Multichoice gives Tellytrack notice!!!!!!!

I think we are aware of this Louis, however to me its inconceivable that we had a TV series planned to discuss the future of Tellytrack using a top man in Robin Bruss and this "major" issue was never tabled or mentioned?

I will also just await outcome

scotia Wrote:

---

> I think we are aware of this Louis, however to me
> its inconceivable that we had a TV series planned
> to discuss the future of Tellytrack using a top
> man in Robin Bruss and this "major" issue was
> never tabled or mentioned?
>
> I will also just await outcome


Exactly the point ................clearly, while "P" thought they were making things happen(sic)..................suddenly things were happening TO them...............naïve???

I agree Louisg. There's nothing more for Tellytrack to say at this point.

Surely this decision cannot be based on viewership. There are plenty nonsense channels on Multichoice's bouquet that I can't imagine having more viewers than Tellytrack.

Whichever way this is spun, Tellytrack going off Multichoice cannot be a good thing for racing. Surely there will be a number of racing viewers who simply stop watching and don't go to the inconvenience of more decoders, installations and subscription fees.

I understand that Tellytrack is simply a betting vehicle but they have missed the boat over the years in promoting the sport. They have focussed only on promoting betting, but have neglected the many great stories in the game and have failed to convey the beauty of the equine athlete in full flight. The essence of racing has been lost amidst a barrage of tote screens, numbers, tips, overseas tosh and unprofessional waffle. How can one try to attract sponsorship with a substandard product that does little to promote the game and also does little in giving airtime to the sponsor. There were over 4000 people at Kenilworth on Saturday, but watching Tellytrack you wouldn't have known if there were just 4 people and a dog on course.

Hopefully there will be a solution to this, I believe that somehow there needs to be a tie up with terrestrial TV at some point but I can only see this happening for feature race days. Let's hope this episode somehow galvanises the production into more than just boring random numbers and horses running in circles, which at the moment is all it is.

Simple thought. Why not refrain from watching channel 239 for a week and see if you have withdrawal symptoms or bet less. My take here is that there is a supposition that removing access to coverage from dstv will not have an effect on turnover, the same as removing access to coverage of UK racing will not affect turnover.

Dream on. PGE need to tell us what the bigger picture is that they envisage to disseminate coverage locally.

It sounds like Louisg is the new spin doctor for Phumelela.We know you dont dare cross them,they have history of getting their way.
They were warned by Multichoice to stop washing their dirty linen in public and to try and resolve their differences with bookmakers in a civil manner but as far as i am aware they refused to budge on the 3% of turnover.Its common Knowledge that the average profit of bookmaking is 10%.Some earn more some less .Du Plessis being a banker should have the skill to do the numbers with betting world's fixed odds turnover and profit numbers to realise that bookmaking would fail at 3% of turnover.Mediation was proposed but Phumelela wanted conditions attatched which is unacceptable.I dont know if they have any idea how bookmaking works.For example You go to your bookmaker to do a coupe.He will help you get a bet of say an even 500,000.He may lay himself an even 100,000 and buy the rest back from a nother bookmaker being even 400,000.That bookmaker might then also buy back an even 300,000 and the next bookmaker does the same even 200.000 he buys back an even 100,000.The turnover on this one bet of 500,000 to the regulator will be for 3% OF TURNOVER R1,500,000 which will give them R45000 commission on the bet.They way they want it will completely destroy bookmaking and no bookmaker will lay you a bet that he intends taking back because every bet he lays to help another bookmaker will cost him 3% of turnover.If they want to change the current way booikmakers pay for tellytrack rather look at GP numbers

I'm watching Super Rugby on my PC and I'm sure many many people are too - I expect way more than watch Racing - Why is it that my stream is so clear and the RA is so poor (I do not have the Tech Knowledge) - Is this not something that Phum could do properly(and please halve the presenters while you are at it) as an alternative?

Absolute disaster if it happens

This fight between ostensibly the TAB and the bookmaking fraternity is tearing the industry apart. Eventually, if left to run unabated, it will ruin or even totally destroy the sport. As it is we are at risk of loosing main stream television coverage as a result of this. And that fact is shocking!

