I know what you mean, Jeff, it would indeed seem to be unlikely... but at the same time, in theory the Board should be much less married to the decisions of the executive management than members of the executive management themselves. Because one would think that the "brilliant" idea originated within the executive management and was simply approved by the Board. Very difficult to get someone to reverse course on an idea they initiated, but somewhat less difficult to get someone to reverse course on a decision they simply didn't block. Especially when the originator/promoter of said idea is no longer there to defend it.Possibly, but that assumes that the board might choose to appoint someone who's said at interview that they're against the new PC, which seems unlikely IMHO...
Betfair Premium Charge
Nomadic - True.
And you could get people saying 'I made my decision based on misleading information. Had I known then what I know now, I would have voted against it'.
I have a feeling Mr Yu will be blamed for just about everything that goes wrong at Betfair after he's left!
Jeff
And you could get people saying 'I made my decision based on misleading information. Had I known then what I know now, I would have voted against it'.
I have a feeling Mr Yu will be blamed for just about everything that goes wrong at Betfair after he's left!
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
The best proposal I have seen for racing's windfall:
Chris McGrath: Racing can be bold and use £90m Tote windfall to start own betting exchange
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Even those long reconciled to chronic iniquities in its funding must be tempted to join the present recriminations within the racing industry.
But there is no point arguing over who should muck out the stable, when the horse has already bolted.
Last week, on the eve of the Derby, the Government confirmed that it had favoured the Tote bid put together by Betfred over its last surviving rival, which had been backed by the British Horseracing Authority. Plenty have since reproached the BHA for its performance in the Tote sale, first in failing to get the only conscionable bid – the charitable foundation proposed by current Tote management – into the final reckoning, and then backing the loser in a two-horse race.
But the Government was evidently unimpressed by the calibre of the Tote management, and so refused to entertain the one solution that might have redressed their own larceny, in claiming the right to sell it in the first place.
And really, once it became clear that the Tote would instead be cashed in to pure capitalists, all the debate as to which bid might yield most residual benefit for racing was simply a matter of degree. It was akin to counting the teeth in various different sharks, and choosing one that might bite off your leg a little less painfully.
Paul Roy, the BHA chairman, has an abrasive style that affords him little scope for dignity in defeat, and tends to invite corresponding relish in those who succeed in thwarting him. And for all his fighting talk, he has endured serial reverses. The Levy is in freefall, with the anticipated 2011 yield permitting a provisional prizemoney budget of just £34m, down from £64m in 2009. Even since the Tote sale, Roy has been rocked back on his heels by the Levy Board's rejection of a claim – proposed, unusually enough, by both the racing and betting industries – that certain exchange customers should be levied as de facto bookmakers.
But he will stick to his guns and, who knows, perhaps he could yet perceive and seize an opportunity that might elude a different character. Racing, remember, is going to land a windfall from the Tote sale of around £90m. And, just conceivably, that embarrassed sop from the state could feasibly permit the sport one last chance.
What ministers failed to realise is that the Tote, in racing's hands, might itself have become the means by which the Government could finally wash its hands of all these tedious, importunate approaches about the Levy – and, now, about the Levy's replacement. With aggressive cuts in pool deductions, the Tote could have under-cut the bookmakers and competed with the exchanges. Fred Done, the Betfred chief executive, himself made an instructive remark in a Racing Post interview yesterday. "Have we thought about lowering pool deductions?" he asked. "Absolutely. I want to sit down with the Tote boys and see why we can't do it. Of course, I wouldn't want to spoil the fixed-odds business, but there's a balance to be drawn."
Racing, needless to say, would have had no compunction about "spoiling" the fixed-odds business. That was its big chance. And that is why it is so exasperating that the only in-house bid failed to convince the Government of its competence to do anything so bold.
That door has been firmly bolted. But £90m could yet prise open another one. It would be absurd simply to distribute the money as a one-off windfall for a random, unhappy generation – which is effectively what you would be doing if you just thickened out the prize-money gruel for a season or two. That would not be possible, anyway, because of state-aid regulations. But if you can't beat them, why not join them?
Would £90m not be a sufficient downpayment for racing to start its own betting exchange? Combined with investment by others in the sport – who were keen to get involved, after all, when the Tote was up for grabs – could not the carpet still be pulled from under all those bookmakers who have slunk off to Gibraltar? It might not sound much of a kitty, compared with the resources available to Betfair. And some fairly artful shifts of platform would be required to satisfy state-aid regulations. But the goodwill of the marketplace would be a priceless asset.
Just because the sport has found itself helpless, in so many respects, it is not necessarily
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/raci ... 96030.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the correct hands I think this could secure the future of racing. The sport would no longer just be dependant upon handouts. It would have a hand in its future.
The amount of goodwill towards the exchange would be considerable if it were run on the lines of being what Betfair used to be.
Rather than your commission going to a faceless organisation make rich people richer it would be pumped back into the actual sport.
Will those leading racing consider this option, unlikely and instead it will probably just end up going in to the prize money fund for a couple of years and then be gone and leave no legacy.
Interesting idea though!
Chris McGrath: Racing can be bold and use £90m Tote windfall to start own betting exchange
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Even those long reconciled to chronic iniquities in its funding must be tempted to join the present recriminations within the racing industry.
But there is no point arguing over who should muck out the stable, when the horse has already bolted.
