Looking good for the bookies in the Phum battle

Dave Scott wrote: 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

Dave, how many pubs and clubs (not betting establishments) used to show Tellytrack, as it was part of the Commercial bouquet. I know of a couple in PE that had 1 TV with horse racing showing and punters would phone bets to through to the TAB. When the channel was simply removed from the Commercial bouquet, that business was lost. It is unlikely those pubs will show horse racing again even if it is restored to the Commercial package.

Hearing phum have demanded the board overturn the decision by 12 today

What happened to Complience ?

Greg Murrell wrote:

Dave Scott wrote: 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

Dave, how many pubs and clubs (not betting establishments) used to show Tellytrack, as it was part of the Commercial bouquet. I know of a couple in PE that had 1 TV with horse racing showing and punters would phone bets to through to the TAB. When the channel was simply removed from the Commercial bouquet, that business was lost. It is unlikely those pubs will show horse racing again even if it is restored to the Commercial package.

I agree - my local used to show on weekdays

Bob Brogan wrote: Hearing phum have demanded the board overturn the decision by 12 today

What happened to Complience ?

Does anyone know what happened?

Mac wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Hearing phum have demanded the board overturn the decision by 12 today

What happened to Complience ?

Does anyone know what happened?

No word from anyone. It is highly unlikely that the Gambling Board will reverse a decision that simply instructed Phumelela to adhere to their licence conditions. If they do they are basicaly losing all credibility

Bob Brogan wrote:

Mac wrote:

Bob Brogan wrote: Hearing phum have demanded the board overturn the decision by 12 today

What happened to Complience ?

Does anyone know what happened?

No word from anyone. It is highly unlikely that the Gambling Board will reverse a decision that simply instructed Phumelela to adhere to their licence conditions. If they do they are basicaly losing all credibility

Would be akin to a Trainer demanding a objection result being overturned -

So "P" and their legal team attended a "proceeding" which took them by surprise.
You would think that somebody would have requested an agenda which could have been clarified prior to the meeting, and prevented the surprise
That (BTW Louis) is the norm................and I am not pleased the operator failed ,just sad/astounded/amused that their struggle is so inept!

The entire tattersalls got a round on the house yesterday because of this

PRESS RELEASE: TELLYTRACK AND PHUMELELA JOINT PRESS RELEASE
22 OCTOBER 2014
On 9 October the Gauteng Gambling Board issued an interim order to the effect that Phumelela is required to make the Tellytrack channel available to all bookmakers at the 2013 price plus an inflation adjustment.
Phumelela has been advised that the order is irregular and incompetent, and stands to be set aside on review.
The Board has not yet issued a written order as it is required to do in terms of the Gauteng Gambling Act. Phumelela has been advised that the order is not in effect. Moreover, Phumelela intends, as soon as possible after receipt of the written order and the reasons therefor, to approach the court on an urgent basis to suspend the enforcement of the order until review proceedings have been completed. In any event, the order sites Phumelela, and is not binding on the Tellytrack Partnership.
Accordingly, any attempts on the part of bookmakers to gain access to the Tellytrack channel from Tellytrack on the assumption that the interim order is effective and binding, are misplaced.

Interesting response that it does not impact on Tellytrack...............that may of course be technically correct...........however what other avenue/channel would "P" use to provide the coverage that they are required to do, in order do to comply with their licence conditions and to retain their right to trade?

The arrogance of it...resorting to semantics to avoid compliance...

I guess that when the written order is issued, the GGB must include "Tellytrack" and "Tellytrack Partnership" and then we will see what avoidance measure is then taken...

A monopoly of racing must be prevented as take-outs will increase, value for punters will most certainly decrease and decisions will be taken to benefit a few at the expense of the majority...we are already on that path...