Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Talk to us here if you have had accounts closed or had unfair restrictions placed upon your account.
Post Reply
Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by Jimmy Justice » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:03 am

Thank you to everyone who sent an email to Bruce Millington. People were more likely to get a response if they copied another journalist in, i.e. the other journalist responded but BM didn't. However, one of our most active members got a positive response from BM and the following appeared: https://www.racingpost.com/sport/reason ... -up/304132 It is the second piece after the England one. The punter mentioned is our guy. He's not a liar by the way (as hinted at), in fact he's very honourable.

BM's still not quite getting it, e.g. all winners are restricted except MPs and media people who support the industry; but he did cover the issue briefly. Hopefully, it will be followed up.

Thanks again.

JJ

mick
Supporter
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:41 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by mick » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:47 am

A very sad response from an editor who has no credibility ,but as you say Jim if we where responsible for his small and begrudging acceptance then this gives hope.The main objective was some RP publicity for P4J and i would urge all members to continue to use social media and racing forums to ask why not and when.?

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by Jimmy Justice » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:37 am

This is a fair point. BM knew the guy was associated with us, because he mentioned how we'd helped him, but choose not to mention us.

JJ

mick
Supporter
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:41 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by mick » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:13 am

My understanding is that the circulation of the RP continues to decline.During the course of my e mail i explained to Bruce why i no longer bought it,and how a published interview and interest in J4P would help change the growing perception that his paper (and he) are now owned at arms length by the bookmakers.

Once again a few of us who feel this way and make it known will not bring change,but if many of us did it would greatly increase the chance.There are several things which need sorting but even the HBF said that closure via restriction was the aspect of greatest concern to punters.There survey showed 20,000 during the previous six months ,and i suspect the true before and since total is now into six figs.

If we could get just 5% of these people working collectively then we would succeed ,but without then i fear little will change and this culling will increase,and this is exactly what the bookmakers anticipate.We all have a part to play and spending a few min e mailing the RP or actively participating in any other campaign is a good start and a small price.

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by Jimmy Justice » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:17 am

Agree totally and it is very frustrating when people won't put their 'head above the parapet'. In this sense punters only have themselves to blame. Australia has set the standard to aim for, so there is a precedent.

We are trying, but?

JJ

User avatar
cosmicway
Supporter
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:18 pm

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by cosmicway » Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:20 pm

I wrote to BM.
I said "you should give more coverage to justice for punters".
But the sports journals are always afraid to tackle the bookies / other authorities.
They are also afraid to write bad news that concern the betting industry.

Five years ago betfair's license to operate was about to be removed in Greece, as also from the other countries of Europe.
It was a matter of days really.
So I wrote to the betfair blogger saying "what's happening ?".
He replied to me saying "what's happening ? nothing is happening, everything is quiet" !

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by Jimmy Justice » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:30 am

Agreed, they are scared.

JJ

mick
Supporter
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:41 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by mick » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:37 pm

Jimi have you seen this certainly a change of heart by Bruce.!

Betting industry needs to act on limits or face having its hand forced

With apologies to the majority of punters who have never had their stakes restricted, the situation with bookmakers refusing bets has reached a point where action is needed, and hopefully 2018 will be the year when something happens to resolve an issue that even some betting industry figures say has got out of hand.

There is basically a vicious circle at play involving a number of factors and it is creating a situation in which too many punters are being unfairly and unnecessarily limited in their betting activity.

Here’s the problem: fixed-odds bookmakers have reacted so well to the threat posed by the low-margin Betfair exchange that they now offer such a competitive, excellent value racing service that you no longer have to be Phil Bull to find yourself a winning punter.

You choose your horse, go on to a price comparison site, place your bet and, as well as benefiting from an amazingly low margin, you also have best odds guaranteed and various other bonuses and concessions working for you.

And then, with a bit of luck and some sound judgement, you find yourself in front. But before too long you find yourself struggling to get what you want on because bookmakers don’t like winners, unless they happen to have struck lucky with a multiple and are likely to give it all back.

If you are consistently homing in on their standout prices (and why wouldn’t you?) and do not augment your sportsbook activity with a few spins of Reel King, Cleopatra and all those other silly games, your business is not wanted.

And as margins have shrunk and special offers such as extra places and bonuses if your horse wins by a certain distance have proliferated so the number of relatively small winners that have ended up in the restriction net has grown.

So what is the solution?
Should punters be less obsessed with trying to get the best prices? Possibly, but that basically means to avoid getting your stakes reduced you should shun the best available price, which few punters will feel comfortable doing.

Perhaps it is time to take another look at the minimum guaranteed liability obligation that is enforced in some parts of Australia.
It works on the basis that bookmakers have to pledge to lay a price to a specific sum to any punter who wants it and has been voluntarily operated over here by Coral, who will lay horses to lose at least £500 in their shops depending on the quality of the race.

Nothing in Coral’s published trading figures suggests it has taken them to the brink of bankruptcy, so, while there are obvious drawbacks, now could be the time for the Gambling Commission to make all firms adopt a similar scheme.

The biggest flaw in the proposal is that punters with multiple accounts in various friends’ and relatives’ names can multiply the limit by however many other accounts they have, which is fundamentally unfair.

And unless a way of closing off that loophole is found, bookmakers will find themselves writing regular, significant cheques to those hardcore punters.

But while I sympathise with operators who have to repel the well-orchestrated risk posed by people who systematically and ruthlessly bet-match, arb and pick off bad each-way offerings, the battle to keep these unwanted customers at bay has clearly widened to such an extent that too many ordinary recreational punters who win pretty harmless sums over the course of a year are being restricted.

What surprises me is the lack of sophistication in how successful customers have their desired stakes reduced.
It seems like one size fits all whether it is a morning bet on a selling hurdle or a punt on the Monday night Premier League match, events which have vastly differing levels of risk for the layer.

The Gambling Commission is no longer the inert organisation it was in its infancy. It is now active – bordering on aggressive – and it might be a wise idea for the betting industry to find its own way of dealing with its increasingly stringent clampdown on small winners before it has one imposed upon it.

Jimmy Justice
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:16 am

Re: Emails to Bruce Millington at the Racing Post

Post by Jimmy Justice » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:52 am

Hi Mick

Yes I have read it. There was a lot of coverage on our Twitter timeline yesterday @gondorffhenry Always worth a follow.

Our recent meeting with the Dept fo Culture, Media and Sport was not ideal, but it did provide another chance to discuss this matter as they will need to act using new legislation unless the companies do the decent thing.

I do feel BM's article yesterday was a significant change in the balance of his feelings about the issue. It is even possible to argue that the tide of opinion is changing, thus human nature tells us that others will jump in and swim with that tide. In fact, some will even claim they have changed the tide and have supported it for years, despite doing nothing, but no worries there: Let them claim what they haven't done if it helps bring about a 'fair and open' market.

JJ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest