Offshore Bookmakers

[Gamla Stan]

From the RP, this has potential very far reaching consequences...

AS ATTENTION focuses on whether William Hill will move their online and telephone betting service to Gibraltar, another internet operator, Skybet, has already made the move offshore.

The Harrogate-based betting division of BSkyB, which sponsored the valuable card at York a week ago, began life under an Alderney licence on Friday, with servers based in Guernsey.

Skybet managing director Richard Flint stressed that the decisionwas made for practical reasons, not in order to cut down on betting duty or horseracing levy payments, but he admitted a review of financial implications was under way.

He said: “We’ve moved the infrastructure to Guernsey, which means having a licence from the Alderney government, so that all the kit is in one place.

“It’s not to save tax or levy. In fact, we will continue to pay tax to the government, because weare a UK-based company, but we are not legally obliged to pay the horse race levy on remote bets, so we’re reviewing that side.

“We’ll look at all the options to support horse racing, which is still our biggest betting sport, with 42 per cent of the business. We’re already heavily involved in race sponsorship, andwe could do more, or we could contribute to the levy on a voluntary basis.”

In the course of reporting financial results for the year ended June 30, BSkyB revealed that Skybet revenue rose by 9.1 per cent, to £48 million, as online business more than offset the continuing decline in red-button betting through interactive television.

Flint said that Skybet’s pre-tax profit doubled from the previous year, to £11m, with the number of users up 50 per cent and all products showing growth.

The likelihood of Hills taking their phone and internet operation offshore is expected to become apparent on Tuesday, when the company provides a half-year trading statement.

There is a strong likelihood that Hills will announce that they have decided to ship out, and a switch could happen within 24 hours.

Non-bookmaking interests represented on the Levy Board have recently issued warnings of dire consequences – a fall of £25m in the annual yield, for example – if all bookmakers moved their internet betting operations overseas.

However, an industry source suggested on Friday that in the case of Hills, the cost to racing would probably be in the region of £1m.

While government officials continue the process of grappling with the question of overseas operators taking bets on British horse racing, Hills could offer a voluntary levy contribution, in line with Betfair, which provided about 95 per cent of the £1.352m contributed to the Levy Board through this route in 2008-09.

The other five per cent came from Blue Square, which suffered a 43 per cent fall in revenues from £7.7m to £4.4m, over the six months to June 30, according to figures released on Friday by parent company the RankGroup. Operating profit fell 14.3 per cent, to £3m.

Chief executive Ian Burke blame punter-friendly Premiership football results for the drop.

 

[redhead]

"...we are not legally obliged to pay the horse race levy on remote bets..." (my italics).

Can someone define what this means please?

Does it mean that bets made outside Guernsey are classed as remote, despite the Channel Islands being part of the UK?

 

[Gamla Stan]

The Channel Islands and Gibraltar are exempt from tax and duty and as the bets are "captured" there (be it online on a server or in a call centre there) then they can avoid paying any tax, duty or levy on those bets.

 

[Will]

I would love it, if someone is brave enough and make UK racing, a tote monopoly. These bookies are taking the mickey mreo and mroe, its just take and take and nothing going back to racing. UK racing in the long term will benefit so much more if its a Tote Monopoly.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I agree, but sadly it won't happen any time soon. We're too close to an election for the government to make such a bold decision and the tories would never do it cos they've never had any cojones to start with.

 

[Honest Tom]

Until racing stops treating the punter with total contempt (selective watering of courses and tacit approval of corruption via pathetic sentences is exactly that) who cares if they all renage on levy payments.

 

[redhead]

The Channel Islands and Gibraltar are exempt from tax and duty and as the bets are "captured" there (be it online on a server or in a call centre there) then they can avoid paying any tax, duty or levy on those bets.

Cheers GS, thought that might be the case. Greedy gits.

Serve them right if all punters boycotted bookies and only bet with the Tote!

I know that won't happen though, because the majority of punters would still go to the nearest local bookie for:

a) convenience;

b) it's what they know and the majority don't like change;

c) most of them couldn't care less about the politics of the sport and how it will affect it and, ultimately themselves, in the long-run.

