Looking good for the bookies in the Phum battle

louisg wrote: It's amazing how quick this site is to celebrate anything against the operators , even if it's bad for Racing.
And that goes for S.Post too.

So all the Bull about promoting and loving racing on here is just a waste of time for me.

The Gambling Board are squeaky clean, pillars of Society and are the new "flavour of the month" on ABC

Louis,you really got no clue about whose side you are on................remember the recent thread you opened!
There are only 2 kinds of people .......winners and losers, so why is "everything that's good for racing being fought by the losers"

They have cocked up every battle they have fought ............from the open bet to this!!!!!
My point, and always has been,therefore, is that the current management of racing is not achieving what it should be..........correct me where you disagree.

I understand that Phum want more money to stage Racing from the Books BUT I'm glad Racing is back in the outlets so that at least those punters won't be lost to the game - I think instead of curbing video Phum should try it's best to have it broadcast everywhere possible -

Phuim will die just like Captain Ahab

Louis i post as myself not abc, abc is a platform anyone can choose to post if they wish to

mr hawaii wrote: I understand that Phum want more money to stage Racing from the Books BUT I'm glad Racing is back in the outlets so that at least those punters won't be lost to the game - I think instead of curbing video Phum should try it's best to have it broadcast everywhere possible -

Completely agree Mr H.I think that the bookmakers should pay a levy ,equal in % to what the tote contributes ,but that is not the same as preventing bookmakers from providing the bet, which is what "P" want
"P" have never wanted a contribution ,they wish to monopolise.
How is it possible that between them and their legal team, they can't win a single round.

Rob, Mr H ,a bookie told me they love the idea of the UK levy board style scheme and would gladly contribute

What's the chances of "P" being right about their right to take Soccer bets????..........it would be a first!!!
When is that due in court?

Strange post Louis and I found out of order we allow all views and the telly track call was shocking for racing and did plenty damage to the game imo

I think common sense should prevail as it cost the operators a lot of money in lost revenue when the Tellytrack service was not broadcast. Maybe they need to sit down with an independent mediator who understands racing and he makes a call on what the bookmakers should be paying. If bookmakers are using racing to make money(which they are) then they must pay for that service but it must be a fair and relative amount.

Craig Eudey wrote: I think common sense should prevail as it cost the operators a lot of money in lost revenue when the Tellytrack service was not broadcast. Maybe they need to sit down with an independent mediator who understands racing and he makes a call on what the bookmakers should be paying. If bookmakers are using racing to make money(which they are) then they must pay for that service but it must be a fair and relative amount.

I agree - Also if Teletrack is "independent" they should court these bookmakers for their advertising spend as an additional advertising stream

Craig Eudey wrote: I think common sense should prevail as it cost the operators a lot of money in lost revenue when the Tellytrack service was not broadcast. Maybe they need to sit down with an independent mediator who understands racing and he makes a call on what the bookmakers should be paying. If bookmakers are using racing to make money(which they are) then they must pay for that service but it must be a fair and relative amount.

This is probably the best post on the matter. There seems to be an arrogance within Phumelela that they have divine rights to anything racing related. What should have happened ages ago is Phumelela should have negotiated a better percentage regarding tote commission and this would have negated the open bet. Bookmakers are businessmen and the majority of them do not want excessive risk. Giving bookmakers an acceptable margin would have negated the open bet and created a lot of goodwill.

If you go back to the period when the dispute was at it peak, it was suggested that the parties should agree to arbitration -"P" were so cock sure of themselves , as usual, that they chose the bully tactics instead.
What is amusing is that at every turn "P" put out media releases explaining why they are correct in all their interpretations.......only for them to end up with a black eye every time.
You have to wonder who is providing the legal advice!