If you look here http://www.culture.gov.uk/publications/7613.aspx there's a little more about it in the various submissions but nothing concrete. At one point paul roy states how the issue will be looked at in detail march by the levy board. I'd have thought it would need a HM Tresurary review, as was conducted in 2005 and found that betting exchange users are not 'in business', for them to actually proceed with anything.
I notice also betfair have sent another rebuttal of the second set of attacks on its customers on the consultation responses page. Say what you want about betfair, but at least they are fighting for their customers here, as no one is saying that betfair itself should pay more
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
Vested interest in Horse Racing has unlike other sports a lot of parties.Owners,trainers,bookies,racecourses,television companies,punters.
Anyone endeavouring to satisfy all these parties is going to find it impossible, some do not want any change whatsoever and if that was/is the plan then Horse Racing will go the way of sports like speedway and become even more of a minority sport.
Change must happen and it’s very easy to criticise and deride every single idea put forward, the UK public are brilliant at this, led by media organisations we now must always add on a sentence to news. "Health Service to employ state of the art robots to park visitors cars" - what does this mean for car park attendants? The news is the first part we do not need a question after every report. But every proposal is now greeted on forums, or the racing post, or television with scepticism.
Racing must change or there will be no racing, younger punters have other outlets to spend their money. Many on here complain about liquidity, well unless changes are made liquidity will continue to fall. Do not greet every proposal with such negativity because that is the done thing, try and find the upside. The vested interest will be leading the negativity and many on forums just fall in line.
To us on Bet Angel if racing starts at 12 o clock what is the problem? You can get involved or not get involved, but it may attract new players who at 12.0 clock can bet because of work or family commitments.
When you read a report think about vested interest and why some are saying what are they saying and then take a step back. Racing must change, the heady days of the 1960s or 70s have long gone.
IMO bookmakers as we know them will start reducing their coverage of Horse Racing because of Betfair and increasingly smaller margins, some will pull out completely of mid week racing and betfair will step in and run all UK racing, like the bookmakers do with dog racing at the moment.
The overall title will change from Horse Racing from Huntingdon, to Betfair Racing and in time this will be what’s on offer. The levy will be no more and Betfair will pay tax on its turnover and support the infrastructure of Horse Racing. A pool of horses will be managed by trainers supported by Betfair who will be in partnership with trainers to offer the product -and they will split the costs and profits.
The levy debate and discussion is a side show and will have no place in racing in 5 years time.
Anyone endeavouring to satisfy all these parties is going to find it impossible, some do not want any change whatsoever and if that was/is the plan then Horse Racing will go the way of sports like speedway and become even more of a minority sport.
Change must happen and it’s very easy to criticise and deride every single idea put forward, the UK public are brilliant at this, led by media organisations we now must always add on a sentence to news. "Health Service to employ state of the art robots to park visitors cars" - what does this mean for car park attendants? The news is the first part we do not need a question after every report. But every proposal is now greeted on forums, or the racing post, or television with scepticism.
Racing must change or there will be no racing, younger punters have other outlets to spend their money. Many on here complain about liquidity, well unless changes are made liquidity will continue to fall. Do not greet every proposal with such negativity because that is the done thing, try and find the upside. The vested interest will be leading the negativity and many on forums just fall in line.
To us on Bet Angel if racing starts at 12 o clock what is the problem? You can get involved or not get involved, but it may attract new players who at 12.0 clock can bet because of work or family commitments.
When you read a report think about vested interest and why some are saying what are they saying and then take a step back. Racing must change, the heady days of the 1960s or 70s have long gone.
IMO bookmakers as we know them will start reducing their coverage of Horse Racing because of Betfair and increasingly smaller margins, some will pull out completely of mid week racing and betfair will step in and run all UK racing, like the bookmakers do with dog racing at the moment.
The overall title will change from Horse Racing from Huntingdon, to Betfair Racing and in time this will be what’s on offer. The levy will be no more and Betfair will pay tax on its turnover and support the infrastructure of Horse Racing. A pool of horses will be managed by trainers supported by Betfair who will be in partnership with trainers to offer the product -and they will split the costs and profits.
The levy debate and discussion is a side show and will have no place in racing in 5 years time.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Stand at ease!