 

[Shadow Leader]

I'm sorry but all these demands for a Tote monopoly are unworkable. No offence but it is noticeable that most people calling for it don't work in the racing industry so wouldn't be affected by it nor in all probability realise quite what the full ramifications of such a move would be - what about the tens of thousands of jobs that would disappear? It's a very bad idea.

 

[Colin Phillips]

Presumably the Tote would be recruiting if they were given a monopoly?!

 

[Irish Stamp]

If they were given a monopoly Colin we'd end up like the US - purse money would drop, gambling would be limited to 2 or 3 shops in every major town/city in the country and courses would be going "how many slots can we fit in the grandstand?"

 

[Colin Phillips]

How about setting up an industry run (surely there must be someone in the BHA with some drive?!) National Betting Exchange.

The high street betting shops could be converted into exchange outlets and the present staff could act as tutors to the exchange users.

Long-term winners whether backers or layers would be charged a percentage on their profits.

It won't happen will it?!

 

[Desert Orchid]

I'm sorry but all these demands for a Tote monopoly are unworkable. No offence but it is noticeable that most people calling for it don't work in the racing industry so wouldn't be affected by it nor in all probability realise quite what the full ramifications of such a move would be - what about the tens of thousands of jobs that would disappear? It's a very bad idea.

Red herring. In the sense that the mining insustry went t*ts up putting scores of thousands of miners out of work and their families into poverty and all the ramifications of local economies. Who gave a sh*t?

When industrial Britain went t*ts up with all the job losses and economical ramifications, who gave a sh*t?

It's only a very bad idea if you are directly employed by bookmakers. It amounts to a tiny percentage of the UK workforce and, as with all these things, tough sh*t.

On top of that, most LBO employees that I know of complain bitterly about their working hours and conditions. They'd be better off working for somebody else.

For a tote monpoly to work a number of betting offices would become equivalents of PMU outlets. That would allow re-employment of a fair proportion - probably at least 20% - of existing shop staff. That's not a bad start.

The bottom line is that £bbb could be reinvested into the industry and we could have proper racecourse facilities to match the best in Hong Kong, Australia, France and the US.

 

[Gamla Stan]

If they were given a monopoly Colin we'd end up like the US - purse money would drop, gambling would be limited to 2 or 3 shops in every major town/city in the country and courses would be going "how many slots can we fit in the grandstand?"

Why not the French option? Betting in pubs and cafes on the PMU?

"I'd like a pint of Stella and £20 e/w on Sonny Red please"

 

[Irish Stamp]

Nothing wrong with a French option if you don't mind huge take out from the Tote and 4 people at the racecourse for a regular meeting, with no bookmakers the only reason people would go racing is for the night out or if they genuinely love horses.

Remember going to Enghien in November and every other person we spoke to was Irish or a French stablegirl/lad. Racing at French provincial courses would have three or four people there and you have 10,000+ for the Arc, Grand Steeplechase De Paris, International weekend etc.

 

[Harbinger]

Pretty sure the French option won't be the French option once EU pressure eventually comes to bear.

 

[Shadow Leader]

Red herring. In the sense that the mining insustry went t*ts up putting scores of thousands of miners out of work and their families into poverty and all the ramifications of local economies. Who gave a sh*t?

When industrial Britain went t*ts up with all the job losses and economical ramifications, who gave a sh*t?

It's only a very bad idea if you are directly employed by bookmakers. It amounts to a tiny percentage of the UK workforce and, as with all these things, tough sh*t.

No it's not a red herring and you are also showing, as I said before, that you do not realise the full ramifications of such a move. The only people who would be affected would be those employed directly by bookmakers? What rubbish. I'm sorry if you don't give a shit, but I don't fancy being out of a job - nor do the tens of thousands of others who will join the ranks of the unemployed - because a few weekend TV watching racing fans are whinging as they think they are being hard done by as punters. To paraphrase your entire post, I - and tens of thousands of others, who actually have more than a passing interest in the sport and rely on it to put a roof over their head - don't give a shit about that.

 

[Warbler]

In South Africa they have a Tote monopoly called the TAB. Now this is quite an experience at one level, not least the two armed guards on the door as you enter. Now me and my friend were the only two white people in there, and bettign shops don't normally attract the most savoury charcaters the world over, and down town Cape Town wa sno different. As we placed our bets and settled back to watch the race (with more eyes on us than the screens) it suddenly dawned us that perhaps this was one race we really didn't want to win!!! Thankfully we didn't, but we realised that perhaps we'd be better off watching the live Premiership feed and the clientele were more than happy talking to us about football.

What they did have, which was interesting, was a Tote (TAB) counter, and a roped off area where about 8 independents stood in much the same way as they would in Tattersalls. About 5 minutes before the off these independents would chalk up there own prices and compete against the Tote. It was quite good in truth. Without knowing the economics of how things worked it actually succeeded in giving the betting shop punter a taste of on course betting without any of the attendant aggro of having to catch that train to Kenilworth, and then pay for entry (one suspects that even today, a majority of the clientele in this office would be distinctly unwelcome or priced out of attending Kenilworth anyway)

 

[redhead]

Losing bookmakers to a tote monopoly probably would be a bad thing. I made my comment whilst a bit punch-drunk from a rather more stressful-than-usual 50 hour week (yes, I know, that's not legal but it's the NHS, who cares?)

It's the attitude of "we're not paying the Levy because we don't have to" that annoyed me and prompted the comment about a boycott - which would only be a temporary thing but enough to dent their pockets for a short period and make sure that some of the turnover found its way back to racing.

Racing provides the medium from which they make their money, it is surely a sound move in business terms to reinvest some of that money to ensure that some degree of product quality is maintained? (Italian Stallion, are you paying attention?)

Are the amounts that such firms would pay in sponsorship comparable to their payments to the Levy? I doubt it as such money would be spent selectively on races that benefit the firm and not be spread evenly across the board. "Racing" would not benefit, just "some races, courses and us".

On the other hand I don't believe that punters are hard done by, either. I worked for Ladbrokes whilst still very young and was sworn at, spat at and once had a stool chucked at me over the bandit screen because of a Rule 4 deduction that took £1 off a punter's winnings.

Another time, during Race Week, I saw our sweet, honest, hard-done-by regulars, who were forced to attend on a daily basis, pick up an envelope left behind by one of our Irish visitors and start sharing the money (lots of it) out amongst themselves. When a colleague and I went out to rescue it and call the police, they insisted on having their names put down as having found it, so that my colleague and I wouldn't pocket it for ourselves. It was further galling that the owners rewarded the man who was stealing it and said that my colleague and I wouldn't be needing any because we would make enough pinching from our customers.

On the whole, I found that my three years working for a major bookie really opened my eyes to the Great British Public and that, (fellow Forumites excluded, you have all proved that you can think for yourselves), any losses that they incur really are due to their own sheep-like tendencies and stupidity.

Harsh, I know, but for every decent person that I encountered in the bookies, I met half a dozen more who weren't.

 

[Shadow Leader]

It's sad how right you are, redhead. I'm afraid that working in a bookies tends to make you familiar with the dregs of humanity; after around two and a half years I couldn't take any more. I was fed up with the losers who would spend all their dole money within hours then bug every other punter in the place to lend them money, not least whilst they were boasting to everyone about the cash in hand jobs they were doing at the same time. It was the same people who were trying their best to steal backshows or get on well after the off as well. One of these parasites had the neck to come in the shop one day effing and blinding that some see you next Tuesday had grassed them up as a benefit cheat; he'd not only been at it for years but openly boasted about it and his cash in hand work! There are too many unedifying people holding court in bookies and they display the worst traits of the human race.

 

[Gearoid]

A tote monopoly would take away the buzz in my opinion. Life without oddschecker.com would be very boring indeed.

