Skip to main content

how does WA racing justify a higher rate than Victoria?

Western Australia, after copping a caning from the courts over trying to ban Betfair, has now reluctantly agreed to include a gross revenue deal in their racefield fees legislation. Every state now has to introduce some form of fee legislation, as they get charged by every other state for it, with the breakdown of the old gentleman's agreement which let the TABs bet on each other's product in a free contra deal. WA are in the position if being a net importer of racing product, so they are going to have to cover the shortfall somehow.

Racing NSW are currently in court doing battle with Betfair and Sportsbet over their attempts at imposing a turnover-based fee, while Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania all went with fees on gross revenue. Victoria, the premier racing state in Australia, set their fee at 10% for the year rising to 15% during the prestige spring carnival. Sounds justified to me. South Aus went with 10% as well.

Western Australia to apply retrospective race field levy


The levy will be based on either 1.5% of turnover or the greater of 20% of gross revenues or 0.2% of turnover, which will be directed to the Western Australian racing industry. In addition the levy will be retrospectively applicable from September 1st 2008.


The Minister attempted to justify it with this:

Racing and Gaming Minister Terry Waldron said the Legislative Council had passed the legislation without amendment and that the industry would soon benefit from this important revenue flow.

"The Western Australian TAB is currently paying fees to interstate racing industries for the right to bet on their racing product and these fees amount to about $18million per year," said Waldron.

"This legislation will allow the Western Australian racing industry to charge similar fees to wagering operators across Australia and overseas for betting on WA racing and thereby claw back up to $15million of lost revenue."


(Note the WA TAB is one of the few still owned by the government and not by shareholders).

Just because you've got heavy debts because the other states supply most of the 'product' doesn't mean you can charge twice as much as Victoria for weaker quality racing. This screams 'we only want the TAB but we will at least make it look like we considered non-govt owned/protected wagering businesses'.

Expect the lawyers to get involved in this one too....

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...

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla