NZ TAB acting like Corporate Cowboys

[lecithin 429]

The TAB is a private company? Yeahh right.

 

That was my first question back to them but like I said they refused to discuss it further.....

[Leggy 4,076]

It's very peculiar that they are competing with organisations that welcome arbs and winning customers because they are confident about their pricing and responsivity E.g., http://www.pinnaclesports.com/betting-promotions/limits.aspx?ico=home&icl=box2

 

How hopeless are they?

[porky 900]

The TAB is a private company? Yeahh right.

Approach Tui... for a Billboard Campaign.

[Fernlea25 110]

I've communicated with Richard and he does a great job in Australia (for anyone interested check out http://fairwageringaustralia.com) but for reasons I'm not going to go into here I cannot lead a public campaign like he does.

 

I have taken action behind the scenes though (and will continue to), including a recent case I took to the Commerce Commission regarding the TAB behavior.  It is rather frustrating thought when I had (in my opinion) put together a reasonable case and the only formal response I got was "The Commission does not regulate the TAB, and as a private company they can run their business how they see fit." and they wouldn't enter into further discussion on the matter.  

 

A very odd response from the Commerce Commission.

 

The Commerce Commission's job is to ensure competition is enabled in all industries - even if the TAB is a private company, what difference does that make?  Private companies are regularly scrutinised by the Commerce Commission for anti-competitive behaviour.  Being private doesn't give you the right to conduct your business in an anti-competitive manner.

 

It sounds like a politically motivated response to me... i.e. we're under instruction not to investigate or entertain investigating SOE's.

[lecithin 429]

A very odd response from the Commerce Commission.

 

The Commerce Commission's job is to ensure competition is enabled in all industries - even if the TAB is a private company, what difference does that make?  Private companies are regularly scrutinised by the Commerce Commission for anti-competitive behaviour.  Being private doesn't give you the right to conduct your business in an anti-competitive manner.

 

It sounds like a politically motivated response to me... i.e. we're under instruction not to investigate or entertain investigating SOE's.

Yes I'm sure any company taken to court by the commerce commission would like a copy of the letter. It would provide a good defence, "sorry I'm running a private company and as you have stated I can run it how I see fit so to hell with any consumer law I'll do what I like"

[crikeydick 73]

This is more proof that the NZ TAB have no scruples or kahunas.

A disgruntled punter wanting a bit of fun and obviously winning gets restricted to paltry limp wristed amounts by the blouse wearing so called 'bookies' in Petone.

Remember these blouses are supposed to be encouraging investment to fund the Racing Industry, to keep racing alive and well in NZ, but instead they operate like Corporate bullies too scared to live in their own pussy shadows.

From a pussy at the NZ TAB,

"Mark has passed your query on to me and having reviewed your past betting activity it is clear to me that we will operate at a loss on your account in the medium to long term.

Therefore it is in line with good, and internationally recognised, bookmaking practice to manage your betting activity accordingly.

I accept that the experience that you have until now has been an inconsistent one and for that I apologise. To give you some clarity for the future I can confirm that we will now limit your stakes to bets to win $250 on Rugby League Total Points and Handicap markets."

[Peter Jenkins 2,120]

A rails bookie at Birdsville would take on 10 to 20 times that risk, Crikeydick ! This is gutlessness and an admission of gross ignorance and incompetence (at knowing and setting odds) on a monumental scale. These guys would be scared to send someone across the road to get their lunch....they must be the laughing stock of Aussie bookies !

[meomy 971]

It's overdue someone investigated the Commerce Commision & asked why they are not doing there job they are paid to do by us who pay there salaries.

 

 

A very odd response from the Commerce Commission.

 

The Commerce Commission's job is to ensure competition is enabled in all industries - even if the TAB is a private company, what difference does that make?  Private companies are regularly scrutinised by the Commerce Commission for anti-competitive behaviour.  Being private doesn't give you the right to conduct your business in an anti-competitive manner.

 

It sounds like a politically motivated response to me... i.e. we're under instruction not to investigate or entertain investigating SOE's.

[crikeydick 73]

A rails bookie at Birdsville would take on 10 to 20 times that risk, Crikeydick ! This is gutlessness and an admission of gross ignorance and incompetence (at knowing and setting odds) on a monumental scale. These guys would be scared to send someone across the road to get their lunch....they must be the laughing stock of Aussie bookies !

Too true Peter.  With any luck V'Landys commitment to establish a fairer 'financial market' will create a precedent that will tumble the NZ TAB's crooked dominos. 

 

Our head bookmaker Thaddeus Taylor has on his twitter byline "doing daily battle with NZ punters."

 

The reality is Thad brings an AK47 along, funded by a monopoly, and only allows his opposition a spud gun. 

[crikeydick 73]

http://t.co/NZl4VITPxz

 

Interesting sound bite here from legendary SMH scribe Max Presnell who can't quite believe how bookmaking has morphed into it's present sorry state.  "But 1k minimum is nothing"  Laughing with indignation.  

[lecithin 429]

If people want to do something to stop the disgraceful treatment of "winning" punters by the TAB, can I encourage you to read the attached article and send a brief email to Racing NSW - rf@racingnsw.com.au supporting their move to force wagering operators to accept minimum bets on NSW Racing and requesting that they include the New Zealand TAB in any new rule so that they are forced to stop this behavior if they want to continue offering betting on NSW Racing.

 

 

http://www.racingnetwork.com.au/minimum-nsw-wagering-rules-getting-closer/tabid/83/newsid/20199/default.aspx

[crikeydick 73]

Perhaps they think the NZ TAB is an insignificant player and that once Kiwi punters hear about the fair play in NSW that even more Kiwis will open overseas accounts there.

It really is sickening to hear the NZ wannabe bookies continuing to advertise the fact they're accepting 40k bets when informed NZ punters know that punter is either a long term loser or laundering money.

The advertising standards board should be alerted about the misleading fantasy that the NZ TAB are "doing daily battle with NZ punters".

[lecithin 429]

Perhaps they think the NZ TAB is an insignificant player and that once Kiwi punters hear about the fair play in NSW that even more Kiwis will open overseas accounts there.

It really is sickening to hear the NZ wannabe bookies continuing to advertise the fact they're accepting 40k bets when informed NZ punters know that punter is either a long term loser or laundering money.

The advertising standards board should be alerted about the misleading fantasy that the NZ TAB are "doing daily battle with NZ punters".

 

Even if the NZ TAB are an insignificant player that's doesn't really matter - if Racing NSW enact the rule the TAB will have no option but to accept bets from everyone to the required level or stop offering NSW Racing (hardly likely).  While the privately owned Australian Corporate bookies may choose to flout any rules imposed and take the matter through the courts, I can't imagine a NZ Statutory Body would blatantly ignore any such requirement.

 

The irony is that the Australian Corporate bookies who are touted as the scum of the earth by the NZ TAB will suddenly become their number one allies as they will all be doing everything in their powers to stop Racing NSW introducing the rule....

[crikeydick 73]

Absolutely, let's hope they don't forget the Kiwi Corporate monopoly.

 

Below is a letter from the Australian excuse for a 'wagering' council that explains why it's a bad idea.  Some people just hate it when  a guaranteed income stream of printing money is questioned. 

 

AWC CALLS FOR FREEZE ON MINIMUM BET RULE PROPOSAL

 
The Australian Wagering Council today called on Racing NSW to freeze the implementation of its proposed minimum bet rule on all wagering service providers. 
The condition means online bookmakers will be required to stand to lose a minimum amount on any single fixed odds wager on NSW Thoroughbred races. 
In delivering its submission on the proposal to Racing NSW, Chief Executive of the Australian Wagering Council, Mr Chris Downy, said: 
“Any new policy affecting wagering must be developed in a way that properly assesses its impact on the long term viability of the racing industry; protects the integrity of racing and stems the leakage of customers to illegal and unregulated offshore providers. 
The possible implementation of a minimum bet rule is better addressed as part of a broader discussion on nationally consistent regulation of the wagering market”. 

 

The AWC has identified several concerns with the proposed rule: 

• its enforceability, requiring operators to trade with clients with whom they do not wish to trade. • its practical workability in an online environment. • its effect on competition and prices for the ordinary punter. • the risk to good corporate governance practices with Racing NSW adjudicating disputes between punters and operators where they have a commercial interest in the outcome of the dispute. 

Mr Downy also questioned the consultation process by Racing NSW: “The first any AWC member knew of this proposed change was when they read about it in a press release issued on 12 June 2014.  The foundation of good decision-making is real and proper consultation, particularly if the final outcome is to be one that works in practice. That is impossible to achieve within a two week timeframe.” 
 

[lecithin 429]

So Racing NSW have implemented what appears to be a perfectly fair minimum bet requirement for bookmakers operating on NSW thoroughbred races (see link below).

 

http://www.racingnsw.com.au/default.aspx?s=article-display&id=16086

 

Now the million dollar question is whether the NZ TAB intend to comply?  Racing NSW had no problems taking Racing Victoria to court over a disagreement so maybe the NZRB will be next?  Roll on September 1........

[crikeydick 73]

Great news, let's hope the rest of the jurisdictions man up and grow some.

It only mentions Australian operators unfortunately so the NZ TAB would have to suddenly find some moral fibre.

Interestingly the NZ TAB took a 100k bet last week which lost and with their stated policy of restricting winners this punter must have been a long time loser.

[crikeydick 73]

Oh dear, the Pommy owned Corporates are still screaming like greased up porkers, even after consultation!!!

2k min is nothing. It's hard to believe our beloved Minister will continue to tolerate the NZ TAB acting under an unethical, print your own money business model as his Government is beyond reproach when it comes to ethical behaviour, isn't it?

"Corporate bookmakers feel they are being exposed to a Harold Larwood, bodyline-style attack by the new betting minimums imposed justifiably by Racing NSW.

Changing the bowlers, gently underarming to TAB fixed-odds outlets by comparison, is a bleat that comes from the Australian Wagering Council, generally representing offshore interests.

Racing NSW has given the TAB fixed-odds outlets some slack "due to the difficulties associated with determining whether cash bet in a retail outlet is a bowler bet placed on behalf of another person”.

Off-course fixed-odds wagering operators, whose turnover is equal to or greater than $5 million, are now compelled to bet punters to lose $2000 on metropolitan races and $1000 on non-metropolitan races in NSW.

"If one of the aims of the policy is to stop bookmakers discriminating against winning punters, it is necessary to ask how that aim will be achieved by excluding the policy's application to cash bets," AWC chief executive Chris Downy said.

Perhaps Racing NSW figures the TAB is entitled to protectors considering the contribution it makes to the industry matched with the corporates, big advertisers but regarded as failing the Australian "fair go" ethos for punters.

"Here we go whingeing poms ... If you don’t like the rule on behalf of all the Australian punters, go home with your bat n ball and destroy the pathetic English racing," Chillbet posted on Racenet.

"'Requiring operators to trade with clients with whom they do not wish to trade'," Badbrokes posted. "Oncourse bookmakers have been doing that since Day 1! I can assure the AWC that there will be ‘national consistency."

The AWC requested that a minimum bet rule "would be best achieved through a well-developed proposal on the issue being presented to each of the state and Territory licensing authorities charged with the regulation of wagering service operators in Australia".

Had NSW not taken the initiative under Peter V'landys' captaincy over the racefields legislation Australia would be back under the heel of the corporates' Douglas Jardine-style win-at-all-costs policy.

"I cannot understand all the negative comments," Punting Giant pleaded. "I have no trouble whatsoever getting set with several corporate bookies for large 5 figure amounts. They are all so friendly, helpful and accommodating. I do tend to lose on most Saturdays but punting is fun."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/corporate-bookmakers-complain-new-betting-rules-treat-them-unfairly-20140724-zw9wg.html#ixzz38QzKA01y