Television audience numbers soar for big Moonee Valley race


Punters loved the Cox Plate being run on the same day as the AFL Grand Final with the Moonee Valley Racing Club reporting huge broadcast numbers of the meeting.

Crowds weren’t present at the 100th Cox Plate because of the COVID-19 crisis but the MVRC was thrilled with the ratings record by Channel 7’s free-to-air coverage.

The Cox Plate itself averaged 600,000 viewers nationally with 436,000 of those in metro areas, which representing increases of 64 and 86 per cent year-on-year respectively.

The MVRC reported the overall coverage numbers were up by more than 40 per cent around Australia and by more than 56 per cent in metro areas.

MORE RACING NEWS:

“We are delighted with the Channel 7 ratings that have come through for Ladbrokes Cox Plate Day and are thrilled that our great race was enjoyed by so many across Australia,” Alastair Dwyer, the MVRC’s General Manager of Racing and Media said.

“Once we knew we were unlikely to have a crowd trackside, we invested a lot of time working alongside our broadcast partner in Channel 7 on ensuring our race day was a ‘made for TV’ event and it showed with the quality of the broadcast on Saturday.

“To know that so many people took in the 100th running of the W.S. Cox Plate is a fantastic feeling and shows the standing of the race in the Australian sporting landscape”.

Cox Plate wagering figures are expected to be released on Wednesday.



Source link

News: WA’s Big Butcher launches in Osborne Park


Premium West Australian meats that would’ve been destined for international exports and then served in restaurants around the world are now accessible to the general public at WA’s Big Butcher in Osborne Park.

An extension of family-owned Western Meat Packers Group and Margaret River Fresh, the new retail offering and shopfront showcases high-quality beef and lamb, from farm to table at wholesale direct pricing. WA’s Big Butcher caters to the masses and will appeal to a variety of customers.

Whether it’s a family looking to feed hungry mouths on a budget, a BBQ enthusiast, or someone who just appreciates high-quality,
ethically sourced produce, the biggest wholesaler in the state has something for everyone, from sausages and mince to tomahawks and 9+ wagyu.

Western Meat Packers Group takes up a whooping 20,000m² of Osborne Park real estate including WA’s Big Butcher showroom and Australia’s largest dry-age fridge. The oversized fridge will satisfy all meat connoisseurs with the opportunity to choose a premium cut of meat and have it aged on-site. After 38 days of ageing, shoppers will sit down with the master butcher to discuss how they’ll carve the piece of meat and how to best cook and serve the A-grade produce.

Andrew Fuda, the CEO of WA’s Big Butcher says he’s looking forward to bringing a new experience and high quality food offering to West Australians.

“For 37 years the Western Meat Packers Group have ensured they supply a range of quality meat products delivered consistently, efficiently and reliably and our new shopfront will continue this ethos,” said Mr Fuda. “We’re very excited to be introducing Australia’s largest dry-age fridge to the state.”

WA’s Big Butcher will not only provide Perth shoppers with meats at wholesale direct pricing, it also fills a gap in the market for small businesses who need wholesalers with the high standard of a big company but can fulfill those smaller orders, cutting out the middleman.

WA’s Big Butcher will also stock north west seafood from Ainsworth Fishing, making it a one stop shop for a range of produce.

See the website at www.bigbutcher.com.au

Images : supplied





Source link

View: Big tech needs regulation but government action no solution


I am among those favouring regulation of the internet giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft — because of their humungous control of viewers’ data (raising issues of privacy and national security) and unintended role in spreading falsehoods and hate speech. But I am sceptical of the US government’s move to prosecute and break up Google, claiming advertisers and viewers are harmed by its being “the unchallenged gateway to the internet for billions of users worldwide”.

Google gets only 29% of digital advertising, followed by Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and new internet stars like TikTok. Google is simply not an “unchallenged gateway”, though it is the dominant search engine. The historical argument against monopoly is price gouging. But the internet giants typically offer free news, entertainment, and knowledge. This can create problems of privacy and hate speech but is the opposite of price gouging.

A brilliant policy paper by Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute, ‘Is This Time Different’, shows that anti-monopoly cases can end farcically, with the supposed monopoly being ousted by new innovations. Economist Joseph Schumpeter said the “creative destruction” of innovation constantly killed established giants, creating new ones. Innovation, rather than government controls on market share, was the key killer of monopolies.

