Welcome to the RacingTraders - Betfair Trading and Betting Forum.
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 99
  1. #51

    Default

    Here's a couple of comments which explain the RVL backflip

    From July 2011, prizemoney for Saturday meetings in Sydney will increase from $70,000 to $100,000 a race, midweeks from $27,000 to $35,000, provincial from $16,000 to $25,000 and country from $10,000 to $15,000.
    Some of Victoria's biggest owners, trainers and breeders will monitor RVL's next move as some have indicated that a move to Sydney could become the only economically viable option with the expected leap in prizemoney in that state.



    SOME of the most powerful players in the Victorian racing industry were last night demanding that the State Government intervene and insist that Racing Victoria Limited adopt the funding model that Racing New South Wales yesterday had validated by the High Court in Canberra.
    Racing NSW officials were yesterday jubilant at the High Court's decision and the immense financial benefits it will bring to racing in that state after the court upheld a NSW law requiring betting firms to pay a turnover fee to use race fields.


    Thoroughbred Racehorse Owners Association chairman Jonathan Munz said RVL should not delay any decision on changing models.
    "This decision allows the Racing Industry to charge a commercial fee for its product. Corporate bookmakers now clearly have to pay their fair share,'' Munz said.
    ''TROA has always maintained that RVL's existing gross profit model is fundamentally flawed as it effectively subsidises corporate bookmakers at the expense of totes and therefore in the bigger picture operates to migrate betting turnover away from the totes which are the industry's main revenue source.
    "We don't need any more expensive and pointless reports. A final decision needs to be made by the end of April. Let's just get it done."
    Key industry participants in Victoria yesterday turned to the Racing Minister Denis Napthine, imploring him to immediately have the NSW ruling introduced into legislation in Victoria, while some were accusing RVL chairman Michael Duffy and chief executive Rob Hines of ''sitting on their hands'' while NSW fought a brave fight to get the right deal for the industry.
    Napthine said that the State Government would examine the finding and legislate the very best outcome for the racing industry.
    Australia's most high-profile trainer Peter Moody said that Victoria must now follow NSW. ''Put it simply. It must be done not tomorrow but yesterday. That's how vital it is,'' Moody said.
    ''In a few days I am going to the biggest yearling sale in Australia and I want to be able to convince those new and old owners why they should race horses in this state. They (NSW) are going to race for a $100,000 at a time. If we don't, I may as well down tools and move to Sydney,'' he said.
    Racing Victoria said it welcomed yesterday's unanimous High Court decision.
    Analysts believe the ruling will make the playing field more even, with Betfair and Sportsbet having to pay the same fees as Tabcorp to NSW racing authorities. ''It's creating a slightly improved operating environment for Tabcorp's wagering operations,'' Morningstar analyst Ross Macmillan said.

    The Old Boy Net, rich owners, high profile trainers, highly paid racing administrators and TAB execs all getting together to screw the punter.....same crap different day


    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/horse...#ixzz1rvRDklWo
    Last edited by Peanuts; 13th April 2012 at 2:13 PM.

  2. #52
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Agree Peanuts......its like a new toy. Once one kid gets one then all the others want one too!!
    In some ways you cant blame owners and trainers for wanting a level playing field in terms of prizemoney.
    Thanks for sharing this.

  3. #53
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Garry Robinson's Winform newsletter has an interesting view of whats happening and a future market prediction in light of the race levy legislation.

    HAS THIS HAPPENED TO YOU??
    04/14/2012 05:24:33PM
    Session Started with Agent (Tom)
    04/14/2012 05:24:33PM
    System: "Welcome to Live Help, my name is Tom."
    04/14/2012 05:24:33PM
    Client:"Tried to place best fluc bet "not on this account" Tried to take Trifecta. Same deal. Tried to take a Quaddie same answer. No problem taking fixed prices though. What's the problem???"
    04/14/2012 05:25:04PM
    Client: "Yes please explain. Is there a technical problem?"
    04/14/2012 05:26:54PM
    Agent (Tom): "Sorry for the delay. I'm checking your account now. one moment"
    04/14/2012 05:29:32PM
    Agent (Tom): "Ok, thanks for waiting. Unfortunately management has placed restrictions on your account. You will no longer be able to place Multiple bets, exotic racing bets and Top Fluctuation bets on your account with us."

    We believe that many of our clients are encountering similar problems and there is a reason for it. Two reasons actually, one is the closing down of the Tas Tote wholesale business where many corporates laid off their business and the other is the success of the Race Fields levy which effectively reduces the margins the corporates can make. They have two options. The first is to simply increase their margins by offering lower prices but the market is very competitive. The other choice is to clear their books of winning punters or as above remove the options that have been winning options for individual punters.
    The client referred to above has been previously banned by Centrebet from taking certain of their products and on Saturday by two of the major players and finally, the greatest insult, was refused access to the fixed odds markets by Victorian Tab.
    There has also been some conjecture that Betfair may be forced out of the Australian Racing Market.
    So what does that leave? It is more than likely we will see offshore operators in action again. These offshore operators simply won’t be paying any levies and probably, depending on their location, little tax and this will enable them to service the market.
    Overall, I have no doubt that turnover on Racing will drop, leaving the authorities with a net loss on their revenue compared to now.
    HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?
    First of all, the average punter, will not be greatly affected. If your outlays are $10, $20, $50 or even $100 at a time and if you take exotic flexis you will find it harder to come out in front but you will continue to have access to all. The 1.5% race fields levy will go mainly to the owners of expensive race horses and keep the sale prices up for the major breeders. The battlers in those industries will remain the battlers and the crumbs offered to such participants as Victorian stable hands will never make up for them not getting a fair wage in the first place.For those who punt professionally, the task will be harder. Many will seek to place their investments through the accounts of trusted friends. Just be aware that your IP address, the place you send your selections through is what is important.
    Last edited by ned_3; 16th April 2012 at 1:22 AM.

  4. #54
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    David Nolan fron Champion Picks has this view on the turnover tax.
    Not sure I agree with his conclusions however he does argue a strong case for the methodology in calculating the turnover levy.

    Another option in the turnover tax debate

    By David Nolan

    When punters bet on any event they are competing against each other and it is the money wagered in various amounts on the competitors in that event that creates the market. Bookmakers essentially act as a conduit for people wishing to wager on an event.They frame markets with an overound which gives them the mathematical advantage that allows them over time to retain a percentage of the money wagered. Bookmakers,Totes, and Betting Exchanges all are are conduits for punters to compete against each other. The punters aim is to back the winner. The bookmakers aim is to manage the money bet through him as effectively as possible. Hence the term "bookmaker". In order for him to do that he has at times to trade the monies bet with him through other agencies (other bookmakers,totes or exchanges) to offset his liabilities. He may take bets of say 100k on an event but to limit his liabilities to an acceptable amount may need to trade a significant portion of that figure to balance up his book.

    All bookmakers large and small, trade to offset liabilities. Each bookmaker will operate to different business models regarding risk/liability but all will have to trade to offset liability at some stage.

    When I was involved in bookmaking in the UK through the seventies and eighties a turnover tax was levied.To prevent the turnover tax being paid twice or more all hedged bets were deducted from the daily turnover totals.

    This is the only fair way to levy the tax. If a punter stakes 10k on a runner and the bookmaker hedges 5k of it with another agency he only has a turnover liability of 5k. The other 5k is now with agency used for the hedge.That agency may subsequently decide to hedge 3k of that with another agency. The liability for the tax rests with the final agency.

    The turnover tax for ease of collection is levied by the taxing authority against the layer who may then offset it by levying a comparable tax on the backer.This used to happen in the UK where a percentage deduction was made on winning bets to offset the tax.In the case of the proposed 1.5% turnover tax here in Australia that surely will be absorbed by most agencies and offset by increasing the overound in general or simply accepting that it will decrease profits.The tax therefore is levied only on the LAY side of the book

    If this system is applied to the exchange (Betfair) there should be no problem accommodating a turnover tax other that the obvious one of it being a tax and therefore unpopular.A exchange trader may make multiple trades on an event accepting a liability and then offsetting it over and over again.If for example he he takes 10 individual bets of $100 at 2.00 and then offsets his liability 10 times at 2.10 he has traded successfully to remove his liability and guarantee a profit of $50 by then accepting a final lay bet of $50 at 2.00. At each stage he has offset his liability and passed it on to another party except for the final lay bet of $50.It is this $50 that the turnover tax should be levied against as that is the final destination for that $50.The other $1000 has been passed on and the tax should only be levied where it finishes.

    The exchange (Betfair) needs traders to provide the liquidity it needs to function effectively.The turnover tax will still be levied but only on the real amounts that have been laid. When the exchange (Betfair) shows a "matched" figure on an event it is so totally misleading as to make it virtually irrelevant as a huge amount of it is traded money going back and forth.

    The exchange (Betfair) has totally changed the betting landscape wherever it operates and allows player a range of options previously undreamt of. To say that it has stimulated competition would be an understatement it has been revolutionary in lowering margins in general and has given the average punter not just the pro's a realistic chance of finishing on the right side of the ledger. All serious punters use it at some time, some almost exclusively now as they have migrated from conventional punting to trading. It's main negative here in Australia is poor liquidity but that surely will improve over time.

    The racing authority has had it's day in court and the tax is now a done deal. It is now time for the racing ministers in each state to stand up and show some leadership.It's in everyone's interests that we have a strong and vibrant racing industry here in Australia.That industry is totally reliant for it's future on the punting dollar and that in general comes from working Australians.If we are going to be paying for it every time we have a bet then surely we have a right to have some input into how these massive sums of money are distributed and the terms of trade that generate them. The racing ministers need to remind the racing authorities of whose money they are spending and asking them how they intend to repay their chief benefactors by producing a product that will keep them engaged both now and in the future.

    Competition is good for the consumer - the only ones opposed to it are the vested interests that benefit from the lack of it.If the exchange (Betfair) is forced out of the racing business here in Australia it will have a hugely negative impact on Australian punters and only benefit the opposing vested interests.All the states racing ministers must be made aware of what the Australian punting fraternity expect of them.There is no valid reason at all why the exchange (Betfair) cannot be allowed to continue and contribute to Australian racing as I have shown above.If it is forced out it will be because the other vested interests have had their way at the expense of the Australian punter.The racing ministers are elected representatives and need to be made aware that we are watching developments and that we also have a vote and that there are a lot of us.Where I live in Far North Queensland the most popular male pastime is fishing. The wild rivers policy of the previous Labor government was hugely unpopular with anglers here.A common sight up here is the car sticker which reads "I Fish and I Vote". Punters need a voice here in Australia to protect their interests.

    As I said at the beginning all punters are essentially competing against one another and in accepting that, getting general agreement amongst them is probably harder than "herding cats". Surely keeping the betting landscape open and competitive is one thing we can all agree on.

    The exchange (Betfair) because of it's relatively low commission structure probably cannot absorb a 1.5% turnover model and retain it's commercial viability. Some vigorous arm twisting by the ministers might produce a compromise that could be accepted as having merits all round, for example:

    Betfair increases its commission on Australian racing by 1% across the board ie the base fee rises to 6% the lowers proportionately to 3%. The other 0.5% is absorbed by Betfair

    Betfair waives all of it's outrageous "premium charges" for business conducted through the Australian wallet.This would make the Australian product attractive to the big hitters overseas and increase turnover and liquidity

    David Nolan

  5. #55

    Default

    David also sent me the email and here was my replies to his observations.


    When punter's bet on any event they are competing against each other and it is the money wagered in various amounts on the competitors in that event that creates the market.Bookmakers essentially act as a conduit for people wishing to wager on an event.They frame markets with an overound which gives them the mathematical advantage that allows them over time to retain a percentage of the money wagered.Bookmakers,Totes, and Betting Exchanges all are are conduits for punter's to compete against each other.The punters aim is to back the winner.The bookmakers aim is to manage the money bet through him as effectively as possible.Hence the term "bookmaker".In order for him to do that he has at times to trade the monies bet with him through other agencies (other bookmakers,totes or exchanges) to offset his liabilities.He may take bets of say 100k on an event but to limit his liabilities to an acceptable amount may need to trade a significant portion of that figure to balance up his book.All bookmakers large and small, trade to offset liabilities.Each bookmaker will operate to different business models regarding risk/liability but all will have to trade to offset liability at some stage.

    This is why NSW racing love the turnover model. They get 1.5% from the bookie and then 1.5% from the bookie he offsets the bet with. And then a further 1.5% if that bookie offsets it against his liabilities. It is the best rort going.

    When I was involved in bookmaking in the UK through the seventies and eighties a turnover tax was levied.To prevent the turnover tax being paid twice or more all hedged bets were deducted from the daily turnover totals.

    This is the only fair way to levy the tax.

    This is not about being fair. This is aimed 100% at getting rid of Betfair so all Betfair punters have to go back to backing only through the TAB or the bookmakers. Once Betfair is gone, any extra money is a bonus. To the corporates, there is very little difference in the tax on profit model and tax on turnover model, the difference is minute and all the bookies will do is change their line from 1.95 to 1.92, then 1.90 then eventually 1.87 to still beat the TAB’s 1.85 but they will still make as much money as they do now. But the result on Betfair is 100% unsustainable.


    If a punter stakes 10k on a runner and the bookmaker hedges 5k of it with another agency he only has a turnover liability of 5k.The other 5k is now with agency used for the hedge.That agency may subsequently decide to hedge 3k of that with another agency.The laibility for the tax rests with the final agency.
    The turnover tax for ease of collection is levied by the taxing authority against the layer who may then offset it by levying a comparable tax on the backer.This used to happen in the UK where a percentage deduction was made on winning bets to offset the tax.In the case of the proposed 1.5% turnover tax here in Australia that surely will be absorbed by most agencies and offset by increasing the overound in general or simply accepting that it will decrease profits.The tax therefore is levied only on the LAY side of the book.

    Unless Betfair decide to tax lay bets higher than back bets there is no hope for survival. This loss was a fatal blow to their Australian operation.

    If this system is applied to the exchange (Betfair) there should be no problem accomadating a turnover tax other that the obvious one of it being a tax and therefore unpopular.A exchange trader may make multiple trades on an event -accepting a liabilty and then offsetting it over and over again.If for example he he takes 10 individual bets of $100 at 2.00 and then offsets his liability 10 times at 2.10 he has traded successfully to remove his liability and guarantee a profit of $50 by then accepting a final lay bet of $50 at 2.00.At each stage he has offset his liability and passed it on to another party except for the final lay bet of $50.It is this $50 that the turnover tax should be levied against as that is the final destination for that $50.The other $1000 has been passed on and the tax should only be levied where it finishes.
    The exchange (Betfair) needs traders to provide the liquidity it needs to function effectively.The turnover tax will still be levied but only on the real amounts that have been laid.When the exchange (Betfair) showes a "matched" figure on an event it is so totally misleading as to make it virtually irrelevant as a huge amount of it is traded money going back and forth.

    But if I back 10,000 at 1.01 and it wins I make $100 of which Betfair makes a maximum of $5. They have to pay $150 in tax. And this happens on every race every day. The other idea you mention makes it impossible to track who has what on where and for how much. It would cost Betfair more to oversee it that it would to just pay the tax. Can you imagine writing the program to try to follow all of that money. Impossibly expensive.

    The exchange (Betfair) has totally changed the betting landscape wherever it operates and allows player a range of options previously undreamt of.

    That is why they want rid of it. Who in power wants a level playing field? None of them.

    To say that it has stimulated competition would be an understatement it has been revolutionary in lowering margins in general and has given the average punter not just the pro's a realistic chance of finishing on the right side of the ledger.All serious punters use it at some time,some almost exclusively now as they have migrated from conventional punting to trading.It's main negative here in Australia is poor liquidity but that surely will improve over time.

    The whole point of this exercise by Racing NSW is to extinguish Betfair. They do not want to listen, help or compromise in anyway. Even if Betfair accepted this tax, they will just raise it to 2% and then 2.5% and keep going until Betfair leave Australia. That is the WHOLE point of this. Racing Vic have already said in October and November their tax will be 2% so it is only a matter of time until it goes up and Betfair cave in. Their withdrawal will happen sooner rather than later. They don’t want to stimulate competition, they want to stagnate it and keep their monopoly. Nobody seems to get this!

    The racing authority has had it's day in court and the tax is now a done deal.It is now time for the racing ministers in each state to stand up and show some leadership.It's in everyone's interests that we have a strong and vibrant racing industry here in Australia.That industry is totally reliant for it's future on the punting dollar and that in general comes from working Australians.If we are going to be paying for it every time we have a bet then surely we have a right to have some imput into how these massive sums of money are distributed and the terms of trade that generate them.The racing ministers need to remind the racing authorities of whose money they are spending and asking them how they intend to repay their chief benefactors by producing a product that will keep them engaged both now and in the future.

    They are not interested in the concerns of the punter. They fail to comprehend that if we all stop betting, the industry dies.

    Competition is good for the consumer-the only ones opposed to it are the vested interests that benefit from the lack of it.

    These are the people making the decisions though.

    If the exchange (Betfair) is forced out of the racing business here in Australia it will have a hugely negative impact on Australian punters and only benefit the opposing vested interests.

    This point cannot be expressed strongly enough but nobody in power seem to care or understand. They have been programmed to one conclusion. WE MUST DESTROY BETFAIR. That is their only goal here.

    All the states racing ministers must be made aware of what the Australian punting fraternity expect of them.There is no valid reason at all why the exchange (Betfair) cannot be allowed to continue and contribute to Australian racing as I have shown above.If it is forced out it will be because the other vested interests have had their way at the expense of the Australian punter.The racing ministers are elected representatives and need to be made aware that we are watching developments and that we also have a vote and that there are a lot of us.Where I live in Far North Queensland the most popular male pastime is fishing.The wild rivers policy of the previous Labor government was hugely unpopular with anglers here.A common sight up here is the car sticker which reads "I Fish and I Vote".Punters need a voice here in Australia to protect their interests.

    Did the stickers get the policy changed or have any effect? I severely doubt it.

    As I said at the begining all punters are essentially competing against one another and in accepting that, getting general agreement amongst them is probably harder than "herding cats".Surely keeping the betting landscape open and competative is one thing we can all agree on.

    They don’t want us competing with each other, they want us betting with them, at odds that are hugely undervalued. We will go from 105% markets to 115% the day Betfair die.

  6. #56

    Default

    The exchange (Betfair) because of it's relatively low commission structure probably cannot absorb a 1.5% turnover model and retain it's commercial viability.Some vigorous arm twisting by the ministers might produce a compromise that could be accepted as having merits all round ,for example:
    Betfair increases it's commission on Australian racing by 1% across the board ie the base fee rises to 6% the lowers proportionately to 3%.The other 0.5% is absorbed by Betfair
    Betfair waives all of it's outrageous "premium charges"for business conducted through the Australian wallet.This would make the Australian product attractive to the big hitters overseas and increase turnover and liquidty

    Again, they are not interested in compromise. They want Goliath dead. They do not want to compromise with it. They will turn the screw tighter until Betfair pull the pin. Betfair will never remove the premium tax, they will only increase it. It is their equivalent of what the bookies do to close a winning account. If a person wins too much, Betfair lose too many small fish clients and they can’t afford to keep marketing for new ones so they tax the professionals and will continue to do so.

    All of you receiving this email have influence-please use it to ensure we are not sold out here.

    The only way it will work is if Betfair charge commission of about 20% and then nobody will bet with them because they become worse value than the bookies. They can easily pull out of racing and run sports but trust me, the sports will all come in for their 1.5% now as well.

    Betfair in Australia are finished. They have one option if they wish to remain in Australia. Become a corporate bookmaker and hold the bets themselves and that goes against their whole business model. Alternatively if they are going to bail from Australia, they may as well just move to Malta or Gibraltar or Ireland and just continue as they were, because then they will not have to pay the tax.

  7. #57
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    "Betfair in Australia are finished. They have one option if they wish to remain in Australia. Become a corporate bookmaker and hold the bets themselves and that goes against their whole business model. Alternatively if they are going to bail from Australia, they may as well just move to Malta or Gibraltar or Ireland and just continue as they were, because then they will not have to pay the tax."

    Badge thanks for your excellent thoughts here. I'm not convinced yet that Betfair will simply pull up the tent pegs and move out of Australia. Certainly there is no question that the current playing field (horseracing) is the hardest one of all for Betfair to compete in. By an ironic twist of fate here BF will find it hardest of all to position itself to minimise the effect of the levy. BF have maintained a very high level of transparency and integrity since coming to these shores and that will work against them if they seek to reposition themselves to reduce the levy impact. If BF were a "Corporate" they would have avenues to explore at Board level to minimise the levy. An example is one you have raised in that the even money price could be adjusted to $1.95 to offset the impact. Thats a simplistic example however I'm sure there are some creative thinkers out there who can conjure up some actions that could also lead to decreasing levy payments.
    I'm also not sure that moving offshore will negate the levy liability. If I read the transcripts correctly then the obligation to pay the race fields legislation on NSW Racing (and shortly Victoria) doesnt cease once our international waters are crossed. If I'm correct then the likes of Betdaq, Paddy Power, William Hill and anyone else who allows punters to bet on NSW Racing will be liable for the fee. The penalty for non compliance is AUD $1m if my understanding of the legislation is correct.

  8. #58

    Default

    My understanding is the Australian ruling has no jurisdiction outside of Australia so all the non Australian corporate's can do as they please. Pinnacle and WH and Ladbrokes and Betdaq can all offer Australian racing with no possibility of being chased for the fee.

    I admit I have not read the ruling so I would not attest to the above being right, just my current understanding from people that do (or should) know.

  9. #59
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    1,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Badger View Post
    My understanding is the Australian ruling has no jurisdiction outside of Australia so all the non Australian corporate's can do as they please. Pinnacle and WH and Ladbrokes and Betdaq can all offer Australian racing with no possibility of being chased for the fee.

    I admit I have not read the ruling so I would not attest to the above being right, just my current understanding from people that do (or should) know.
    Hi Badge.
    Here is how the offshore arrangements worked on Vanuatu some 10 years ago. It was because of this that the penalties were increased. From memory I think the Waterhouse family had an interest in Vanuata at the time along with a number of other Corporates. Where the difficulty arises for us punters is that it is clearly illegal for a NSW resident to bet outside NSW on a NSW race. I think you'll find that if you are living in NSW and you place a bet with William Hill for example on a NSW thoroughbred, harness or greyhound race then you are breaking the law. Because of the so called Vanuatu case the legislation was tightened up so it has become protectionist and arguably draconian.
    There are some smart folk out there that can cloak their ISP number and some will take the risk. The majority however will look for easier alternatives.

    HOW THE VANUATU OPERATION WORKED

    * A punter at Randwick Racecourse uses his mobile phone to call the Number One Betting Shop in Vanuatu, in breach of the 1998 NSW Unlawful Gambling Act.

    * In Vanuatu the phone is normally answered by an Australian who says: ``One."

    * The punter gives his account number. The account is a credit arrangement that is settled weekly, on Thursdays. The punter names a horse and race he wishes to gamble on anywhere in Australia. He is given a $1 rebate for making the call and incentives such as thebest price a horse has beenquoted rather than the starting price.

    * At the end of the week the punter's wins, losses and rebates are tallied and the Number One Betting Shop's Victorian office either sends out a cheque or a bill that has to be paid into its Westpac bank account in Australia.

    * Although the accounts are initially settled in Australia they are registered in Vanuatu where the bookies pay a minimal amount of tax. No money is paid to the NSW Government or racing industry.

  10. #60

    Default

    No that is how I see it. William Hill can offer racing markets on NSW racing but it is the PUNTER that is breaking the law by betting on them. Nobody has yet been charged with this offence or is likely to be. They don't have the money to check who the hell anyone in NSW is betting with.

    And the One operation only drew attention because the owners were in Australia. Anyone overseas that is in no way connected with Australia has nothing to fear from Racing NSW or Australian courts.

    When this extends to all sports, the corporates will be at a huge disadvantage to offshore corporates and will either suffer smaller profits or move offshore.

    I fear for the future of Sportsbet when they are too scared to take a $100 bet on the line in a Melbourne Storm game off me though hahaha. Barred before I had ever had a bet. Badger = feared punter hahahahahaha

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. India v Australia - 4th ODI
    By nicholastze85 in forum Cricket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd November 2009, 4:54 PM
  2. England vs australia 5th odi
    By hibees04 in forum Cricket
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 16th September 2009, 9:12 AM
  3. Court Differences...
    By Dak in forum Tennis
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 4th September 2009, 12:22 PM
  4. Australia Racing a false economy.
    By The Badger in forum Horse Racing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th June 2009, 1:03 AM
  5. SA V Australia 3rd ODI
    By The Badger in forum Cricket
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10th April 2009, 2:11 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •