hobbes
22-04-2002, 22:49
Monday September 11 2000
Hong Kong Jockey Club needs to ease concerns of punting public by answering the $70 million question
Lawrence Wadey
What the punters want to know is, where did the interest on the $70 million go? Indeed where did the interest go on the money the Hong Kong Jockey Club was deducting at a rate of five per cent per Triple Trio pool throughout last season and what will happen to the interest this time around?
Few issues have prompted so many inquiries from big and small punters alike. When questioned after the final meeting of last season, the Jockey Club's executive director of betting, Henry Chan, stated the Club had some $50 million in reserve and that he didn't know what was going to happen to the interest accruing through the summer break on this vast sum.
Since his public statements there has been correspondence on this very matter which is more than worth repeating in this column. The writer is convinced that the true figure in reserve was not the $50 million Chan stated (though it must be stressed he was put on the spot and replying in all good faith and to the best of his knowledge), but more like $70 million.
The writer's figures endorse his argument as the total TT turnover was $2,671 million. As the five per cent deduction is net of the 24 per cent the Jockey Club deducts from the TT pool then the calculation is $2,671 million multiplied by 3.8 per cent (which is five per cent minus the Jockey Club's 24 per cent) and this comes to $101.5 million.
The Jockey Club's intention was to boost pools to around $30 million and they did this three times when there was already $20 million in the jackpot. Thus they used $30 million from the $101.5 million appropriated from punters and this leaves $70 million.
To a large extent the actual figure, $50 million or $70 million is somewhat academic. The more substantive point is what happens to the interest on what is punters' money, what ever the size of the reserve pool? It doesn't seem to be going back into the TT reserve pool and there is surely a pressing argument that it should. It is punters' money and not the Club's.
Even if the Jockey Club disagree on this argument from a policy point of view, it would be a valuable public-relations exercise, such has been the level of public disquiet on this matter, if a statement was released from the betting department to state what happens to the interest and why.
There was a further spate of closing of telebet accounts during early August and this time it appears to have had virtually nothing to do with the so-called computer teams. Rather it seems to have been a matter of residency and whether those betting from overseas were winners or losers.
Of the four overseas punters of which I have direct knowledge, the three that had their accounts closed were modestly successful. The one whose account remains open is a fun punter who is modestly unsuccessful.
The reason stated in the letters from the telebet administration manager, Grace Ma, was that telebet services are intended for use in Hong Kong only and the accounts closed as 'you are living overseas according to your address registered in our records'.
Yet these telebet accounts holders had been betting away for a number of years and had never pretended otherwise.
The very success of Hong Kong racing has been its cosmopolitan nature, from the jockeys to the trainers to the horses to the punters and the journalists.
To pursue this kind of policy only serves to give the Jockey Club adverse publicity. It also smacks once again of the kind of behaviour more usually associated with British bookmakers, namely sure you can bet with us but make sure you're a loser. It is the antithesis of how a Pari-Mutual operation should behave.
it seems the JC is very loathe to give up the funds they accumulate from the 5% deduction to provide the $30m jackpots.
it would be interesting to get an accurate answer as to how much they have available for such jackpots AND how much interest has accumulated over the years ( i believe they did agree to pay interest on the accumulated funds ).
Hong Kong Jockey Club needs to ease concerns of punting public by answering the $70 million question
Lawrence Wadey
What the punters want to know is, where did the interest on the $70 million go? Indeed where did the interest go on the money the Hong Kong Jockey Club was deducting at a rate of five per cent per Triple Trio pool throughout last season and what will happen to the interest this time around?
Few issues have prompted so many inquiries from big and small punters alike. When questioned after the final meeting of last season, the Jockey Club's executive director of betting, Henry Chan, stated the Club had some $50 million in reserve and that he didn't know what was going to happen to the interest accruing through the summer break on this vast sum.
Since his public statements there has been correspondence on this very matter which is more than worth repeating in this column. The writer is convinced that the true figure in reserve was not the $50 million Chan stated (though it must be stressed he was put on the spot and replying in all good faith and to the best of his knowledge), but more like $70 million.
The writer's figures endorse his argument as the total TT turnover was $2,671 million. As the five per cent deduction is net of the 24 per cent the Jockey Club deducts from the TT pool then the calculation is $2,671 million multiplied by 3.8 per cent (which is five per cent minus the Jockey Club's 24 per cent) and this comes to $101.5 million.
The Jockey Club's intention was to boost pools to around $30 million and they did this three times when there was already $20 million in the jackpot. Thus they used $30 million from the $101.5 million appropriated from punters and this leaves $70 million.
To a large extent the actual figure, $50 million or $70 million is somewhat academic. The more substantive point is what happens to the interest on what is punters' money, what ever the size of the reserve pool? It doesn't seem to be going back into the TT reserve pool and there is surely a pressing argument that it should. It is punters' money and not the Club's.
Even if the Jockey Club disagree on this argument from a policy point of view, it would be a valuable public-relations exercise, such has been the level of public disquiet on this matter, if a statement was released from the betting department to state what happens to the interest and why.
There was a further spate of closing of telebet accounts during early August and this time it appears to have had virtually nothing to do with the so-called computer teams. Rather it seems to have been a matter of residency and whether those betting from overseas were winners or losers.
Of the four overseas punters of which I have direct knowledge, the three that had their accounts closed were modestly successful. The one whose account remains open is a fun punter who is modestly unsuccessful.
The reason stated in the letters from the telebet administration manager, Grace Ma, was that telebet services are intended for use in Hong Kong only and the accounts closed as 'you are living overseas according to your address registered in our records'.
Yet these telebet accounts holders had been betting away for a number of years and had never pretended otherwise.
The very success of Hong Kong racing has been its cosmopolitan nature, from the jockeys to the trainers to the horses to the punters and the journalists.
To pursue this kind of policy only serves to give the Jockey Club adverse publicity. It also smacks once again of the kind of behaviour more usually associated with British bookmakers, namely sure you can bet with us but make sure you're a loser. It is the antithesis of how a Pari-Mutual operation should behave.
it seems the JC is very loathe to give up the funds they accumulate from the 5% deduction to provide the $30m jackpots.
it would be interesting to get an accurate answer as to how much they have available for such jackpots AND how much interest has accumulated over the years ( i believe they did agree to pay interest on the accumulated funds ).