can of worms, cant see anything happening really.
betfair and the bookies would have to reveal those seeding certain markets, and the firms arbing etc with betfair. plus what level of turnover do you draw the line at between betting and trading heavily or bookmaking.
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, has said offshore bookmakers should pay the horse racing levy
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The former Conservative leader Michael Howard said today that racing had been presented with a "once and for all chance" to boost its income at the expense of offshore bookmakers who take bets on British racing. Such firms do not currently contribute to the levy on betting profits that funds the sport but Lord Howard, who is chairman of the racecourse group Northern Racing, believes the government could be persuaded to force a change.
"The previous government held a consultation on whether [offshore] bookmakers should be licensed by the Gambling Commission," he said. "My view is that they should and that this licence ought to require them to pay the levy."
From a high of £116m three years ago the levy yield has declined to £75m for 2009-10 and one report today claimed that the bookmakers will offer no more than £50m in negotiations over next year's amount. The betting industry says the sport generates less gambling than in the past but the British Horseracing Authority claims that bookmakers should be paying more than £100m per year.
On the thorny question of how to extract a levy from offshore operators, Lord Howard said the government might have to threaten an advertising ban on non-compliant firms, which would imperil several major race sponsorships.
"But I don't think that would happen. I think the betting industry would accept, at that stage, that the game was up.
"Those firms who remain onshore would welcome this. Those who are offshore clearly will not but I find it difficult to imagine what rational arguments they would advance to counter it."
Lord Howard pointed to last week's government statement that the levy system would be altered "with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible".
"What could they mean by 'as broad a base as possible' other than that those who are offshore should pay levy?" he asked. "If racing does not take advantage of this opportunity, it may not come again."
Source: http://www.u.tv/Sport/Michael-Howard-sa ... c03483df50
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
The former Conservative leader Michael Howard said today that racing had been presented with a "once and for all chance" to boost its income at the expense of offshore bookmakers who take bets on British racing. Such firms do not currently contribute to the levy on betting profits that funds the sport but Lord Howard, who is chairman of the racecourse group Northern Racing, believes the government could be persuaded to force a change.
"The previous government held a consultation on whether [offshore] bookmakers should be licensed by the Gambling Commission," he said. "My view is that they should and that this licence ought to require them to pay the levy."
From a high of £116m three years ago the levy yield has declined to £75m for 2009-10 and one report today claimed that the bookmakers will offer no more than £50m in negotiations over next year's amount. The betting industry says the sport generates less gambling than in the past but the British Horseracing Authority claims that bookmakers should be paying more than £100m per year.
On the thorny question of how to extract a levy from offshore operators, Lord Howard said the government might have to threaten an advertising ban on non-compliant firms, which would imperil several major race sponsorships.
"But I don't think that would happen. I think the betting industry would accept, at that stage, that the game was up.
"Those firms who remain onshore would welcome this. Those who are offshore clearly will not but I find it difficult to imagine what rational arguments they would advance to counter it."
Lord Howard pointed to last week's government statement that the levy system would be altered "with a view to ensuring the funding for racing is fair and collected from as broad a base as possible".
"What could they mean by 'as broad a base as possible' other than that those who are offshore should pay levy?" he asked. "If racing does not take advantage of this opportunity, it may not come again."
Source: http://www.u.tv/Sport/Michael-Howard-sa ... c03483df50
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
The Racecourse Association has backed a call by Northern Racing chairman Lord Howard that the government should introduce a licensing system, linked to payment of the levy on UK horseracing bets, for offshore betting operators.
RCA chairman Ian Barlow said on Wednesday: "We are fully behind the Racing United campaign to close the loopholes that prevent racing receiving a fair return from betting, and a key element of that, which was highlighted by Lord Howard, is the avoidance of levy by offshore bookmakers."
Lord Howard, the former Tory leader and home secretary, put the point in Wednesday’s Racing Post, where he said: "Offshore operators should be subject toa licensing system that itself was subject to the payment of levy on UK horseracing bets. It should be possible for the government to say that offshore operators have to be licensed and pay levy, otherwise they can’t advertise their services in the UK market."
Barlow said: "I fully support Lord Howard, and although, as he says, it would require primary legislation, I believe there is a strong possibility of obtaining it, as long as we put a strong enough case to ministers.
"The Department for Culture, Media and Sport began a consultation on licensing earlier this year, which seems to have got bogged down in the general election and change of government. Lord Howard is building on that process.
"The consultation was about regulation, with no mention of the levy, but in our view there is no reason why the levy cannot be attached to it."
Barlow added: "If the other areas on which Racing United is arguing its case – levy thresholds, levy on overseas racing and appropriate treatment of betting exchanges – were put into the case to ministers, we would address the shortcomings of the levy.
"The alternative would be commercial negotiations with the bookmakers, but that wouldn’t capture the offshore market it if was not underpinned by a statutory right to bet.
"If we cornered off these four areas, we could get back to proper commercial negotiations with the bookmakers.
"We don’tenjoy fighting with the betting industry. After all, they’re racing’s biggest customers. But it’s been necessary, simply to start addressing these various matters."
Source: http://www.thoroughbrednews.com.au/inte ... 1&keyword=
RCA chairman Ian Barlow said on Wednesday: "We are fully behind the Racing United campaign to close the loopholes that prevent racing receiving a fair return from betting, and a key element of that, which was highlighted by Lord Howard, is the avoidance of levy by offshore bookmakers."
