bravo, i agree with the example you give, except for one important thing, which is that the 'turnover' of a bookmaker is not the same thing as the turnover or revenue of an Ocean Basket franchise, because the taking of bets cannot be separated from the promise to pay winnings. this promise is entirely different from the overround, which is the charge the bookmaker builds in to pay for the betting service he is providing, and the risk he is taking.
for example, when you deposit your savings with ABSA, that money is not revenue for ABSA, and when you take out a bond it is not a cost to ABSA. but when you fail to repay your bond (ie. the promise is broken), then it becomes a cost.
for another example, despite what it states on its annual reports, tote turnover is not P's revenue for the principal reason that it is required by law to pay at least 75% of 'turnover' back to the punter. P's real revenue is what it calls Net Betting Revenue.
it is the same with bookmakers, and it is that number that I believe should be subject to the two payment to tax and the tote (although 3% of that number would be unsustainably low).
in fact if you look at the stakes formula, P is in effect a franchisee of the RA, in that it pays 30% of its net betting revenue from SA racing to the stakes pot. why bookmakers are not also franchisees under a similar formula is a mystery to me.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
