Regulation, what regulation?

[Rusty]

As many of you are already aware the gambling act 2005 comes into force in Sep 2007. It is designed, in the main, to regulate remote (online etc) gambling in the UK.Particularly online Casinos.

For the Casinos part this has the disadvantage of paying tax weighed against the advantage of being properly regulated and recognised as a bonafide operation.

Bearing in mind that all the major UK bookmakers already have established remote gambling sites located off shore how many of these would you expect to apply for a UK license permitting them to base their servers in the UK and advertise the fact that they are fully regulated and audited?

Add to this number all of the other leading players in the Global online gambling market that are not currently regulated and how many total applications would you of expected the gambling commision to of received thus far?

A few? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands?

How about Zero?

Yes that is right, there has not so far been one single application from any person or organisation to operate a remote Casino from the UK!

I quote a source from the Gambling commision;

"Applications for remote casino licences will be listed on the page I directed you to but we are yet to receive any. The website will be updated as the applications come in."

You can view all license applications here;

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...?ContentId=182

THe UK Goverment has offered unprecedented tax breaks and sweetners to the Gambling industry in an attempt to (delete where applicable) tap into some of industries huge profits/regulate an industry that is open to abuse and corruption/protect its citizens from dishonest organasations and the industries response is "F*** you!"
Well guess what Bookmakers of the United Kindom?
If you prefer to go unregulated then;

F*** YOU!

[KasinoKing]

September is still a long time away - c'mon we haven't had summer yet!

I'm sure by then there will be plenty of takers.
The impression I get from the average guy who likes a 'little flutter' is they will not play online because they do not trust they will not get ripped off.
Government regulation should give them the confidence to have a go.

Also, with TV advertising being allowed at the same time I think UK regulated casinos will enjoy a HUGE in-take of new players!

[cheekymonkey]

This is the reason the UK government have abolished smoking in public places.

They want you to save the £6 you would have spent on cigs and now blow it down your local casino.

C***S.

Go fuck yourself Blair. Come in #10, your time is up!

[Rusty]

September is still a long time away - c'mon we haven't had summer yet!

I'm sure by then there will be plenty of takers.
The impression I get from the average guy who likes a 'little flutter' is they will not play online because they do not trust they will not get ripped off.
Government regulation should give them the confidence to have a go.

Also, with TV advertising being allowed at the same time I think UK regulated casinos will enjoy a HUGE in-take of new players!

The thing is KK I would of expected most of the applications to be in by now.
I can not think of a single reason that any organisation which had considered application would not of done so by now.
There is nothing to be gained by delaying it and the process is not a simple one.
It could take many Weeks before an application is approved.
Still let us hope I have been to hasty in my condemnation.

[jetset]

"I can not think of a single reason that any organisation which had considered application would not of done so by now."

Here's one - taxation levels.

Offshore companies often select their domiciles with an eye on liberal tax regimes - the Isle of Man and Gibraltar are just two where companies are not taxed to death, and there are many others.

AFAIK, Chancellor Brown has not yet specified what taxation will apply to remote gaming companies - it's a sensitive political and commercial area as well as a key motivator for online companies thinking about abandoning their existing tax arrangements in various havens and moving to the UK.

There's also been talk by senior Brit civil servants that companies may be able to get a UK license and meet UK standards but remain offshore, but that has not yet been finalised.

So until all the UK government's cards are on the table it's rather difficult for companies to make decisions that involve many millions of pounds sterling and the future.

There is also the possibility that some of the more conservative companies may prefer to wait and see how the UK system settles down and how effective it is before committing themselves, especially if they already have real regulation and standards - for example in places like Alderney and the IOM.

And the Gambling Act covers a host of other (land) reforms as well as those affecting remote/online operations.

[tennis_balls]

i wish they'd regulate those ".co.uk" affiliates!

[Rusty]

]"I can not think of a single reason that any organisation which had considered application would not of done so by now."[/I]

Here's one - taxation levels.

Offshore companies often select their domiciles with an eye on liberal tax regimes - the Isle of Man and Gibraltar are just two where companies are not taxed to death, and there are many others.

AFAIK, Chancellor Brown has not yet specified what taxation will apply to remote gaming companies - it's a sensitive political and commercial area as well as a key motivator for online companies thinking about abandoning their existing tax arrangements in various havens and moving to the UK.

There's also been talk by senior Brit civil servants that companies may be able to get a UK license and meet UK standards but remain offshore, but that has not yet been finalised.

So until all the UK government's cards are on the table it's rather difficult for companies to make decisions that involve many millions of pounds sterling and the future.

There is also the possibility that some of the more conservative companies may prefer to wait and see how the UK system settles down and how effective it is before committing themselves, especially if they already have real regulation and standards - for example in places like Alderney and the IOM.

And the Gambling Act covers a host of other (land) reforms as well as those affecting remote/online operations.

Thanks Jetset,
]"I can not think of a single reason that any organisation which had considered application would not of done so by now."
I was refering to the fact that any organisation that was going to apply before Sep probably would of done so by now.
As for Tax I think you will find that has been greatly discussed behind the scenes and future taxation levels are largely known. These levels will not change even if there were a change of Goverment and as I have already stated huge tax breaks are being offered to these companies.

There's also been talk by senior Brit civil servants that companies may be able to get a UK license and meet UK standards but remain offshore, but that has not yet been finalised.

