Skip to main content

the Betfair/BHA Levy deal

So Betfair and the BHA have struck a five-year deal which should deliver 'at least' £40m in funding to the British racing industry. The deal has been struck at 10.75% of revenues from British residents wagering on UK racing, effectively locking in the rate they already pay as a voluntary figure, since Betfair are now baed in Gibraltar.

A few comments:
1. Well played to both sides on getting in early. Getting the lawyers in only makes those leaches richer and does nothing for forging stronger relationships.

2. This deal sets an example for other firms as the industry tries to phase out the Levy scheme.

3. The deal doesn't go far enough in that whether someone is based in Britain or not should be irrelevant - if they bet on British racing, then they should be supporting British racing. But since this group have seemingly abandoned Australian racing, will they start paying UK revenue if they move further into British racing?

4. Critics of Betfair will say this doesn't go far enough... yet at the same time, they are happy to support the High St bookies who all moved to Gibraltar first to avoid paying Levy and/or tax on their online and phone business.

Will the second reading of the bill to tax bets from British residents at the point of placement rather than processing put a further sting in the tail for UK firms?

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