The Racing Room - UK Budget Special

(upbeat music) Now you're all very welcome to the racing room. It's me, Rowan and Grim hosting with you. Here's yours, Anthony Cummins. It's Tony Calvin and Harry Stewart Moore. This is the budget special, budget and capital letters. All the talking stopped momentarily on Wednesday morning. I want you to kickstart again, 10 fold after various sectors of both gambling and racing industries are digested and used from the budget that Rachel Reeves announced. The nuts and bolts that I don't go true momentarily, but put simply, as we approach the season of giving, it appears the betting operators are going to have to give a lot more in the new year. As it happened this week, recording a podcast on Monday was going to be a little tricky for various reasons. So with the budget happening and everyone available today, Friday, it made sense for us to kick on here. But before we get into it, I just want to give special mention to a special online silent auction, which has gone live with the proceeds going to the Hunt Family Fund. This is a memory of the family of BBC race and commentary John Hunt and his daughter, Amy. So that's silent auction and went live on Wednesday and will end on Thursday, 11th of December. You can find all the details out of you. Just Google Hunt Family Fund and it'll bring you to all various news stories and what you can bid on there. So I would just only want to have a look at that. I'll bring the lads in now. And I know there's a pretty good chance you'd listen or have a main gauge of what's happened on Wednesday. It's probably been engrained into your head, but just to read you out a few of the main bullet points before we get stuck into it. So remote gaming duty, which covers online casino games, has been hyped to 40% from 21% from April next year. For general betting duty in betting shops, it would remain a 15%, which would also be the rate for the best placed online on horse racing. However, from April 2020, seven online GBD on other sports such as football will increase to 25%. Machines, machine games duty, which is tax paid by bookmakers in shop betting terminals had been expected rise, but was left unchanged changed. And just before we do start as well, we had a bit of confusion around exactly how everything works with the tax and just bringing a tweet here and bring you in a case clarified situation with regards to the 40% tax that goes on casinos. So tweet by Richard Garbin, who just said the following, a bit of tax question mark and convinced that people think they're taxing 40% of profits, they're not. They're taxing 40% of gross gaming revenues before costs. It makes running a UK online casino, barely a break even operation. So you've just come in there maybe and clarify exactly how this set this tax will work and what it is. Yeah, that's exactly it. I think there's a lot of there. There's a lot of people putting their head up, put the power of it and they don't. They just don't understand the economics of this debate, I suppose. You've got a hundred quid. If a bookmaker wins a hundred quid on casinos, the 40% tax is the 40% of that 100 quid, essentially. So that's a 40 quid goes to the government. But from a bookmaking point of view from the operation of that casino, 30% of that might go to affiliates, of that 100 quid, 30% might go to affiliates that have brought traffic to your site. There's a plethora of other costs, essentially. What else would you have? Oh, your affordability checks, your banking transactions, absolutely. You're talking single digits on anything one, essentially, no, on casinos from markets. It's absolutely turned the ecosystem upside down. It might make casino barely profitable in the legal market. I think it will still be slightly profitable. But it is the returns, essentially, on casinos that have been funded a good part of the ecosystem. And I think risk is about to understand that it's going to be one of the first affected. I think a lot of people just think you win a hundred quid and 40% goes in tax and the bookies keep in 60. That 60's a single digit number, no. And it's important, isn't it, A.K. to point out that once you then take your costs off and you find your net profit, that's then subject to corporation tax, like everyone else. Well, a hundred percent, even after that, essentially. You're still paying crops on that in the U.K. If you're best in the U.K. I'm obviously not the skybet discussion previously, but somebody can tell me what the U.K. rate is, is it 25%, is it? Ireland is 12 and 1/2%. It's just that the 40% is just off the top line number of what you win, of course. Yeah, there's an unbelievable amount of other transactions from banking to compliance to your customer service teams. TransUnion, a company we pay to do affordability checks and checks on customers that sign up, essentially, soft checks in the background, like that, that, that, that, but because I win in 60%, they don't get the rest of it. It's going to be a single digit number of which, that obviously is another thing that's probably part of the skybet discussion previously. And then what's left is a single digit number on that one vertical that you would have to then pay a corporation tax on, actually, to even realize any of that money. It's a, it's just, and like I said, that was just a huge part of the ecosystem, propping up stuff that isn't profitable, which was recent as one. And when you strip that down to what it has been, no, strip down, it's absolutely monumental. And the people that are left, I think they'll be, I think they'll be plenty of bookmakers that go, if you're talking about consumer choice, I think that'll be bad for consumers. I think, I think you saw some larger group share prices rise and who've got decent cash pilots because they'll probably get a larger percentage of a smaller market, essentially. I think that's what will happen. Yeah, we would definitely get in and tease that out of the potential consequences stand aligned. Before we get it, we've loads of ways to approach this and loads of questions to take. But before we get into, we might just do a kind of quick fire section on the winners and losers for each stakeholder. So I'll try and keep you to a quickity can here, kind of one to two sentences. We'll go into the order of AK, Harry, and Tony. So I'll shut out a stakeholder, you come in AK, and then you follow Harry and Tony from there. So let's start with winners, the losers, betting shops, AK. Relative winners, actual losers. I expect betting shops to decrease 10% in the next year or two, probably in the next year. I think it'll lose five or six hundred betting shops on the back of this. Sorry, nice quick fire. I see no reason to open a betting shop and keep one open that's even making a small amount of money on the back of this. I think like AK, it's obviously relative winner when you look at the tax burden that's now increasing on other forms. I think the difficulty for betting shops is that you can't look at this nice relation. There are all sorts of other problems, one of which is affordability checks. You know, that's the context in which this is happening. I think that it is going to remain at least very difficult to operate a betting shop. Timel tells to whether I suppose the answer is how much damage is this casino going to do online business. And until we really know that, I'm not really sure that we fully understand what quite how attractive LBOs are going to be, but it doesn't feel great. I'd go winners in this, but again, it's a qualified winner because we've just heard this week that the racing partnership, for example, are charging bookmakers 22 grand to show their product. So in isolation, they're winners, but it's far more nuanced than that. - Yeah, I've got just a summary of just for myself. I think the transfer of the business online doesn't go back to retail. It just goes offshore, doesn't mean it retail anymore. - It might not go back to retail, but capital investment might have to, because let's say, for example, the casino business just collapses altogether. Their options are to try and do something with LBO, and then I know that's an extreme example. Would you not try and do anything? - I don't think that I'll have them. I don't think you push the square peg into the round hole. It's a bygone interest. It's analog in a digital world, but in shops. - Move on, Gents. BHJ, AK, take it away there. - BHJ, BHJ has not been a winner for years. - And anything. BHJ is not a winner. It might think it's won, and let's stick to the budget as offshore world. - Yeah, and to shortfire. - And to shortfire. I don't know. I don't know what the BHJ thinks does it think it's won? It's going to be pretty evident to it soon, and after it's lost, I don't know. It's not won, anyway. It's not won anything. - This is a very difficult question, and I'm not one that lends itself to a shortfire. In my view, I think that racing didn't have much of an option in the, I do not accept for a second. And I've read several times today on Twitter people saying that racing, campaigning for a carve out is the reason, essentially, that gambling, remote gaming duty has gone up from 21% to 40%, that is headbrained in thinking, that's just not right. I think that at a certain point, that racing had to try and look after itself, I think it would be worse for racing if the taxes on racing had gone up in the same way that they have on everything else, obviously. - I don't think that's the case, by the way. I think if the falsities, of course, that's the case. How could you possibly say they would be in a better position if they'd gone up to 40% than that? - Does it just going to get stripped massively now? And if it would have been hard. - That's happening anyway, because you say it's the casino that funds them, so that's happening anyway. - Well, yeah, but it wouldn't have been it. - It wouldn't have been as dramatic as what it's going to be. - So you think that racing stance has is what has increased-- - The case should have made my opinion as racing should have understood its place in the ecosystem and understood what had happened to it. It still doesn't understand that when it's already happened. So it's going to have to understand soon and off, I think it'll be posted. - So I think what it should have done is done this years ago. I think it should have seen a very long time ago that it was going to become a product. What this has really revealed is that the gambling industry is much more the gaming industry than anyone really accepted for quite a long time. And I think that horse racing was very happy to get that cheap cash that was floating around in the gambling market as a result of Casino's. And I can see why operators are annoyed by it because when it saw the writing on the wall and saw that actually Casino operators were going to get hammered, it decided to jump ship and plough its own furrow. Where I think the gambling has a right to be irritated with it is that for far too long, it was very happy to benefit from being parasitic on Casino betting as a result of which, it allowed itself to become a flabby and bad product in many ways. - I would say the BHA have to be viewed as short-term winners. They had to go out and make their own case. They couldn't have made it in my opinion in conjunction with bookmakers. Now longer term, that could come to bite them and it could well be short-term come to bite them rather than long-term. So I just think they did what they had to do. The devil would be in the detail what they said to their lobbying firm, strand partners, what they told them to tell government. And if it transpires, they told them to kind of like do what you want with Casino, but leave us alone then that is a pretty toxic argument. We'll never get to find that. But what I do think from the BHA is, I think they would have been horrified by the jump from 21 to 40%. I don't think there'd have been bargaining for that, for that level of increase. And obviously that's just caused massive friction. So going in the short term, I think they did what they had to do. Long term, it could well come to bite them their lack of cooperation with the bookmaking industry. We've got to remember as well, they didn't even tell the bookmaking industry about that strike day either. So cooperation going forwards can be very, very difficult with the bookmaking industry. - Okay, the player's going to have to be that more quick from here on. (laughing) - As far as I'm concerned. - That's all right. I'm going to do a bit more simpler ones as it would go. Needless to say, A.K. the black markers. Big winners here. - Ah, huge. - Yeah. - If, yeah, just an unbelievably huge winner. - Massive. - Great news from them. - It is a big winner. There is a problem with bookmakers running that as their main argument for a very long time as to why taxation shouldn't go up because it's not really their problem. Society's problem, the black market. The other thing I'd say about big core is it's not done very much itself to do anything about the black market if it's quite the threat that it makes out. So it's an argument which can be undermined by basically being self-evidently self-interest. But it also happens to be true that the black market is very obviously going to benefit hugely from this. - Yeah, nothing to add to it. - Do you mean course market, A.K.? - On-course market, sterbism. I don't have a view on that one, Ronan. - Yeah. - I think by definition, I think they're gonna have to. If margins do get squeezed on horse racing, then it's got to make the on-course market more attractive. Now, we're always told that, you know, the on-course market will facilitate long-term winners in cash betting and on-course betting. So if the margins are squeezed to that degree that the on-course market is far more attractive, then even though there's cost involved of going racing, then I think the on-course market will have to be a marginal winner here. - I think the publication for this is just, is that some of these interests are so co-aligned with each other, it's hard to see them in isolation. I mean, it's hard to treat a lot of operators as pure on-course operators, for example, when they, and quite what their online business, what effect that might have on their overall capital expenditure and that kind of thing. - Affiliates, AK, like some racing poles, that sort of thing? - A huge loser. Affiliate deals will have to come down. Some are sustainable. I present with those specific numbers from April and then from 2027 on, what's for sports? Affiliate, like Affiliates bears will contract. It's relatively small, anyway, there's a few bigger groups and then a couple of smaller operators, there's not an unbelievable, unbelievably, you have to really go down into the absolute drags, if you wanna expand an affiliate program. Big, a big, big loser, I think. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to pay 165 million for an arch-tracker, awesome, to my dad, given this news. It's, it's, I think they're gonna be in for a big shock, the whole affiliate industry of which the racing courses, who are quite happy to come down for the, actually racing taxes, as the men think, I think that might bite. - I agree that they are a regulated affiliates are going to be a loser. And I think that one of the things we might see from this is an increase in people trying to direct, people towards the black market in return for money, basically. - Yeah, I agree with that. - Yeah, I think the racing post, again, with it like the BHA arguably took a very short side, approach the extra racing tax campaign. Now, if they had thought that through, they would have seen potential pitfalls. And as with my comments on the BHA, I think the racing post would have been absolutely horrified by the height to 40%. It's a long way back now. - Indeed, punters, okay. In general, I guess you can, you can do it from the standard punter to the problem punter to the bigger punter. - You can get all that. - Yeah, you can take them in three call-hots if you want. The professional punter, the, the, the, people say smart punters, say more price-sensitive punter myself, big, big trouble in the legal market. It's very, it's going to be very, very hard to margin, if you thought marginal accounts were being closed to how positively I've led. I think you're going to see a lot more of that. General punters, I think it's going to be pulled for them because margins are going to increase. RTPs are going to decrease. The value on offer in the legal market is going to decrease. Black market, obviously we know the hazards of moving over there as well. I can't see that I've been winning anywhere for those customers. And then problem gamblers, obviously, just horrific. And yeah, I think it's just bad all around for punters. And it's not, we're surviving. Our everyone's going to be surviving. And the suboptimal, a very, very suboptimal legal market for the entrants that survive it, essentially. I think that I completely agree that it's very problematic for punters healthy and otherwise. Certainly in the long term, short term, as it were. I've said for a very long time that I think that racing piggy packing on casino betting was a strategic mistake because not for any, I don't have any moral reason, moral problems with casino betting at all. But I've thought for a very long time that it is going to come under significant pressure from society, essentially, in terms of how it was going to be controlled. I think we are beginning to see the beginning of that. I don't think this is the end of it. My prediction is that we will see casino betting, regulated casino betting, disappear almost completely at some point. And then that's essentially, that's essentially a black swan event, and then who knows thereafter? So that means regulated sports betting disappears as well. Well, we'll see. Yeah, we'll see. And I think that is what-- But it's a black one. But my point is that then becomes a black swan event, after which it's like the big bang. Who knows what happens thereafter? So all I'm saying is short term, I completely agree with you. But I think that what we are seeing is that the product that really paid for everything is starting to die. I think punters will yet to be sitting in what kind of this does the margins. It won't be good news. I mean, this morning