Paul Dixon calling on owners to strike:
http://www.racehorseowners.net/presidents_blog.html
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
This was interesting: -
Para 5.23 states that Betfair has claimed that 0.5% of its customers are likely to be
subject to the premium charge and that this means (based on a total customer
number of 2,500,000) that 12,500 Betfair customers are subject to the charge.
Betfair has never claimed that 0.5% of its customer are likely to pay the charge and
any further assumptions based on this misrepresentation will also be incorrect.
Para 5.23 states that Betfair has claimed that 0.5% of its customers are likely to be
subject to the premium charge and that this means (based on a total customer
number of 2,500,000) that 12,500 Betfair customers are subject to the charge.
Betfair has never claimed that 0.5% of its customer are likely to pay the charge and
any further assumptions based on this misrepresentation will also be incorrect.
-
oddstrader
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:55 pm
Hillarious !andyfuller wrote:Paul Dixon calling on owners to strike:
http://www.racehorseowners.net/presidents_blog.html
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I can't see this happening at all - you need every single owner on board - would any be tempted, just one is needed, who doesn't agree with his views to run and pick up the easiest prize money they will ever get!andyfuller wrote:Paul Dixon calling on owners to strike:
http://www.racehorseowners.net/presidents_blog.html
From his blog does he not contradict himself by saying:
"Levy forecasts for 2011 are now so dire that prize-money levels will not be able to sustain a fully funded fixture list next year"
but then says at the end:
"Enough is enough. We, as the principal funders of this industry, must now turn our words into action."
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Another outstanding blog post by Sean Boyce from ATR on the Deloitte reports findings into Racings Levy Submission:
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n ... ts-you.php
To give you a flavour of what they found, as Sean says:
"Over and again the Deloitte report concludes that the arguments made are ‘not persuasive’ or are ‘open to challenge’. Partly because they are often based on vague or unproven assumptions but largely because the promised ‘rigour’ is entirely absent. In making its submission, Racing has failed to provide detailed information and analysis of ‘87% of its costs and 90% of its income’. Check those figures out again, it’s not a typo."
Stand down guys - I think it is safe to say that after today's developments we don't have too much too fear with regards to the Levy from a trading point of view.
http://boyciesbettingblog.com/betting-n ... ts-you.php
To give you a flavour of what they found, as Sean says:
"Over and again the Deloitte report concludes that the arguments made are ‘not persuasive’ or are ‘open to challenge’. Partly because they are often based on vague or unproven assumptions but largely because the promised ‘rigour’ is entirely absent. In making its submission, Racing has failed to provide detailed information and analysis of ‘87% of its costs and 90% of its income’. Check those figures out again, it’s not a typo."
Stand down guys - I think it is safe to say that after today's developments we don't have too much too fear with regards to the Levy from a trading point of view.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Even Ralph Topping is talking sense - I feel faint:andyfuller wrote:Paul Dixon calling on owners to strike:
http://www.racehorseowners.net/presidents_blog.html
Responding to Dixon, William Hill chief executive Ralph Topping said: "We are not concerned about racing's leaders shooting themselves in both fetlocks.
"Racing popularity is in decline, and we have a number of other popular products to offer clients.
"The sport, thanks to poor leadership and vision is in a crisis of its own making.
"Racing has assets that are under-utilised, and a business model that is failing to draw income from TV.
"Its 'leaders' must start acting like the guardians for the sport they propose to be, and become much more creative and business focused.
"Currently, their collective actions smack of clueless desperation at a time when their noses need to be pressed against the window of the future.
"A future that should be all about 'getting real'. They're killing income, not creating it, and remain the only sport in Britain outside of tiddlywinks, that hasn't advanced in recent years."
Full article: http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/news ... _Levy.html
12,500 are consistently making a profit on betfair? That seems a lot doesnt it..??Bet Angel wrote:This was interesting: -
Para 5.23 states that Betfair has claimed that 0.5% of its customers are likely to be
subject to the premium charge and that this means (based on a total customer
number of 2,500,000) that 12,500 Betfair customers are subject to the charge.
