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;

Old / Expired Link

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?

 

[jetset]

You might start with another look at the Gambling Act and the UK Gambling Commission site, from which you may note that your comment that the UK gambling reform is primarily centred on remote gaming is incorrect.

Your comment: "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"

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the sort of companies likely to be interested in UK licensing are probably already in regulated jurisdictions and have a good reputation and confidence that they can meet UK regulations.

And because they are professionally run and are accountable to their backers, they will be closely following events, lobbying for the best deal...but will not commit until they are sure of the tax and other regimes that can affect their financial well-being.

Nothing you have so far quoted gives that assurance to companies, who may well have been in discussions and have read all the media speculation but will want a firm assurance before they move.

There is no doubt that a UK license will be important as an assurance to both players and investors, but it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable - there could be valid reasons for holding off at present until all the government's cards are on the table and committed publicly.

 

[GrandMaster]

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"

For example, Ladbrokes' online operations are currently licensed in Gibraltar. I don't see why it would suddenly make Ladbrokes dodgy if it remained licensed in Gibraltar. By the same argument, any online casino licensed in the UK should be considered dodgy outside the UK.

 

[Rusty]

You might start with another look at the Gambling Act and the UK Gambling Commission site, from which you may note that your comment that the UK gambling reform is primarily centred on remote gaming is incorrect.

Your comment: "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"

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the sort of companies likely to be interested in UK licensing are probably already in regulated jurisdictions and have a good reputation and confidence that they can meet UK regulations.

And because they are professionally run and are accountable to their backers, they will be closely following events, lobbying for the best deal...but will not commit until they are sure of the tax and other regimes that can affect their financial well-being.

Nothing you have so far quoted gives that assurance to companies, who may well have been in discussions and have read all the media speculation but will want a firm assurance before they move.

There is no doubt that a UK license will be important as an assurance to both players and investors, but it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable - there could be valid reasons for holding off at present until all the government's cards are on the table and committed publicly.

Firstly the gambling act 2005 is primarily about online gambling.
From the very site you suggest I look at (I could quote it)

The Gambling Act 2005

The Gambling Act 2005 received Royal Assent in April 2005. It is expected to come fully info force by Autumn 2007, when the Commission will take on the full range of functions under the act, and operating and personal licences issued by the Commission in the transition period will come into effect. The objectives under the Act are:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

All of the above are describing what some of the NEW regulations hope to achieve(some is relating to progressive jackpots in B&M Casinos) and remote gambling and the opportunity for money laundering there in ARE the catalyst for the new act. If you do not see that then I can not help you.
Perhaps you think the fact that a new body "The Gambling commision" was set up coincidently and nothing to do with the surge in remote gambling?

Also from the Gambling commision site;

The Gambling Commission was set up under the Gambling Act 2005. It has taken over the role previously played by the Gaming Board for Great Britain in regulating casinos, bingo, gaming machines and lotteries. In addition, from 2007 it will have responsibility for the regulation of betting and remote gambling, as well as helping to protect children and vulnerable people. The Commission is also responsible for advising local and central government on issues related to gambling.

You say;
they will be closely following events, lobbying for the best deal...but will not commit until they are sure of the tax and other regimes that can affect their financial well-being.
I say;
So they would rather not pay tax and continue unregulated.

You say;
Nothing you have so far quoted gives that assurance to companies

I say;
Not my job and lets be frank what we are talking about is them making less millions hardly their financial well being.Poor things.

You say;
it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable

I say;
Yes it would and that is why I have not done so.

what people infer maybe different.

 

[dealer wins]

For example, Ladbrokes' online operations are currently licensed in Gibraltar. I don't see why it would suddenly make Ladbrokes dodgy if it remained licensed in Gibraltar. By the same argument, any online casino licensed in the UK should be considered dodgy outside the UK.

Yeah thats a good point.

The thing about being regulated in the UK is the fact that (hopefully) all aspects of the casino/poker will be subject to proper, independent scrutiny. This will hopefully check things like the game fairness, liquidity of the company etc.

Also (hopefully) it will mean that player complaints will be handled by the regulator that will look at each one fairly and have powers to force the company to payout if necessary.

Now im from the UK but im sure that players from all around the globe would see the value of playing at a UK regulated casino and the genuine protection it gives them.