From the Racing Post:
Exchange users not liable for levy, say QCs
By jon lees 8:13PM 9 MAR 2011 CUSTOMERS of betting exchanges such as Betfair, including bookmakers who use them to hedge, are not liable to pay levy, according to legal opinion that appeared to deal a heavy blow to the BHA’s argument that such layers should pay the charge.
The views of QCs Michael Fordham and Lord Pannick are that the levy provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 do not apply to customers of betting exchanges.
Money well spent by the Levy board again
From the Racing Post:
Exchange users not liable for levy, say QCs
By jon lees 8:13PM 9 MAR 2011 CUSTOMERS of betting exchanges such as Betfair, including bookmakers who use them to hedge, are not liable to pay levy, according to legal opinion that appeared to deal a heavy blow to the BHA’s argument that such layers should pay the charge.
The views of QCs Michael Fordham and Lord Pannick are that the levy provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 do not apply to customers of betting exchanges.
Money well spent by the Levy board again
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Further reading here on the HBLB website:
09/03/2011 - Update on the Betting Exchanges Consultation
Printer Friendly
In July 2010, the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) began an extensive consultation process on various questions relating to the issue of whether certain users of betting exchanges should be regarded as leviable bookmakers for the purpose of the Levy.
The consultation document, which had been distributed to interested parties and published on HBLB’s website, set out various issues and requested consultees’ views on these and any other issues they considered relevant.
Following receipt of submissions in the consultation process between July and November 2010, HBLB received two legal opinions from Michael Fordham QC and Lord Pannick QC in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively. The legal opinions were in agreement on the following key points:
a) On the proper construction of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the Levy provisions do not apply to customers of betting exchanges.
b) It is possible that some users of betting exchanges are carrying on a business.
c) However, a user of a betting exchange does not carry out the sort of business specified by the relevant provisions of the 1963 Act – namely, carrying on a business of receiving or negotiating bets and effecting betting transactions.
d) That applies also to traditional bookmakers using betting exchanges.
Board members, who received these opinions only very recently, wish to have more time to consider them and intend to consider the issues raised in the consultation paper and the responses, and the two legal opinions, at a forthcoming Board meeting. Meanwhile, both legal opinions will today be published on HBLB’s website (here).
Source: http://www.hblb.org.uk/document.php?id=405&search=
You can click through on the above link to all of the submissions made during the consultations which are available in pdf format, also you can read the detailed submissions from the QC and the Lord - just get a big cup of coffee first!
Or if you don't fancy nodding off have a quick read of the summary of conclusions paper:
http://www.hblb.org.uk/documents/exchan ... usions.pdf
09/03/2011 - Update on the Betting Exchanges Consultation
Printer Friendly
In July 2010, the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) began an extensive consultation process on various questions relating to the issue of whether certain users of betting exchanges should be regarded as leviable bookmakers for the purpose of the Levy.
The consultation document, which had been distributed to interested parties and published on HBLB’s website, set out various issues and requested consultees’ views on these and any other issues they considered relevant.
Following receipt of submissions in the consultation process between July and November 2010, HBLB received two legal opinions from Michael Fordham QC and Lord Pannick QC in December 2010 and February 2011 respectively. The legal opinions were in agreement on the following key points:
a) On the proper construction of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the Levy provisions do not apply to customers of betting exchanges.
b) It is possible that some users of betting exchanges are carrying on a business.
c) However, a user of a betting exchange does not carry out the sort of business specified by the relevant provisions of the 1963 Act – namely, carrying on a business of receiving or negotiating bets and effecting betting transactions.
d) That applies also to traditional bookmakers using betting exchanges.
Board members, who received these opinions only very recently, wish to have more time to consider them and intend to consider the issues raised in the consultation paper and the responses, and the two legal opinions, at a forthcoming Board meeting. Meanwhile, both legal opinions will today be published on HBLB’s website (here).
Source: http://www.hblb.org.uk/document.php?id=405&search=
You can click through on the above link to all of the submissions made during the consultations which are available in pdf format, also you can read the detailed submissions from the QC and the Lord - just get a big cup of coffee first!