Betfair has never claimed that 0.5% of its customer are likely to pay the charge and
any further assumptions based on this misrepresentation will also be incorrect.
By comparison; I notice that there are 5816 members on here, so you could also assume that 29 people on here pay the PC too..??
Just saw this
Exchange business' users could realise 30m 30 Oct 2010
Racingpost.com
Racing could be £30m or more better off if only ten per cent of betting exchange players had to pay the levy that bookmakers do, it has been claimed.
This was one of the submissions received by the Levy Board and published on Thursday in response to its request for views on the thorny issue of whether certain users of betting exchanges should be regarded as being leviable bookmakers.
Both the Association of British Bookmakers and William Hill claimed there are what can be described as business users on betting exchanges who should pay the levy as they do.
Hills asserted "a significant number" of independent bookmakers who paid levy, have "migrated" to exchanges.
Summing up, Hills'submission claimed if only ten per cent of players were business users it would raise £75m in tax, £30m for the levy, and, as a small amount of exchange users account for the majority of profits made, the figures could be considerablyhigher.
The ABB view was that there were betting exchange players trading in such volumes and to such tight margins that "the only plausible explanation" was that they were running a business and while accepting they were difficult to identify it was not impossible even if legislation was required.
However Betfair, revealing heated letters between its legal director Martin Crudace and Levy Board chief Douglas Erskine Crum, poured scorn on the initiative, accusing the Levy Board of being biased and failing both to act "in accordance with its statuatory remit" and "as a responsible public body". It described the consultation as "fatally flawed".
It also accused the HBLB of having "allowed itself to become improperly aligned with, unduly sympathetic to and inappropriately supportive of the claimed interests of racing".
The betting exchange submitted that customers of betting exchanges were not bookmakers by reason of the fact they bet on an exchange.
There were 19 responses to the Levy Board, 12 from individuals which ranged from one-paragraph submissions denouncing the levying of exchange players to a 12-pagedocument from a mathematician concluding it would be "naive and totally damaging to impose a levy on betting exchange users".
......................................................
So let me get this straight, only 19 people took the time to write to levy board? Surely more people must have written in than that?! If that figure is what the levy board really are claiming then I can only think people's submissions have been 'lost'.
As for 10% of betfair users being in 'business'
Exchange business' users could realise 30m 30 Oct 2010
Racingpost.com
Racing could be £30m or more better off if only ten per cent of betting exchange players had to pay the levy that bookmakers do, it has been claimed.
This was one of the submissions received by the Levy Board and published on Thursday in response to its request for views on the thorny issue of whether certain users of betting exchanges should be regarded as being leviable bookmakers.
Both the Association of British Bookmakers and William Hill claimed there are what can be described as business users on betting exchanges who should pay the levy as they do.
Hills asserted "a significant number" of independent bookmakers who paid levy, have "migrated" to exchanges.
Summing up, Hills'submission claimed if only ten per cent of players were business users it would raise £75m in tax, £30m for the levy, and, as a small amount of exchange users account for the majority of profits made, the figures could be considerablyhigher.
The ABB view was that there were betting exchange players trading in such volumes and to such tight margins that "the only plausible explanation" was that they were running a business and while accepting they were difficult to identify it was not impossible even if legislation was required.
However Betfair, revealing heated letters between its legal director Martin Crudace and Levy Board chief Douglas Erskine Crum, poured scorn on the initiative, accusing the Levy Board of being biased and failing both to act "in accordance with its statuatory remit" and "as a responsible public body". It described the consultation as "fatally flawed".
It also accused the HBLB of having "allowed itself to become improperly aligned with, unduly sympathetic to and inappropriately supportive of the claimed interests of racing".
The betting exchange submitted that customers of betting exchanges were not bookmakers by reason of the fact they bet on an exchange.
There were 19 responses to the Levy Board, 12 from individuals which ranged from one-paragraph submissions denouncing the levying of exchange players to a 12-pagedocument from a mathematician concluding it would be "naive and totally damaging to impose a levy on betting exchange users".
......................................................
