Further supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Federation of Racecourse Bookmakers (FRB)
Racecourse Association Position Paper
presented to the National Association of Bookmakers in September
1997
The attached pages are extracts from the Racecourse
Association's position paper presented to the National Association
of Bookmakers in September 1997. This document puts forward the
RCA's views with regard to the introduction of a trading system
for on-course bookmakers' seniority positions (that was established
in 1998 following agreement of all parties).
RACECOURSE RECOGNITION
OF SENIORITY
LISTS
1. The one-line fourth paragraph of section
14 states that "in effect there is one list of bookmakers
in the order of seniority". This statement is then followed
in paragraph 6 with the RCA's view that "pitches are allotted
strictly in accordance with seniority".
2. In the oral evidence session (see transcript
page 37), Caroline Davies stated that "the lists are the
bookmakers lists. They are not the racecourses lists."
3. Ms Davies' statement does not align with
their 1997 position. According to section 14 of the RCA's 1997
paper, the RCA agreed that the physical pitches on racecourses
are allotted according to the seniority list—a system which
indisputably involved the racecourses, had racecourse approval
and indeed was recommended by the RCA.
4. These statements in the RCA's 1997 document
also demonstrate that racecourses recognised bookmakers' seniority
lists before the introduction of the trading system in 1998. This
contradicts the RCA's view that list recognition was merely an
unintended consequence of Certificates of Approval.
5. Indeed, paragraph 2 of section 14 states
that "it must be acknowledged that when introduced more than
60 years ago it (the pre-1998 list system) brought order out of
chaos and has maintained that order ever since." This statement
contradicts any RCA denial that racecourses have ever recognised
lists. According to the RCA (in 1997), they had been adhering
to the list system for 60 years.
ONCE THE
1998 TRADING SYSTEM
WAS ESTABLISHED
SUBSEQUENT TO
THE RCA'S
RECOMMENDATIONS IN
1997, THE RCA DID
NOT ENVISAGE
FURTHER SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES TO
THE SYSTEM
1. Paragraph 6 of section 14 states that
"it has now been agreed that `seniority' can be bought and
sold".
2. The RCA envisaged that these changes
(ie introduction of buying and selling) would "effect a major
revision of the ring".
3. The RCA also stated at the end of paragraph
6 that "once this has been achieved little further significant
movement is anticipated"
4. The RCA recommended the introduction
of buying and selling of list positions. The RCA then categorically
stated that once this system was in place then they anticipated
little further change. This radically contrasts with their decision
to demolish the entire system with the announcement of 14 March
2007.
5. No party envisaged a change in the trading
system that was established in 1998, including the RCA. List positions
were, de facto, held in perpetuity.
LIST POSITIONS—UNANIMOUS
AGREEMENT THAT
THEY DO
NOT CONFER
PROPERTY RIGHTS
1. In the oral evidence session, Stephen
Atkin stated that "the list positions are not property, in
our view." He later goes on to say that "I think it
is a difference of view as to what they have actually bought.
As I say, we do not believe that they have bought property"
(transcript p 30).
2. Back in 1997 it was understood by all
parties involved that list positions conferred no property rights.
It is both wrong and disingenuous to portray this as an area of
dispute.
3. Paragraph 1 of section 15 of the RCA's
1997 position paper states that "bearing in mind the legal
advice received by both the RCA and NAB it has been agreed that
the facility to buy and sell pitches as such (ie specific plot
of land on a racecourse) is deemed to be unacceptable to the RCA
as such a transaction would confer proprietary rights to the purchaser
who would have, in effect, property rights conferred to him by
the racecourse concerned".
4. The following paragraph states that "as
a result of this the NAB developed the Transfer of Seniority Scheme,
which does not confer any property rights."
5. It was the on-course bookmakers themselves
who drew up the system of seniority transfer. They were therefore
well aware that seniority positions did not confer property rights.
This issue was resolved and agreed way back in 1997. The RCA fully
assented to the Transfer of Seniority Scheme.
CONCLUSION
In the oral evidence session, Stephen Atkin
stated that "I like to base my views and opinions on evidence"
(see p 44 transcript).
December 2007
| 
