Offshore Bookmakers

Aragorn said:
Forgot to add - The track record of state run monopolies is hardly glowing so I would be careful about advocating it. Someone made the point earlier that our government would end up taking a nice chunk for themselves to offset other debts.
Click to expand...

Privatisation has hardly worked for the general public, has it? Look at how the energy companies have screwed us since they were privatised. Likewise the banks. Likewise rail operators. Etc, etc, etc.

I wouldn't have a problem with the government taking a nice chunk. If it helps keep the welfare system solvent it can't be a bad thing. It would still mean billions per year more being returned to racing than under the present system.
 
The difference is you have a choice in a competitive market.

Dessie, if we had the same number of races in the UK as they do in France the prize money would be better. It appears to me that the prize money has been diluted to such an extent now that any reduction in turnover means the prize money dwindles. We could cut the number of races back to a sensible level but then there would not be a sufficient number of races for the horses in training. I may be wrong about this but from a numbers perspective that looks likely. Then everyone would be screaming about that.
 
Obviously an owner's thread as a) in the present climate where racing treats punters like sh1te, why would any punter care about upping the wages of these fiddling b@stards through increased prize money (spare me the argument that they'll all become honest if prize money increases) and b) surely a tote monopoly would be bad for punters if it meant the end of exchanges.

A state run exchange on the other hand would be a different matter.
 
It should also be taken into account sadly, that the negative effects of gambling do pass into other areas of society. Why should it not be the case that gambling therefore covers the cost of this, which I feel should be the case and more probable through a monopoly, however this could leave certain aspects open to abuses being carried for political purpose etc.. It would possibly depend as to how corruptable those in charge of the said monopoly are. You only have to look at the current issue of the political expenses scandal to see that.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I've been advocating at least an off-course monopoly for 30-odd years - since I lived in France as a matter of fact and saw with my own eyes how much more prize money is on offer and how much better the facilities are. The only unsatisfactory things were a marginally quieter atmosphere (which I'd put down to the way the French are) and longer queues to get a bet on, particularly at Longchamp on Arc weekend.

I'd be happy to see racing go down that route in the short term, ie off-course monopoly.
Click to expand...
"marginally quieter" - I've only been to three big race days in France, all of which were comparable to that of the UK but seeing the number of people that we saw at Enghien in November for a good meeting (listed 4yo's Chase on the card) at a Paris track I can't help but think how poorly attended races at Dieppe, Clairefontaine, Marseille, Lyon-Parilly, Cagnes-Sur-Mer, Pau, Argentan etc. are and how these tracks survive given that the track PMU only seemed to be taking bets on two "away" meetings.


Why don't we just cut out all the fiddling on Betfair and have a nationalised pool of horses and trainers rather than that of a Tote Monopoly?

The bookmakers could operate as they do now, Betfair could still play around with it's 20% commission off the best punters and 4% or so off everyone else, there'd be no owners trying to land a touch at minor meetings on a Wednesday afternoon or trainers doping horses, bookmakers would have to report to a central body any mischievous behaviour ie. unusual betting patterns, carve up's etc.

I haven't thought the idea through properly but IMO there'd be far less flaws with this than with a Tote monopoly to improve racecourse facilities for the non-existent punters we'll end up with since rather than have 25% there because they love to bet on course and the atmosphere, the horses etc. 25% there for the horses and 50% for a Friday night out with the lads we'd end up with more people there for the night out since courses would have to offer more special offers to entice people in, the increase in prize money won't effect the racegoer - only the owner and trainer who'll take a bigger cut of the pie. There'll be twice as many "Ladies Day's" and more "£15 each and get a free pie and a pint" offers like you see at the greyhounds.

The bottom line of a partial Tote monopoly would be £12,500 handicaps, increased turnover on Betfair (allowing Betfair to charge say 15% on all bets ala a number of US sportsbooks and racetracks offering a simulcasting facility) and an atmosphere like your local high street at 2am in the morning on a busy day and nobody there on a weekday.
 
