I don't subscribe to the racing post but I see that Racing For Change are going to run a trial of Lunch time racing. I can't say I am too keen on this. I like to have my mornings off as I already spend long enough trading each day so starting a couple of hours earlier is something I am definitely not keen on. Not sure of how they will do it but if I remember correctly when something similar was done back in early 2000 and they showed one race on channel 4 it proved to be a flop. I suspect the same will happen this time. It won't half put pressure on trainers and jockies who don't normally finish morning stables until midday.
The other more worrying news is that Paul Dixon of the ROA has called for a return to a Levy system based on turnover and not gross profits. If this were to happen it would be the end of trading the UK racing I would think. Will it happen? Surely not in a month of Sundays. When they moved to the current system turnover rocketed and the levy went up in turn. Again I haven't read the article so am not sure what angle he is coming at it from but I suspect he has an axe to grind against Betfair?
I think these two bits of latest news just go to show what a sorry state racing is in and that it is still being run by a group of individuals with no foresight and as long as this continues racing will continue to suffer.
If anyone who does subscribe would be willing to paste in the stories that would be great.
Lunchtime racing and turnover Levy
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Lunchtime racing is set for a trial run, says RFC
BY HOWARD WRIGHT 10:00AM 25 JUN 2010
LUNCHTIME racing is on the way as part of the Racing For Change initiative, provided media rights' holders, horsemen and racecourses agree a trial run, project manager Rod Street revealed on Thursday.
Updating Racehorse Owners' Association members on RFC progress, Street explained: "The bookmakers tell us that a good trading period for them in shops is between 12 noon and 2pm but, particularly in the summer months, there is often no British racing action until 2pm.
"That periodis therefore dominated by greyhounds, overseas racing and virtual racing. So it makes perfect sense to make our product available during the busy trading periods.
"Our philosophy for RFC is about doing a thousand things better. There is little wrong with our core offering. We just need to turn its volume up, to help broaden the appeal of British horse racing; to make racing more popular; more bums on seats, more betting; more owners, more opportunities."
The success of RFC's five-year plan would be judged against its chief areas of focus, Street said - a younger audience demographic; increased market share of betting, value of media rights and press coverage; better customer racecourse experience, and greater awareness of the sport.
BY HOWARD WRIGHT 10:00AM 25 JUN 2010
LUNCHTIME racing is on the way as part of the Racing For Change initiative, provided media rights' holders, horsemen and racecourses agree a trial run, project manager Rod Street revealed on Thursday.
Updating Racehorse Owners' Association members on RFC progress, Street explained: "The bookmakers tell us that a good trading period for them in shops is between 12 noon and 2pm but, particularly in the summer months, there is often no British racing action until 2pm.
"That periodis therefore dominated by greyhounds, overseas racing and virtual racing. So it makes perfect sense to make our product available during the busy trading periods.
"Our philosophy for RFC is about doing a thousand things better. There is little wrong with our core offering. We just need to turn its volume up, to help broaden the appeal of British horse racing; to make racing more popular; more bums on seats, more betting; more owners, more opportunities."
The success of RFC's five-year plan would be judged against its chief areas of focus, Street said - a younger audience demographic; increased market share of betting, value of media rights and press coverage; better customer racecourse experience, and greater awareness of the sport.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Now I have read the article I think it is even more of a shocking idea. We are going to end up with one lunchtime meeting and only 2 afternoon meetings. The only hope is that they make it a Monday or Tuesday just to reinforce taking the day off.
RFC really is poor, all they need to do is look back 7years or so to see this idea does not work.
RFC really is poor, all they need to do is look back 7years or so to see this idea does not work.
-
mangomasher
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:02 am
Oh dear oh dear!! Once again the RFC have shown how clueless they are!
UK racehorse owners president calls for turnover-based levy 25 Jun 2010
Racingpost.com
The government should turn back the clock a decade to address racing's "deep financial crisis" by reintroducing a levy based on bookmakers' turnover, not gross profits, Racehorse Owners' Association president Paul Dixon urged on Thursday.
Based on a Deloitte estimate of £12 billion being bet on British horse racing in 2007, which would now be considerably more, he reasoned "a turnover levy of one and a quarter per cent would produce £150 million".
While exonerating Sportingbet, which make a voluntary contribution that matches what they would pay in levy, from offshore criticism, Dixon said: "The current gross profits system for paying tax and levy was advocated by the bookmakers at the turn of the century, and agreed by the government on the basis that the bookmakers would not go offshore. But they have gone offshore.
"Now, in this time of crisis, racing must seriously consider whether a return to a system where the levy is based on turnover would be in our best interests."
The figure of £150m equates exactly to the top end of the range suggested by the BHA as fitting racing's needs from the levy, which was put forward in the submission that started negotiations on the 2011-12 scheme.
Although the bookmakers have yet to respond, Dixon said the process, which has to be completed by October 31, seemed destined to end in referral to the government.
He added: "Right now the racing industry needs a big idea to take to government as part of the levy determination process."
A levy based on turnover, which was scrapped in line with the government's adoption of a gross profits tax scheme in October 2001, was "the big idea".
Dixon said: "Mention bookmakers' gross profits as a means of funding racing to anybody outside this country, and they look at you with a mixture of bewilderment and amusement. No other country has this system and no other country would surely ever consider it.
"It is not that we have to live with the extraordinary and uncomfortable position that what is bad for punters is good for British racing and vice versa.
"It is not that when bookmakers lose £50m at Royal Ascot we know that racing's income is reduced by yet another £5m. It is not even the fact that the gross profits system makes forecasting racing's income volatile and unpredictable.
"All these factors we could live with, but the betting world has changed in a way that we could never have predicted nearly a decade ago.
"The reason is the extraordinary growth of betting exchanges. Exchanges have changed the whole dynamics of betting in recent years and, in particular, they have had a major effect on margins.
"Indeed, returning to a turnover system would deal with the problem that racing has with the exchanges not paying an adequate amount into the levy in one fell swoop."
Dealing with the betting exchange issue is part of racing's case for receiving considerably more money from the levy, and Dixon reiterated the other main issues - payment thresholds, lack of levy paid by overseas betting operators and reinstatement of levy on overseas racing shown in British betting shops.
He was addressing the association's annual meeting, just hours before he joined fellow Levy Board members to finalise a series of deep cuts brought about by rapidly falling income from the sport's biggest fundraiser.
"Minimum prize-money levels in the second half of this year are likely to decline by around 20 per cent," Dixon told his audience in London's Carlton Tower hotel.
"Looking at next year, it seems we will struggle to get to the prize-money levels that existed a decade ago. The projected annual total figureof between £80-85m is 25 per cent lower than 2009's total."
Racingpost.com
The government should turn back the clock a decade to address racing's "deep financial crisis" by reintroducing a levy based on bookmakers' turnover, not gross profits, Racehorse Owners' Association president Paul Dixon urged on Thursday.
Based on a Deloitte estimate of £12 billion being bet on British horse racing in 2007, which would now be considerably more, he reasoned "a turnover levy of one and a quarter per cent would produce £150 million".
While exonerating Sportingbet, which make a voluntary contribution that matches what they would pay in levy, from offshore criticism, Dixon said: "The current gross profits system for paying tax and levy was advocated by the bookmakers at the turn of the century, and agreed by the government on the basis that the bookmakers would not go offshore. But they have gone offshore.
"Now, in this time of crisis, racing must seriously consider whether a return to a system where the levy is based on turnover would be in our best interests."
The figure of £150m equates exactly to the top end of the range suggested by the BHA as fitting racing's needs from the levy, which was put forward in the submission that started negotiations on the 2011-12 scheme.
Although the bookmakers have yet to respond, Dixon said the process, which has to be completed by October 31, seemed destined to end in referral to the government.
He added: "Right now the racing industry needs a big idea to take to government as part of the levy determination process."
A levy based on turnover, which was scrapped in line with the government's adoption of a gross profits tax scheme in October 2001, was "the big idea".
Dixon said: "Mention bookmakers' gross profits as a means of funding racing to anybody outside this country, and they look at you with a mixture of bewilderment and amusement. No other country has this system and no other country would surely ever consider it.
"It is not that we have to live with the extraordinary and uncomfortable position that what is bad for punters is good for British racing and vice versa.
"It is not that when bookmakers lose £50m at Royal Ascot we know that racing's income is reduced by yet another £5m. It is not even the fact that the gross profits system makes forecasting racing's income volatile and unpredictable.
"All these factors we could live with, but the betting world has changed in a way that we could never have predicted nearly a decade ago.
"The reason is the extraordinary growth of betting exchanges. Exchanges have changed the whole dynamics of betting in recent years and, in particular, they have had a major effect on margins.
"Indeed, returning to a turnover system would deal with the problem that racing has with the exchanges not paying an adequate amount into the levy in one fell swoop."
Dealing with the betting exchange issue is part of racing's case for receiving considerably more money from the levy, and Dixon reiterated the other main issues - payment thresholds, lack of levy paid by overseas betting operators and reinstatement of levy on overseas racing shown in British betting shops.
He was addressing the association's annual meeting, just hours before he joined fellow Levy Board members to finalise a series of deep cuts brought about by rapidly falling income from the sport's biggest fundraiser.
"Minimum prize-money levels in the second half of this year are likely to decline by around 20 per cent," Dixon told his audience in London's Carlton Tower hotel.
"Looking at next year, it seems we will struggle to get to the prize-money levels that existed a decade ago. The projected annual total figureof between £80-85m is 25 per cent lower than 2009's total."
I can't for a minute believe that anyone sensible would want to turn the clock back to a turnover based levy system. The bookies, who now get almost as much income from roulette machines as they do racing, would be up in arms and it would completely decimate liquidity on betfair which would in turn riun things heavily for on course bookies. Surely there is no chance of this actually happening??
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Looks like Betfair are firmly in the Cross Hair - doesn't bode well for the future 
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
The roulette profits/turnover can't be touched by racing. Racing only get the Levy on racing bets. Not so sure the bookmakers would be against it that much, remember it would only apply to most bookmaker's shops as most now have their Call Centres and Servers offshore so pay nothing on that part of their business.hgodden wrote:The bookies, who now get almost as much income from roulette machines as they do racing, would be up in arms
I know that, my point is that racing is not so important to bookies as it once was, they have many other sources of income and if they have to fork out (more) money to subsidise the racing industry they are hardly likely to be happy either.
In any case if that did happen betfair could just go offshore and avoid it themselves surely?
In any case if that did happen betfair could just go offshore and avoid it themselves surely?
Would it apply to Betfair though, given that they are not a bookmaker?
Also, if Betfair decided to respond by upping sticks from London and moving to (say) Gibraltar (which is quite plausible, given the vast gulf between their profits and their turnover), it's hard to see what the authorities in the UK could do about it...
Jeff
Also, if Betfair decided to respond by upping sticks from London and moving to (say) Gibraltar (which is quite plausible, given the vast gulf between their profits and their turnover), it's hard to see what the authorities in the UK could do about it...
Jeff
hgodden wrote:Does nobody else have an opinion on this whole turnover based levy issue? I thought it would be a more popular topic since it could potentially (how unlikely I don't know) spell the end of trading on UK races....
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Betfair are a bookmaker so yes it would apply to them.Ferru123 wrote:Would it apply to Betfair though, given that they are not a bookmaker?
They could ban Betfair like other countries within the EU have done perhaps, it wasn't so long ago Ireland were threatening this.Ferru123 wrote:Also, if Betfair decided to respond by upping sticks from London and moving to (say) Gibraltar (which is quite plausible, given the vast gulf between their profits and their turnover), it's hard to see what the authorities in the UK could do about it...
They could introduce legislation so that any bookmaker operating offshore is liable for the tax if they wish to operate in this country, I think I have read something about this recently.
I would be quite confident they could do something to stop them. It is an issue that is on both the racing and government radar as the bookmakers are making a lot of money out of the people/sport in this country and giving very little back.
Horse racing is in a dire funding situation and it is not only a big sport but a huge part of the economy and one that the government can ill afford to let go to the wall.
I do not think it is coincidence that Betfair have been at pains to remain in this country paying tax and levy on both custom from the UK and making the voluntary payment of levy for custom from outside the UK despite being very easy to relocate out of the UK. They know that a tax on turnover would be the end of them, just look at how much money they are spending in the Australian courts!
As was said above, I am also surprised by how little comment there has been on what is such a huge topic.