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

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...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…