From MR Bruss RE the show

Dear Dave
Thank you for your email.
I am currently in Hong Kong for the International Movement of Horses Workshop which seeks to solve export protocol issues.

I was asked by Tellytrack to chair the first of a series of programmes on the intellectual property issue last Thursday evening with the recording of the programme at 8 am on Friday morning. I was given the legal pleadings of Tellytrack but did not have available the complaint made by the 45 bookmakers seeking the injunction.

I agreed to the show because I am interested in what is fair for the sport of horse racing and made it clear that I act as an independent. I am no one's patsy.

In the first 30 min programme it was impossible to delve much more than raise the background to the issues and to speculate that there will be widespread implications. It is after all, a divergence from the regular business model for racing.

Sports are generally funded by sponsorships, media rights and merchandising based on their intellectual property, but not from betting. Horseracing uniquely is funded by betting but very limited in sponsorship and almost nothing from its IP.

In the parliamentary hearings reviewing the National Gambling Review Commission, the subject of IP came up and after consideration it was recommended that sporting codes be entitled to leverage the principle of being paid for their televised content. This has evidently spurred Tellytrack to demand a commission on turnover.

The bookmakers position remains to be debated but in the knowledge that the court hearings was days away, I thought that evaluating their application and the legal response was of greater importance than speculation.

Secondly and more importantly, I was adamant in my agreement with Tellytrack in doing the show that I wish to hear all views. It is definitely in the public interest to understand the nature of the issues.

It's also interesting to consider wider aspects - eg if intellectual property rights generate revenue, to what extent will that revenue serve the sport of Horseracing and to what extent will it serve the shareholders of Phumelela ? ie do I own the intellectual property of my own horse and if someone bets on it - tote or books - am I entitled to a royalty (3% of what gets bet on him? Or does this only apply to those that put on the show or televise it ? If I am the actor, should the cinema and the televised product be entitled to the bulk of the IP proceeds ?)

In the new business model we are facing, racing is trying to introduce IP revenue to add to its betting revenue. This question arises - Will other sports also align itself similarly by insisting on betting revenue on their sports?

If you look at 3% of turnover as an income it strikes me that Tellytrack might generate greater net profit than Phiumelela or Gold Circle - does this mean the emergence of a media company that has the opportunity and funding resource available to re-write the way racing is televised ? This could mean the emergence of a bouquet of channels with a dedicated programme on local races which feature a more authentic version of the Sport rather than just betting.. And it could all in High Definition with super zoom cameras or cameras mounted on a wire with great close ups and sectional timing. This would be exciting. We could have a world leading product.

Currently bookmakers collect tax from winning punters only. Those punters who bet on losers make no contribution. For me this is an unfair gap and the principle of a turnover tax therefore appears valid and welcomed.

In the debate which follows its also interesting to understand how betting on Horseracing accounts for 7% of National gambling turnover but is paying 14% of national tax. Casinos account for 85% of turnover but pay 75% of tax. The discrepancy of 7% is from turnover of R11,8bn so it appears that three quarters of a billion Rand is flowing out of the system every year and contributing to our woes. I did raise this in parliament.

A happy model is one in which all parties are treated equitably and all prosper. Currently imbalances exist but its changing. Those affected by change will complain and those who benefit may have to share. Debate is healthy, but ultimately the decisions seem likely to be made in courts as few people will voluntarily give up income for the greater good.

Hopefully the next few televised programmes will enable us to discuss many of the points openly. I hope that my knowledge base will be up to it and I can aspire to be more of a competent interviewer and not just a mediator as has been suggested.