So let me get this straight, only 19 people took the time to write to levy board? Surely more people must have written in than that?! If that figure is what the levy board really are claiming then I can only think people's submissions have been 'lost'.
As for 10% of betfair users being in 'business'
No levy agreement as deadline passes
REPRESENTATIVES from the racing and betting industries failed to reach an agreement during deadline day talks to negotiate the levy yield for 2011-12 at Sunday's Levy Board meeting in London.
Failure to reach an agreement means that the 50th scheme will now be referred to secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt and is only the second time in recent years that the the levy yield will be determined by government.
After final discussions ran late into Sunday evening, all parties concluded at 11.30pm that there was no realistic possibility of agreement being reached by the midnight deadline.
"It is very disappointing that it has not proved possible to reach agreement on the 50th scheme. Despite protracted and in-depth discussion at board meetings and elsewhere, ultimately the positions of racing and the Bookmakers' Committee remained significantly apart," confirmed Levy Board chairman Paul Lee.
Racing, represented during negotiations by Horsemen's Group chairman Paul Dixon, BHA chairman Paul Roy and Racecourse Association chairman Ian Barlow, feels the levy should return as much as £150 million, while bookmakers are said to put the figure at less than half of that.
The 2008-09 levy scheme also went to government determination, with the then minister Gerry Sutcliffe opting for a rollover of the previous scheme, a course of action recommended to him by the three independent members of the Levy Board.
An industry insider onSunday confirmed to the Racing Post that the secretary of state tends to be guided by the view of the independent members - Paul Lee, Penny Boys and Paul Darling - and that, given the unfavourable report on racing's case from financial consultants Deloitte, they are unlikely to advise that racing should receive anywhere near what it wants.
Will Roseff, chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, expressed his disappointment that the two parties had failed to reach an agreement.
Roseff said: " I am very frustrated. The Bookmakers' Committee constructed a very good argument which realistically addressed the challenges faced by bookmakers and racing. That the HBLB has elected not to approve the recommendations of the Bookmakers' Committee is evidence that the current system has failed. It is now time to replace the levy process with a commercial relationship that will reflect racings true worth in the highly competitive bookmaking sector.
"I truly believe that racing must face-up to the reality that is affecting every other aspect of the British economic landscape. As the nation looks to a future of austerity and cuts in spending of public money, racing still wants substantial increases from the HBLB. This failure brings more uncertainty to an industry that needs a period of stability for a new commercial reality; come what may, we will continue to seek to work with racingto achieve a satisfactory long-term solution."
REPRESENTATIVES from the racing and betting industries failed to reach an agreement during deadline day talks to negotiate the levy yield for 2011-12 at Sunday's Levy Board meeting in London.
Failure to reach an agreement means that the 50th scheme will now be referred to secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt and is only the second time in recent years that the the levy yield will be determined by government.
After final discussions ran late into Sunday evening, all parties concluded at 11.30pm that there was no realistic possibility of agreement being reached by the midnight deadline.
"It is very disappointing that it has not proved possible to reach agreement on the 50th scheme. Despite protracted and in-depth discussion at board meetings and elsewhere, ultimately the positions of racing and the Bookmakers' Committee remained significantly apart," confirmed Levy Board chairman Paul Lee.
Racing, represented during negotiations by Horsemen's Group chairman Paul Dixon, BHA chairman Paul Roy and Racecourse Association chairman Ian Barlow, feels the levy should return as much as £150 million, while bookmakers are said to put the figure at less than half of that.
The 2008-09 levy scheme also went to government determination, with the then minister Gerry Sutcliffe opting for a rollover of the previous scheme, a course of action recommended to him by the three independent members of the Levy Board.
An industry insider onSunday confirmed to the Racing Post that the secretary of state tends to be guided by the view of the independent members - Paul Lee, Penny Boys and Paul Darling - and that, given the unfavourable report on racing's case from financial consultants Deloitte, they are unlikely to advise that racing should receive anywhere near what it wants.
Will Roseff, chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, expressed his disappointment that the two parties had failed to reach an agreement.