Or if you don't fancy nodding off have a quick read of the summary of conclusions paper:
http://www.hblb.org.uk/documents/exchan ... usions.pdf
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Reading through it it seems quite possible that racing has hired itself a JCB to dig a HUGE hole for itself which if I understand the document correctly they will wish they never opened:
Point 11:
The usage by traditional bookmakers of betting exchanges is not a leviable activity. Whilst they may be using the exchanges by way of business, and whilst their traditional bookmaking activities are leviable, their use of an exchange, for example to hedge, is not materially different from any other customer of an exchange so that, likewise, they do not meet the test for a leviable bookmaker in respect of that activity
Surely that means that bookmakers who have been paying Levy on their bets placed via Betfair have a good chance of reclaiming the payments
The grass isn't always greener it would seem racing - perhaps you should have kept quiet!
Point 11:
The usage by traditional bookmakers of betting exchanges is not a leviable activity. Whilst they may be using the exchanges by way of business, and whilst their traditional bookmaking activities are leviable, their use of an exchange, for example to hedge, is not materially different from any other customer of an exchange so that, likewise, they do not meet the test for a leviable bookmaker in respect of that activity
Surely that means that bookmakers who have been paying Levy on their bets placed via Betfair have a good chance of reclaiming the payments
The grass isn't always greener it would seem racing - perhaps you should have kept quiet!
For Paul Roy, Nic Coward, the ABB, Victor Chandler, William Hill and every other sad little prick sticking their noses in where they don't belong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUa6VVqq4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXUa6VVqq4c
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Meant to add this a week or two ago but forgot about it.
A couple of Sunday's ago Betfair had a representative on The Sunday Forum on ATR. He stated clearly that they would continue to pay the Levy as a voluntary Levy and still to the HBLB as long as the money was not going to be used to pursue Betfair and it's clients for increased Levy payments.
They will continue to make this payment for the forseable future. Asked why, he responded that Betfair felt it was the right thing to do by the sport. He said the sport was at a tipping point and they didn't want Betfair to be responsible for tipping it over the edge by removing £6m+ in Levy payment, even though he is rightly getting pressure from investors etc to not pay it.
I have to say I was surprised by the response and more so that they had not made it much clearer earlier. I think it is very good of Betfair to do this but tbh I wouldn't mind seeing them ditch paying it to the HBLB and spending it within the sport as they see fit as I don't overly agree with the prizemoney issue. So I have to say hats off to Betfair for keeping up this payment, assuming they do
Asked by Boycee if it was the right thing to do by the Country at the time of cuts to be taking your tax bill offshore, the representative wasn't so forthcoming and seemed to take some offence at the question.
Overall though I still feel this was a bad move by Betfair in terms of looking to expand into other countries. I can see the antis in America using it against Betfair when they come to argue they support the industry - they do, but largely on their terms.
A couple of Sunday's ago Betfair had a representative on The Sunday Forum on ATR. He stated clearly that they would continue to pay the Levy as a voluntary Levy and still to the HBLB as long as the money was not going to be used to pursue Betfair and it's clients for increased Levy payments.
They will continue to make this payment for the forseable future. Asked why, he responded that Betfair felt it was the right thing to do by the sport. He said the sport was at a tipping point and they didn't want Betfair to be responsible for tipping it over the edge by removing £6m+ in Levy payment, even though he is rightly getting pressure from investors etc to not pay it.
I have to say I was surprised by the response and more so that they had not made it much clearer earlier. I think it is very good of Betfair to do this but tbh I wouldn't mind seeing them ditch paying it to the HBLB and spending it within the sport as they see fit as I don't overly agree with the prizemoney issue. So I have to say hats off to Betfair for keeping up this payment, assuming they do
Asked by Boycee if it was the right thing to do by the Country at the time of cuts to be taking your tax bill offshore, the representative wasn't so forthcoming and seemed to take some offence at the question.
Overall though I still feel this was a bad move by Betfair in terms of looking to expand into other countries. I can see the antis in America using it against Betfair when they come to argue they support the industry - they do, but largely on their terms.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Some of the bigger players are starting to back the tariff argument:
GODOLPHIN SUPPORTS BRITISH HORSEMEN’S GROUP MINIMUM PRIZE MONEY TARIFFS
23 March 2011
Godolphin horses will not run in British races which have prize money below the minimum tariff recommended by the Horsemen’s Group.