Last week, on the eve of the Derby, the Government confirmed that it had favoured the Tote bid put together by Betfred over its last surviving rival, which had been backed by the British Horseracing Authority. Plenty have since reproached the BHA for its performance in the Tote sale, first in failing to get the only conscionable bid – the charitable foundation proposed by current Tote management – into the final reckoning, and then backing the loser in a two-horse race.
But the Government was evidently unimpressed by the calibre of the Tote management, and so refused to entertain the one solution that might have redressed their own larceny, in claiming the right to sell it in the first place.
And really, once it became clear that the Tote would instead be cashed in to pure capitalists, all the debate as to which bid might yield most residual benefit for racing was simply a matter of degree. It was akin to counting the teeth in various different sharks, and choosing one that might bite off your leg a little less painfully.
Paul Roy, the BHA chairman, has an abrasive style that affords him little scope for dignity in defeat, and tends to invite corresponding relish in those who succeed in thwarting him. And for all his fighting talk, he has endured serial reverses. The Levy is in freefall, with the anticipated 2011 yield permitting a provisional prizemoney budget of just £34m, down from £64m in 2009. Even since the Tote sale, Roy has been rocked back on his heels by the Levy Board's rejection of a claim – proposed, unusually enough, by both the racing and betting industries – that certain exchange customers should be levied as de facto bookmakers.
But he will stick to his guns and, who knows, perhaps he could yet perceive and seize an opportunity that might elude a different character. Racing, remember, is going to land a windfall from the Tote sale of around £90m. And, just conceivably, that embarrassed sop from the state could feasibly permit the sport one last chance.
What ministers failed to realise is that the Tote, in racing's hands, might itself have become the means by which the Government could finally wash its hands of all these tedious, importunate approaches about the Levy – and, now, about the Levy's replacement. With aggressive cuts in pool deductions, the Tote could have under-cut the bookmakers and competed with the exchanges. Fred Done, the Betfred chief executive, himself made an instructive remark in a Racing Post interview yesterday. "Have we thought about lowering pool deductions?" he asked. "Absolutely. I want to sit down with the Tote boys and see why we can't do it. Of course, I wouldn't want to spoil the fixed-odds business, but there's a balance to be drawn."
Racing, needless to say, would have had no compunction about "spoiling" the fixed-odds business. That was its big chance. And that is why it is so exasperating that the only in-house bid failed to convince the Government of its competence to do anything so bold.
That door has been firmly bolted. But £90m could yet prise open another one. It would be absurd simply to distribute the money as a one-off windfall for a random, unhappy generation – which is effectively what you would be doing if you just thickened out the prize-money gruel for a season or two. That would not be possible, anyway, because of state-aid regulations. But if you can't beat them, why not join them?
Would £90m not be a sufficient downpayment for racing to start its own betting exchange? Combined with investment by others in the sport – who were keen to get involved, after all, when the Tote was up for grabs – could not the carpet still be pulled from under all those bookmakers who have slunk off to Gibraltar? It might not sound much of a kitty, compared with the resources available to Betfair. And some fairly artful shifts of platform would be required to satisfy state-aid regulations. But the goodwill of the marketplace would be a priceless asset.
Just because the sport has found itself helpless, in so many respects, it is not necessarily
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/raci ... 96030.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the correct hands I think this could secure the future of racing. The sport would no longer just be dependant upon handouts. It would have a hand in its future.
The amount of goodwill towards the exchange would be considerable if it were run on the lines of being what Betfair used to be.
Rather than your commission going to a faceless organisation make rich people richer it would be pumped back into the actual sport.
Will those leading racing consider this option, unlikely and instead it will probably just end up going in to the prize money fund for a couple of years and then be gone and leave no legacy.
Interesting idea though!
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
It's disturbing that Betfair basically stole £30,000 from someone's account because of suspicious betting patterns.
I'd hope that, in the case of traders, Betfair would invite traders under suspicion to trade in their offices, so they can prove that they really are the person placing the trades, instead of just presuming them guilty...
Jeff
I'd hope that, in the case of traders, Betfair would invite traders under suspicion to trade in their offices, so they can prove that they really are the person placing the trades, instead of just presuming them guilty...
Jeff
This is why i refuse to use Betfair anymore, basically they can charge the P.C to anyone at any time, even if you have not met any or all of the criteria.
No different to when the bookies close or restrict your account and accuse you of arbing.
Even when thats not what your doing
.
No different to when the bookies close or restrict your account and accuse you of arbing.
Even when thats not what your doing
.The reason Betfair just grab the money rather than taking the person to court is possibly because a judge would probably say 'This person happens to have the same method of selecting the horses they bet on/trade as someone who pays 60%. What is that supposed to prove exactly?!?'.
As forensic methods go, it's not exactly up there with DNA and fingerprints...
Jeff
As forensic methods go, it's not exactly up there with DNA and fingerprints...
Jeff
Around Cheltenham time I had a large amount in my account that I intended using whilst the festival was on. I have withdrew that now and I just keep a fixed (minimum) amount in my account now and withdraw any profits each day.
The thought that they could just suspend your account is scary!!
The thought that they could just suspend your account is scary!!
-
chrisangel
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:36 pm
That youtube video would cause a stir on the betfair forum
I imagine they can do if the third party has given permission, just as you get companies commenting on the cases of people who have complained to TV programmes like Watchdog.
Jeff
Jeff
RafterP wrote:Why would Betfair discuss a members account with a 3rd party?