Roseff said: " I am very frustrated. The Bookmakers' Committee constructed a very good argument which realistically addressed the challenges faced by bookmakers and racing. That the HBLB has elected not to approve the recommendations of the Bookmakers' Committee is evidence that the current system has failed. It is now time to replace the levy process with a commercial relationship that will reflect racings true worth in the highly competitive bookmaking sector.
"I truly believe that racing must face-up to the reality that is affecting every other aspect of the British economic landscape. As the nation looks to a future of austerity and cuts in spending of public money, racing still wants substantial increases from the HBLB. This failure brings more uncertainty to an industry that needs a period of stability for a new commercial reality; come what may, we will continue to seek to work with racingto achieve a satisfactory long-term solution."
If anyone wants to let Jeremy Hunt know their views on this matter, his contact details are on this page:
http://www.jeremyhunt.org/text.aspx?id=107
BTW, if you're feeling bored, you can download all 700 pages of his expenses (no, I didn't mean to write seven!): http://www.jeremyhunt.org/text.aspx?id=123
It must be expensive work, being an MP!
Jeff
http://www.jeremyhunt.org/text.aspx?id=107
BTW, if you're feeling bored, you can download all 700 pages of his expenses (no, I didn't mean to write seven!): http://www.jeremyhunt.org/text.aspx?id=123
It must be expensive work, being an MP!
Jeff
hgodden wrote:No levy agreement as deadline passes
REPRESENTATIVES from the racing and betting industries failed to reach an agreement during deadline day talks to negotiate the levy yield for 2011-12 at Sunday's Levy Board meeting in London.
Failure to reach an agreement means that the 50th scheme will now be referred to secretary of state for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt and is only the second time in recent years that the the levy yield will be determined by government.
After final discussions ran late into Sunday evening, all parties concluded at 11.30pm that there was no realistic possibility of agreement being reached by the midnight deadline.
"It is very disappointing that it has not proved possible to reach agreement on the 50th scheme. Despite protracted and in-depth discussion at board meetings and elsewhere, ultimately the positions of racing and the Bookmakers' Committee remained significantly apart," confirmed Levy Board chairman Paul Lee.
Racing, represented during negotiations by Horsemen's Group chairman Paul Dixon, BHA chairman Paul Roy and Racecourse Association chairman Ian Barlow, feels the levy should return as much as £150 million, while bookmakers are said to put the figure at less than half of that.
The 2008-09 levy scheme also went to government determination, with the then minister Gerry Sutcliffe opting for a rollover of the previous scheme, a course of action recommended to him by the three independent members of the Levy Board.
An industry insider onSunday confirmed to the Racing Post that the secretary of state tends to be guided by the view of the independent members - Paul Lee, Penny Boys and Paul Darling - and that, given the unfavourable report on racing's case from financial consultants Deloitte, they are unlikely to advise that racing should receive anywhere near what it wants.
Will Roseff, chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, expressed his disappointment that the two parties had failed to reach an agreement.
Roseff said: " I am very frustrated. The Bookmakers' Committee constructed a very good argument which realistically addressed the challenges faced by bookmakers and racing. That the HBLB has elected not to approve the recommendations of the Bookmakers' Committee is evidence that the current system has failed. It is now time to replace the levy process with a commercial relationship that will reflect racings true worth in the highly competitive bookmaking sector.
"I truly believe that racing must face-up to the reality that is affecting every other aspect of the British economic landscape. As the nation looks to a future of austerity and cuts in spending of public money, racing still wants substantial increases from the HBLB. This failure brings more uncertainty to an industry that needs a period of stability for a new commercial reality; come what may, we will continue to seek to work with racingto achieve a satisfactory long-term solution."
Matthew Hancock secures Parliamentary time for Horseracing debate prior to imminent Levy decision
On 21 December 2010, the last day that Parliament sits until the New Year, Matthew Hancock has secured the chance to debate with the Minister for Culture, Media and Sports on the subject of the Horseracing Betting Levy.
Matthew, whose constituency covers the historic Newmarket home of racing, was pleased to secure this debate. British Horseracing is a significant employer in the UK with 100,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs, and contributes £3.5bn to the economy but in recent years the funding mechanism for the sport – the Levy – has dropped by more than a third.