IBM seemed a classic monopolist in mainframe computers in the 1970s. An anti-trust case against IBM lasted 13 years but then collapsed since the personal computer and laptop killed IBM’s supposed mainframe monopoly. They are in turn threatened by the smartphone.

Is Amazon a retail monopoly? Please recall A&P, the US retail monopolist from the 1910s to 1960s. By creating the chain store, it beat traditional retailers hollow, and had greater market share than its four nearest rivals. Yet A&P was eventually trounced by big-box supermarkets like Walmart, which in turn are now threatened by e-commerce. Once-mighty A&P filed for bankruptcy in 2010.

Facebook is often called a monopolist. But back in 2007, The Guardian had an article titled ‘Will MySpace Ever Lose its Monopoly?’ MySpace had 74% of social network traffic in 2008, and “network effects” supposedly made it impregnable. Facebook disproved that. It too can be decimated by a newcomer with superior technology. When will the rival come? Nobody knows, but as in IBM’s case, new rivals could come long before an anti-monopoly case ends, wasting government and corporate time and money.

In November 2007, Forbes magazine’s cover story on Nokia was ‘One Billion Customers — Can Anyone Catch the Cellphone King?’ This was, of course, written just as Apple and Samsung began their mighty ascent, and Nokia its long descent. Microsoft ultimately bought Nokia in 2013 when its market share was 3%.

Kodak dominated cameras and photo films for decades, and in 1978 was labelled a monopolist by a US jury. This happened just as it was losing market share to Nikon, Olympus, and Fujifilm. The digital camera then decimated all of them, and in turn was decimated by the smartphone.

Apple pioneered iTunes for music download sales and got a market share exceeding 80%. In 2010, the British music magazine NME asked, ‘Who will Break iTunes’ Monopoly?’ The US government began an anti-monopoly inquiry. But iTunes was soon disrupted by streaming services like Spotify and Pandora. Later, consumers got free music from many sites such as YouTube.

In 1996, 90% of internet users had Netscape as their browser. It seemed unstoppable. Yet by 2001 its market share fell to 12%, decimated by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. Through its Windows system, Microsoft made Internet Explorer the default browser for millions. Harvard Business School Professor Pai-Ling Yin called this unassailable. Yet by 2008 Mozilla began gaining market share, and then all were overtaken by Google’s Chrome.

Xerox was once so dominant in photocopying that the very act was called “Xeroxing”. An anti-trust suit in 1973 led to a costly legal struggle. But then rivals like HP, Canon and Minolta emerged with better, cheaper copiers. Today Xerox is an also-ran.

Yahoo once dominated search engines. Google did not invent the search engine: it was 35th in line. In 1998, Fortune published a piece, ‘How Yahoo won the Search Wars’. As usual, this happened just as Yahoo’s fortunes were declining and Google’s rising. Google today has 90% of the market. Should it be broken up as a monopolist?

History suggests this will be dicey, unnecessary, and maybe farcical.

This column began by saying that some aspects of the internet giants (including Google) should be regulated. Their tax loopholes should be closed. But the reason is less their monopoly power than unanticipated side-effects such as privacy problems and proliferation of hate speech and falsehoods.

(DISCLAIMER: Views expressed above are the author’s own.)





Source link

Boss the man for the big occasion as Sir Dragonet takes Cox Plate


But they are a dying breed and younger fans, those happy to wear their heart on their sleeve and let the world know how jubilant they are after a winner, are big fans of the man known as ”Bossy” or ”The Boss Man”.

Boss will, of course, always be known for his triple Melbourne Cup-winning partnership with the great Makybe Diva.

But his record in Australia’s other great races puts him in rare air, with two wins in the Golden Slipper and now four in the Cox Plate after he produced a superbly judged ride on the former Aidan O’Brien-trained Sir Dragonet to land the country’s greatest weight-for-age race, etching both his name and that of his equine partner into the record books.

He achieved the success in trademark style; knowing that he was well clear of his former stable companion Armory (still in the care of Aidan O’Brien) and Australia’s star Russian Camelot, Boss stood high in the irons and let his emotions show with an enormous smile and shout as he went past the post.