there was a 5-1, a 5-5 market for tomorrow. And Flutter will be around 232% on it. So if that's a market for things to come, then God help us. From a wider point of view, I think the pressure on some independence going to the wall will shrink the market. And when you shrink the market further, then obviously choice goes. And you can get the big firms just squeezing the margins as much as they've only got-- If there's only three or four viable alternatives elsewhere. So I think punters are going to get shafted one more of the other. Yeah, that's the problem. It's going to stifle everything. Stifle's innovation. It's stifle's new entrance. It shrinks the market for an opera or a group. And what your options are here for opening a new account, et cetera. Yeah, it's not good. It's not good. Would you want more? Obviously, we're probably quite obvious winner, but just to bring them in and talk about the SMF, the Social American Foundation. I don't know, I guess those who are campaigning for this, I suppose, are the big winners out of this, OK? Big winners. With the nothing case, I've got the result. I want it essentially. So from a campaign perspective, you'd have to respect them. They will-- and I think it's of benefit for everyone to hold them to account for the consequences that they achieve here, not just for a regulated market, but for the problem gamblers that are sent to the abyss, essentially, as well. We should be documented in that. Obviously, they're winners. They got what they wanted. I think, as I say, and I've thought for some time, I don't say it's the right thing. I think this was coming, whether they did eventually, whether they were involved-- these particular individuals were involved or not. Yeah, they're the winners here. They've got a big PR win. My worry is that they've got a taste of real blood now. So they're not going to leave it here. Are they-- as we will come onto some questions that we're asking ourselves, but the comment by Thomas Seven and James has always suggested they've got a taste to get involved. Yeah, we come onto that in due course. Let's get into those questions now and talk about the bookmakers in general and what this means. But I guess what the way to move on the conversation is what's going to happen next. And we're kind of asking here, what do bookmakers now walk? After we're talking to talk, and Julie increase betting margins on racing and make massive cuts everywhere. So this comes kind of, I think, Grona, herds from the BGC kind of set the tone of-- I guess fighting talk, I don't know if that was too-- it's too strong a word, but she was on Nick Blocke and said that it was obviously devastating impact, tens of times, in industry. I think she labeled it an act of vandalism against industry. And I said the obvious thing. I would say it was an early Christmas present for the black market. We're staking with double, and punters can now expect worse sell. It's worse offers just generally, worse off product. So what happens next, aka, we were obviously hearing lots of bookmakers are saying we're going to cut sponsorship. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. We're going to spend this on horse racing, et cetera, is that inevitable? I think it's absolutely inevitable. I think it'll start before April. Way before April, Tony referenced the overrun in the fighting fifth year from Flutter Bruns tomorrow. I think it's going to become more powerful, of course. But from my perspective, and I try and qualify this with context, our prices will have to get slightly worse. But the intention would be to still be one of the better prices in the market, essentially. So the whole market is going to decrease-- so it increased overruns, decrease value. We are going to have to do that, too. But we'll be at the top end of that spectrum, as we are now at the current tax rate, essentially, from a price perspective. So we'll still have some of the best prices around. But they just won't be as good as they were. The present day, they just won't be as good as that in the summer, essentially. There'll still be some of the best around. But the overall market is going to stick up overruns, essentially. And that's essentially what's going to happen. And people get very personal about certain stuff. And people either agree with me on some stuff, or agree with me on some stuff, might despise me, might like me, and what I say need to buy to buy it. But from what I can see, every bookmaker is coming to the same conclusion, independently of each other. People don't like that. Pardon? They don't like being taxed. I mean, that's the problem in this, to an extent, is it is all bookmakers. That's one of the huge difficulties that the market has had for a very long time, is that no one outside of bookmaking is talking about these taxes. It is only bookmakers talking about it, because they have-- I don't suggest remembering it would be easy to try and get some kind of public sympathy. But there's none. But there's not really that kind of sympathy. Nobody's asking for sympathy already. We're just determin', still determin', what's-- No, no, no. I don't mean sympathy. I don't mean sympathy for what's happened. I mean, our feeling sympathetic towards the industry-- The gambling and the gambling industry. Which might create-- I know it's unrepresented, but there's a UGAR poll. The most popular decision in the budget from 82% of people was bookmakers getting taxmed more. Now, that's the kind of easy win that's-- That's fine, but you took it with the consequences of it, and it's just worse for you, and more problem gambling, and more block market gambling, and probably a reduction of yield anyway. That's the way to-- I'm not-- I'm neutral to anybody's opinions on it. I'm just telling you what's going to happen. That's all I'm interested in. And I think I'll be about that so far. And I think I'll be right about it again in six months and 12 months. This is what is going to happen. You can take that neutrally. You can be an eye by it. You can recognize it. I don't particularly care. But I'm just telling you what's going to happen. That's my job, essentially. Pretty what's going to happen. And this obviously transpires, or whatever, and it seems like it will, Tony. What does this mean for horse racing? We should have probably put this in the big fire section, but I wanted to give you a bit more time, or a bit more to kind of tease this out. But what do we think in this means for horse racing in a wheelchair? Well, as we've called our outline, it's bad news. I mean, I think, like I said, the BHA did what they had to do, but the consequences of the hype to 40%. I'm guessing it's something that they didn't bargain for. And because that's so extreme, then everything kind of like begins to fall apart after that, isn't it? I mean, it's interesting. I mean, the reason why we outline the fact is it's not just 40%. It's a hell of a lot more than that. It's possibly 90 plus percent. And that's a misconception that we've done well to kind of like to clear up, because everyone just thinks, oh, you know, we're a million quid. They give the government 400 grand. And they still got 600 grand for themselves. I mean, they just said, well, you know, I've got no sympathy for that. I mean, it's, I see that that is something that we had to clear up. I mean, there's no, there's no real positive horse racing here. I very briefly saw Brent Dancer and ITV. I wouldn't say this sheepish, but, you know, there's no kind of like, there's no kind of like celebration jig. Is there, no, should they be? If I, if I was brand on cheer now, I'd leave the BHA and I'd put all over my CV that I avoided the race and tax and just get about paid jobs and more else and keep perpetuating the method. This was a success. It's like the optimal time for him to leave now from a perception to reality point of view. Yeah, I don't, like it's a horse racing. It's obviously seeing the effect of it. It's, it's, and I put then it's maybe controversial. It's a sunbook view. It's more, bookmakers are now more reliant on products that make money because they make less money. And that's still not horse racing, that's because the cost base is astronomical. You know, more reliant on. Well, that, that, that, that, that's what I mean about the harmonization point, Harry, I know you've maybe been a bit glib and making a point there saying that all horse racing could do. Yeah, it's, it's perverse to people. It's counter-intuitive, but it actually makes you know more reliant on the stuff that generates income. But they weren't, but they weren't, they weren't campaigning to get remote gaming duty up from 21 to 47 back. Yeah, but they were campaigning. Not like they're, I agree that it's a parent victory, but they haven't, they haven't done what some people seem to seem to think it's two sides to the same coin. If they look after the, the tax on themselves, they must therefore have been supporting. Have you, I mean, I think, I think it's more than a horse racing. I know what a parent goes to die, but the, the, the, they are not capable of, of influencing the treasury to the extent that there's, but I just think that we learn, of