Simon Crisford, the Godolphin racing manager, revealed this policy at Godolphin’s annual media morning at Al Quoz Stables in Dubai on Wednesday, March 23.
He explained: "We will be supporting the tariffs and will not be running horses in any below-tariff races.
"Basically this is all about stable staff – it’s about trainers being able to pay a reasonable wage and people being potentially made redundant. Of course owners need prize money but the whole thing is about lots and lots of stable staff in Britain being made redundant if this whole matter is not sorted out.
"People will take their business overseas if British racing cannot do what is necessary. Every other country seems able to do so.
"Some owners don’t need prize money as much as others and we are obvious candidates.
"But we have got to remember that the prize money is not just for the owners - it filters all the way down through the industry to every single member of stable staff and all the others who are the backbone of the British horseracing industry.
"That is the point - it is about the cogs in the wheels that make the British horseracing industry turn.
"Godolphin is definitely supporting the tariffs and I know that all the other Maktoum ownership entities like Darley and Rabbah will be supporting them as well.
"We will still be based in England for the summer but you might see even more of our horses racing overseas. We like Newmarket as a summer base - all our facilities are there - but if England, has not got suitable races we will go and find them elsewhere.
"You will find that a lot of our good horses are running elsewhere, such as Poet’s Voice and Rewilding here in Dubai - these are obvious horses to race back in England but they might not if the races aren’t there for them.
"You have the new Champions’ Day and other British races that we will be looking at. It is our responsibility to do the best we can for our horses.
"We won’t be entering in below-tariff races and we will find other races instead. In this day and age of efficient travel, it is not so difficult."
Source: http://www.godolphin.com/NewsArticle.aspx?id=5604
My personal take is that I feel owners do need to leave the game, it is no longer big enough and capable of supporting such numbers any more, we need a leaner and meaner industry and unfortunately that means job losses and horses will go. Why owners still don't except it as an expensive hobby overall is hard for me to understand, I get the feeling that many think everyone should be able to afford to own a race horse - it isn't nick named the sport of kings for nothing.
GODOLPHIN SUPPORTS BRITISH HORSEMEN’S GROUP MINIMUM PRIZE MONEY TARIFFS
23 March 2011
Godolphin horses will not run in British races which have prize money below the minimum tariff recommended by the Horsemen’s Group.
Simon Crisford, the Godolphin racing manager, revealed this policy at Godolphin’s annual media morning at Al Quoz Stables in Dubai on Wednesday, March 23.
He explained: "We will be supporting the tariffs and will not be running horses in any below-tariff races.
"Basically this is all about stable staff – it’s about trainers being able to pay a reasonable wage and people being potentially made redundant. Of course owners need prize money but the whole thing is about lots and lots of stable staff in Britain being made redundant if this whole matter is not sorted out.
"People will take their business overseas if British racing cannot do what is necessary. Every other country seems able to do so.
"Some owners don’t need prize money as much as others and we are obvious candidates.
"But we have got to remember that the prize money is not just for the owners - it filters all the way down through the industry to every single member of stable staff and all the others who are the backbone of the British horseracing industry.
"That is the point - it is about the cogs in the wheels that make the British horseracing industry turn.
"Godolphin is definitely supporting the tariffs and I know that all the other Maktoum ownership entities like Darley and Rabbah will be supporting them as well.
"We will still be based in England for the summer but you might see even more of our horses racing overseas. We like Newmarket as a summer base - all our facilities are there - but if England, has not got suitable races we will go and find them elsewhere.
"You will find that a lot of our good horses are running elsewhere, such as Poet’s Voice and Rewilding here in Dubai - these are obvious horses to race back in England but they might not if the races aren’t there for them.
"You have the new Champions’ Day and other British races that we will be looking at. It is our responsibility to do the best we can for our horses.
"We won’t be entering in below-tariff races and we will find other races instead. In this day and age of efficient travel, it is not so difficult."
Source: http://www.godolphin.com/NewsArticle.aspx?id=5604
My personal take is that I feel owners do need to leave the game, it is no longer big enough and capable of supporting such numbers any more, we need a leaner and meaner industry and unfortunately that means job losses and horses will go. Why owners still don't except it as an expensive hobby overall is hard for me to understand, I get the feeling that many think everyone should be able to afford to own a race horse - it isn't nick named the sport of kings for nothing.