In the past he has delighted the huge crowds that throng the Valley stands on Cox Plate day with his victory celebrations after wins on Makybe Diva, So You Think and Ocean Park – famously donning a mask in the colours of the great mare after their triumph in 2005.

A jubilant Glen Boss celebrates after winning the Cox Plate on Sir Dragonet.Credit:Getty Images

This time he had to return to virtually deserted stands under leaden skies with only the winning trainers, Ciaron Maher and David Eustace, and the stable staff who have been looking after the horse at Werribee in attendance.

For the ownership group, who paid around $1.7 million to buy the son of Camelot from Coolmore, the purchase now looks shrewd indeed: the Cox Plate carries $5 million in prizemoney, and if Sir Dragonet can add the $8 million Melbourne Cup to his CV as well as big-money races in Sydney in the autumn he will look like a cheap horse indeed.

But that’s not how Ozzie Kheir, the man in whose colours Sir Dragonet runs, sees it.

”I do this, we do this, for the pleasure and the fun it brings us. It’s the joy and the sport that we love, the chance to be involved on the biggest days in the biggest races in Australia,” Kheir, who watched the race at home with his wife Linsey and four children, said after the win.

”We had to consider a lot of riders when Hugh Bowman [the jockey originally booked for the Cox Plate ride] got suspended and we decided to go for Bossy because he is such a great man for the big occasion, and he had done us a favour when he won The Everest for us on Yes Yes Yes.”

Kheir’s co-owners, including Brae Sokolski, John O’Neill and Phil Mehrtens, have the Melbourne-based property developer to thank that they managed to buy Sir Dragonet at all earlier this year.

A big fan of AFL club Carlton, Kheir had tried to buy the horse on a number of occasions without success and had almost given up – until he sank a few too many cocktails when he and his wife were celebrating the Blues’ last-gasp win over Fremantle through Jack Newnes’ after-the-siren goal during the winter.

“Linsey kept making up double-strength cocktails. I had about three of them, and I was so happy when Carlton won with that goal after the siren that I thought I would try and ring Coolmore and ask about Sir Dragonet again,” he said.

“I was thinking if Carlton could get a win after the siren, I might be able to get this horse – and I did.”

Now he and his colleagues can look forward to another great day at Flemington, when they will have not only Sir Dragonet running for them but also last weekend’s Caulfield Cup winner, Verry Elleegant.

And Boss has not only read the script: he has written it, so who can rule out a Plate and cups double, last achieved by Makybe Diva and The Boss Man himself.

Most Viewed in Sport

Loading



Source link

Billy Slater backs Melbourne Storm’s Ryan Papenhuyzen to show Penrith panthers big men who’s boss


What the 80 kilogram Papenhuyzen lacks in size he makes up for with sheer courage, something that has not been lost on Slater.

“Size didn’t matter with Preston Campbell either,” Slater said. “When you have courage and toughness, size isn’t a limitation.

“People think about an 80kg fullback running into 120kg and 125kg men in the middle of the field. But I know who is more afraid of who.

“He’s so quick, his acceleration is great and his biggest attribute is his willingness to compete and his willingness to be as good as he can be. He has a great work ethic and thirst to be the best he can be.”

Catch me if you can … Ryan Papenhuyzen Credit:Getty

Slater has often been praised by Papenhuyzen and coach Craig Bellamy for helping fast-track the 22-year-old Sydneysider’s development, but Slater said while he often discussed the “subtleties around his game and the opposition”, Papenhuyzen deserved all the credit for his scintillating form.

Laurie Daley was on Sky Sports Radio this week when he asked Penrith coach Ivan Cleary if Papenhuyzen or Cameron Smith posed a bigger danger to the Panthers. Cleary nominated Smith, and Slater agreed.

“Ryan Papenhuyzen will hurt you and you will all know about it because the crowd will go up and roar,” Slater said. “But Cameron Smith will hurt you and you won’t even see it. He will hurt you constantly with the subtlety in and around the play the ball. Cam and Ryan hurt you in different ways.

