Articles
__________________________________________________________________________
The Irish Bookmakers Association have said that the recently published proposals for reform of betting from the Labour Party would, if implemented, pose a number of significant difficulties for the sector.
We have, however, welcomed the document as an important contribution to a debate that should take place on reform of betting and racing in Ireland today.
The key points made by the IBA are: Read More....
"Consolidation is badly needed in the sector and there is excess capacity.
But businesses should thrive or fail based on the quality of their
management and not on the failings of an inequitable tax system...."
Read More...
Decision to Increase Betting Tax from
1% to 2% By Jim Power, M.Econ.Sc
The Betting Industry is
suggesting that the measure could force the closure of 300
betting offices around the country. This argument looks solid,
because it is clear that the domestic betting
industry is already facing serious competition from forms
of betting that do not come within the tax net, such as the
medium of the internet. The 1% betting tax already places the
domestic industry at a competitive disadvantage, and the
decision to double the tax compounds the situation.
Read more.....
|
Jon Lees - Racing Post, 06 Nov 2008
|
THE major bookmakers were on Thursday cleared by a High
Court judge of running an "illegal cartel" by boycotting
TurfTV, the rival racecourse betting shop service.
Mr Justice Morgan ruled that there was no unlawful
concerted practice by Coral, Ladbrokes, William Hill and
Betfred to refuse to purchase TurfTV.
All the firms except Betfred eventually took the service
set up by Amalgamated Racing (AMRAC) in a joint venture
on behalf of 31 of the 60 UK racecourses.
The judge also rejected claims of unlawful collusion
over decisions by some bookmakers to withdraw
sponsorship from certain races.
In a bitterly contested multi-million-poundaction in
which AMRAC were earlier cleared of illegal price
fixing, the judge has now ruled that the betting shops
had also done nothing unlawful.
|