course, horse racing is going to, as we pointed out at the beginning of this, the fact that it's a tax on gross gambling yield is really important because it doesn't take account of costs. It's only there after that, that costs come into it on corporation tax. So what bookmakers are very, anyone would do in these circumstances, is try and hammer their costs down to try and retain profitability. There has been, it sounds like to me, what has been happening. And I think we all had our suspicions is that the industry was relatively awash with money from casino products that was being used to support horse racing and horse racing allowed that system to develop over the other 15 years and wasn't competitive. And, and, and, but, you know, all sorts of people, all sorts of people got flabby on this. Why would the, you know, people go, oh, the operators are paying too much from media rights agreements. Why? It's a negotiation process. They should be hammering the media rights suppliers and saying, no, this is far too much. We're not buying it. But because they had the money to do it, it appears. They did. So everyone's been saying, for years, wait a minute, where's the money going and prize money? The suggestion is it's disappearing into media rights groups who take the money out of racing. Yeah, which is what? Someone needs to do something, but that's that's so obviously something that someone needs to do something up for a very long time. For that to happen, that has to be led by a very big operator who just says, enough is enough. Me turning off. Plumpton. Completely. I mean, it's completely irrelevant. It has to be led by a big operator. Yeah. And what big operators do is they benefit from becoming as a scale so they'll be paying less than me anyway for a start. Yep. But they just don't. It's a, it's a first mover disadvantage in the initial stages. And obviously you can't behave like a cartel, but it does not. It's the unwillingness to make that leap as the first person. I'd imagine a big operator. It might be. Maybe they will now. Maybe they have to now. It might make a 365. 365 doing something that would be interesting. I know we talk about Flutter as well, but it's nice. Media rights aren't the elephant in the room. The fucking spaceship has just come through you from the window. And you know, is what it is. Yeah. But this is a bit like when, you know, families all over the country, when they see that budget come in, we'll be sitting down with their bank statements and going, oh, my God, why are we all paying for Amazon Prime? Why are we all paying? And they'll be, they'll be looking through their accounts now. And that's what everyone needs to do now. And there are going to be a few people in start corners looking slightly nervous, I suspect. And I would have thought that the media rights owners are one of the people. And I do half agree with what you were saying earlier. You were saying that people got far on XXX. That's absolutely fine. When you say that pause was in, couldn't. Support because, you know, I'm not saying they should have done. And they, they were on the option was to have a car vote. For me, I just think it was very, very naive. For the position not to factor in their own place in the ecosystem and the effect it was going to have on them. That's the point I'd make. Well, I think they just did we know that they just regarded the ecosystem essentially. And I think what would you be saying today if their attacks on horse racing had gone up to 40%. I think that was just not an option or was it? No, no, but that's all right. Well, all right. It's said, all right, fine. But let's say it goes up to 25% this April. And it goes up in line with all other sports. And there is no car that out for it. Well, it's not in a better position. Is it? It depends in the ecosystem. It probably would be. I haven't modeled it, but I don't imagine it. If everything went up to 25 or horse racing. No, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying everything goes up to 25. I was saying Casino still goes up to 40 and racing. Obviously, that's the last but the worst position. Yeah. But that's the point I make is these two things are mutually exclusive. What should it be? Remote gaming duty and horse racing are mutually exclusive. They are not, they are not related in the way that people are making out. I've won all the other. Yeah, 100%. I agree with that. But horse racing has asked for that Carboh, which is entitled to do. And I don't particularly disagree with that. But part of that, the thing that's affecting it isn't the Carboh. You could reduce horse racing tax to 5%. It's not going to make much difference because it's still. You build that. That I can completely agree with. I completely agree. But they could they can only do what they can do. I know. Why worry? You think they had to go and say. That this is why it's not even a. It's just it's not even a friendly point of view. It's just an understanding of how it works. Point of view that. If you do this to casino. It affects us this way. I just don't think they've made that. They don't understand that connection well enough. And. Yeah, I don't. Anyway, I don't think. I don't think I can't see an immediate way out of this hole because. The antagonism between the BHA and the British gaming council. I mean, they they have gone. Tonto on on Twitter. I mean, Michael do it. It's just some of the stuff he's been coming out with is. Is that right? Let's deal with that now, Tony because that's our kind of next win. Let's look at it. We don't know the kind of racing side of it there. Let's look at the kind of reflect back on the lobbying or from the BGC. Kind of side and the game and cancel out. I don't know if you guys caught Jim Boyle's. Try it on Twitter. It was kind of very critical of this side and Michael do her. Pointing out in specifically what we kind of how do we reflect on that now? Tony and how they've got about their visits here. Well, if the BHA won in the short term, the Britain gaming council. Spectacly failed for their members, aren't they? By by by getting this. Their public utterances aren't anyway convincing on the Nick Lupdaley yesterday. Martin credits was on there. He could have been asked a few more prodding questions than he did. But he was very, very scathing about Michael doger doer. He's what he was, you know, so he's he's got no time for the kind of language that he was using on Twitter. And they've just been totally ineffective in whatever lobby and they did. I mean, I think that you've got to ask now. Seriously, Drummer, we were talking a few weeks ago about how they didn't put anyone up against Matt. Our cousin on that on that Sunday morning show looking back on that. We said at the time it was a dereliction of duty looking back on that. That was a mainstream audience. They're happy to go on to Nick Lupd and talk to a whole other people watch horse racing. But that was a mainstream audience in the run up to a budget and a government budget, national budget. And they wouldn't go, they wouldn't put anyone up for that. So I tell you what, if gambling companies now need to rethink some of their spending, I would think they want to get a lot more bang for their buck in terms of the way they lobby carrying on going forward. Yeah. Let's bring it then back kind of side as well. The social America foundation and how they've kind of lobbied and got through here. And the subsequent kind of comments yesterday that we've caught. Pierre Savo's comment with regards to the same with the announcement of a significant rise in remote gaming studio and casino products, which enjoy year on year on growth. The government is now in a position to use the levy as an opportunity to provide more funds to support the SMF. And Plumpton race course proposed an increase in levy funds from 10% to 20% with a corresponding decrease in the benign duty. Take to 5%. You mentioned Matt's Arab cousins tweet as well. And one of his many tweets yesterday. It's particularly. Garling to read. I just read it out. I know if I had a product that was taxed at 25% and one that was taxed at 40%. I would be more likely to promote the one taxed at 25%. You don't need to know anything about industry to realize that. Just know the 40 is a bigger number. That is a brilliant tweet as it just shows what more money is like an absolute moron. That is the one of the most moronic tweets you'll ever read from a business perspective. Something that you make no money on gets taxed at 20, 25% and you'll promote that more than something you do. The money on that gets taxed at 40% more on absolute moron. Get off that fence. It's just the kind of like the celebratory and jolent nature of some of their comments and press releases. It's like you say that I rather thought they came across as rather defensive and and upset really that in some of that some of the. The tweeting doesn't it's either they fight. Yeah, I think it but you know this person to him because he's he's had gambling hums issues himself. But he yeah, I'm not sure I wonder whether they were expecting a little bit more. Of a garlanding and perhaps less people going I'm not you know not sure this has