Thanks
Robin Bruss

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Dear Dave
> Thank you for your email.
> I am currently in Hong Kong for the International
> Movement of Horses Workshop which seeks to solve
> export protocol issues.
>
> I was asked by Tellytrack to chair the first of a
> series of programmes on the intellectual property
> issue last Thursday evening with the recording of
> the programme at 8 am on Friday morning. I was
> given the legal pleadings of Tellytrack but did
> not have available the complaint made by the 45
> bookmakers seeking the injunction.
>
> I agreed to the show because I am interested in
> what is fair for the sport of horse racing and
> made it clear that I act as an independent. I am
> no one's patsy.
>
> In the first 30 min programme it was impossible to
> delve much more than raise the background to the
> issues and to speculate that there will be
> widespread implications. It is after all, a
> divergence from the regular business model for
> racing.
>
> Sports are generally funded by sponsorships, media
> rights and merchandising based on their
> intellectual property, but not from betting.
> Horseracing uniquely is funded by betting but very
> limited in sponsorship and almost nothing from its
> IP.
>
> In the parliamentary hearings reviewing the
> National Gambling Review Commission, the subject
> of IP came up and after consideration it was
> recommended that sporting codes be entitled to
> leverage the principle of being paid for their
> televised content. This has evidently spurred
> Tellytrack to demand a commission on turnover.
>
> The bookmakers position remains to be debated but
> in the knowledge that the court hearings was days
> away, I thought that evaluating their application
> and the legal response was of greater importance
> than speculation.
>
> Secondly and more importantly, I was adamant in my
> agreement with Tellytrack in doing the show that I
> wish to hear all views. It is definitely in the
> public interest to understand the nature of the
> issues.
>
> It's also interesting to consider wider aspects -
> eg if intellectual property rights generate
> revenue, to what extent will that revenue serve
> the sport of Horseracing and to what extent will
> it serve the shareholders of Phumelela ? ie do I
> own the intellectual property of my own horse and
> if someone bets on it - tote or books - am I
> entitled to a royalty (3% of what gets bet on him?
> Or does this only apply to those that put on the
> show or televise it ? If I am the actor, should
> the cinema and the televised product be entitled
> to the bulk of the IP proceeds ?)
>
> In the new business model we are facing, racing is
> trying to introduce IP revenue to add to its
> betting revenue. This question arises - Will
> other sports also align itself similarly by
> insisting on betting revenue on their sports?
>
> If you look at 3% of turnover as an income it
> strikes me that Tellytrack might generate greater
> net profit than Phiumelela or Gold Circle - does
> this mean the emergence of a media company that
> has the opportunity and funding resource available
> to re-write the way racing is televised ? This
> could mean the emergence of a bouquet of channels
> with a dedicated programme on local races which
> feature a more authentic version of the Sport
> rather than just betting.. And it could all in
> High Definition with super zoom cameras or cameras
> mounted on a wire with great close ups and
> sectional timing. This would be exciting. We could
> have a world leading product.
>
> Currently bookmakers collect tax from winning
> punters only. Those punters who bet on losers make
> no contribution. For me this is an unfair gap and
> the principle of a turnover tax therefore appears
> valid and welcomed.
>
> In the debate which follows its also interesting
> to understand how betting on Horseracing accounts
> for 7% of National gambling turnover but is paying
> 14% of national tax. Casinos account for 85% of
> turnover but pay 75% of tax. The discrepancy of 7%
> is from turnover of R11,8bn so it appears that
> three quarters of a billion Rand is flowing out of
> the system every year and contributing to our
> woes. I did raise this in parliament.
>
> A happy model is one in which all parties are
> treated equitably and all prosper. Currently
> imbalances exist but its changing. Those affected
> by change will complain and those who benefit may
> have to share. Debate is healthy, but ultimately
> the decisions seem likely to be made in courts as
> few people will voluntarily give up income for the
> greater good.
>
> Hopefully the next few televised programmes will
> enable us to discuss many of the points openly. I
> hope that my knowledge base will be up to it and I
> can aspire to be more of a competent interviewer
> and not just a mediator as has been suggested.
>
> Thanks
> Robin Bruss

Fair enough.............as long as all sides are presented!

Interesting times ahead :S

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Robin Bruss wrote: "Currently bookmakers collect tax from winning punters only. Those punters who bet on losers make no contribution. For me this is an unfair gap and the principle of a turnover tax therefore appears valid and welcomed."

Of course the losing punters make every contribution, where on earth do you think the winning punters money came from? A bookmaker holds all the bets in a field of horses in a race. Which ever horse wins, the bookmaker has to hope that all the losing money covers the winning punters bets. The losing punter loses 100% of his money, the winning punter hands back 6% of his winnings and gets his 100% of his stake back, the bookmaker hopes to keep more than he pays out over a period, national figures show about 10% as opposed to the totes 24% and the totes very low "income" tax.

Robin, you do try to be impartial although your bias is built in like a religeous belief that stakes are the lifesblood of the sport, and you are entitled to it. I also believe you know far more about the tote than you do about bookmakers. Perhaps you should spend an afternoon with a friendly bookmaker before your next show with a view to understanding turnover in a fixed odds environment. To be fair, do the same at a tote.

I don't mean to become a bookmaker apologist but it's getting very tired that people in decision making positions make statements similar to this and are factually wrong at a basic level. In this case for example, it's a basic arithmetic error where you think things are not adding up. Everyone is entitled to opinions on principle, but you can't have wrong "opinions" about a fact!

Those punters who bet on losers make no contribution.

Dear Sir

You bet in Race 3 lost...please contribute another 25% tax....:D:D<

> Those punters who bet on losers make no
> contribution.