“Speed in our game will always be a threat. And that’s one thing the Storm have, they have speed. And if you go to sleep for a split second, Josh Addo-Carr and Ryan Papenhuyzen will get through.”

Papenhuyzen’s season will not end on Sunday night with the lightweight a near certainty to be included in Brad Fittler’s NSW Blues’ train-on squad.

“He has to be in the conversation; I’ve got no doubts he is, and I know him too well to know he wouldn’t let anybody down,” Slater said.

Tedesco and Gutherson are already in Blues camp and said they were excited to see what Papenhuyzen could produce in the decider.

“He’s been so consistent, he’s played a few more games now and he’s in a good system with Melbourne,” Tedesco said. “All facets of his game have improved. We know how fast he is, but his support play has been good, his passing game, his all-round fullback play has been top-class.

Loading

“He’s got that speed – he’s got me and Gutho covered in that area. He doesn’t have the size, but that courage, which is all you need.”

Gutherson added: “We played them twice this year – he torched us once, we did a pretty good job the other time – but you can’t keep him out of the game. He’s always there and he’s never afraid to go after it.”

Most Viewed in Sport

Loading



Source link

The electric car frenzy is helping even troubled companies raise big money


Our mission to help you navigate the new normal is fueled by subscribers. To enjoy unlimited access to our journalism, subscribe today.

The conventional path to taking a company public is pretty simple: demonstrate some early success, then sell shares for capital that can be used to expand. This year, electric vehicle startups have gone public in droves on those terms, with multibillion-dollar valuations doled out to innovators like QuantumScape, a battery developer, and Hyliion, which makes electrified powertrains for freight trucks.

EVs are so hot right now that startups don’t need to be particularly promising or novel to nab funding. Raising money before turning a profit is no longer particularly notable, but when it comes to EVs, years of outright failure are apparently just fine by some investors.

The latest example came early this month when EV startup Faraday Future announced that it is negotiating to go public via a Special Purpose Acquisition Company or SPAC. The company aims to raise $850 million to fund its first commercial electric car. SPACs, also known as “blank check companies,” are a quick path to public fundraising that has seen a massive surge in popularity this year, particularly in the EV realm, largely because the method is faster than a conventional initial public offering.

But that speed—which entails somewhat less financial transparency and public scrutiny than a traditional IPO—may not serve investors well. After all, Faraday has already burned through $2 billion without producing a vehicle, thanks to a variety of financial and operational problems.

But Faraday wouldn’t be alone: Two other EV companies with checkered histories, Fisker and Karma Automotive, have secured or are pursuing major new funding. It’s a remarkable indicator of the promise investors see in EVs—or, maybe, of a market craze that has lost touch with reality.

Faraday’s failure

If and when Faraday Future hits public markets, it will bear a huge legacy of mismanagement and alleged deceptive behavior by its founder, Jia Yueting.

Jia started Faraday Future in 2014 using funds from his massive China-based conglomerate, LeEco. But as early as 2016, Faraday was wracked by problems including unpaid bills, canceled factories, and an opaque relationship with LeEco’s EV effort that reportedly drew resources away from Faraday’s own work.

Some of those problems stemmed from problems at Jia’s other company; LeEco was at the time relying on huge debt, much of it drawn from China’s “shadow banking” sector, to fund aggressive expansion. That bet went very badly: LeEco has since gone through massive layoffs and shed many of its subsidiaries.

Most shocking of all, it soon became clear that Jia was personally on the hook for a staggering $3.6 billion worth of liabilities stemming from LeEco’s collapse. That led Jia to declare personal bankruptcy, but his creditors accused him of using a variety of deceptions to hide assets and escape his debts.

Fisker’s bad Karma

Fisker hasn’t dealt with anything like the chaos at Faraday, but it is tarnished by arguably avoidable failure. The company in July announced plans to go public via a SPAC and raise around $1 billion at a $2.9 billion valuation. But Fisker is the second electric vehicle startup from founder Henrik Fisker—and the first, Fisker Automotive, was a flop.

Fisker Automotive was founded in 2007 and collapsed by 2013 after the failure of its first model, the luxury gasoline-electric hybrid Fisker Karma. Though widely praised for its design, the vehicle suffered from inconsistent production quality, supply chain problems, and technical issues. Only about 2,000 were ever produced.

The remains of Fisker Automotive were sold to a Chinese auto-parts maker and spun out as Karma Automotive. Karma Automotive has since produced a rebranded version of the Fisker Karma, now known as the Karma Revero, though in small quantities; only about 1,000 Karma Reveros were reportedly sold in 2019. But Karma Automotive, too, recently announced plans to go public, aiming to raise $300 million in an IPO.

What changed?

So what has changed to help investors look past these companies’ troubled roots?

“Even with all of the internal and external forces we’ve encountered, we are still moving forward,” said John Schilling, a spokesperson for Faraday Future, of the company’s prospects. The $2 billion invested so far, he says, positions Faraday well for the future: “We have our own technology…robust manufacturing capabilities, and can begin production quickly.”

But the most significant change at Faraday is that Jia Yueting no longer owns shares in the company. Jia’s power had been cited as a significant deterrent to new investors, given his track record, but he gave up his ownership stake as part of his personal bankruptcy. He does still have a significant role at Faraday, though, as its “chief product and user-eco officer.”

Despite the failure of the Karma, Fisker’s baggage isn’t nearly so heavy. The Karma was a real trailblazer, hitting the market before the Tesla Model S. And a Fisker spokesperson emphasized that “the company we’re building today draws on all of the lessons learned from the past.”

Among other things, that has meant shifting focus from a high-end sports sedan to a mid-market all-electric SUV, expected to go on sale in 2022. Fisker recently signed up contract builder Magna Steyr, which also produces EVs for the likes of Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, to produce the car. And unlike Faraday, Fisker says it already has enough funding to produce its debut vehicle, describing its fundraising as “another way to de-risk.”

In September, Karma Automotive announced a major transition of its own. It plans to roll out a new slate of fully electric vehicles, including a pickup and SUV, starting in 2021. It has also added some notable talent, including chief operating officer Kevin Pavlov, formerly of Magna.

Broader market changes have also made EVs generally more appealing to investors. In September, California declared that all cars sold in the state must be zero-emission—primarily meaning electric—by 2035, which can be expected to expand the EV market substantially. And continued declines in the cost of batteries could soon make EVs price-competitive with gas-burning cars and trigger a rapid, market-wide shift to EVs.

But really, Fisker’s and Faraday’s ability to raise money hinges on one word: Tesla. Elon Musk’s company has seen a staggering stock run-up over the past 12 months, as the idea of an EV-dominated future catches on. Fisker, Faraday Future, and Karma Automotive all acknowledge that the active investment market influenced their decision to pursue a public offering right now. As long as the EV growth story holds up, investors will likely be happy to hand over money to other EV makers, even if their halos are slightly tarnished.

More must-read tech coverage from Fortune:



Source link

Perth-raised Seven sports presenter Abbey Gelmi starts busy summer of cricket with Women’s Big Bash League


For Seven sports presenter Abbey Gelmi her dream job has turned out even better than she imagined.

The Perth-raised sports commentator, and granddaughter of Olympic legend Herb Elliott, has a busy summer of cricket ahead, starting with the Women’s Big Bash League tomorrow.

“Honestly it’s a dream job it’s something that I grew up dreaming of doing, sometimes when you dream of getting a job and get to that point it’s sometimes not that fun whereas I got there and realised it was cooler than I ever imagined,” Gelmi told AAA.

The sixth season of the WBBL will bring some “normality” to what has been a challenging year for live sport even if it means the Perth Scorchers will play out the tournament in Sydney, according to Gelmi.

And if you haven’t sampled the excitement of a Big Bash game before, why not support the team from home.

“I would say it’s almost the dessert of cricket,” Gelmi said. “I understand if you’re not into cricket particularly then a Test might feel like a bit of a slog.

“Whereas Big Bash, there’s something for everyone. It’s high entertainment, it’s fast paced and just a hell of a lot of fun.”

Whereas Big Bash, there’s something for everyone.

The rising star was forced to hit back at sexist online trolls earlier this year, after praising Fremantle skipper Nat Fyfe.

Some users remarked “lady wants a Fyfe”, forcing Gelmi to retaliate saying “‘Lady’ is a sports journo at the network that made this post AND a Freo supporter. Grow up.”

“It is a very small minority that have that approach to women in sport, thankfully, but occasionally you do need to put people in their place when they say something that’s completely uncalled for,” Gelmi said.

“It’s out of your control what people think but I also think there’s a space where you need to hold your ground.”



Source link

A big old problem – Will Boris Johnson keep his promise to reform social care? | Britain


IN 1943 WINSTON CHURCHILL promised to bring the “magic of averages to the rescue of millions” by creating a national-insurance system to look after Britons from cradle to grave. Some 77 years later, Boris Johnson employed the same phrase at the Conservative Party conference. This time, the “magic of averages” would be used to fix “the injustice of social-care funding”.

Many politicians, including Mr Johnson, have made similar vows, yet failed to act. On October 22nd the House of Commons health and social care committee, led by Jeremy Hunt, Mr Johnson’s erstwhile opponent for Tory leadership, gave the prime minister a prod, with a report urging the government to spend at least £7bn ($9bn) more on social care by 2023-24, thus raising total spending by a third.

Some £3.9bn of the money would cover demographic change—growing numbers of old people and more young people requiring care—and enable providers to pay their staff the rising living wage. The other £3.1bn would be spent on capping the amount people pay for care during their lifetime at £46,000: anything above that would be covered by the state. That idea dates back to a review of social care in 2011 by Andrew Dilnot, an economist.

Unlike health care, social care is both needs-tested and means-tested. At present, only those with assets below £23,250 receive any state support. Since the cost of care is so hard to predict, firms are unwilling to offer protection, making social care the one great risk in life that is in effect uninsurable. A cap on costs would still require fiddly assessments of people’s needs, to keep tabs on how much they have spent from their approved budget. But it would also prevent people’s savings from being wiped out if they get dementia.

It may have other benefits, too. Mr Dilnot argues that people underspend on care because they want to have enough in the bank for the long haul. A cap would remove the fear of running out of money, enabling people to spend more in the short term, including on things (a stairlift, say) that stop them having accidents in the first place. Meanwhile, a more stable financial settlement would help reassure private providers to stay (and invest) in the market. Both would increase the incentive to develop new and better forms of care.

The £7bn price-tag for the committee’s proposal is hefty—but it still leaves plenty out. Social-care workers were more likely to die than even their colleagues in hospitals during the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic, a fact that has drawn attention to their meagre pay. Their wages could be pegged to similar roles in the health service, which would help reduce extremely high levels of turnover, but require additional funding unless the government wanted to bankrupt providers. Labour and some senior Tories support the introduction of free personal care, which covers things like help with bathing and dressing, and would cost another £5bn.

The problem with social care is not a lack of options. The King’s Fund, a think-tank, counts a dozen government papers on reform in the past two decades. The difficulty is summoning the political will to implement any of them, and raising the cash to do so, with opposition parties reliably objecting to plans for change. After the general election last year, Mr Johnson had an 87-seat majority and had declared his intention to fix social care once and for all. He was edging towards a Dilnot-style cap.

The pandemic has shone a light on the problems of social care. But it has also wrecked the public finances. On October 21st the Treasury said that a planned three-year spending review had been ditched in favour of a one-year one, owing to the unusual circumstances. With finances tight and the government reluctant to make long-term decisions, an announcement on social-care reform is likely to be delayed. Mr Hunt, who was health secretary from 2012 to 2018, does not think the pandemic is a good excuse, however. As he puts it: “We were even more bankrupt in 1945 when we decided to sort out the NHS.”

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline “Big old problem”

Reuse this contentThe Trust Project



Source link

Penrith Panthers vs Melbourne Storm Odds – NRL Grand Final and Big Bets


Experience on the big stage is predicted to be a defining factor in Sunday night’s NRL grand final and Melbourne are well backed $1.70 favourites at TAB to defeat Penrith ($2.25).

The Storm will be playing in their fourth grand final in five years while the Panthers have not contested a premiership decider since winning their second title in 2003 against the Sydney Roosters.

Since the grand finalists were confirmed last Saturday night, the Storm have received 67 percent of support from TAB customers with the biggest wager a $25,000 bet at $1.75 to potentially collect $43,750.