worked out for anyone so I wonder. Just where if you think it's not worked out now. Didn't have Matt Zahab directing people to so for teas and betting shots with the after the result of this but apparently that's where. That's what we need to go apparently for the for the high volume. Just honestly just and then you've got like noise and whatever. So that's the level with the hands out again. Interestingly plum to losing immediately losing any any sponsorship from from their track essentially as well. Yeah, I think I think the chickens are coming home to ruse. I think I was also I think in the one good thing about this. Apart from if you do survive that is going to be less competition. And you're marketing costs are going to go down because that's going to be decimated. One of the good things is that this just didn't happen incrementally and then there's more. Laws are more just more uncertainty and uncertainty over what is probably going to be another. At least three more years of this level up and this is a fairly just big whack. It's a fucking bullet to the fucking temple. Donning as good as done in one go imagine and I think also it might be smf's time. It feels like the peak here now and the consequences will be when we see the trough as well. I can't imagine they'll be listened to they probably might have six or 12 months left to be listened to. But when the consequences of some of this stuff actually start filling in through. I think they'll become less relevant. Yeah, that's quite possible. If it's backfires if there is for example a very obvious explosion in black market and problem gambling. They are going to they are going to come by this with their gun their faces. James minds can go back to taxidermy or whatever it is he's got his degree. Taxidabby he's got some random that's what he's trying to do the gambling industry. He's definitely stuff the name, isn't it? I think he's a theologian, isn't he? I don't know why he's put his. Yeah, that might be right actually. The election and taxidermy by the league. Yeah, you're still in shock. Apologies there. Yeah, I think I I call them Thomas Sabah, Peter Sabah. Definitely. Definitely. Definitely. Let's move on. Let's move on. That's to the kind of smaller independence and what it means to them. I think we've had comments from the likes of Macbeth and Beckwood. When Julian had from Beckwood was on the clock daily. He was kind of letting on that he was betrayed by racing or feeding betrayed by by racing, along with saying all the other stuff that he was pulling sponsorship at various core. Spontan included, I think. And how do we feel like that? What's what's going to happen here with the kind of the smaller independence? Okay. Julian, I thought spoken really well. Just various times in the last month or two, just on the effects on him and his business. And what he critics is going to happen. It's interesting. We've just referenced the Moronic and Mazzab to either promote something that's 25% just disregard in any any any profits that are made on different ratios of products. And he said and his conclusion was obviously your promoter thing that's 25% well. From the horses mouth Julian's mouth sound independently comes to the same conclusion as those that will literally roll back on everything. The horse racing related from sponsorship to promotion to any specials. And it will be all put into sports and casino, which is literally the same independent conclusion we've come to. And I think other bookmakers will come to as well. This doesn't this is not a win for horse racing. It's a big loss. And I think that is born out by his comments. I thought he thought he spoke very well and just basically laid it out accurately. And I think we can suck on it skirmonger in there because it's in progress. It's it's happening. I'd be very interesting to see how actually transpires on the sponsorship side in the big first because they let massive marketing teams and these marketing teams are probably. Going to have to kind of like justify their job. So they're going to go out there and try to make the case for it now anybody who's had any dealing with marketing teams and sponsorship teams. There is no business case for them that I've seen no convincing one anyway. And now they're going to have to go out there and really kind of like you know justify themselves. So I'm not sure that you know the big firms are going to absolutely just kind of like just slash everything. The the small firms like like a bit bit good win and another firms pretty much have to. But yeah, I'm pretty skeptical about if you know there's going to be a complete call at the top end of the lights of in pain. Free six five, etc. Flutter or already just downgraded massively anyway. It tells it tells that's the big not worry, but I think hills are going to be by far or a walk PLC or whatever the code. They're going to be hit very hard. I'm actually even just looking at on my phone at the moment. I feel like I'm in the big shot watching burst and stock prices at an immediate. It's it's absolutely tanking through the floor. That is 26. Now yeah, hills, hills, this market cap, the whole combined group of every single brand attached to the market cap is now. It's not actually just going to earn another four, you know, and that's two. What do you think the market what do you think the market is decided to. The market cap is now. Sorry, the market cap is now below 132 million. I don't know the specific numbers of them. What is the payroll over a year that like the market cap is things very, very low for a group of that size. There are bests of probably get off of that. Many. But I I tweet the other day just the first thing is that when I heard the report was this is going to affect hills more than anybody. I'll try to find the heat. Why do you say that? If you look at the balance sheets of the other big groups, then just not in a heap of debt. Right, they always struggled to and they have recently struggled to make money as a group just for stop anyway. It's not so much that they're particularly exposed to casino business more than anyone else. It's just it's their debt, you think it's very it's the debt and how tight they are anyway, I think. Like they've interesting UK retail. They've still got a lot of shops. I can't imagine them being too performing. And probably some online stuff helping to not subsidize them, but just make it actually worthwhile. We saw that this closed 10 or 12 different jurisdictions in Africa last week. They'll be fully gone by the start of December. They're very, very affiliate heavy. If every trainer, every jockey, every representative under the sun. So let's see that sets in a year's time. The products just okay. It's by for a very big group is for me, own personal opinion is the worst product of all the big groups. And they just don't really have a USA business, which is kind of propping up a lot of the intends and floaters and this thing. They just have no USA business of any know. Just the fundamentals are just the poor, I think, really, really poor. And I just tweeted it as soon as I saw the numbers that it's going to affect them a lot more. Essentially, you're just saying they they're worse positioned financially to take us. The market cap is now lower than what it was at the absolute thought of COVID, I believe. Like it's it's law. It's very, very low. And it doesn't take much. I would imagine from here for it to be a really, really, really big problem. I said we've got one at the end of my road, which is if it's got two people in it, it's busy. It's astonishing how it stays open. Yeah, it's just it's just more products than just the debt. I think the debt is just their numbers for that eight, eight minutes. You were just absolutely astronomical for just just didn't look like a good deal at all. And the people that made that deal, they've essentially disappeared. You'd worry for them and like I'm not being clever about this. But there's like all of these things, obviously affect jobs. They're going to affect jobs in various different bookmakers. Some bookmakers aren't going to survive. Yeah, it's just it's it's it's it's slightly worrying, I think. I think the flaws and the unturned might end up having a slightly bigger share of a small apply soon. Yeah, over here. Sorry, can we maybe just go back down to the bench? I know we talked about this already, an office boss, but just in particular, the FOBTs. Does this make them more attractive in any way? And as we also need to talk, just mentioned as well, the racing partnership of up there, they're betting shop fees from 31% to 22k per shop. And we have that in a question there as well, which is not a thing to consider for for vent shops on that side. Yeah, nothing much to write. Sorry on this actually. Yeah, the betting shops have come out this as well as they could have done. But like I said, if if the likes of the racing partnership are upping up in fees 31% year on year, then. That's the same as you do. Yeah, you'd worry I mean, I think that's got to come and sorry to repeat myself. That's got to come under this considerable strain that now hasn't it? The people are just going to pay those fees because that's what they cost. I think you're going to get in the next few years a lot more bookmakers that just have everything but also racing online. And it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of shops go back to. You can maybe still have bets, but you just don't have pitches and you have commentary. It's going back in time here. Because they're just. Yeah. It wouldn't surprise me if that happens soon. Some shops just so we can't pay this. And the two options you'd be option to close the shop. And then they've option to try and get going. That won't work, that won't work because then then there's no income stream for operator for race courses. It's not something is going either it collapses under its own weight or something has got to give. Yeah, I think they've just pushed this way too far and so it's the economics. Just to my eye, I just don't add up anymore. But I think the problem is they possibly already didn't. Yeah, yeah, it's. Yeah, just my gut feeling is my gut feeling is it shrinkage everywhere. And racing being a good part of that. Well, so our next final way we were going to look at it was the media rights morning. Is that the way bookmakers get something back from Ray? I know it's nearly impossible to imagine. Or whatever some sort of negotiation going on there, but is that the way somehow racing or bookmakers get something back at a race and it makes somewhat more palatable? Someone said on Twitter the other day never has the time commercially confidential been so important. We don't know because we just don't know what's happening with commercial with media rights payments and what's going and what goes where and how much it's been taken out of the sport. But it's got to be a market. I mean, I appreciate it's an old market because you've got very few suppliers and very few buyers. But they can't just carry on with people overpaying for them and not knowing what's happening with the money. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to take a break. Or as Mick McCarthy would say it can. Yeah, you got something next week. What about what about the like subscriber we just got to them last week and they're offshore kind of going that way. How intimate would they be from from this? No, then they're not really it's just that they'll still take a big hit. It's just how the restructuring some of the other costs is still paying that tax. They're still paying that 40p. This comes down to the changing the ratio of the other 60 out today and when we're saying it's probably going to go down to single digits. People move abroad to. Yeah, that's that's a bad question. Yeah, the reason why I reason why what is that answer is because again, people just think. Oh, they've moved offshore. Therefore the 21 to 40% doesn't affect them. That's not true. No, no, no, no, that'll be the obviously get charged that the moving like I don't want to speak out of turn and have harry panic in here. But it seems for myself reading that done need a like that this was linked to veer team cooperation tax, which just outside of that 40% remote game due. Yes, I think that's right. So did well on learning hurry. To put it up. Yeah, it's still lots of it. It's still lots to go here. To put a cap on it though, I guess with a lot of people who are watching or listening to this, where the punters. Can we just put it in black away terms or define as much. How is there a day to day pointing life going to be affected as such? What's running on it? Like for me, my job is to offer some of the best prices in the legal market. And that's what my competition is my fellow legal bookmakers that have similar cost basis to me, some might benefit from more economies of scale. I might benefit from some of independence because I might have slightly better commercials that I've done myself. And my competition is other legalized sports books in the jurisdiction. I think and I'll try and be as honest as possible. And I say, your prices are going to get slightly worse over time. That's just me being honest with people. But I think in relation to my competition in the legal market, there'll still be some of the best prices. And that's all I can do, essentially. So I don't think it's a win. It's a relative win to my competition in the legal market. But it's it's not a win for customers, essentially. We're trying to, we're trying to, we're trying to, we're trying to be as firm as possible. We're trying to not take the absolute make with prices, essentially. And try and lay bets. I would it. And that's essentially it. And we're not, we're not a huge operation. We employ about 25 people and the billial from the ground and we're real proud of it. But the cost versus the cost ratio you can have. If I build the sports book that I want to build under these conditions, I've got bankrupt very, very quickly. So I have to adapt to the conditions of the market, essentially. I'm not building the sports book that I want to build at the moment. Because I want to survive. And that's what every bookmaker is going through. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a best fit sports book for the conditions that we endure, essentially. And I've just got to make one question. Just on that subject, you know, we've all talked about how we've been contacted by people quite hard within the industry. Going, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this. And we've all kind of said, we're slightly amazed that they're flabbergasted by this given the nature of the debate. But do you think that they even, do you think that everyone actually has a plan for this? Do you think everyone is ready to go with what they're going to do next? Or do you think they're now all charging around trying to work it out? I think you should be, people should be disappointed if they didn't have a plan. You have in the big groups talk about mitigating plans for different rates and stuff. I must have meant 40% was just right, probably right at the tail of the spectrum of bad outcomes that I saw. Basically, on the morning, I would have made it a probably a small double figure price. Like I didn't think it was going to be that high because I just can see the catastrophic damage that it's going to cause. People asking me internally here on the morning of and I said, listen, I probably have to take 30% now. 30% would probably feel like when we'd have to do a few bits and pieces and to mitigate certain things. But 30% probably, we could probably absolve it and not massively affect margin that customers receive. 35 would have been bloody bad. I think 40% - these seem like small numbers to people that just aren't in the granularity of all the numbers and all the different bits and pieces coming in and out of a site. Which line item wise would be three hundreds of different line items, essentially, to have a functioning website. 40% absolutely is right at the end of that spectrum of this is bad. And if you are operating a sportsbook at the moment and you don't have much movement, a much room in your profitability, you're essentially sorry, I'm not trying to answer, but you're fucked. If you're not making much money now, you're absolutely fucked, that's it. I did not know that you're trying not to swear. You're trying not to swear, and you just teach yourself up right now, but yeah, it's probably as bad as it could have got from that point of view. And I think you're just going to see shrinkage in the market from a competition perspective and it's just going to inevitably affect margin. It's just another tool. The margin, I think a lot of people are priced insensitive on me. So I don't think that's going to be a big issue for most people. There are more on sports tournaments, but on casino, whether you like it, I'm not. If you do any SEO marketing, or you do any click mark there, I can't think what it's called click to something marketing or affiliate marketing. If people sign up to it and you might like it, I don't click it. You know, as I've said many times, I've been to various seven times and I won't play roulette. I won't play the scene and it does not appear to me in the slightest, but the people who it does appear to, who are considerable in number in the legal market, they search for. By Google search engines, the search for free spins, the search for sign up offers, those things aren't going to happen in the legal market. They're going to be much contracted. And my point is, if you're signing up and you're searching for this stuff in Google or other search engines, they're the key words that you're searching for. And you're going to get driven outside of the legal market. I think that's just, I think that's really bad from a harm from a taxi perspective, from a viability of industry perspective, from a viability of horse racing perspective. And quite importantly, which I felt this old debate was about, but it's migrated away from, from a problem garnered in perspective. It's, it's bad. It's really bad. Yeah. Just, just very quickly, shrinkage of the market and the options available by bookmakers. It's my main concern because, you know, so many people I know, I just got one account. And if that just bites the dust, where do they go? Do they go to that black market? Yeah, I think I personally wouldn't, but as we've seen, many people would. I think we look at different work, but I work probably myself, my social circles, just because of my background and my industry background and stuff. We're, we associate more in price-sensitive circles. Well, we, one thing about, I'm in a website and seeing our, even working for a bookmaker, you see what is important to people and priced and price tends not to be. You're talking though, in the example, you have one or two betting accounts. I haven't got any betting accounts left, obviously, my own name, just haven't had them for a very long time. That's just not what is happening in the market with the general market in the moment. I think affordability and stuff like that is actually made. People have a lot more betting accounts than they probably even want because there's a lot more, there's a lot more natural churn because of. Because of affordability over everything else, it might opinion. Not if they've all been shut. Well, that's, that's when you get the churn, essentially. Yeah, I just, I just, I just can't be bothered asking other people all the time and just try to, you know, get your upper half through open. The average sector, et cetera. I've just, I've just done with it. If it, if it ends, it ends. Well, anyway. We leave it there. And just kick on with a few more, it was just a few other topics. We didn't talk about this, this week, surprisingly, but we were under a bit of time pressure. So we'll, we'll move through this. Tony, do you want to mention there was a bit of a debacle at Sundan and. Three hands, traps issue there. I didn't see it myself, but there happened twice once and for any end of game on Tuesday. So I'm not, I would look for the sporsche. Now, I'll track Sunderland. Absolutely horrific pictures of grey hands getting caught in the traps. A lot of traps are not opening. Those who did open, you know, the, the grounds were getting their legs caught struggling to get free. It looked absolutely horrendous. Now, if you read, I'm some, well, I, I don't really kind of like look about, you know, you know, and all rising reaction or whatever. But. That is just as bad as never for grey hand racing is there could possibly could be. Well, even if it's not about the great, you know, it, it shouldn't have been anyway, whether it's bad, uh, I've heard grey hand racing or not. It's just, it's, yeah, that just shouldn't happen. I think it's obviously looks horrendous. I think for my memory, a few years ago, from speaking to someone who was racing manager at a dog track, they always struggled to get traps fixed or whatever the company was, those two different types of traps, I think. And whatever one of the company, like, the company just weren't making new traps, like it was like, it was like an industry that disappeared essentially. Even when stuff broke, they couldn't get new traps from anywhere essentially. I don't know. I think it's probably a lot of, you can talk about the ground as well in the tracks of surfaces and grey hand racing as well. Like I think it's, they have to get that stuff right. They have to get that stuff right because visually that was fairly appalling stuff. Without knowing the two, the specifics of whether they switch back in the traction the previous week, where I think someone similar happened. Um, it's absolute cat mitt for, uh, for the aunties, that stuff. And you've just, you've got to give them absolutely, especially in that world, more so even than horse racing. You've got to give them no excuse to, to be on your case essentially. I would read a couple of quick stories here last week. Don't really need to spend huge time on, but, uh, just to kind of paint. This is a pre budget story with regard to racing's kind of financial position. And we're regards to decline of online betting to turn over. I was just read this out. So the financial streets facing British racing had a autumn budget. It has been laid bare after the Gambit Commission says it's revealed a 6% year on year to client and betting turnover on the sport. I think we've disclosed this lots on the podcast before that's no, no surprise really, but online betting to over on the sports fell between 7.88 billion between April 2024 March 2025 down from 8.37 billion in the previous year. More than 2 billion from the 10 billion between 21 and 2022. So not exactly a great picture there, even before anything came out from the budget. We also had a verdict reached obviously in the Dylan kids to John Hagen's case. So John Hagen's Dylan kids who conspired deliberately prevent hills and from winning in July 2020. He banned from racing for 12 years and nine years respectively trainer Chris honor who was judged not to be part of the conspiracy was found to have misled stewards after the conditional jockey Sunday. I'm hard on I've been flying 7 150. And we move on from there as well. But if anyone wanted to have a look more than that, there's a on a little clip wire tracing.com put up with. Howdy float was just talking about how job he's get approached by by people like this to. You know where guys to stop and horses well worked your time watching if you if you find that on X he talked better anecdotal story out of some fellow trying to ring him up to organize something so he wanted to catch that. And then we deal with the Devon trainer Joe Tickle who was hit with suspension after fine and fine after horse his horse test positive for an antidepressant so trainer Joe Tickle. It's been hit with a two year suspension of his license suspended for 24 months and a 1000 pound fine. There one of his horses test positive for the band substance. I'm not even going to try and pronounce what that is. But the breach was found to be the result of a cross contamination from staff member and amateur writer who had taken to prescribe medication as an antidepressant. The case relates to a positive test which had no performance enhancing aspect returned on the horse Danny after that eight year old finished for 2221 and a handicap hurdle June last year. Tickle continued to train accepted that had there had been a breach and believes outcome of the close the agreement hearing was fair. I had a question from Andy Corber on this measure trainer stop people who are on antidepressants from going near to horses Joe Tickle has received a ridiculous punishment for doing absolutely nothing wrong Harry what did you did you have much of an insight to this. I continue to think these rules are really unfair on trainers and I think a two year suspended penalty is extraordinary in these circumstances. It's not a performance and a handsome drug. The appearance of worked we don't have the written decisions I should say we I've just read a report of it. I think it's crazy. The one thing I do think ties back into what we were talking about and the funding and racing, which is that the regulatory burden for participants gets bigger and bigger and bigger every year. They are on the breadline a lot of trainers. If this is going to have the huge impact on a racing that we think it is and we it's going to have an impact on welfare and on integrity and the sport as well. And the BHU needs to start thinking about where it's priorities lie and whether hammering a trainer like this for cross contamination for a perfectly sounds like a lit and perfectly allowable drug taken by staff member does seem completely over the top and the big scheme things to me. I think there are big more people embracing taking antidepressants after Wednesday. That fine was far more than the likes of Ed Dunlop got from memory. I think Ed Dunlop got a year suspended for the same effectively the same. I think they do it on the basis of what the extent to which your your your processes went up to scratch to try and stop it. And also also you get an allowance for being a classic and adrenaline as well. That was a joke. Tickles are great. Isn't want to go ahead. Headline dream that tickles. And let's do the question section lines with the initiative. So with only one Premier League is the question from Bre Mac. Only one Premier League game on boxing day, that's saying Steven's is dead for this part of the world. Just on our Irish viewers and this earth included a little probably. Will we see a conscious effort to maximize the sport on from Kempton on ITV. It's perfect chance to showcase national hunt Tony. You'd hope so. Is there any other Irish stuff that goes on since Stevens that apart from Premier League? You might get a ropey match. You might get a like a lense. They're a monster of games sometimes, but nothing. What would you do to really highlight it? You just turn all the microphones up and make everything a bit louder. I mean, what is it that they can actually do to highlight? Surely they're trying to highlight it anyway. Yeah, I know. I suppose the way they market it perhaps. Yeah, these. Yeah, they should let should make as much of it as possible. Yes. Well, I'm welcome to play in Rochdale as well. That's so you never know the beer, the beer. Lose a bit of market share and it's an audience. Question from Stewart Acquister. Is it telling the