TRACKDATA

Betting Exchanges will be the biggest loser from the race fields legislation.

e) Peter V'Landys stated that the totalisator takeout in NSW was one of the lowest in the world, with only 14.5% taken out of the win pool. He is completely correct with this statement.

However, he then went on to state that the figure is between 20% and 25% in asian jurisdictions, and up to 40% in some European countries.

Talk about a smokescreen! Peter conveniently chooses to compare the lowest tote take-out rate in NSW (win pool) with the highest totalisator take-outs in other countries.

Last time I checked, the takeout in Hong Kong for win betting is around 15.7%, with rebates for larger punters. The tote take-out for trifectas in NSW is around 21%, and for First Fours it is about 22%.

I don't have the figures for European countries, but I would suggest that the "40%" he quoted, if true, was for a difficult exotic betting type in a minor racing country. It is certainly not true for win and place betting in the UK or France.

And none of this includes the rounding down rort!

Most racing people would agree that totalisator take-outs in Australia are amongst the best in the world. So why must Peter use absurd and untrue comparisons to justify his comments?

f) Peter V'Landys also compared the low totalisator take-outs with the high deductions from Lotto and Lotteries. This argument is also flawed, as it must be remembered that every punter has an equal chance in lotto and in a lottery, while losing punters are actually subsiding winning punters on totalisator betting, so their personal "take-out" is much higher than the average take-out.

Punters who consistently lose on the racing, will often turn to other betting types, where despite higher take-outs, can see (often rightly) that they have a better chance of a big return.

g) Peter V'Landys referred to Bill Saunders' The Virtual Formguide as "a website which unfortunately is obsessed with supporting corporate bookmakers".

Anyone who regularly reads TVF over the years can see that this is certainly not true. Unfortunately, Peter V'Landys accuses anyone who speaks out against the policies of Racing NSW of being "in cahoots" with the corporate bookies.

Most potently, what clearly came out of the program is that punters are not important to the CEO of RACING NSW. His only concern are the participants: owner, trainers, jockeys, stablehands, etc.

It is worrying that Peter doesn't even try to show that he cares about the punter. In fact, he didn't seem perturbed if punters went looking for a better gambling deal elsewhere. His logic appeared to be that we have it so good now, if you're not happy, then go elsewhere. It is clear that that punters should pay for the show, and that they don't deserve a say in the matter.

One can only guess that Peter believes that if racing continues to "put on the show", then punters will continue to turn up to bankroll the industry. I cannot see how treating customers in this manner is going to ensure the future of racing in this state.

Betting statistics often provided by Racing NSW are so simplified that they are often absurd. Whenever any argument is raised about fee calculations, re-investment from exchanges back to bookmakers, from smaller bookies to bigger bookies, from bookmakers back to totalisators, etc is conveniently forgotten.

Tax bookmakers and exchanges out of existence, and the gross turnover figures nosedive - they do not simply return back to the totalisator on a permanent basis. And in any case, the tax is paid by punters, not bookmakers!

While a win by Racing NSW in the current court case will result in an instant bonanza of funding, who is going to ensure that in twenty to fifty years time, that Racing in NSW will still be going from strength to strength if punters leave the industry once they are taxed too heavily? The problem with many industries, and not just racing, is that senior executives at the highest level are rewarded during their tenure on immediate financial gains, rather than creating a business model with an outstanding long-term vision.

Peter is also obsessed with raising metropolitan Saturday prizemoney to $100,000. He continues to use this figure on a regular basis.

My question is why $100,000? Why not $85,000 or $115,000? How does he calculate this magical figure of $100,000? Has he completed a proper analysis of the correct prizemoney levels required to fund racing in this state, or does he simply want to achieve this magical $100,000 figure to wear as a badge of honour that this is what Peter V'Landys did for NSW racing, and that he beat Racing Victoria to this prizemoney peak?

Will increasing the prizemoney ensure bigger field sizes at metropolitan meetings? Shouldn't prizemoney levels be increased cautiously, rather than hiking it up at once? Shouldn't more consideration be given to rebates in the industry?

As Trackdata has argued previously in our article: "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - THE PRIZEMONEY MYTH IN RACING", simply raising prizemoney does not automatically reduce the overall costs for owners, and can actually have the opposite affect.

It will be a boon for breeders, who currently are not taxed by the racing industry at all.

As a punter, I only see a bleak wagering landscape in this state, regardless of the outcome of the court case. There is no-one in officialdom who appears to care about the needs of current punters, nor are there any decent strategies being developed to attract future investors.