Skip to main content

as the dust starts to settle

The panic and hyperbole after the Federal Court overturned the NSW racefields legislation case in favour of Racing NSW has been ridiculous. Trainers threatening to move states (from the richest state of racing in Australia to one which has been a basket case for many years, but might just get its hands on a huge wad of cash to piss up against a wall), owners' associations calling for the heads of Racing Victoria for carrying out sound business practice called negotiation rather than wasting years and millions of dollars in court and various Tabcorp press releases handed to their mouthpiece newspapers, particularly the Daily Telegraph, spouting all sorts of crap regarding product fees applying to other sports. Tabcorp, the bed partner of Racing NSW, which somehow manages to cop an exemption from paying the local racefields fees (due to the fees it pays to the government and racing industry under the terms of the privatisation), outrageously also gets exemptions from paying a product fee on any racing outside NSW - unlike any other wagering firm in the country - tote, corporate bookmaker or betting exchange.

Andrew Twaits blogged about it on his site, but of course people will (rightly or wrongly) accuse him of being biased and selective with his facts.

Racing Queensland posted a press release last week to refute all the outlandish claims about how a turnover tax for NSW will put them way ahead of other states.

Racing Victoria collected $45m in race fields fee over the last 12 months, equivalent to a turnover tax of 1.44% by their calculations, rising to 1.82% for the peak period of October.


“It should be noted that turnover on Victorian thoroughbred racing has increased substantially since the introduction of corporate bookmakers,” Racing Victoria chief executive Rob Hines, said.

“Having these lower margin operators in the market has stimulated wagering and improved returns to the industry by attracting price sensitive customers to racing.

“In the absence of these customers it is likely that total turnover would have been lower with a consequential reduction in revenues to Victorian racing.”


Tabcorp, Racing NSW and bodies such as TROA run by dinosaurs who cannot see past the TAB propaganda, are hell-bent on the turnover model simply because they are incapable of seeing there are other options out there that might actually be better for the industry. They're not trying to increase the overall wagering pie, just snuff out the competition to the almighty TAB, which in any way, shape or form, is an anti-competitive business practice.

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

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

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. T