Not looking good across the water

The bookmakers know that (European) competition law makes a tote monopoly a near impossibility and so they feel safe to denigrate and drag Irish racing into disrepute rather than pay their fair share.
 
What do we know about the rest of the EU's betting industries? I thought that France didn't have any bookies, per se, but just the Parimutuel? So how does EU competition law stack up against that exclusivity?
 
A fair question, Kriz. I have no particular knowledge on this subject but I'll have a go at answering. Anybody who knows better is welcome to correct me.

Member States can justify restrictions on competition for moral reasons. For example they can ban the sale of certain drugs, or pornography, or gambling opportunities.

Italy bans gambling on line, for example, and you can't even access the Racing Post site from there because it is deemed to be a betting site.

In France, on the other hand, the laws have recently been liberalised following a case in the European Court of Justice but I don't know the details. I think the case forcing the French hand was to the effect that if it is possible to bet on line with the PMU then there can be no moral argument in favour of blocking access to other forms of betting on horses.

In Ireland's case there has been no restriction on gambling sites and gambling has been socially tolerated for many years, so it would not be credible to justify the introduction of a ban or restriction on bookmaking on moral grounds.

I don't know for sure if other grounds for a ban would be permissible but I suspect not.
 
I think you have it fairly straight Grey - Bookmaking licenses are issued every year similar to gaming licenses and liquour licenses etc. legislation could be enacted to rescind these licenses but this would cause absolute mayhem. The Tote in Ireland (governed by HRI) needs to become a bigger player. Do any forumites consider betting online with the Tote? I have only about twice for big jackpot rollovers!!
 
Thanks, Grey, for that most enlightening answer. I hadn't even thought about a 'moral' aspect since it would appear to me to be a contradiction to allow national lotteries or casinos, and not other forms and methods of gambling. I can see the logic of the judgment on the PMU.

I didn't know you could bet online with the Tote, either! (Is there no end to this woman's ignorance?) Can you open a phone line with them? That would appeal to me, as they take such tiny bets.
 
krizon said:
Thanks, Grey, for that most enlightening answer. I hadn't even thought about a 'moral' aspect since it would appear to me to be a contradiction to allow national lotteries or casinos, and not other forms and methods of gambling. I can see the logic of the judgment on the PMU.

I didn't know you could bet online with the Tote, either! (Is there no end to this woman's ignorance?) Can you open a phone line with them? That would appeal to me, as they take such tiny bets.
Click to expand...

Yep - phone no 1850 238669 (from Ireland though K so I don't know if thats any good to you )- will try to get no from outside Ireland:)
 
Wow! Howzat for quick service! Thank you, gentlemen. I'll have a good look over that, but it'll be ideal. Apart from the texting, which I have failed at, bottom of the class, total airhead. Well, it's more my 5-6 y.o. Nokia, which refuses to let me get off Predictive. Thus my £5 e/w on SPIDER BOY will look like &307 SNURDLEYBUG or some such crapola, and I'll be asked to stop wasting their time. Probably best I keep to online or newfangled device!
 
krizon said:
Well, it's more my 5-6 y.o. Nokia, which refuses to let me get off Predictive.
Click to expand...

It's more than likely the 'dictionary' that needs to be switched off, depending inbthe model try 'options' once in s text message, then when you have to select a language for the dictionary, select off. Maybe!
 
:o Uhhh... thanks, Steve. I'll see if any of that exists on it. A pal did say she'd switched it off a while back and as soon as I tried to (smugly) text her 'thanks a lot, clever-clogs' I got 'tx nwho bggnn5c' or something equally as cryptic. She tried once more, I tried once more... you get the picture. Or, rather, u gt t ryqptreu. :mad: I might wait for the Thought Transference model to come out...
 
Grey said:
Do you think KPMG were so naive that they didn't know how their work would be used? And do you think it is ok to produce a report which will be used in the public domain without checking the facts with the subject of the report and giving them an opportunity to comment?
Click to expand...

I presume the HRI financial statements are a public document so no need to check the facts, they are in black and white. And KPMG were used by Liam Carroll in his defence against being closed down. Do you think they didn't know what their accountants report was going to be used for? That's business. You can't just turn down work because you don't like a person or you think you might get a hard time over it. Yes, if it was a drug dealer I could see your point but not here. I have done a few of these and once they pass the ethics and independence rules, why wouldn't you do it?

PS We could have fun on this subject next time you're heading for the yard. Might crash the car though!!
 
IRISH BOOKMAKERS ASSOCIATION DIRECTED TO END USE OF HRI REPORT
- "not an appropriate basis for the conclusions drawn" – KPMG​

KPMG, the accountancy practice credited in a press release issued by the Irish Bookmakers Association (IBA) on Monday 8th November with a ‘forensic assessment’ of the finances of Horse Racing Ireland, has confirmed that their work did not provide an appropriate basis for the conclusions drawn by the IBA and has stopped the IBA from using the report in all public arenas.



KPMG has stated that:-
      • The review they carried out was not a forensic analysis of HRI spending.
      • It did not take account of the restructuring of the Irish horseracing industry in 2001 [when the Registry Office of the Turf Club was merged with the Irish Horseracing Authority (IHA) to create the new body Horse Racing Ireland].
      • It was not an appropriate basis for the conclusions drawn and commentary issued by the IBA.
      • They never gave consent to the IBA to publish extracts from the report.
      • The purpose of the report and its contents have been widely misrepresented.
In a letter to Horse Racing Ireland and to the IBA, KPMG has stated:-
"…the analysis did not, nor was it required to, take account of the restructuring of the horse racing industry in 2001".
"…on this basis, the preliminary analysis set out in the report … was not in our view an appropriate basis for the conclusions drawn and commentary issued by the IBA".
"The report does not have the attributes that one would ordinarily associate with a forensic investigation".
"KPMG never gave consent for the IBA to use this report for the purposes for which it now appears to have been used. We have written to IBA directing them to cease and desist from the use of the KPMG report".

Responding to this statement, Horse Racing Ireland CEO Brian Kavanagh said: "The IBA has behaved recklessly in their misuse of the KPMG analysis. The IBA used flawed and meaningless figures in a defamatory campaign against Horse Racing Ireland and the Irish racing industry. The IBA would be much better served helping its members to combat the threat to their business and jobs from offshore betting and betting exchanges than attacking Irish racing and making patently false claims against Horse Racing Ireland".
Brian Kavanagh added "The real motive behind this activity is the question of betting tax. Betting is exempt from VAT and Irish bookmakers enjoy the lowest rate of betting tax in the world. The return to the Exchequer from betting is significantly lower than other countries and all other forms of consumption. Over the past ten years betting in Ireland has increased from €1.3 billion to approximately €4.5 billion and yet the return to the Exchequer has fallen from €68 million in 2001 to an estimated €31 million in 2009. Despite this, approximately one third of all betting in Ireland is now routed offshore to avoid tax.
Brian Kavanagh added "All parties need to work with Government to secure a reasonable return from betting tax and to ensure adequate funding for horse and greyhound racing which sustain viable and successful rural industries. The only way to secure jobs in the betting industry is to create a level playing pitch between all forms of betting which is exactly what HRI has been campaigning for."
 
Why would they return the fee? You still have no idea what they were commissioned to do, so please stop jumping to conclusions. I'm sure KPMG completed the work they were asked to complete within the scope of their terms of engagement for a fixed fee, agreed by both parties. The work was clearly delivered so they deserve to get their fee. If the IBA made a boll*x of what they wanted, then that's their problem, not KPMG.

I get frustrated when people take the easy route and blame the bloody accountants for everything.
 
Last edited:
Cantoris said:
Why would they return the fee? You still have no idea what they were commissioned to do, so please stop jumping to conclusions. I'm sure KPMG completed the work they were asked to complete within the scope of their terms of engagement for a fixed fee, agreed by both parties. The work was clearly delivered so they deserve to get their fee. If the IBA made a boll*x of what they wanted, then that's their problem, not KPMG.

I get frustrated when people take the easy route and blame the bloody accountants for everything.
Click to expand...

I never said the accountants made a bollix of it - do you for one minute believe KPMG did not know what it was going to be used for? KPMG would do a commission for the Taliban.

Ps - only if they were paid up front!!
 
Back
Top