Skip to main content

Betfair v Racing NSW

This case has been running all week and will continue for a few days yet. Numerous articles about it in the Aus press with Racing NSW gaining some ground (they couldn't really lose much more) and legalese choking proceedings to a very slow grind. One quote from tomorrow's article in the Sydney Morning Herald I wanted to highlight though:

Racing NSW argues that the fee should be calculated by turnover because turnover is easier to assess and ''less susceptible to avoidance or manipulation'' than gross revenue.

It also argues that turnover is not influenced by the particular business model or business decisions made by the company.

Turnover is also preferable to gross revenue because it cannot be manipulated by inducements, rebates or benefits given to valuable customers, Racing NSW argues.


Rubbish, there is not one system in the world which is manipulation-proof. On-course bookmakers in Aus have been caught over the years taking bets on a second set of books - specifically to avoid turnover tax. Certain corporate bookies have added zeros to significant bets to make them into sexy press releases to send around to all the nation's journos. Turnover is very easy to influence by business model - accept bet, reject bet, tighten margins. If the TABs moved to a 4% margin (instead of 16+) tomorrow, do you think their turnover wouldn't see an enormous increase??

Turnover is only an important performance indicator for the totes, bookies have little interest in turnover, it's the bottom line which counts. And since profits of these companies have to be reported to the government and to the stock exchange for some, then there should be more checks and balances in the gross profits model.

Totes have a place in the betting market, and so do corporate bookmakers and betting exchanges. Trying to protect one will just kill interest across the board and allow the TABs, which one has to remember are not government-owned anymore they have shareholders too, to increase their margins as they see fit as regulations change and more matey agreements are struck behind closed doors....

Ever been to a racecourse in a country with only totes? If you're a punter, it's like watching paint dry (with the exception of rare feature days and Hong Kong which is an isolated case because they understand the balance of quality v quantity).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

hope for investors in the Centaur scandal?

In a breaking story, it has been reported that directors of the failed sports investment fund Centaur have had their assets frozen in order to repay investors. It is believed that managing director Keith Sobey skipped town trying to avoid prosecution however he either naively thought Ireland was a safe enough place to hide or had a lingering feeling of guilt and sat waiting for that knock on the door. Sobey, the name behind Centaur ( read the original story here ), is believed to own four houses, worth more in total than the missing £1.6m. His willingness to sell them to repay investors is likely to keep the matter out of the courts, and at least one other director, Andrew Cork, will apparently follow suit. All this adds weight to anecdotal evidence that the collapse of the fund came down to mismanagement rather than fraudulent deeds. As costs grew (why would you set up a training academy in central London?), margins evaporated and keeping the business afloat went through money like