Don't know how many of you lot are up on the gambling scene at SJP but you maywant to ask yourselves why the on-ground Ladbrokes charge 6% 'tax' on all bets.

In all other sports (inc football) betting shops that are based on-site of the sporting event do not charge tax. On-site betting is supposed to be tax free.

Well, according to the Ladbrokes betting shop in Whitley the 6% goes to the club and is not tax. Shouldn't this be made clear to the betting fans? At least they should take all the posters down explaining how you work out the tax on your bet!

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Answers

Ladbrokes must make a fortune out of the betting shops at the ground, why shouldn't the club have a bit of this? Maybe in other grounds the 'commission' is paid as an agreed amount paid at every game and the fans don't know about it??

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Of course Ladbrokes make a load of money, hanse the saying "Bookies never lose".

The main point I was trying to put across is that the posters, betting slips and even the counter workers all call this 6% 'tax'.

and anyway, why should the club make money out of this? On every sports ground I have visited (excluding football) it is tax-free.

Just more proof that our club, and most others to b fair, are run by greedy b@st@rds

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

It depends on the arrangement at the club.

At all the other grounds the odds are probably adjusted to make sure they don't lose out on the money they claim to have knocked off as tax. Do you think that by the abolishment of betting tax in the budget that the bookies will not adjust the odds accordingly to keep the amount they make the same. Abolishing betting tax will just help the bookies I reckon.

Also why should the bookies be allowed to run a business in St James with the club getting bugger all for it?

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

DeB-
Why would the bookies need to adjust their odds? The betting tax goes to the government, not the bookies, so the bookies aren't losing out. If they persist with the 6% thing at SJP, though, they'll have a hard time explaining it to the punters since they can't pretend it's tax anymore.

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001

Point of information .....

The duty or tax on betting is a tax on the bookies, not on the punter. The aim was to tax the bookies NOT to tax you and me. The bookies have always passed this tax straight on to the punter. We, mugs as ever, have paid the duty to the bookies so they could give it to the government.

Because of the growth in phone and internet betting the government has started to lose out on its expected revenues. The bookies have based their phone and internet companies in Malta and the like where they have to pay no duty. Government not happy.

To get round this that nice Mr Brown has made changes announced in the budget last week. Rather than a duty on bets there will be a tax paid by the bookies on their gross profits, I think this is at 15%.

So if 100 of us previously had £1 bets and we'd all have paid tax up front (being optimists). We would have passed across £6 in duty to the bookies who would have passed it straight on. Now the bookies expect to make at least 10-15% on most events. So on the £100 we collectively invested they will make, say £12 gross profit. They will give the government 15% on that so £1.80 goes south. The bookies profits can often be lots higher so the figure may well be higher.(As an aside they have 100% mark up on first goal scorer !!!).

The bookies in return for this reduced burden will pass no tax on to the punter and will relocate all call centres and internet sites back to the UK thereby guaranteeing the governments revenue.

Now, back to the club and their 6%. If they have hidden behind Ladbrokes to take their cut then they will not be able to do so from next January. If they have been taking their cut at 6% rather than renting out the space to Ladbrokes then it may or may not suit both parties. Fixed costs versus variable, you takes yer choice.

Basically though if you are upset at the club taking your 6p then bet outside the ground and give it to the government instead :0)

-- Anonymous, March 13, 2001