Thank you for forwarding to me Mr Thiselton’s response to a copy of my letter published in Sporting Post last week. When one finds oneself having a difference of opinion, it is rather important to try and avoid such disagreement becoming personal. I hope that I can manage to do that – as I certainly have no desire to demean or disrespect Mr Thiselton personally. The dilemma that I face is that I view his response as so clearly a load of hogwash that it simply cannot go unanswered.
Please allow me to provide the following facts, comments and opinion:
1. My letter was originally addressed to the Editors of The Mercury and The Cape Times. At the time of this communication (now more than a week later), neither has chosen to publish the letter and I can reasonably assume that they will not now do so. I did receive an acknowledgement from the Acting Editor of The Mercury who told me that he was “taking advice” and would “be back to me” – but so far, nothing.
2. There is something of an irony in the fact that Mr Thiselton has written to you in the sure and certain knowledge that his “different view” will undoubtedly be published in Sporting Post – and in the fact that the copy of my letter did not appear in the first place without the “fairness” of Mr Thiselton’s original “Levelling of the Playing Fields” article being repeated in your publication.
3. I fully understand what quotation marks mean and whose opinion was being expressed in the original article. My letter referred to “independent reporting and/or independent opinion”. Mr Thiselton has not refuted my assertion that he is indeed not an independent reporter and is in the employ of Gold Circle. An independent reporter who may be seeking a balanced story would certainly look to obtain the “other side of the story” – as is the case with Sporting Post.
4. The accusation of lack of transparency did not refer to the expression of Gold Circle’s or Michel Nairac’s opinion. It referred to the fact that such opinion was being expressed on a “purchased platform” where the other side of the story would have no chance of seeing the light of day.
5. Mr Thiselton’s assertion that “From past experience I doubt they would outline their own point of view in the Independent Newspapers even if offered the space to do so” smacks of arrogance, but at the same time presents a personal challenge for him. I do not represent all Bookmakers, but again, speaking with my Purple Cap on, I do know with certainty that we would welcome an invitation to avail ourselves of Gold Circle’s available platform in the Racegoer sections of the various national newspapers. Should we hold our breathe?
6. By now no doubt, Mr Thiselton will have had sight of the Bookmakers’ submissions made to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Friday 28 October. If not, I can happily arrange for him to receive a copy. Whilst I was a contributor to the preparation of those submissions, I do not wish in any way to convey the work as my own, or alternatively, to be accused of plagiarism. So, I emphasise that any information that I may extract from the Submissions (which are now in the public domain) is done with the permission of the various Bookmakers Associations. To avoid doubt, I admit to fully subscribing to the views and arguments expressed in those submissions.
7. The Bookmakers have not intentionally “kept the public in the dark for years” as claimed by Mr Thiselton. They have chosen rather to rely on the fact that the Racing Public – the Punters if you like, are perfectly capable of making up their own mind as to what product they want and where best value for money exists. For Mr Thiselton to choose to quote Phil Bull and to use the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom as an example only demonstrates how far he is away from reality from a South African point of view. Why choose a jurisdiction where the entire betting landscape is dominated by Bookmaking (fixed odds betting) and where the Totalisator has never offered a competent alternative choice? The Tote in the UK many years ago resorted to acquiring Bookmakers’ licences and would have become extinct if it had not done so.
8. But it goes further than that. I do not know exactly what Mr Thiselton means when he says “the dream situation would be to know that wherever you bet the same portion of that bet is guaranteed to be returned to horseracing”, but if he is suggesting that the punter who has chosen to bet with a bookmaker really gives a hoot as to what portion of his bet is ending up funding “the show”, then Mr Thiselton has with respect, lost the plot. It would be tantamount to suggesting that the discerning housewife who shops at Pick n Pay is concerned as to whether Mr Raymond Ackerman is getting his fair share. No sir, the punter is no fool. He knows he has a choice – a legal choice – and he selects the particular product from the menu that suits him best for the particular occasion (fixed odds, the open bet or the totalisator). The punter is looking for the best deal for the punter. Full stop. Not the owners, not Phumelela’s shareholders, not the operators and certainly not the Bookmakers. “Returned to horseracing” certainly does not mean returned to the punter.