It is high time that the relevant authority steps in and mediates (or something) and brings closure to this madness. Many of us couldn't care for the agenda's (whatever they are) of the competing forces. We do care however when the very fabric of our beloved sport is being ripped apart because of the spat between these parties.

I have had the pleasure of being involved, in one way or the other, in horse racing in SA for decades, but have never seen a landscape like this. I know there are many others in this forum that are very knowledgeable (much more knowledgeable than me) and I would love to hear from them if they have seen such tumultuous days as the one's that confront us now? The fighting simply has to stop!!!

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> Frodo Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > I don't profess to know a lot about the in's
> and
> > out's of this, but to me the principle here is
> > that there is a discrepancy between what the
> > 'customer' want and what makes business sense
> to
> > Multichoice - so business sense will
> unfortunately
> > always prevail
> >
> > I'm not sure about what everybody else wants,
> but
> > for me I would like to put together my own
> > personal 'bouquet' of channels - and I am
> prepared
> > to pay for that - I guess this does not make
> > business sense to Multichoice, or else they
> would
> > have given us the option long ago - but I would
> > have thought it possible to put subscription
> fees
> > on the individual channels, e.g.
> >
> > SS1 - SS3 R100 per month
> > Movie channels - R50 per month
> > All other channels - R25 per month
> >
> > The subscription cost of channels could be
> > determined by the popularity of the channel -
> with
> > a certain minimum that would make 'business
> > sense'.
> >
> > And then one can make up your own mind :S
> >
> > But it seems that we are stuck with the 'take
> it
> > or leave it attitude' - which I think is going
> to
> > bite them in the arse in the future once live
> > streaming becomes 'better' :
>
>
> I have asked the Multichoice this before - I do
> not have young children so I don't need the
> cartoon network and neither do I need the
> christian channels and many others - Why can't I
> pay to see what I want rather than pay for
> something I don't watch? I admit I do watch many
> of the other offerings but many of them never get
> even a second viewing time in a year.

I have asked the same questions but no answers

bobsmith Wrote:

---

> It sounds like Louisg is the new spin doctor for
> Phumelela.We know you dont dare cross them,they
> have history of getting their way.
> They were warned by Multichoice to stop washing
> their dirty linen in public and to try and resolve
> their differences with bookmakers in a civil
> manner but as far as i am aware they refused to
> budge on the 3% of turnover.Its common Knowledge
> that the average profit of bookmaking is 10%.Some
> earn more some less .Du Plessis being a banker
> should have the skill to do the numbers with
> betting world's fixed odds turnover and profit
> numbers to realise that bookmaking would fail at
> 3% of turnover.Mediation was proposed but
> Phumelela wanted conditions attatched which is
> unacceptable.I dont know if they have any idea how
> bookmaking works.For example You go to your
> bookmaker to do a coupe.He will help you get a bet
> of say an even 500,000.He may lay himself an even
> 100,000 and buy the rest back from a nother
> bookmaker being even 400,000.That bookmaker might
> then also buy back an even 300,000 and the next
> bookmaker does the same even 200.000 he buys back
> an even 100,000.The turnover on this one bet of
> 500,000 to the regulator will be for 3% OF
> TURNOVER R1,500,000 which will give them R45000
> commission on the bet.They way they want it will
> completely destroy bookmaking and no bookmaker
> will lay you a bet that he intends taking back
> because every bet he lays to help another
> bookmaker will cost him 3% of turnover.If they
> want to change the current way booikmakers pay for
> tellytrack rather look at GP numbers

bob those figures makes a lot of sense,,,it was the same way we thought when a bookmaker was giving us a gratuity....it was 3% of turnover...do u think we took 1 double from that day on....we backed them singley and got commission on both bets...so in actuall effect the turnover was higher but the amount to win was the same..

RACING GURU - you have been quiet when you gonna tip us a blinder? like that de kock baby you tipped that time at Greyville that went to Dubai - rem K Shea saddle slip what a joke that race was - van zyl's Lizzy Grey

Posted by DSTV on FB ~
MultiChoice can confirm it has issued a notice to terminate the Tellytrack channel on DStv. Not with standing this, MultiChoice and the channel provider of Tellytrack are in ongoing discussions regarding the matter. Given that the terms of the agreement between these parties is subject to confidentiality, at this stage further details are not available. MultiChoice will let its customers know how they are affected in any way once these discussions have concluded.