Lord Howard, the former Tory leader and home secretary, put the point in Wednesday’s Racing Post, where he said: "Offshore operators should be subject toa licensing system that itself was subject to the payment of levy on UK horseracing bets. It should be possible for the government to say that offshore operators have to be licensed and pay levy, otherwise they can’t advertise their services in the UK market."
Barlow said: "I fully support Lord Howard, and although, as he says, it would require primary legislation, I believe there is a strong possibility of obtaining it, as long as we put a strong enough case to ministers.
"The Department for Culture, Media and Sport began a consultation on licensing earlier this year, which seems to have got bogged down in the general election and change of government. Lord Howard is building on that process.
"The consultation was about regulation, with no mention of the levy, but in our view there is no reason why the levy cannot be attached to it."
Barlow added: "If the other areas on which Racing United is arguing its case – levy thresholds, levy on overseas racing and appropriate treatment of betting exchanges – were put into the case to ministers, we would address the shortcomings of the levy.
"The alternative would be commercial negotiations with the bookmakers, but that wouldn’t capture the offshore market it if was not underpinned by a statutory right to bet.
"If we cornered off these four areas, we could get back to proper commercial negotiations with the bookmakers.
"We don’tenjoy fighting with the betting industry. After all, they’re racing’s biggest customers. But it’s been necessary, simply to start addressing these various matters."
Source: http://www.thoroughbrednews.com.au/inte ... 1&keyword=
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
The sharks seem to be circling more and more around Paul Roy and his business after he invested in Betfair, trying to buy £50m of BF shares was not a great move on his part imo. He seems to be arguing that his business and his role as anti BF as the head of the BHA should be treated separately - not in my book. There is a direct conflict of interest now as was highlighted on today's ATR Sunday Forum, with his BHA hat on he says BF should be paying more Levy = less profit for BF. With his investment hat on, less Levy = more BF profit = better share price.Ferru123 wrote:This opinion piece may be of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... f-run.html
Jeff
I emailed RUK about it last night as well and will pop what they had to say up on to Youtube later if I get chance.
There are articles in the Racing Post saying those in Racing are not happy by his actions - if anyone subscribes can you reproduce the article?
It seems like a clear-cut conflict of interest.andyfuller wrote:
The sharks seem to be circling more and more around Paul Roy and his business after he invested in Betfair, trying to buy £50m of BF shares was not a great move on his part imo. He seems to be arguing that his business and his role as anti BF as the head of the BHA should be treated separately - not in my book.
I'm not sure how it's fundamentally any different to a board member of the Financial Services Authority buying £50 million of shares of a UK bank...
Jeff
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Nick Luck article about Roy and his role - some good comments as well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... k-declines
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... k-declines
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
But the Racehorse Owners Association and Racecourse Association support Paul Roy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oc ... ssociation
If they can't see the conflict of interest perhaps they should go to spec savers!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oc ... ssociation
If they can't see the conflict of interest perhaps they should go to spec savers!!!!
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
John McCririck calls for Paul Roy's resignation and brands him a hypocrite:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... cririck.do
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... cririck.do
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Good article as ever by Sean Boyce from ATR on the subject:
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n ... rooney.php
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n ... rooney.php
For once Big Mac talks sense!
BTW, I'm not sure I'd agree with the article's description of him as a 'betting guru'!
Perhaps he's a 'how to act and dress like a complete oddball' guru, but that's about it!
Jeff
BTW, I'm not sure I'd agree with the article's description of him as a 'betting guru'!
Perhaps he's a 'how to act and dress like a complete oddball' guru, but that's about it!
Jeff
andyfuller wrote:John McCririck calls for Paul Roy's resignation and brands him a hypocrite:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard- ... cririck.do
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
A very good piece and comments about the Levy and some of the wages paid to the BHA, the pension hole at the BHA and media coverage:
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing ... 00810.html
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing ... 00810.html
Betfair have published their own 50 page submission to the levy board, as well as a rebuttal of the BHA's claims online here....
http://corporate.betfair.com/en/media/p ... 0-27a.aspx
Also it seems in the Racing Post there's an article which says that an independant inquiry has shot down a number of claims made by the BHA. I don't have access so I can't reproduce it here, but if anyone else does feel free to post
http://corporate.betfair.com/en/media/p ... 0-27a.aspx
Also it seems in the Racing Post there's an article which says that an independant inquiry has shot down a number of claims made by the BHA. I don't have access so I can't reproduce it here, but if anyone else does feel free to post
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Yes I saw BF release these when I checked the forum prior to racing but haven't had time to read them yet. It was clear from reading this post on Mark Davies blog that there were numerous errors - just read the comments to see the people behind it trying to argue their case but failing miserably:
http://www.markxdavies.com/2010/10/04/w ... -position/
You would almost think that if you had access or prior knowledge to these reports you would have been inclined to try and invest say £50m in Betfair last friday
http://www.markxdavies.com/2010/10/04/w ... -position/
You would almost think that if you had access or prior knowledge to these reports you would have been inclined to try and invest say £50m in Betfair last friday
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
There has been an interesting discussion on the comments section of that article which I have been involved in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F19196165? ... 53&show=50