Memorandum submitted by Adrian Pariser
Please find below my views on the three terms
of reference. I also fully support the submission by the Federation
of Racecourse Bookmakers.
MY BACKGROUND
My name is Adrian Pariser. I am a 55-year-old
on-course bookmaker whose family has been involved in racecourse
betting for 81 years when my Grandfather started bookmaking. I
went to the London School of Economics before joining the business
in 1974.
The majority of my present pick positions are
inherited but since 1999 I have also spent around £50,000
improving my positions on the present lists. I hold a significant,
strong portfolio of picks:
| Tattersalls |
| Rails | |
| Royal Ascot | 1 |
Cheltenham
| 14 |
| Ascot Flat | 1 |
Newmarket July
| 12 |
| Ascot NH | 1 |
Plumpton
| 6 |
| Kempton NH | 1 |
Newbury
| 8 |
| Lingfield Turf | 1 |
Windsor
| 9 |
| Lingfield AW | 2 |
Goodwood
| 9 |
| Brighton | 2 |
Fontwell
| 8 |
| Epsom | 2 |
| |
| Kempton Flat | 3 |
| |
| Newmarket Rowley | 3 |
| |
| Goodwood July | 5 |
| |
| Sandown | 5 |
| |
Despite the strength of my picks, despite the years of experience
I and my family have, it has been a struggle over the past three
years to break even after taking home a very modest wage. The
proliferation of Internet betting sites, (primarily Betfair),
has clearly had a negative impact on business. Larger customers
have stayed away from the racecourse—despite our percentages
tumbling to an extremely competitive level (some would say suicidal
level).
What the likely effects would be of allocating on-course betting
pitches on a purely commercial basis, as has been proposed by
the Racecourse Association
— Smaller businesses would be priced out of
the racecourse.
— Many old established traditional bookmakers
would be lost.
— It could allow those who do not understand
the intricacies of racecourse bookmaking to take over the betting
ring, as they would be willing to pay an inappropriate charge.
— Conceivably the larger off-course bookmakers
could control all parts of the ring—clearly there would
be a competition issue.
— On-course bookmaker attendances would slump
even further than the current level.
— There would be a great lack of confidence
within the on-course bookmaking industry.
— The on-course betting public could suffer
from a lack of service, variety and the loss of we traditional
bookmakers; the betting public off-course could suffer from poorer
Starting Price returns.
Discussion over new agreements with the RCA is not a problem
if both sides realise they work best with mutual respect. The
RCA's stance is disdainful to racecourse bookmakers. "We
will not recognise bookmakers' lists". No ambiguity. No respect.
No tradition. Just money.
What indications on security of tenure, if any, were given
to those buying positions on bookmakers' lists in recent years
— From the first NJPC newsletter August 1998,
"The NJPC has been established by the HBLB to implement the
changes approved by the Levy Board to the administration of betting
rings on British Racecourses". A Government body at the forefront
of the changes.
— From the same newsletter "The NJPC comprises
three independent members appointed by the HBLB, two members appointed
by the Racecourse Association and two bookmaker representatives"
Again three members appointed by a Government body and the full
inclusion of the RCA!
— The NJPC road shows talked about "security",
about "confidence", about "career bookmakers".
They actively encouraged bookmakers to sell and buy picks.
— The new system replaced one that had remained
quite unaltered for around 70 years. The new system was brokered
by a government department. It was quite reasonable to extrapolate
that the new system, which allowed for huge amounts of money to
change hands, would last at least as long—if not indefinitely.
— Similarly, it was quite reasonable to assume
that the picks were bought and sold because there was a long-term
future in bookmaking.
It would have been inconceivable that picks would have been
bought and sold for the amount they traded for if any of us had
even the slightest indication that the picks had an expiry date.
The RCA's assertion that this situation has been known about for
years is unacceptable. They may have known, but despite their
position on the NJPC, they did not tell on-course bookmakers.
It was only in February 2005 that authorised bookmakers were alerted
on the transfer forms to be aware of the full implications of
the forthcoming Gambling Bill. How could we know what they may
be even then?
The prices paid show that the positions on the lists were
not sold on the basis of a short-term lease. It would have been
uneconomical. We are not that silly or naïve.
What the role of the Government should be in the process for
agreeing on a future framework for allocation of on-course pitches
for bookmakers
— The RCA, by dint of its draconian and intransigent
stance it took immediately the Act was assured, has shown itself
to be untrustworthy.
— The RCA, in it's press release after the
Westminster Hall Debate 4 July 2007, welcomed the comments made
by the Minister for Sport, yet, incredibly, failed to mention
the previous hour and a quarters debate where all sides of the
house spoke against the RCA's stated intention "that as from
31 August 2012 they will not recognise bookmakers' lists".
— Whilst it is been comforting and encouraging
to hear that the DCMS will be working closely with the racecourses
and bookmaking bodies to resolve issues that have arisen, it really
doesn't mean a lot if there are no statutory powers to stop the
RCA acting unilaterally.
— We need recognition that the current pick
lists are an integral part of all future administration of on-course
bookmakers—as was the intention when they were set up.
The Government, unintentionally through the Gambling Act,
has removed that security and not replaced it. The RCA has taken
advantage of the situation. Picks cannot be sold whilst the RCA's
threat hangs over us. People have seriously lost more than their
livelihoods—many would have lost their life savings unless
the matter is resolved—and given the RCA's stance—resolved
by statute.
In Conclusion
— A new system was introduced in 1998 by a
quango of a Government department.
— It introduced the buying and selling of pick
positions.
— This replaced a system that had been in use
for many decades.
— It was therefore quite reasonable to assume
that the new system would last for many, many years.
— The reason the RCA have been able to say
that they will not recognise the lists from 2012 is because of
their interpretation of the Gambling Act 2005.
— Hundreds of racecourse bookmakers will lose
many thousands of pounds.
October 2007
This position has been endorsed by Celia Barlow MP who feels
that important lessons can be learnt from her constituent's experience.
|
