IT is now seven years since the Home Affairs Committee reported on a Levy for greyhound racing. The Committee recognised that off-course bookmakers should contribute to the sports on which they profit, noting that pounds 285,000 would be raised by a Levy on non-BAGS racing.
With increased off-course betting on non-BAGS race sdue to three-nights- a-week live greyhound racing on television and spectaculars such as the Sky coverage of the TV Trophy, it is time the Government again examined the issue of parity for greyhound racing.
Bookmakers argue they "pay" for BAGS racing. What arguments can they have for opposing an off-course Levy on non-BAGS racing?
How long have we got to put up with David Hood of William Hill telling us that "business was exceptionally good" for the heats of the TV Trophy and at the same time the firm he represents passing back to greyhound racing just 40 pence for every pounds 100 bet with them on those races. This is three times less than horseracing would have received.
Significantly, your paper on Saturday pointed out the unfairness of the situation and these thoughts were echoed by John McCririck on Channel Four's 'Morning Line' programme. Perhaps the expected Home Office review of gambling policy will this time enable the Government to grasp the nettle and finally give greyhound racing its true worth.
GEOFFREY THOMAS British Greyhound Racing Board London
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Racing Post (London, England)|
|Date:||Oct 14, 1998|
|Previous Article:||Letter: 'We are not an anti-greyhound racing organisation'.|
|Next Article:||Letter: Futile.|
|The Mental Health Parity Act.|
|IT Services: Parity Buys Intranet Developer TMS for $10.6m.|
|Senator addresses commission. (Policy & Practice).|
|Football: Ronaldo's ready to bide his time.|
|Ronaldo can wait.|
|Letter: Easy ride.|