Glad to hear that.andyfuller wrote:A couple of Sunday's ago Betfair had a representative on The Sunday Forum on ATR. He stated clearly that they would continue to pay the Levy as a voluntary Levy and still to the HBLB as long as the money was not going to be used to pursue Betfair and it's clients for increased Levy payments.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Betting shakeup will target offshore bookmakers
Offshore betting operations would have to be licensed under government plans to help fund horse-racing industry
The government is to launch a crackdown on offshore betting which will mean bookmakers operating in Britain, including those based abroad, must be licensed by the Gambling Commission.
The heritage minister, John Penrose, said: "We are intending to move as fast as we can towards a system which will fix the problem of offshore betting.
"We plan to move to a system which will switch away from the current organisation which has driven many bookmakers offshore."
Speaking to MPs on Wednesday night, he said the revamped industry would be based on the point of consumption rather than production.
"It means anybody based anywhere in the world who wants to sell gambling services to any consumer based in the UK will, in future, have to have a Gambling Commission licence."
The Conservative MP Matthew Hancock had earlier called for bookmakers taking bets in Britain to be run from Britain so they funded horse racing through the betting levy, rather than being able to avoid it by being based offshore.
"We need a level playing field by ensuring all gambling in the UK pays UK tax and UK levy."
He warned that racing prize money was falling fast and jobs that relied on the "sport of kings" were at risk.
Opening the debate, Hancock said funding for horse racing had been in crisis for the past few years.
"The problem is in part because those who make a profit from the sport through the gambling on it have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely."
He hoped to put the sport which "gives so much excitement to so many people on an even keel so its funding is fair and secure for years to come".
Penrose agreed reform was needed.
"The levy as it currently stands is broken," he said. "It does not work and people on all sides – whether in the gambling industry or in racing – are pretty united in their criticism of it."
Penrose said the government's plans would be set out in a written ministerial statement on Thursday.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... bookmakers
Offshore betting operations would have to be licensed under government plans to help fund horse-racing industry
The government is to launch a crackdown on offshore betting which will mean bookmakers operating in Britain, including those based abroad, must be licensed by the Gambling Commission.
The heritage minister, John Penrose, said: "We are intending to move as fast as we can towards a system which will fix the problem of offshore betting.
"We plan to move to a system which will switch away from the current organisation which has driven many bookmakers offshore."
Speaking to MPs on Wednesday night, he said the revamped industry would be based on the point of consumption rather than production.
"It means anybody based anywhere in the world who wants to sell gambling services to any consumer based in the UK will, in future, have to have a Gambling Commission licence."
The Conservative MP Matthew Hancock had earlier called for bookmakers taking bets in Britain to be run from Britain so they funded horse racing through the betting levy, rather than being able to avoid it by being based offshore.
"We need a level playing field by ensuring all gambling in the UK pays UK tax and UK levy."
He warned that racing prize money was falling fast and jobs that relied on the "sport of kings" were at risk.
Opening the debate, Hancock said funding for horse racing had been in crisis for the past few years.
"The problem is in part because those who make a profit from the sport through the gambling on it have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely."
He hoped to put the sport which "gives so much excitement to so many people on an even keel so its funding is fair and secure for years to come".
Penrose agreed reform was needed.
"The levy as it currently stands is broken," he said. "It does not work and people on all sides – whether in the gambling industry or in racing – are pretty united in their criticism of it."
Penrose said the government's plans would be set out in a written ministerial statement on Thursday.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... bookmakers
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Written Ministerial Statement on Remote Gambling Policy Proposals
Thursday 14 July 2011
The Minister for Tourism and Heritage (John Penrose):
British consumers face different consumer protection arrangements and have to deal with a myriad of different regulators and languages depending on where the gambling they are taking part in is regulated. This problem is growing as more countries permit online gambling. At the same time, it is unfair to GB-licensed gambling operators that overseas competitors benefit from access to the market in Great Britain without bearing a fair share of the costs of regulation, or of research, education and treatment of problem gambling.
I am proposing that the Gambling Act should be amended so that remote gambling is regulated on a point of consumption basis, so that all operators selling into the British market, whether from here or abroad, will be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain.