Punters' losses are bookmakers' incomes. Bookmakers' incomes are taxed.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

>
> > Robin Bruss wrote: "Currently bookmakers collect
> tax from winning punters only. Those punters who
> bet on losers make no contribution. For me this is
> an unfair gap and the principle of a turnover tax
> therefore appears valid and welcomed."
>
> Of course the losing punters make every
> contribution, where on earth do you think the
> winning punters money came from? A bookmaker
> holds all the bets in a field of horses in a race.
> Which ever horse wins, the bookmaker has to hope
> that all the losing money covers the winning
> punters bets. The losing punter loses 100% of his
> money, the winning punter hands back 6% of his
> winnings and gets his 100% of his stake back, the
> bookmaker hopes to keep more than he pays out over
> a period, national figures show about 10% as
> opposed to the totes 24% and the totes very low
> "income" tax.
>
> Robin, you do try to be impartial although your
> bias is built in like a religeous belief that
> stakes are the lifesblood of the sport, and you
> are entitled to it. I also believe you know far
> more about the tote than you do about bookmakers.
> Perhaps you should spend an afternoon with a
> friendly bookmaker before your next show with a
> view to understanding turnover in a fixed odds
> environment. To be fair, do the same at a tote.
>
> I don't mean to become a bookmaker apologist but
> it's getting very tired that people in decision
> making positions make statements similar to this
> and are factually wrong at a basic level. In this
> case for example, it's a basic arithmetic error
> where you think things are not adding up.
> Everyone is entitled to opinions on principle, but
> you can't have wrong "opinions" about a fact!

JD that is why they are called ;BOOKMAKERS' i.e. making a book. That is all these parasites have to do and pay 3% without any futher obligation to the best interest of RACING.

IMVHO you are a Bookmaker and as such, and all those against the TOTE, do not have the best interest of Racing in mind but it is only PERSONNAL gain that counts.

FFS a Bookmaker has only ONE room to look after and that is the be all and end all of his Business and fcuk all and any contribution to Racing.

@ Mr Bruss

Please could you motivate trading off the betting tax on horseracing to sportsbetting.

Jack Dash Wrote:

---

> hibernia Wrote:
>

---

>

---

>
> > Robin Bruss wrote: "Currently bookmakers collect
> tax from winning punters only. Those punters who
> bet on losers make no contribution. For me this is
> an unfair gap and the principle of a turnover tax
> therefore appears valid and welcomed."
>
> Of course the losing punters make every
> contribution, where on earth do you think the
> winning punters money came from? A bookmaker
> holds all the bets in a field of horses in a race.
> Which ever horse wins, the bookmaker has to hope
> that all the losing money covers the winning
> punters bets. The losing punter loses 100% of his
> money, the winning punter hands back 6% of his
> winnings and gets his 100% of his stake back, the
> bookmaker hopes to keep more than he pays out over
> a period, national figures show about 10% as
> opposed to the totes 24% and the totes very low
> "income" tax.
>
> Robin, you do try to be impartial although your
> bias is built in like a religeous belief that
> stakes are the lifesblood of the sport, and you
> are entitled to it. I also believe you know far
> more about the tote than you do about bookmakers.
> Perhaps you should spend an afternoon with a
> friendly bookmaker before your next show with a
> view to understanding turnover in a fixed odds
> environment. To be fair, do the same at a tote.
>
> I don't mean to become a bookmaker apologist but
> it's getting very tired that people in decision
> making positions make statements similar to this
> and are factually wrong at a basic level. In this
> case for example, it's a basic arithmetic error
> where you think things are not adding up.
> Everyone is entitled to opinions on principle, but
> you can't have wrong "opinions" about a fact!

Jack Dash ,

I do not have a clue how betting works , but tax on turnover MUST be more than tax on winnings !!

Piro, Mac

I think that the point is about revenue to the industry and not about the punter's losing money. The point is that a direct contribution to the Industry from the bookies does not exist. When the bookie pays out, he pays out the full amount to the Punter, after balancing his book. Thereafter, he takes 6% of that same punter's money and splits it between racing and sars.

As for the fact that the tote already has its takeout before dividends, the bookies have that option in terms of the price offered... and limits and the right to refuse certain bets. Thats bookmaking.

Now, why is it so wrong then, for bookies to pay 3% of their turnover to racing ? What is the actual problem with this? Why is this so difficult to accept?

The fundamental principle which has always existed as the main comparison between the bookies and the tote is that the tote cannot make calls to jocks or react to info, change prices etc. The tote reflects dividends based upon real money.

At times we all get a bit hot under the collar and then push our viewpoints strongly. The truth is that there is no need to "get rid of bookies" and co existence should be the key. So, a contribution of 3% of turnover from the bookies is not unreasonable and will ensure peace. Again, why the problem with this? Why must it be one way traffic all the time ? Surely, if the bookies make a living through Racing, it is not unreasonable to expect them to contribute to racing? Especially since they actually take the tote on head to head, with the open bet.... this, to me, is open hostility towards the very core of racing.

Good ,but why are operators asking for a counter offer /suggests they have no commitment to their position.
Why not agree independent arbitration to get equity?
The biggest leak to "the contribution" to racing as a whole,lies in the difference between gross and nett in the open bet-operators retain about 25% of the difference and bookmakers retain it all - that is the one area that was not addressed in previous litigation and should have been!