"A state run exchange on the other hand would be a different matter."

Would it have to be a state run exchange, Tom? Why not an racing industry national exchange, as suggested above, surely there are people around who could develop and run such a system?

Gal, this would be an alternative.

But I think I may be dreaming.:o
 
Colin Phillips said:
"A state run exchange on the other hand would be a different matter."

Would it have to be a state run exchange, Tom? Why not an racing industry national exchange, as suggested above, surely there are people around who could develop and run such a system?

Gal, this would be an alternative.

But I think I may be dreaming.:o
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea if or how it would work but it is the sort of alternative I was thinking of. The depressing thing is, suggestions like that and their type are never going to be considered.
 
I did do a sketchy outline of how it might work in an earlier post.

Computer terminals set up in the converted high street bookmakers with staff on hand to help out technophobes such as me. People who are overall winners over a period of time to pay a commission.

The devil would be in the detail and there are probably a million problems that I haven't thought of but it would allay, to some extent, Shads' fears of mass unemployment.
 
Warbler, you do have a selective memory; please show me specific posts where I have in all seriousness strongly advocated moves that will put people out of work. I might have complained about the NHS (and Jesus H Christ since they've royally shafted me I'm bloody well entitled to), I don't remember asking for axing of the jobs of Finance or Executive Government agencies or whatever else you have named, but yes, you're right, I do hate caravans. Not only have I not strongly argued the case for something which would put so many out of work, I have also not constructed a post saying "who gives a shit?" about half a dozen times in relation to the loss of those jobs. So yes, when someone is strongly pushing a concept that not only is ill-informed in my eyes, they state several times they 'don't give a shit' and 'tough shit' about wide swathes of employment - my own guaranteed - of course I am going to get angry and respond in kind. Especially when it is someone with little experience of the industry as a whole and how it works, I am afraid.

I see Hamm is adding the usual snipes; hmm, useful. So I make no decent points in my posts? No, you only pick and choose the odd bit then slate all of it for saying the same when it does not.

A Tote monopoly in this country will not work. Unemployment issues aside, there is also the small fact that, as mentioned before, in this country we already have a robust industry surviving - why axe it when it is healthy and making money, and pouring millions into sponsorship every year? To state that bookmakers are bleeding racing dry is a blinkered and ill-informed view, as well as wholly inaccurate.

So, France has a Tote monopoly that works. Good for them. They've had it for a long time; they didn't destroy a flourishing industry to implement it in the first place. It's always been done that way so far as I know; they have had no structure in place previously that was similar to ours. They don't know it any different way over there, but it works for them. It also means that just because it works in France doesn't mean that it will work the same way over here - tell me, Desert Orchid, do you really believe that racecourses would slash their admission prices to £5 a head simply because they're getting a revenue from a Tote monopoly?! Of course they wouldn't. It's still going to cost £20/£30/£40/£50 + to get into British racecourses, with or without additional funding and anyone who seriously thinks that a Tote monopoly would lead to a flourishing, healthy sport, higher prize money, £5 admission fees to racecourses and a boom in public popularity is living in cloud cuckoo land, I'm afraid.
 
Desert Orchid said:
The courses would survive and probably even thrive, probably even creating jobs in the process.
Click to expand...

Very much doubt that, DO. Losing on-course bookmakers (for all the stick they get these days) would surely remove one of the few remaining incentives for people genuinely interested in racing to go racing. Granted, prices may be reduced (like SL, I'd have my doubts about any significant long-term progress in that area), but even in that case the courses, even with potential Tote revenue, would likely try to recoup the the short-fall in other areas, leading to more people there who have absolutely no interest in racing due to drinks offers etc.
 
Last edited:
Without trying to address some of the crackpot "everything would be better if it was nationalised" theories on here, just some observations:

A tote monopoly would cost me (off the top of my head):

- the opportunity to "beat a bookie". That is the sport for many.
- a huge overround (compared for example Betfair commission on a 101ish% book)
- the atmosphere of the ring
- the loss of any opportunity of a sub-100% book.
- the opportunity to benefit from individual error of judgement.
- any loss leader promotions
- incentives driven by competition, i.e. extra e/w places
- choice of service (i.e. personal preference, interface, payment method)

And that is before you even look at the loss of innovation or efficiency caused by the removal of competition.