As I intend to allow operators anywhere in the world to apply for a Gambling Commission licence, my proposals will mean that the white list will be phased out, although the Gambling Commission will ensure that regulatory good practice is recognised so that overseas based businesses in trusted jurisdictions such as the white listed countries, will have much lighter touch approach and, for example, will not have to duplicate regulatory work.
To ensure the minimum disruption for operators in the British market, I intend to put in place a period of transition which will see operators already licensed in EEA Member States and the existing white-listed jurisdictions entitled to or eligible for an automatic transitional licence to prevent them having to cease trading.
These proposals are an important measure to help address concerns about problem gambling and to bridge a regulatory gap, by ensuring that British consumers will enjoy consistent standards of protection, no matter which online gambling site they visit. For example, previous work by the Gambling Commission has highlighted deficiencies in some remote operators’ arrangements for preventing underage play, and, for the first time, overseas operators will be required to inform the UK regulator about suspicious betting patterns to help fight illegal activity and corruption in sports betting.
These reforms will ensure consistency and a level playing field as all overseas operators will be subject to the same regulatory standards and requirements as British-based operators.
The Government will work with the Gambling Commission and other stakeholders to develop the detailed arrangements for the new licensing system which will require changes to primary legislation.
Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/minister ... /8293.aspx
Thursday 14 July 2011
The Minister for Tourism and Heritage (John Penrose):
British consumers face different consumer protection arrangements and have to deal with a myriad of different regulators and languages depending on where the gambling they are taking part in is regulated. This problem is growing as more countries permit online gambling. At the same time, it is unfair to GB-licensed gambling operators that overseas competitors benefit from access to the market in Great Britain without bearing a fair share of the costs of regulation, or of research, education and treatment of problem gambling.
I am proposing that the Gambling Act should be amended so that remote gambling is regulated on a point of consumption basis, so that all operators selling into the British market, whether from here or abroad, will be required to hold a Gambling Commission licence to enable them to transact with British consumers and to advertise in Great Britain.
As I intend to allow operators anywhere in the world to apply for a Gambling Commission licence, my proposals will mean that the white list will be phased out, although the Gambling Commission will ensure that regulatory good practice is recognised so that overseas based businesses in trusted jurisdictions such as the white listed countries, will have much lighter touch approach and, for example, will not have to duplicate regulatory work.
To ensure the minimum disruption for operators in the British market, I intend to put in place a period of transition which will see operators already licensed in EEA Member States and the existing white-listed jurisdictions entitled to or eligible for an automatic transitional licence to prevent them having to cease trading.
These proposals are an important measure to help address concerns about problem gambling and to bridge a regulatory gap, by ensuring that British consumers will enjoy consistent standards of protection, no matter which online gambling site they visit. For example, previous work by the Gambling Commission has highlighted deficiencies in some remote operators’ arrangements for preventing underage play, and, for the first time, overseas operators will be required to inform the UK regulator about suspicious betting patterns to help fight illegal activity and corruption in sports betting.
These reforms will ensure consistency and a level playing field as all overseas operators will be subject to the same regulatory standards and requirements as British-based operators.
The Government will work with the Gambling Commission and other stakeholders to develop the detailed arrangements for the new licensing system which will require changes to primary legislation.
Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/minister ... /8293.aspx
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
I am sure HMRC will be looking at getting some of the tax back they have lost.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Racing Post wrote:
2012 fixtures capped 'to protect competitiveness'
BY HOWARD WRIGHT 11:43AM 5 AUG 2011
THERE will be at least 80 fewer fixtures in Britain in 2012 than this year following the BHA’s decision to cap the number at 1,400.
Publication of the 2012 fixture list, which has been held up because of discussions on funding from the Levy Board, will be no later than Friday, September 30.
A statement from the BHAsaid the decision to cut fixtures was “due to concerns regarding the ability of the declining horse population to continue to service the existing fixture list.”
It added that recent analytical research undertaken by Weatherbys into the likely impact of sharply falling foal crops strongly suggested an increased rate of decline in horse numbers in 2012.
With nearly 40 per cent of races currently attracting seven or fewer runners, the reduction had been approved with a view to protecting the competitiveness of British racing, the statement said.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra ... 95276/top/