As an example it would be like playing in a B&M casino in Las Vegas compared to one in Russia (No offence to the Russian members). I know with near certainty that I will not be cheated and get paid in Vegas, but in Russia there would be a greater risk of getting cheated.

 

[jetset]

Firstly the gambling act 2005 is primarily about online gambling.
From the very site you suggest I look at (I could quote it)

The Gambling Act 2005

The Gambling Act 2005 received Royal Assent in April 2005. It is expected to come fully info force by Autumn 2007, when the Commission will take on the full range of functions under the act, and operating and personal licences issued by the Commission in the transition period will come into effect. The objectives under the Act are:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

All of the above are describing what some of the NEW regulations hope to achieve(some is relating to progressive jackpots in B&M Casinos) and remote gambling and the opportunity for money laundering there in ARE the catalyst for the new act. If you do not see that then I can not help you.
Perhaps you think the fact that a new body "The Gambling commision" was set up coincidently and nothing to do with the surge in remote gambling?

Also from the Gambling commision site;

The Gambling Commission was set up under the Gambling Act 2005. It has taken over the role previously played by the Gaming Board for Great Britain in regulating casinos, bingo, gaming machines and lotteries. In addition, from 2007 it will have responsibility for the regulation of betting and remote gambling, as well as helping to protect children and vulnerable people. The Commission is also responsible for advising local and central government on issues related to gambling.

You say;
they will be closely following events, lobbying for the best deal...but will not commit until they are sure of the tax and other regimes that can affect their financial well-being.
I say;
So they would rather not pay tax and continue unregulated.

You say;
Nothing you have so far quoted gives that assurance to companies

I say;
Not my job and lets be frank what we are talking about is them making less millions hardly their financial well being.Poor things.

You say;
it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable

I say;
Yes it would and that is why I have not done so.

what people infer maybe different.

Taking your points in order:

The passage you have quoted applies equally to all gambling reform, and if you take a closer look at, for example the consultative process that the Commission has been engaged in for most of the past year you will see that it consists primarily of land casino regulatory arrangements and plans.

And no, I don't think the Commission was set up to combat a surge in remote gambling - it's part and parcel of the entire gambling reform initiative that commenced over two years ago.

You clearly cannot accept my view that not applying for a UK licence does not imply a desire to remain unregulated or untaxed. We will have to agree to disagree on that, as I find your opposite view equally untenable.

Not either of our jobs, but this was a discussion of possibilities to which your "making less millions" and "poor things" comments are neither specific or relevant.

We seem to agree at least that it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable

 

[Rusty]

Taking your points in order:

The passage you have quoted applies equally to all gambling reform, and if you take a closer look at, for example the consultative process that the Commission has been engaged in for most of the past year you will see that it consists primarily of land casino regulatory arrangements and plans.

And no, I don't think the Commission was set up to combat a surge in remote gambling - it's part and parcel of the entire gambling reform initiative that commenced over two years ago.

You clearly cannot accept my view that not applying for a UK licence does not imply a desire to remain unregulated or untaxed. We will have to agree to disagree on that, as I find your opposite view equally untenable.

Not either of our jobs, but this was a discussion of possibilities to which your "making less millions" and "poor things" comments are neither specific or relevant.

We seem to agree at least that it would be wrong to imply that companies that do not apply for UK registration are less than reputable

Hehe yup at least we agree on that final point but as you say we are clearly at opposites elsewhere.
As I say there has been legislation in place for land based gambling for some considerable time without the Goverment feeling the necessity for change.
So It begs the obvious question;
"What has changed in the last few Years to make the Goverment feel new regulation was required?"
The only change in non remote gambling is the forthcoming introduction of progressive jackpot slots and the New super Casino/s.
These are important but not nearly as important as an unregulated industry that earns Billions in profits and touches Millions of lives without the Goverment getting a penny.
For me this makes it perfectly obvious why the act is being introduced and a New commision was set up to enforce it.
You are right I can not accept that not applying for a UK licence does not imply a desire to remain unregulated or untaxed.
This is because I can not think of any other reason not to do so.
The logistics and cost of changing server locations are negligible.

 

[jetset]

"What has changed in the last few Years to make the Goverment feel new regulation was required?"

The administration and control of gambling and a completely new casino landscape.