Others have made the case for the benefit of a monopoly. It is far from the Utopia that many would paint it as though.

My reasoning is that where there is choice, you at least have a chance of finding what you want. Where there is no choice, you had better hope that that is all that you'll ever want.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Warbler, you do have a selective memory; please show me specific posts where I have in all seriousness strongly advocated moves that will put people out of work.
Click to expand...

Difference between advocating putting someone out of work, and not appearing to give a damn if someone is, or being very dismissive of them. Essentally DO pointed out that the loss of jobs in the bookmaking industry was small fry and of little economic consequence. It is probably this that put your back up?

Although there is doubtless a sub-plot to the nature of the post below, this one might ring a bell with you and is in a very similar vein to the one he posted about your industry of employment?


"I may be no financial expert but it seems pretty clear to me that once banks start going bust the implications on the economy could possibly be catastrophic. Shoe shops closing will cause hardly a ripple"

Your post is of course correct and you'd probably find more jobs were lost when Woolworths shut then bookmaking would lose, but it still shows a simialr level of disregard and echoes DO's in similar ways.

Somewhat to my surprise I couldn't find a/ the post where you advocated that the Highways Agency should be closed down (though in truth I have more than just a degree of sympathy on that one). I do recall you suggetsing that we'd all be better off if they were disbanded though.

I was under the impression that you were in favour of using the banking bosses as shark bait too, but alas you clearly advocate bailing them out rather than allowing free markets to decide their fate because of the ripple down effect it would have across the economy. Indeed, it was others who seem to think that banks should have been left to their free market fate, where as you argued in favour of good old socialist state intervention.

I'll pass on Fiona Needham as she's an individual rather than an industry, or the "heads" at the BHA "that should role" as you were clearly in glorious rant mode by then
 
Last edited:
Warbler, you've very much taken that quote about shoe shops out of context and cherry picked it in order to try and prove a point (Jesus, you must be bored, must've taken you hours to dig through to find that!) and one that doesn't really exist. I'm not even sure it was posted on this forum either! If you remember, it concerned someone trying to make out that Dolcis going bust had the same effects on the national economy as the banks going bust and asking why the banks were bailed out yet Dolcis weren't? It was common sense - to put the two on an equal footing in terms of economical disaster is, and was, daft in the extreme. It was quite clear that I was talking about the implications on the economy compared to banks going under, so again where I've been dismissive over people losing their jobs I've no idea. I've criticised the Highways Agency - bunch of failed wannabe coppers - but I don't recall saying they should all join the dole queue.

Nowhere have I been dismissive of people losing their jobs and certainly I have never said I don't give a shit about people losing their jobs, nor strongly pushed for the introduction of something that would result in such, mainly in the hope that I can go racing a few times a year for a fiver, which seems to be the argument to me.

If you must say I've said things in the past, please make them accurate!
 
Colin Phillips said:
I did do a sketchy outline of how it might work in an earlier post.

Computer terminals set up in the converted high street bookmakers with staff on hand to help out technophobes such as me. People who are overall winners over a period of time to pay a commission.

The devil would be in the detail and there are probably a million problems that I haven't thought of but it would allay, to some extent, Shads' fears of mass unemployment.
Click to expand...

It could be workable with a credit/debit card system similar to that of Tesco and other stores club cards. This could of course be deemed a very silly suggestion going by the topics of the conversation so far
 
all very well saying options with prices etc. But these days, its near impossible to get any decent bets on with most bookies if you are half shrewd. Also, you cnat really line up the money on betfair neither since it can cause a price crash.
 
