Skip to main content

Paul Roy wouldn't last five minutes at a listed company

When a publicly-listed company's CEO is stuck in the past and continually pisses money up against the wall, major investors waste no time in demanding a leadership change. The racing industry however, has no such structure, no such powerful stakeholders within, and no such chance of getting rid of a complete clod at the helm....

We've been here before:

How many fuckups is Paul Roy entitled to?

There's also a great article from ATR presenter Sean Boyce on one of his earlier blunders, but his site is giving a malware warning, so I'll pass on that for the moment.


Now Roy wants to blow the rest of the racing's rent money on a 100/1 shot with a formline of being flogged at every start.

Racing the loser as Paul Roy links with William Hill to fight Betfair

There is no prospect of success for the British Horseracing Authority as it seeks a judicial review of how the Levy Board handles betting exchanges.

Anyone who walked down High Holborn last Thursday ran the risk of being hit by a flying champagne cork. The source of danger was not the offices of the British Horseracing Authority at 75 but the building that houses their lawyers, Olswang, at No90. The cause for celebration was the news that, in an unlikely alliance with the bookmaker William Hill, the BHA has decided to take the Levy Board to court.

The board decided earlier this year that it would not pursue some users of betting exchanges – ie Betfair – for levy payments, having taken advice from two QCs who reached "materially identical" conclusions that it was not within the board's power to do so. The BHA and Hill's have now decided to subject this decision to a judicial review and, if the learned friends cannot squeeze a seven-figure sum from that, they are not trying hard enough.

The eventual outcome can scarcely be in doubt. The Levy Board's advisers, Michael Fordham QC and Lord Pannick QC, are the top people in the field. The chance that the BHA/bookie team will find a judge prepared to disagree with them is as remote as the offshore servers that Hill's exploit in order to dodge their own levy obligations. Yet still Paul Roy, the BHA chairman, and Ralph Topping, the bellicose chief executive of William Hill, seem intent on pressing on. It is at once fascinating, baffling, stupid and pointless.

...
...

The BHA was supposed to be a new, inclusive governing body that would put a stop to the continuous skirmishing. Instead it has decided to join in. That suggests that either Paul Roy or the authority he leads is not fit for purpose. Then again, it could be both.



Worse than a nagging wife at letting something go, and with completely the opposite chance of winning the argument. Racing is having a brilliant flat season yet the BHA cannot stop itself from making monumental blunders. That the racing industry allows this muppet to continue in his post only highlights how divided and outdated it is.

Comments

  1. Well said , Scott.

    It does appear that we have a case of 'ego' versus 'expectations': Roy's runaway ego versus the reasonable expectation that as the BHA Chairman he would be dedicating his (handsomely rewarded) 'time and efforts' to what was best suited to developing the BHA into a highly respected and successful body by the industry it is meant to represent!

    He's just another 'wannabe' power player, rubbing sweaty shoulders with those who also wield it without consideration for those they are charged with representing.

    Bookmakers: never have so few, taken so much, from so many, for so long.

    Paul Roy : never has so little ability been rewarded so well, by so few, to the detriment of so many.

    Keep up the good work, Scott, it's a delight to find such intelligence, and sanity, in this world today.

    Edmund.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

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