By V. Lloyd Simpson, ContributorIT IS apparent the hierarchy of the United Bookmakers Association, led by Xavier Chin, have not had a comprehensive look at all the factors involved in their plea for revised opening hours.
In the first place, the plea should have been put forward from a united front of the two associations. For whatever reason the silence coming from the Jamaica Bookmakers Association would give the impression of disunity between bookmaking entities.
There may probably be sustainable reason for the inaction on the part of some of the entities but the seeming lack of unity is not helping the cause of the Xavier Chin-led body.
Secondly, it runs counter to the norms of competent advocacy to put forward a plea in a climate of hostility, rather than an atmosphere of goodwill and cooperation. In this context, Chin is on exceedingly weak grounds, however much he has been voicing a protest which is just, and with which I agree.
He cannot expect the Betting Gaming & Lotteries Commission (BGLC) not to act when a legally founded rule is broken and is being contemptuously ignored on the basis of the need for change.
RULE SHOULD BE ADHERED TO
If the law says bookmaking outlets should be opened at 7:00a.m. and closed to business half an hour before the commencement of a racemeet, that rule should be adhered to until removed. No business enterprise is above rules which are supported by existing legislation, however archaic that legislation is deemed to be.
Legal action has been taken against the Chin-managed Track Price Plus Limited to get that company to obey the law governing closure of sales on a raceday.
And all the power suggested by the Consumer Affairs Commission as a possible means of striking down existing laws does not seem to make much sense.
In that regard, the Commission might even presume such authority as wanting to say that some businesses downtown can open after the expiration of the business time on Wednesdays, while others are forced by existing law to close.
Competition has nothing to do with the matter. Bookmakers are not in competition with CTL, the operators of horse racing, or their betting outlets, the OTBs.
All operate as parts of a whole, each getting a bite of the cherry. If element of competition can be said to characterise the relationship between horse racing entities of new gaming invasion (drop pan, etc) I would agree. But not between entities of the horse racing product.
In fact bookmaking companies piggyback on the promoting company when they use CTL's declared dividends, and they are forced to do so until they are permitted to generate their own odds, a change which could come about the future.
CTL cannot afford to house outlets (OTBs) in the remote recesses of the hinterlands. The bookmakers fill that breach and when bookmakers lay off nets with CTL from the sales of those remote ones, the two bodies (CTL) and the bookmakers (JBA and UBA) benefit.
GOVERNMENT
What if government should introduce a tote monopoly into horse racing, could any observer then say that bookmakers would be competing with the promoting company? And what would the bookmakers do if CTL were to increase their franchise fees steeply?
I would advise the United Bookmakers Association to go easy on the method they are using to get the BGLC to act in their favour, and try to inject needed goodwill, good counsel and co-operative into their approach.
Coercion never solves a problem. A problem can only be resolved by means of enlightened dialogue.
