From MR Bruss RE the show

louisg Wrote:

---

> 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?
>
LG, here is an absurd example but only to make a point:

A fixed odds business lets say alternate each day by winning a million and losing a million for 4 weeks. At the end of the month turned over 4 million.
Lets take an average outcome and say square for the sake of arithmetic here, but owes Tellytrack 120K, sars gets (120K from the punter of which 60K went back to the operators.

If the same figures is applied to a tote, they t/o 4 mill, took 1 million profit (and theoretically have to pay 120K for Tellytrack or always % of Profit (not turnover) because its a fixed relationship.

Obviously this is a fake example. The bookie could have won or lost. But the annual figures show that the bookmaking industry pays out 90% and keeps about 10%, so if Tellytrack is going to charge 3% on t/o, they may as well ask for a third of business before expenses like wages etc etc.
The tote will always be up the 1 million in this example. The point is P got the idea from a tote, and 3% of turnover from a tote is always the same small % of PROFIT, but on a fixed odds set up 3% of turnover is 3% while gross profit is about 10%. That 3% (on t/o) is more than what sars and the win% get together. How would fixed odds business pay, unless they like wholly owned Betting World who could pay 7% of turnover instead of it's profits as it's all one and the same.

That is why.

hibernia Wrote:

---

> scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t
> 1/1969152_4052806816038_1894639612_n.jpg

If Stuart believes money can enhance Teletrack then he has not watched his product enough - It does not matter how much money Teletrack earns if they continue to use staff that are not trained (Money cannot change a person that believes a one-time-winner cannot beat a seven-time-winner or a two-year-old cannot win in open company ) Putting up incorrect results, calling a he a she , the poor commentaries from PE , Regaling the chances of scratched horses, treating the broadcast as your own playschool production etc don't need money but stern words and strong decisions. I realize technology needs attention but the human training will cost you nothing and save you lots!!

I got it Jack. Nicely explained.

What if the bookies & Phum came to some agreement for x% of T/O? Would the punter just pay for it anyway as ALL the bookies would just increase their margins by x%?

Mac Wrote:

---

> I got it Jack. Nicely explained.
>
> What if the bookies & Phum came to some agreement
> for x% of T/O? Would the punter just pay for it
> anyway as ALL the bookies would just increase
> their margins by x%?

You would think so, but bookmakers compete so they either all play to the same % or they end up being each other's biggest customers.

In their annual report, P says that fixed fees are usually the way you go with individuals for TV fees and the like. I am beginning to think that P also realize you can get away with almost anything if you frame it as "good for racing", but we are forgetting that to them "racing" is just one department, who says this money goes to racing and not private profit? I read an interview where the CEo was so excited by the soccer revenue because they don't have to "pay for the show". Ironic, or hypocritical?

The worst is that punters play half their money with the tote and the other half with bookies, are spending their entertainment money how THEY like. 10's of thousands of punters playing 100's thousands of bets will lose twice as much to the tote, pure arithmetic, and the amount lost to the game shows exactly that. Even still, bookmakers contribute much more to society via taxes than the tote, because the tote pays for the game. Look, punters pay for it all, one way or the other exactly how they would pay for beer and braai...entertainment..

In all this, one side have decided they should have it all. I'm still waiting to hear how they figure all this applies to us, the customer, or do they just take it for granted we will play with whoever is left standing. I like to choose how I lose.

This started off as an issue "brought about by the overseas operators" not quite true and now its about making Tellytrack profitable..........I don't believe that is any more true ............this is a deep grained resentment by the operators as to the contribution of bookmakers to the overall and big picture, compared to the tote.
It is also apparent that they want bookmakers to contribute more but don't really know how or how much................evident by the "here is our plan,but come back to us and tell us how it would/should really work"

So some basic issues may probably align the 2 businesses closer in order to measure what equality really means

1) Why should racing bets pay tax and support horseracing stakes while sports betting,whilst free of any contribution to the sport, is tax free.
If sports betting was taxed at 3% and racing was reduced to 3% that would generate more tax and be more fair(How were the authorities ever conned in the first place).(the tax saving benefit to racing andto be determined)
2)when tote bets are placed the stake is immediately taxed and levied .Why not add the tax and racing levy to a bookmaker bet, based on stake ,as placed.(I am not up to date but that used to be an option offered on overseas bookie bets-just make it the only option locally)
3)Every Rand placed on the open bet to be split and distributed identically, whether placed with the tote or books..........it makes the bet equitable and will make many bookmakers choose to be tote agents as a preference(do the sums)

I am not suggesting this covers the problem but maybe gives a little more to racing and better aligns the different gambling bets for the purpose of comparison?????

Great points
JD and RF

I can state one thing...if they expect Tellytrack to show a profit on it's own...they have rocks in their heads...
Tellytrack is a bonus on DSTV...I would would not pay extra for it in much the same way as I would not pay a cent for the "entertainment channel" or for a TV guide...
Charging to watch your advertisements....:S
You may as well charge to watch a roulette wheel or a slot machine....
or paint dry...

I'll pay extra for TT. Its 80% of what i watch on dstv.

vis Wrote:

---

> I'll pay extra for TT. Its 80% of what i watch on
> dstv.


So would I -I had it when it was IGN and I had to have a special microwave aerial fitted and paid a monthly subscription!

( in those days Terence kirshner and our Shaheen qualified as the gigglers)

I won't

@ vis - why wud u pay extra? (Confused) unless i misunderstood ur comment- its like u saying- i will accept to pay fuel @ 30 bucks a litre cos i use it 80percent of the tym.

rob faux Wrote:

---

> vis Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > I'll pay extra for TT. Its 80% of what i watch
> on
> > dstv.
>
>
> So would I -I had it when it was IGN and I had to
> have a special microwave aerial fitted and paid a
> monthly subscription!
>
> ( in those days Terence kirshner and our Shaheen
> qualified as the gigglers)


Yip, still remember those days - for me IF TT was to be removed from the DsTV 'bouquet', I would be prepared to pay a 'reasonable' subscription fee to watch an offering showing LOCAL racing