Matthew said: ‘I am delighted that I have managed to secure some time in the House of Commons for this vital issue. The Secretary of State is currently making his deliberations and it is important to demonstrate just how many people care about this issue. A hundred thousand people work in racing and last year 5.7million people attended the races. The sport’s popularity has most recently been demonstrated by AP McCoy winning BBC Sports Personality of the Year last night. We must do what we can to ensure that the racing industry continues to flourish – it is a true National treasure.’
NOTES
A)
The Racing United Charter
1488 online signatories + an additional 1079 physical signatories including AP McCoy
1. Close loopholes in the Levy system by:
a) No longer permitting the offshore betting industry to avoid its Levy obligations - Current cost to Racing: £10m+
b) Ensuring betting exchanges and their bookmaker (business) users pay a fair commercial return to British racing - Current cost to Racing: Up to £25m
c) Scrapping threshold rules that currently exempt more than 60% of betting shops from paying the full rate of Levy - Current cost to Racing: £10m
d) Reinstating payments for customers in Britain placing bets on overseas racing - Current cost to Racing: £13m
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
http://www.racingunited.co.uk/
B)
British Horseracing supports 100,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs, and has an economic impact of some £3.5bn.
C)
The Levy has dropped by more than a third in two years from £115m in 2008 to just £75m in 2010.
D)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is currently making his decision about the size of the Levy for 2010/11 and is due to announce his decision in February.
On 21 December 2010, the last day that Parliament sits until the New Year, Matthew Hancock has secured the chance to debate with the Minister for Culture, Media and Sports on the subject of the Horseracing Betting Levy.
Matthew, whose constituency covers the historic Newmarket home of racing, was pleased to secure this debate. British Horseracing is a significant employer in the UK with 100,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs, and contributes £3.5bn to the economy but in recent years the funding mechanism for the sport – the Levy – has dropped by more than a third.
Matthew said: ‘I am delighted that I have managed to secure some time in the House of Commons for this vital issue. The Secretary of State is currently making his deliberations and it is important to demonstrate just how many people care about this issue. A hundred thousand people work in racing and last year 5.7million people attended the races. The sport’s popularity has most recently been demonstrated by AP McCoy winning BBC Sports Personality of the Year last night. We must do what we can to ensure that the racing industry continues to flourish – it is a true National treasure.’
NOTES
A)
The Racing United Charter
1488 online signatories + an additional 1079 physical signatories including AP McCoy
1. Close loopholes in the Levy system by:
a) No longer permitting the offshore betting industry to avoid its Levy obligations - Current cost to Racing: £10m+
b) Ensuring betting exchanges and their bookmaker (business) users pay a fair commercial return to British racing - Current cost to Racing: Up to £25m
c) Scrapping threshold rules that currently exempt more than 60% of betting shops from paying the full rate of Levy - Current cost to Racing: £10m
d) Reinstating payments for customers in Britain placing bets on overseas racing - Current cost to Racing: £13m
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
http://www.racingunited.co.uk/
B)
British Horseracing supports 100,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs, and has an economic impact of some £3.5bn.
C)
The Levy has dropped by more than a third in two years from £115m in 2008 to just £75m in 2010.
D)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is currently making his decision about the size of the Levy for 2010/11 and is due to announce his decision in February.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Tomorrow from 12.30pm there will be a 3hr debate in Parliament discussing the future of racing and the Levy. I assume it will be on BBC Parliament Sky Channel 504.
Also the new Levy Scheme is likely to be announced on Feb 11.
Also the new Levy Scheme is likely to be announced on Feb 11.
Should be interesting! I never thought I'd find myself saying that about anything on the Parliament Channel! 
It's channel 612 on Virgin.
Jeff
It's channel 612 on Virgin.
Jeff
andyfuller wrote:Tomorrow from 12.30pm there will be a 3hr debate in Parliament discussing the future of racing and the Levy. I assume it will be on BBC Parliament Sky Channel 504.
Also the new Levy Scheme is likely to be announced on Feb 11.
