Skip to main content

would you like some sauce on those feet Peter?

A publicly-listed company CEO is responsible to his or her shareholders and the board. Peter V'Landys, head of Racing NSW, leads a government-backed organisation and has no such issues with accountability. If he was out in the public sector, he'd been out of a job long, long ago.

What an absolute goose. He has gone public on the Racing NSW website commenting about a letter from leading NSW bookmaker Robbie Waterhouse, just before the Racing NSW vs Betfair and Sportsbet case over race fields legislation and the inappropriate turnover-based fee goes to court. Rule 1 of legal cases - don't comment in the public domain just before the case is heard. You risk putting the judge offside by making dangerous assumptions, give the opposition chance to react and risk being held in contempt of court.

Take a look at Bill Saunders' article - Racing NSW Rattled

Never has someone so powerful had so little clue about the law or anti-monopoly regulations and glossed over the facts that the organizations he is supporting are just as guilty in the rebuttal points he makes.

- he alleges that journalists supporting corporate bookies are on the take from such bookies.

How about, these journos are sick of being screwed by a corporate giant which overcharges, seeks to control the industry at the detriment of everyone else including controlling all media channels to the extent that newspaper editors reject much of the anti-TAB comment for fear of losing the advertising contract from TABCorp and UniTAB?

- he says that punters need to fund the cost of racing in NSW.

Considering that the AJC/STC merger, currently being rejected by crusty old members, is reported to save anything up to $22m per year and the ridiculous amount of money that V'Landys is personally wasting in the courts fighting impossible cases, I suggest very few punters in NSW would be willing to agree with that in their current state of management! Punters should be supporting the industry, but they should also have appropriate strong leadership not endless pissing money up against a wall.

Imagine if he lived in the real world...

Cangamble delves into the history books to find that way back in the 1930s, 10% takeout in tote pools was deemed to be excessive and governments were lobbying for less! Remind me why it is we automatically think we are smarter now than ever before?

Comments

  1. For some reason I'm not surprised by V'Landys antics. How long until he joins that other naysayer Nason at Tabcorp?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also,

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...