Hollywood - the gloves are off

Bobsmith, sorry to interrupt your delusional little World that you live in by my inability to absorb much, but could you please tell me the story of how Phumelela nearly collapsed the industry ? The facts will do nicely, thanks.

And Bobsmith, be very careful of your racist references and broederbond accusations. It is utter bullshit.

Maybe the administrators of this site should show their colours on this one.

It's bullshit like this that makes this site shit.

louisg wrote: And Bobsmith, be very careful of your racist references and broederbond accusations. It is utter bullshit.

Maybe the administrators of this site should show their colours on this one.

It's bullshit like this that makes this site shit.

What makes the site shit is when someone picks up the 1 bad comment on a thread and make a big deal out of it ..

And yes I had to google Broederbond , IMO we should not let the thread be dragged down because of this comment.

Yeah, right Bob. Better this site sticks with the anti operator views. That's what it appears -:a haven for the bitter and discontented. This is probably why so many who could bring value, don't post.
I notice the " goodie goodie" trainers, for instance, go very quiet on some threads... too scared to oppose the majority on ABC. ....?

Basically, ABC is an anti Operator site, under disguise as a betting site.....And any bullshit, otherwise known as blatant lies are allowed.

Not for me anymore.

louisg wrote: Yeah, right Bob. Better this site sticks with the anti operator views. That's what it appears -:a haven for the bitter and discontented. This is probably why so many who could bring value, don't post.
I notice the " goodie goodie" trainers, for instance, go very quiet on some threads... too scared to oppose the majority on ABC. ....?

Basically, ABC is an anti Operator site, under disguise as a betting site.....And any bullshit, otherwise known as blatant lies are allowed.

Not for me anymore.

I always post any info the operators send me and often contact them for comments..

You talk about goodie goodie trainers ?

Maybe more trainers would pipe up if they were not in a vice

louisg wrote: Yeah, right Bob. Better this site sticks with the anti operator views. That's what it appears -:a haven for the bitter and discontented. This is probably why so many who could bring value, don't post.
I notice the " goodie goodie" trainers, for instance, go very quiet on some threads... too scared to oppose the majority on ABC. ....?

Basically, ABC is an anti Operator site, under disguise as a betting site.....And any bullshit, otherwise known as blatant lies are allowed.

Not for me anymore.

The site is about racing .........and if you enjoy the sport you have to be anti the way it is being managed.
It is not the fault of clanners that the case against the open bet failed................what is extraordinary is that some think that throwing tantrums and threats will make it go away!
The fact is every action they have taken against it has failed so far!
The way the Tellytrack issue has been handled is quite honestly pathetic!
Why would I,or anybody else, support a company that treats that support with contempt!

louis,Phumelela tried 2 years ago to change their conditions of licence.They tried to have removed the clause which grants them the licence and gets a share of the tax if they promote racing and put on meetings such as they have over the years.Thank God this was picked up and they were overruled.Racing is the second biggest employer in South Africa of unskilled people which would make the crime problem double if they all lost their jobs.What happened to the money given to Phumelela for grooms quarters?? Since you have thrown in the towel i bid you
all the best.

Louis please point me to the blatant lies and if they are, I will remove

Open Letter Issued on Behalf of TellyTrack and South Africa’s Racing
Operators

Hollywoodbets’ open letter entitled “South African Bookmakers Do Pay for
International Horse Racing” of 30th July 2014 (see attached), which
attempts to justify bookmakers’ display of live international racing in
betting shops without being licensed to do so, refers.

The facts are:

1. No bookmaker in South Africa contributes a cent of their own money
to the racing operators or towards the funding of the sport in South
Africa nor in any other international Racing jurisdiction;
2. Bookmakers in South Africa are required in terms of their licence
conditions to deduct 6% from the winnings of their punters and pay
this as a levy to the gambling board in the province where the bet
was placed. This is a provincial betting tax;
3. In the provinces where race courses are located , namely the Eastern
Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape and Western
Cape, the gambling boards pay half of the levy over to the racing
operator in the province concerned;
4. In the provinces where there are no Race Courses, namely Limpopo,
Mpumalanga and Northwest no payment is made by the gambling board to
any racing operator in South Africa nor in any other country.

In contrast with the Tote, which contributes to the funding of horse racing
out of its take-out (gross margin), bookmakers contribute nothing. Unlike
the Tote, Bookmakers deduct the levy from their punters’ winnings and pay
it over to the gambling board of the province in which the bet was placed.
The levy is not a contribution from the Bookmakers’ gross margin.

The rationale behind the Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Northwest gambling boards
retaining the full amount collected from punters appears to be that as no
racing takes place in their respective provinces and therefore no
contribution to the funding of the sport in their province is justified. It
goes without saying that these 3 gambling boards also do not pay any part
of the Provincial levy over to any racing operator outside of South Africa.

It is important to stress that the levies paid over by the gambling boards
in each of the Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern
Cape and Western Cape provinces are paid over to the racing operator in
that specific province, despite the fact that the levies were generated by
taxing the winnings of punters who had bet upon horse racing staged
anywhere within and also outside of South Africa. There is no relationship
between the location of the racecourse upon which the bet was made and the
location of the payment of the percentage of the levy. The provincial
payment is a means of supporting the funding of the sport in the province
concerned. In provinces with no racing operator, the funds are absorbed
into the provincial fiscus.

An example of the above is in the case of the Eastern Cape Gambling and
Betting Act which, in Schedule iii, Part A (e) (i), stipulates that:

“A total of 6% on winning bets payable as to the Provincial Revenue
Fund and 3% to be divided as prescribed between holders of race
course licenses in the Province shall be charged, levied and
collected and shall be payable by every person who placed a winning
bet on any event or contingency, including a horse race.”

The example demonstrates that no regard is had to where in South Africa or
internationally the race took place in terms of the distribution of the
percentage of the levy. It follows that if there would be more than one
racing operator in the Eastern Cape Province, the levy would then be
divided between them as prescribed.

Regulation 119S of the Free State Gambling and Racing act similarly
requires in respect of horse racing a “Levy payable to the holder of a race
meeting licence in terms of Regulation 119R(2)”. In some of the provinces
the levy is determined as payable to the holder of a Totalisator licence.
This is simply because in such province the holder of the Totalisator
licence is also the racing operator.

The levies received by the racing operators from the provinces in South
Africa are similar to the bookmaker levies paid over to the racing
operators in the UK and are solely intended to assist with the funding of
the sport in each province.

Such provincial levies are clearly distinguishable from the ‘right to
display live racing in a licensed betting outlet (LBO), which is an
entirely separate matter (as is the situation in the UK for example). LBO
Rights must be paid for by bookmakers who choose to display the live
racing. Those bookmakers who choose not to display TellyTrack will
obviously not be required to pay and will still be able to offer bets on
horse racing.

The suggestion by Hollywoodbets that the South African racing operators
should have passed on the levies received from the provincial gambling
boards (deducted from punters’ winnings) to international racing operators
deliberately intends to confuse punters generated levies with bookmakers’
LBO rights in a shameless attempt to justify the unlawful display of live
international [and South African] racing in Hollywoodbets’ betting shops.

The display of live racing in Hollywoodbets’ betting outlets without being
licensed to do so is simply unlawful. TellyTrack and its local and
international partners have instituted civil as well as criminal
proceedings against Hollywoodbets.

John Stuart : CEO TellyTrack
Rian Du Plessis : CEO Phumelela
Michel Nairac : CEO Gold Circle
Chris van Niekerk : Chairman Kenilworth Racing


For queries, kindly contact me on 011 681 1696.

I get more confused by this every time i read a press release

robbing peter to pay paul is ok for one but not the other?

Bob Brogan wrote: I get more confused by this every time i read a press release

robbing peter to pay paul is ok for one but not the other?

You and me both............."P" do not contribute one cent from their own bottom line............every cent is a deduction ,in the form of take-out ,from tote pools.

Surely arbitration would be cheaper and better for the reputation of the industry?

Such provincial levies are clearly distinguishable from the ‘right to
display live racing in a licensed betting outlet (LBO), which is an
entirely separate matter (as is the situation in the UK for example). LBO
Rights must be paid for by bookmakers who choose to display the live
racing. Those bookmakers who choose not to display TellyTrack will
obviously not be required to pay and will still be able to offer bets on
horse racing.




UK LBO PAY levvies on profit not turnover