9. As I write this letter, the realisation has come to me that it is already too long and that justice can only be done to this subject by the Bookmakers doing what Mr Thiselton accuses them of being reluctant to do – that is, giving their side of the story. The latest coordinated dissemination of anti-bookmaker propaganda now makes it important, in my opinion, that the other side of the story be told. So, I attach for your consideration, unedited copies of the Bookmakers’ written submissions and oral representations made to Parliament. Please feel free to publish the submissions either entirely or selectively, at your discretion. Alternatively, if you so desire, I would be more than willing to extract the main message of those submissions for your consideration for inclusion in future editions of Sporting Post. Perhaps Mr Thiselton could arrange for Gold Circle and Phumelela to do the same? This could be fun! And then perhaps, we (my purple client and I) could prepare for you a further opinion on the myth of the Open Bet – which has been around for fifty years and certainly did not spring up yesterday? But for the time being, perhaps I could be allowed to offer an extract from the submissions referred to?
10. “The National Gambling Board of South Africa has provided the following statistics in relation to the turnovers, net win figures and taxes paid by the two industry sectors during the 2010/2011 fiscal year.
From the table below, it is clear that licensed bookmaker operations generate 21.12% more in betting turnover than the totalisator, and contribute 65.53% of the total taxes paid in respect of betting, on horseracing and on sportsbetting combined. Despite this, their net win is 25.48% less than that of the totalisator. The reason for this apparent anomaly is inherent in the two different operational models: the bookmaker business is a high risk business with high turnovers and low profit margins, generating significant taxes, while the totalisator business, particularly in the context of horseracing, is a no-risk business which delivers a significant net win to the totalisator, but markedly less taxes to the fiscus. Whereas the profits made by bookmakers are just over 10% of the net win figure, in the case of the totalisator, profits account for more than 25% of the net win figure. While the percentage of tax to turnover in the case of totalisator betting on horseracing is 15.6%, in the case of the bookmaking industry the taxes generated in respect of betting on horseracing amount to 33.7% of turnover generated by betting on horseracing. The contribution of the high-risk businesses of licensed bookmakers to the horseracing industry in South Africa is therefore indisputably an enormous one, and a revenue source which should be protected and preserved, rather than jeopardised.”
11. Having been around in this industry for 43 years has both advantages and disadvantages. The most obvious disadvantage is that I am now closer to entering God’s Waiting Room. One of the advantages is being able to understand that the present did not arrive without the influence of the past. The apparent and alleged disproportionate direct contribution to horseracing between the totalisator and bookmaking sectors is not the result of favour (either legislative or other) towards bookmaking. Quite the opposite applies. It is the totalisator (the Operators) who have received the favoured treatment in the form of tax breaks from Provincial Governments. With absolutely no self-gratification intended, I state that I was personally involved in the process of (successfully) negotiating with Government on at least two occasions in order to bring about a more favourable dispensation. Those dispensations were critically needed and horseracing would not have survived without them and they were not objected to by Bookmakers. On the contrary, Bookmakers fully understand that the well-being of the Operators is in the best interests of all sectors of the industry. However, it seems to be somewhat churlish that the party which has received a bigger piece of the cake from Government now considers that it should own the cake, control the cake and determine the ingredients of the cake. The Bookmaking sector (the punters) may well be making a smaller indirect contribution to racehorse owners and the shareholders of Phumelela than their totalisator punting counterparts, but the table above clearly demonstrates that they are certainly building more roads and hospitals.
12. I would like to end by reiterating what I said in my original letter. I have no axe to grind. I do not wish for and nor would I welcome the demise of the Racing Operators. They are my former employers and I have a long and valued association with them – particularly Gold Circle. But fairness, transparency and indeed, the truth should not be diluted by bias and propaganda. There may have been a time when the views regarding the contributions made by Bookmaking may have held water. I am sure I probably wrote some of the verses of that song – but it certainly does not hold water now – and most certainly, not since the Operators went into direct competition with Bookmakers and now control 20% of the national bookmaking (fixed odds) footprint through their licensed Bookmaking Operator, Betting World. The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind….
– BASIL THOMAS