This is nonsense frankly as any offshore operation is not bound by UK legislation.The license would be irrelevant.

The act does cover other aspects of gambling but as I have stated it was very much drafted with the regulation of remote gambling in mind.That was and is its primary purpose.

What I should add is that your general thrust, that from a business perspective applying for a license is far from a straightforward choice, is pertinent.
All I am saying is that from a customers perspective it does not make us happy that companies are more interested in their tax £/$ than giving their customers(their taxable revenue) a fair and transparent deal.
If a company has the option to be regulated but chooses not to be so why the hell should anyone give them their money?

[dealer wins]

This is the reason the UK government have abolished smoking in public places.

They want you to save the £6 you would have spent on cigs and now blow it down your local casino.

C***S.

Go fuck yourself Blair. Come in #10, your time is up!

Yeah you gotta love this joke of a government havnt you. Tax the hell out of something then ban it everywhere.

On the subject of UK regulation I cannot imagine any of the big UK bookies/casinos not signing up before September, how bad and dodgy would they look if the continued to operate from abroad when they could license in the UK. They would be screaming "We operate a rigged casino and poker room"

[jetset]

Rusty, with respect I think you should study the subject a little more closely.

The level of taxation on remote gaming operations has been widely speculated upon, and various UK and offshore companies and trade associations have been lobbying hard on the subject....but it remains unresolved.

If you have more current information than this, or on the 'huge tax breaks' to which you refer I would welcome a link to study same.

Companies are hesitant to commit on uncertainties where plans can change under political and other pressures with severe financial consequences. A great example is this very Gambling Act where ambitious earlier plans for many more land casinos under the new Act were dramatically reduced amid intense political pressure.

As for your "nonsense" comment regarding speculation on alternatives to actually moving to the UK, this has been both discussed and reported on - again nothing has been finalised but it is one of the possibilities that has been talked about. This doesn't mean it will be accepted - it is one of the options. And it can be practically applied through an agreement on which the certification is dependent.

There can be little doubt that a UK licence logo will be a great assurance to players, particularly British players because it implies a properly and independently regulated operation, but the desire for this has to be balanced by the impact on the company of ancillary elements such as taxation.

In the UK, that is a complicated issue with rival interests vying for attention, as I am sure Chancellor Brown has discovered.

The sort of company that would be interested in the prestige of a UK license is probably not your run-of-the-mill Costa Rican operation. It will likely be a more reputable outfit that has already built a sterling reputation with players and has met standards and requirements of governments like (as I said before) Alderney and the IOM and is therefore confident that it can meet UK regulations.

[Rusty]

Rusty, with respect I think you should study the subject a little more closely.

The level of taxation on remote gaming operations has been widely speculated upon, and various UK and offshore companies and trade associations have been lobbying hard on the subject....but it remains unresolved.

If you have more current information on this, or on the 'huge tax breaks' to which you refer I would welcome a link to study same.

Companies are hesitant to commit on uncertainties where plans can change under political and other pressures with severe financial consequences. A great example is this very Gambling Act where ambitious earlier plans for many more land casinos under the new Act were dramatically reduced amid intense political debate.

As for your "nonsense" comment regarding speculation on alternatives to actually moving to the UK, this has been both discussed and reported on - again nothing has been finalised but it is one of the possibilities that has been talked about. This doesn't mean it will be accepted - it is one of the options. And it can be practically applied through an agreement on which the certification is dependent.

There can be little doubt that a UK licence logo will be a great assurance to players, particularly British players because it implies a properly and independently regulated operation, but the desire for this has to be balanced by the impact on the company of ancillary elements such as taxation.

In the UK, that is a complicated issue with rival interests vying for attention, as I am sure Chancellor Brown has discovered.

The sort of company that would be interested in the prestige of a UK license is probably not your run-of-the-mill Costa Rican operation. It will likely be a more reputable outfit that has already built a sterling reputation with players and has met standards and requirements of governments like (as I said before) Alderney and the IOM and is therefore confident that it can meet UK regulations.

Firstly let me explain the nonsense comment. It was not directed at you or your comment but at the idea of a license that purports to regulate online gambling being issued to companies that remain outside UK duristicion.
That is nonsense.

Correct me if I am wrong but what you are basically saying is the same as me. That companies would rather avoid Tax and go unregulated rather than pay and be regulated.

Of course there has been much discussion behind closed doors between ministers/civil servants and Bookmakers and it would be at the very least a little naive to suggest that the level of tax was not the main topic of conversation.

It follows therefore that a deal of some sort will have already been all but made, just not quite to the decimal point and set in ink.

Here is one piece of media copy that supports my view;

Crucially, the exact rate has yet to be decided but John O'Reilly, the head of online gambling at Ladbrokes said he was pleased with the deal. 'It's quite a breakthrough,' he is reported as saying

Basically though I do not need evidence to support my view that these companies have been offered huge tax breaks and incentives to become UK based, it is common sense.

The Goverment want a slice of the online gambling pie and a smaller slice is better than no slice at all.

What exactly do you think I should study more closely?

I have read back my original reply to you and it does come accross as a little high and mighty so appologies for that and I agree that the companies that apply for licenses will indeed be the reputable ones.That is the point though is it not? To seperate themselves from the rogues?