 

[redhead]

Another chap who stuck in my mind was a self-employed trucker who owned his own rig outright and did well through sheer hard graft. Every Saturday he used to come in and place three 20-horse bets in a mixture of doubles, trebles, four-folds and accumulators and any other combination. Each bet would cost him about £30 (£90 was big money back then).

One day he struck lucky and all three accumulators came up and he got back about £2.5k.

He came to collect that evening and we asked him if he would mind waiting while we rang round the other shops to gather the cash, or come back on Monday. Being a decent sort of chap he said he would come back on Monday to save us having to stay late on a Saturday.

Back he came on Monday, with a trail of devoted followers at his heels, and picked up his money. Then he announced that winning on the horses was easy and he was going professional. He was going to sell his rig and make his living from betting.

Young and naive as I was, I couldn't help thinking how much he had given to the Firm before his luck came up. I was absolutely gobsmacked at the thought that he couldn't see that he had probably spent more than that in the 3 or 4 years that he had been doing those bets and, on the basis of one lucky day, he was prepared to give up a good, independent living to follow something that he really didn't know that much about, apart from what the back pages of The Sun told him.

Sadly, he went bust within about 6 months and ended up working for a local firm of hauliers. He was one of the few that I felt sorry for, but I still thought he was barmy.

 

[Gamla Stan]

I've worked in the industry for five years now and indeed it does put a roof over my head and the consequences would be severe were it to be carved up.

Ralph Topping is a shrewd man (I met him once when at Hills) and I suspect he's trying to call the bluff of the government and I'm not sure he'll fully go through with the move, they have an enormous amount of commitments to property in Leeds and Sheffield. However, if they are going to propose such damning measures towards the racing industry then I think the debate over a tote monopoly is only a good thing, if at least to put the wind up them a bit.

 

[Desert Orchid]

No it's not a red herring and you are also showing, as I said before, that you do not realise the full ramifications of such a move. The only people who would be affected would be those employed directly by bookmakers? What rubbish. I'm sorry if you don't give a shit, but I don't fancy being out of a job - nor do the tens of thousands of others who will join the ranks of the unemployed - because a few weekend TV watching racing fans are whinging as they think they are being hard done by as punters. To paraphrase your entire post, I - and tens of thousands of others, who actually have more than a passing interest in the sport and rely on it to put a roof over their head - don't give a shit about that.

Of course you don't fancy being out of a job. I wouldn't either. I'm sure the scores of thousands of miners who lost their jobs weren't too chuffed about it but it happened because one person - Mrs T - thought it was the right thing to do.

It's not that we're being hard done by as punters either. (A fraction of a point here and there doesn't bother me. My bets aren't big enough for it to affect me too much. But I object to paying a total of over £50 for an afternoon at the races here when I could get better quality racing in France or elsewhere in the world for a fraction of that.) It's that the entire sport is being screwed. Owners are having to chase pots of £3000 when an equivalent race in another country where tote monopolies operate can be worth five times that.

I don't know how much you earn but it probably doesn't do your skills justice. You're being screwed too because bookies are taking out every penny they can.

I'd bet every penny I have that if a tote monopoly came along and with it the opportunity for you to work within it earning double what you are on just now you wouldn't be so against it. (I don't mean that to be personal, by the way.)

 

[Desert Orchid]

A tote monopoly would take away the buzz in my opinion. Life without oddschecker.com would be very boring indeed.

I have a lot of sympathy with this aspect of it.

 

[Toobe]

It's sad how right you are, redhead. I'm afraid that working in a bookies tends to make you familiar with the dregs of humanity; after around two and a half years I couldn't take any more. I was fed up with the losers who would spend all their dole money within hours then bug every other punter in the place to lend them money, not least whilst they were boasting to everyone about the cash in hand jobs they were doing at the same time. It was the same people who were trying their best to steal backshows or get on well after the off as well. One of these parasites had the neck to come in the shop one day effing and blinding that some see you next Tuesday had grassed them up as a benefit cheat; he'd not only been at it for years but openly boasted about it and his cash in hand work! There are too many unedifying people holding court in bookies and they display the worst traits of the human race.

And how many on yards can fit into this bracket as well?