6% DEDUCTION ON TOTE PAYOUTS BY BOOKIES; LEGIT?

Tnx Hibs!

ya rite!

Umlilo,


' * Oops! Sorry, draft.... pending input from forumites/clarification!!! '

This is an addendum to your original post,which you made out to be a letter that had already been sent.

1)What is your point in point one?Do you think that the gambling board don't know what the tote is?

2)As pointed out above,you are referring to fixed odds betting,but call it ante-post betting.

' What is a concern is that these bookmakers are also ‘tote’ agents with the operator. Herein, they collect a percentage of the turnover as commission (circa 3,5%). Is this not fraudulent?'- HUH?I don't get this at all.Where does fraud come in.

Do you think that the gambling boards don't know that there is 6% tax charged by some bookmakers on tote bets?

As stated above too,bookmakers are by law allowed to lay the open bet.This case has been lost by Phumelela in a court of law.

I'm not trying to insult you,but this is an poorly researched request that would head straight into the bin if it came across my desk if I worked for the gambling board.

Umlilo,I happen to understand your point completely and agree with you and have previously posted with the same response you have received.
The point that is being missed here is that for bookmakers to MATCH the tote,as they contended in their legal defence,their starting point should be the GROSS dividend .........the tote deducts tax & operators costs & stakes contribution,before declaring the nett dividend.
Bookmakers therefore effectively also deduct the latter 2 costs and pocket those amounts..............that is the portion Umlilo refers to .........those deductions should contribute to "purpose" or be part of the dividend................theoretically deducting and not using for purpose is surely,at best,false pretences.
I have always wondered why this did not form part of "P" s argument ............if you match a bet ,you must surely match in every relevant respect.

Tnx for the clarification Rob faux!

Sanity prevails!

I did mention that I couldn't get the hub of it.... but the gist was there!

Nothing to do with a vendetta against bookies but this 'grey' area!

Like I say about the national security companies who brag about what they doing for BEE (in Soweto)!

What do they do for us on our doorstep?

For instance, when there's a large funeral, a major church, mosque, temple or public gathering (Fun Walk, school sports, fete, etc); do they ever offer to pitch in and assist with traffic control/security as their contribution to CSI?

Do they give local residents preference for jobs or go the BEE route, etc? Do they support US?

Even the banks, chain stores, .... and so on.....!

It seems that our national mind-sets are so conditioned that we are either too scared to think out of the box, or just don't have the will-power to do so any more for fear of being derided or being seen as out-of-step!

To illustrate the point,let's use a raffle as an example.
Raffle tickets are sold for R5,split as follows R2 towards prizes(dividends,R1 for running costs and R2 to child welfare
If someone decided to sell the "open"raffle ticket,also for R5......give R2 to prize pool,use R1 for running costs,but pocket the remaining R2 instead of donating to purpose./alternately R1 to running ,R2 to child welfare and pocket the the R2 instead of using for prizes........this would not be allowed .................but works just like that within the open bet!

Like any company who fails to protect their patent,Phumelela's product has been 'stolen' them.However,it's not the bookmakers fault that that is the case.They have seen a gap,and taken advantage,just as would happen in any other form of business.

Rob,

I really don't see how you can possibly come to the conclusion that the middle man(ie:bookmaker) can be held responsible for production costs.

a bit off the point but rob and jap what do phumgold give to the sports they offer bets on?super 15 rugby etc?

I'm not sure of the %,but I do know that they are paying for the rights.I heard them talking about it on one of the discussion programmes recently.I can't state the figure categorically,but I think it may be something like 3% of the turnover if I recall correctly.

I had a cubicle in a tattersalls which started offering the open bet because the tote next door was closed so I have no sympathy with the tote whatsoever!................we gave their customers the service they were missing.
However,if a dividend (POOL/TICKETS) was R8,the tote would deduct R2 and pay a nett dividend of R6..............When we paid R6 we were "deducting" the R2 from the dividend but not paying it to anybody................the open bet is therefore more profitable to the provider(bookmaker) than the original bet is to Saftote.

I don't dispute that.I just don't get your point though.Are you saying bookmakers should be obligated to pay in the extra,pay the customer extra,or what exactly are you saying?:

pirates Wrote:

---

> a bit off the point but rob and jap what do
> phumgold give to the sports they offer bets
> on?super 15 rugby etc?


during the interview with alec hogg earlier this year the CEO of phumgold adviced that they paid the PSL 3% of turnover to use thier product...the same should apply to bookies

FC Wrote:

---

> pirates Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > a bit off the point but rob and jap what do
> > phumgold give to the sports they offer bets
> > on?super 15 rugby etc?
>
>
> during the interview with alec hogg earlier this
> year the CEO of phumgold adviced that they paid
> the PSL 3% of turnover to use thier product...the
> same should apply to bookies

Surely you factor in risk vs non-risk FC??