that it's something that's been discussed already, and I'm starting this new thread to summarise people's opinions so far and promote further discussion on whether there's anything we can do or whether this is a dead-end.
Jeff originally contacted the Office of Fair Trading (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3894) arguing that BF are abusing their monopolistic position. The OFT response was that they do not hold a monopoly due to competition such as WillHill and Ladbrokes. When Jeff responded to say that BF hold a monopoly in the betting exchange industry and not gambling in general, I got the impression that the OFT understood the potential differentiation however they were not going to investigate the case any further due to their priorities.
I think the key here is "whether sufficient consumers would switch to alternative forms of betting". Professionals clearly can't switch to a bookmaker, and there is not a sufficient exchange competitor yet (if we rule out Betdaq for now). I think OFT would have more reason to investigate further if there were sufficient customers who were NOT able to switch to an alternative (like myself and other PC payers).In this instance, whilst you comment on the lack of viability of rival sites for many professional users, we would still need to determine whether sufficient consumers would switch to alternative forms of betting.
In determining whether we should investigate this matter further, we therefore need to consider whether the issue raised falls within our administrative priorities. In exercising this discretion we assess a complaint by reference to our prioritisation principles.We consider a range of factors, including impact on consumers, strategic significance, risk and resources.
In response to jimrobo's comment:
Betfair is still incorporated in the UK and has headoffices in London so I would have thought OFT would still have some power. Now that charges are up to 60% I think more people would be inclined to stand up to them as a group. I'm sure complaints filed to the OFT are anonymous anyway.all of this thread is pretty much inconsequential. You are dealing with betfair gibraltor not the UK so none of your relevant leglislation you've quoted is applicable.
Not that any of us would want to put our whole income in jeopardy just to try and get 15% less charges. The majority of traders would rather pay 15% of say 100k than 0% of nothing after having our accounts closed by betfair! Sure we moan and complain about it until the cows come home but the bottom line is no one wants to cut off their nose to spite their face!
Euler, you mentioned other things BF could be doing that's anti-competitive. Is there anything you consider worth taking up?
So my question is really do people think it is worth rallying the group (including all of David Llada's contacts on Facebook) and contacting the OFT independently so that they might be pushed into raising our "administrative priorities"?I don't think there is anything the OFT could do about the PC but there are other aspects of Betfair's business where I think they are acting in a manner that could be conceived as being anti competitive.
Or perhaps 500 consumers having to pay PC is not on a large enough scale to get attention.
Cheers,
James