big book where bookmakers showed some solidarity towards smaller slash independent bookmakers and made a stand about meteorites payments for racing Harry? I think I mean, we've probably done this to death. I think the there is a room. There's always been a room. There is a different shows and pricing paid by different bookmakers and different sizes of bookmaker. I'm not quite sure what the question is getting at whether it's getting at that or whether it's saying that they should come in and renegotiate for that, you know, properly and for the perhaps for the first time. But yeah, I think we've probably covered that really. Are you scared when renegotiate as one collectible? Yeah, well, I think they should. I mean, I think as I say, the only explanation for the not having done that so far. It is. Is it they didn't feel they needed to? Yeah, I see as lovely as that would be as Mr very small independent bookmaker, I imagine the floor would rather stamp on our thoughts and helpless and I also don't believe in for it as well. It's just natural. So yeah, I don't know. And I'll just hold your relispos and Raymond are weekly low song question comes from Raymond this week. So a break from the budget, but can we look at low song, which is wreaking havoc with jumps racing this season and for the last few years, races having. Races having over half the obstacles removed is on satisfactory for the punter. It seems a new phenomenon when I am sure the sun has always been the same Tony. Well, it's not no, isn't it? Because we've been getting a weekly question on this for the last 18 months. So you can do now it all comes down to health and safety. And if the jockies themselves support it. We they're not going to say no, you can see in a million years, as far as a jocky, I'd want to jump as few fences and hurdles as possible anyway. Yeah, so with the horse, I think in those circumstances, Tony. Yeah, we might leave it there for the low song questions from here on in the last and maybe until another next month, we can do another question from Colin comment. The 2025 budget created a strange incentive retail banning shops and horse racing stay at 15% tax for online gaming jumps to 40%. We get to high streets suddenly profitable again, profitable again, but the industry isn't talking about rebuilding retail. They're just coding customer value and blaming the black market. So the real question is, why is the industry ignoring the tax code signal to compete on product quality instead of just squeezing margins? Does that tell us the industry has become too concentrated to pivot or too extractive to care? And a lot to unpack their AK, do you understand what he's getting at? Yeah, I just think he's approaching it the wrong way to the industry. Why would you why would you focus on a decline in industry rather than one that's one that's growing essentially retail is just cash and old people essentially. Both don't have huge life expectances. It's like it's like increasing the tax on cars and then wondering why people don't go back to horses and carts like in the street, it's it's just not going to go that way at all. It's not how people bet. It's not how they want to bet and you could open the most perfect retail space with all your nice fancy screens and there been nobody in them. It's just like time has moved on. And so that's why they don't focus on retail and like there's a lot of people with opinions about what people should do around margin on retail and stuff like that and what I say is it's a free market. And somebody get a few quid together and have a go if you think everything's been done wrong. Surely you've got an unbelievable opportunity. The reason it's not being done, I think it's because most people with the cash shift come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea. But there's not many barriers to entry bar a few quid to start up. So if you think it's anything's been done wrong. People can always get a botmack and license and how it goes. Very easy to be recognized and it's not that easy to keep them. Yes. You get the UK here. No, they are, they're remarkably easy to get because of this dog on it, but you know, the the aim to permit. Yes. We will move it on their lads. We're right runner and is asking when spinning Mick say he's gone to the machine to lay one. Are these bets now subject to tax as it's no longer an in person bet. Okay, do you want to take that? Who's spinning Mick, sorry? No, I don't know. Tony is that said a person knows well, no person or something or I think that's Michael Cannon. I think that's his nickname, I think. Sorry, Michael, but if it is, it's him. If he's in there, one, he should just, you should stay on, stay on Mick. Spinning to the kitchen, I make his other cup of tea, he'll sail on the X's. What was the question again, right? When spinning Mick says he's gone to the machine to lay one, looks in a vertical as are these bets now subject to tax as it's no longer an in person bet. I mean, that would always happen at the end. Yeah, yeah. We were, we were just on that when we were talking about in the office there. What if someone has a racing multi with a football selection that do any, is that? Well, this is what I don't know. I suppose there's not me on this stuff. Yeah, I suppose from from whatever it is in 2027, the plenty of time to work it out as a boss. But if it's going to be in accounting night, that isn't it? It's going to be a new one. You know, what happens if someone has a six forward with one awesome six football teams? What the other way around? I suppose you have to treat them as individual bets here. How are we cutting up those bets? Yeah, look at 15's. Don't have any bloody galettes with us. Each way of galife, they're multiple sports. Please, I can't be bothered. I'll just pay them all the tax if you like. Yeah, no, it's just. I'm going to have a roulette multiple. 33 36 cross doubles. Yeah. And that's some bingo. Oh, yeah. They're the big winners. Weird. It's so weird of all the things you didn't expect. That was going to be right up there. Yeah. Bingo zero. Our mum must play bingo. Muscle. Yes. Is it the rank groups, then, by the way, on the speaking of bingo or mecha or whatever, the cold. They were saying that this year they made 223 million or something in profit. 100. I might have 233. I can't remember the exact number was they put 188 million in tax and made 45 million. And under those same conditions from from next year, they wouldn't make any money. Yeah, 233 million in tax. Like, sorry. It's a bit to bingo. Pretty hard. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's just smart. I think that's just short. So. I don't know. And then where do you want? Yeah. I don't know. Can't be bothered to have the goal. Yes. Just really. It's my missed opportunity with the introduction. I should have just started calling out bingo numbers and said, welcome to the AK bingo race. I'm just putting it out there. Last question. That's one from Martin. Is it an expense? Is it an expense? Is it as expensive to show overseas racing? So from the likes of France, Africa in shops. As it is to show UK and Irish racing. Any chance of pushing racing punters towards less expensive products of similar nature to UK. Irish racing. If it was cheaper. I think Tony, you asked about this on excellent. Did you get any reply or any. I got a DM from somebody. He said, don't mention my name. So I won't. He said, one margin is a much higher for international less money punters. Less inside info. Less offers to cost or about the same. Excluding that. Levy is essentially paid to international racing for media rights. Net net. More profitable due to point one. Yeah. All of that's correct. I said, I think I said it on this podcast. I definitely would have said it on Twitter at some stage. But I'm pretty sure I said it on this podcast that. Raising taxes in this budget was going to turn UK and Irish race and enter international race. And essentially. And by that much higher margin. Essentially. International race. Intense to be higher margin. Just pursue. And. And that is. That is what we've created with. Especially just UK and Irish racing is now going the way of grey hands and international race. I remember when are the racing post when when it used. To be frozen off of the winter we used to have trotting from stereo beak. That was a. We leave it there. Jen's thanks very much. Before we go. I'd say the usual although it's not Monday. It's Friday. It's Monday. So we're looking ahead to a cracking weekend of racing and football besides Tony has working away on his pieces. They're updating all the time. Cracking race. Obviously tomorrow when you pass to the two o'clock with constitution hill taking on the new line. And. Anzadam over 40 miles. And obviously the car will go. And then a couple of great ones at fairy house of Sunday. Which I hope to be rising about myself. Tomorrow if I get a chance. We'll see how the football decides to do check that out on the AK bets big prices. Tab. So I just say thank you for all the questions. Thanks very much for listening and watching. And thanks to lads for their contributions. We'll see you on Monday week. Cheers.