Will said:
all very well saying options with prices etc. But these days, its near impossible to get any decent bets on with most bookies if you are half shrewd. Also, you cnat really line up the money on betfair neither since it can cause a price crash.
Click to expand...


bloody hell Will..you must be betting big to worry about crashing prices on Betfair..there is some right money swinging about on there even for small races
 
Shadow Leader said:
I have also not constructed a post saying "who gives a shit?" about half a dozen times in relation to the loss of those jobs. So yes, when someone is strongly pushing a concept that not only is ill-informed in my eyes, they state several times they 'don't give a shit' and 'tough shit' about wide swathes of employment - my own guaranteed - of course I am going to get angry and respond in kind.
Click to expand...

Let's get one thing straight, shall we?

AT NO TIME did I say "who gives a shit?" If you care to read (you probably don't because it doesn't suit your agenda) what I actually wrote, I questioned the nation's attitude to the mining industry and industrial Britain being dismantled. I said when those things happened, who gave a shit? (Because only the miners and their sympathisers did. The Thatcherite arselicking media and their brainwashed readers didn't. I remember only too well picketbusting lorry drivers waving their payslips at picketing miners because the media suggested it.)

The "tough sh*t" remark was made in the same post in the context of the bookmaking industry going under in the face of a tote monopoly and I was saying the nation's attitude would be "tough sh*t".

I tried to keep the debate impersonal but you personalised it.

You have revealed your social attitudes and agendas on numerous threads and at times they shock and disturb me. I have no intention of replying any further to you on the matter.

Quite frankly, you're not worth the effort.
 
EC1, I dont bet big at all. Morning Prices, any bets before midday its very hard to put anything 3 figure upwards on a horse and get it match espeically on a horse that is 7-1 upwards as a general rule of thumb. 25s or above, forget it. If it is allowed with an online bookie, they normally trim the price straight away.

Everyone is very scared these days and watch betfair thinking, they know if there is any money lined up.
 
Colin Phillips said:
"A state run exchange on the other hand would be a different matter."

Would it have to be a state run exchange, Tom? Why not an racing industry national exchange, as suggested above, surely there are people around who could develop and run such a system?

Gal, this would be an alternative.

But I think I may be dreaming.:o
Click to expand...

Colin, when betfair was still a fiver swap shop I wrote to the BRA chairman of the time (Savill) and suggested they set up a racing run bet exchange with the course bookmakers automatically linked in (|I daresay they could have made this compulsory and prevented the use of other exchanges) and the profits going back to racing. To his credit he passed it on to others who supposedly had more understanding of these things but eventually the idea was dismissed because they felt it was too big a project for the BRA. These days I prefer to see money being drained away from these useless cnuts. I'd much rather the bulk of my commission went to the government than people who are primarily out to defraud me.
 
EC1 said:
bloody hell Will..you must be betting big to worry about crashing prices on Betfair..there is some right money swinging about on there even for small races
Click to expand...

In the morning you can shift the odds of outsiders 30 or 40 points with £6 on betfair. Isn't the betfair "transparency" a wonderful thing. It gladdens my heart to know that the people who gain most from this "transparency" are parasitic traders, spoofers and trappers. Bless their little hearts.
 
betsmate said:
A tote monopoly would cost me (off the top of my head):

- the opportunity to "beat a bookie". That is the sport for many.

- the atmosphere of the ring
Click to expand...

Firstly, you aren't playing the bookie, you're playing other punters when gambling with fixed odds firms. Punters form the market on races, not bookmakers hence if a horse is backed from Evens into 8/11 and one you fancy goes from 11/8 to 2/1 then you are better off as you hold an opinion against the majority of punters. The only way you beat the bookie is when they make a mistake with either their pricing (Stan James, 365 and Paddy Power regularly do on their overnight books as all firms price up through Betfair now and there simply isn't enough liquidity on there to form a book) or other general administrative errors which they can claim as palpable errors anyway.

I'd happily see the back of "the ring", it takes up enormous amounts of space up at racecourses which restricts viewing at courses (look at Longchamp for example) and the majority of on course bookmakers are an absolute disgrace, betting to 1/6 the odds etc and win only in non handicaps.
 
Back
Top