IT’S hardly surprising to find Rich Ricci in the news in the week before the Cheltenham Festival, but to find him at the centre of an ugly dispute over unpaid bets is something of a surprise. The sale of part of Ricci’s betting firm BetBright to a rival firm was the catalyst for the events which unfolded, and in this instance, it appears that the technology was the fundamental asset being sold, and not the sportsbook with its associated liabilities. Without this platform, this left BetBright without the capacity to continue trading, or in their words, the firm ceased offering gambling services to its customers on a permanent basis.

FRUSTRATING

Few tears were shed at this particular announcement which, for all its timing was unexpected, and most punters who have tried to bet with the firm in the few years since it came into being will have found the process frustrating at the best of times.

What really rankles is the decision to cancel all outstanding ante-post bets and refund punters, something Ricci described as the fairest solution, citing the unique circumstances of the sale, and claiming that many more customers stood to benefit from refunds compared to the number which represented genuine liabilities for the firm.

He told the Racing Post: “What we did was the fair and equitable thing by all our customers. I’m sorry for those that feel that’s not right, but we acted in the interest of trying to have a solution that’s equal for everyone.”

RESPONSIBILITY

Let’s not beat around the bush here. The partial sale of a betting company which doesn’t include the sportsbook side of that business, with its related assets and liabilities, is unusual, but does not require unusual behaviour in terms of settling outstanding bets. Betbright retain responsibility for those bets, and of that there is no doubt. What remains for them to do is to honour the bets they took in the way honest and honourable bookmakers have done for generations.

BetBright are bound by Irish law, but licensed to operate in Britain by the Gambling Commission, and many of their customers, including those who stand to win big on unsettled bets, are Britain-based. Before the UK Gambling Act of 2007, bookmakers and their clients agreed to be bound by Tattersalls Rules, and the Tattersalls Committee could, and did from time to time, exclude people from the sport for breaching those rules.

Tattersalls Committee no longer has that power since disputes can now be settled through the courts, but their rules remain the benchmark of what is fundamentally fair in the relationship between bookmaker and punter, and are deemed sancrosanct. Tattersalls Rule 2 is typically unequivocal: Bets may only be amended or cancelled by mutual consent between the licensee and the backer.

Put simply, a bookmaker can not cancel a bet because he thinks it’s “a fair and equitable thing to do”. We already know what the fair and equitable thing to do is, because it’s enshrined in these rules that both parties have abided by for more than 130 years. If you’ve laid a man a bet, it is incumbent on you, as a licensed bookmaker, to honour that bet. To cancel it without agreement is to lose honour, however small the sum may be.

WEASeL words

Let’s also be under no illusion about the decision being fair by cancelling more losing bets than winning ones. These are weasel words. The nature of speculation in ante-post markets is that the majority of bets will be losers, but the bets which do win often pay out at lengthy odds, so more losers than winners does not mean no net liability. It is hard to conceive that if BetBright had no real liabilities that they would act in this manner.

It’s also worth considering how much the company paid to develop its technology before selling it for £15m. The idea that this represents a windfall is naïve, and it could well be that the whole episode was about cashing out at minimal cost, rather than cashing in for maximum reward, but that is for others to speculate upon.

This action sends out an appalling message if it isn’t reversed, either by Ricci himself, or by the intervention of the Gambling Commission, because if we accept that a man’s word is no longer his bond in matters of betting, the faith that punters have in the present system will be severely damaged. And for what?