 

[Rusty]

"What has changed in the last few Years to make the Goverment feel new regulation was required?"

The administration and control of gambling and a completely new casino landscape.

The change in administration and control of gambling IS the set up of the Gambling commision.

The completely new Casino landscape IS remote gambling.

 

[jetset]

At last you appear to be getting it - at least on the first part of your post above.

Unfortunately you do not seem to accept that the rest of the gambling reforms involved in the UK and flowing from the 2005 Act involve far more than remote gambling.

 

[Rusty]

At last you appear to be getting it - at least on the first part of your post above.

Unfortunately you do not seem to accept that the rest of the gambling reforms involved in the UK and flowing from the 2005 Act involve far more than remote gambling.

You are like a Dog chasing its tale but never mind.
I have explained to you in simple terms why new regulations in the gambling act are primarily interested in remote gambling. The only other importent changes to current regulations involve the conduct and promotion of Super Casinos and progressive Jackpot slots.
What is this far more of which you speak?
If you are talking about old regulations being rehashed and basically unchanged then you are simply arguing my point.
If you are talking about something I have missed that is more important than the remote gambling reforms then please enlighten me.
I have backed my arguments with logic,reason,quotes and facts and if you ever do the same I will be ready to listen.
Until then there is little point in you telling me I am wrong without explaining how and why.

 

[Rusty]

Woohoo it's Weekend!

I know you do not agree with me Jetset but I forgive you

I'm off out for the W/E and may be some time

Have a good Weekend

 

[dealer wins]

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"

I take that post back in the light of this weeks budget. I was totally wrong in hindsight.

This government has totally lost the plot. They say they want to attract gaming companies to the UK then they up the tax in the budget massively.

The big players must be laughing at the thought of moving to the UK.

hmm move here and pay Millions in tax or stay put and pay hardly any tax. Its a hard choice isnt it.

Only the UK could try and attract business with an unattractive proposition. Lost the plot big time.

If I were Hills or Ladbrokes I would put a big two fingers up at Gorden Brown and stay put overseas.

 

[Rusty]

I take that post back in the light of this weeks budget. I was totally wrong in hindsight.

This government has totally lost the plot. They say they want to attract gaming companies to the UK then they up the tax in the budget massively.

The big players must be laughing at the thought of moving to the UK.

hmm move here and pay Millions in tax or stay put and pay hardly any tax. Its a hard choice isnt it.

Only the UK could try and attract business with an unattractive proposition. Lost the plot big time.

If I were Hills or Ladbrokes I would put a big two fingers up at Gorden Brown and stay put overseas.

Ahhh yeah but, no but cos right....
The figure being touted behind closed doors is actually 3 or 4% for remote Casinos where as land based pay 40%
I would call that an attractive proposition but other more cynical folk might call it a bribe

 

[jetset]

I take that post back in the light of this weeks budget. I was totally wrong in hindsight.

This government has totally lost the plot. They say they want to attract gaming companies to the UK then they up the tax in the budget massively.

The big players must be laughing at the thought of moving to the UK.

hmm move here and pay Millions in tax or stay put and pay hardly any tax. Its a hard choice isnt it.

Only the UK could try and attract business with an unattractive proposition. Lost the plot big time.

If I were Hills or Ladbrokes I would put a big two fingers up at Gorden Brown and stay put overseas.

I agree, and most analysts and observers seem to be of the same mind - it's certainly going to impact heavily on any plans both land and online operators may have had to make a UK move because it so dramatically alters the numbers.

My own theory is that this is politically rooted. Brown is confident he is the new leader who will soon be holding the reins, and he has decided to do what suits his leadership best politically rather than continue to toe the Blair policy line that has probably been his guide hitherto.

 

[dealer wins]

The cynic in me thinks that could there possibly be a situation in the future where this government tries to ban online gaming like the US.

If all the big players stick two fingers up at Gorden and he loses out millions of tax as online gaming becomes bigger and bigger, may he not try to ban it completely.

You never know. Could be under the guise of terrorism or security or helping problem gamblers etc etc

I wouldnt put anything past this Government who love stealth taxes and telling us exactly what we can and cannot do.

My prediction (Which is properly completely wrong LOL) is that unless a significant number of big players come to the UK, online gaming in the UK will be banned within 5 years of today.