The Panthers have drifted from an opening price of $2.10 to $2.25 despite one TAB punter placing $20,000 at $2.15 on the minor premiers last Monday.

“Despite their 17-game winning streak, Penrith are being ignored by most TAB punters even though Melbourne did lose the 2016 and 2018 grand finals to Cronulla and the Sydney Roosters respectively,” TAB’s Trent Langskaill said.

Cameron Smith ($3.75 favourite) has received the most support (30 percent) from TAB punters to win the Clive Churchill Medal with Nathan Cleary ($4.25) attracting 25 percent of interest.

Josh Addo-Carr ($8.50 favourite) has garnered 15 percent of backing from TAB customers to score the first try on Sunday night ahead of Viliame Kikau ($21; 12 percent) and Suliasi Vunivalu ($10; 11 percent).

TAB’s round-by-round odds comparison for the 2020 NRL premiership is attached along with a less detailed comparison highlighting prices once the market opened, start of season, lowest and highest price, and current price.

TAB ODDS

2020 NRL Grand Final

Head To Head

$2.25     Penrith                                 opened $2.10 Saturday 9:40pm

$1.70     Melbourne                         opened $1.75 Saturday 9:40pm

Sunday 7:30pm AEDT at ANZ Stadium

 

Normal Time Margin

$2.90     Melbourne to win by 1-12 points

$3.30     Penrith to win by 1-12 points

$3.70     Melbourne to win by 13+ points

$5.50     Penrith to win by 13+ points

$18         Draw at end of normal time

First Tryscorer

$8.50     Josh Addo-Carr

$10         Suliasi Vunvalu

$11         Brian To’o

$12         Josh Mansour

$13         Stephen Crichton

                Ryan Papenhuyzen

$14         Paul Momirovski

$15         Justin Olam

$16         Tom Eisenhuth

$17         Brent Naden

$19         Nicho Hynes

$21         Matt Burton

                Viliame Kikau

                Brenko Lee

                Dean Whare

$26+      Others Quoted

TOP 5 IN TERMS OF TAKE

  1. Josh Addo-Carr ($8.50)                   15%
  2. Viliame Kikau ($21)                          12%
  3. Suliasi Vunivalu ($10)                      11%
  4. Jesse Bromwich ($81)                     8%
  5. Ryan Papenhuyzen ($13)              5%

Clive Churchill Medal

$3.75     Cameron Smith

$4.25     Nathan Cleary

$8           Cameron Munster

$10         Jahrome Hughes

                Ryan Papenhuyzen

$11         Apisai Koroisau

$13         Jarome Luai

$17         Viliame Kikau

$21         Isaah Yeo

$23         James Fisher-Harris

$26         Dylan Edwards

$34+      Others Quoted

TOP 5 IN TERMS OF TAKE

  1. Cameron Smith ($3.75)                  30%
  2. Nathan Cleary ($4.25)                     25%
  3. Ryan Papenhuyzen ($10)              7%
  4. Jarome Luai ($13)                          4%
  5. Cameron Munster ($8                    4%

TAB BETS OF NOTE ON 2020 NRL PREMIERSHIP

Penrith

$7700 @ $13 to collect $100,100 {March 23}

$20,000 @ $4 to collect $80,000 {August 20}

$5000 @ $7.50 collect $37,500 {July 9}

$9000 @ $2.75 to collect $24,750 {October 7}

$8000 @ $2.75 to collect $22,000 {October 6}

$900 @ $21 to collect $18,900 {December 7 last year}

$740 @ $23 to collect $17,020 {November 24 last year}

$1500 @ $10 to collect $15,000 {June 26}

$2560 @ $4.50 to collect $11,520 {August 14}

$500 @ $23 to collect $11,500 {November 28 last year}

$2150 @ $9.45 [collect $20,317.50] on Rafael Nadal (2020 French Open Men’s Winner) | Penrith {October 1}

$25,000 @ $18 [collect $450,000] on Geelong-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 1}

$2000 @ $19.60 [collect $39,200] on Lachie Neale (2020 Brownlow Medal) | Richmond (2020 AFL Premiership) | Penrith {August 30}

$1000 @ $39 [collect $39,000] on Richmond-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {July 20}

$2000 @ $11.50 [collect $23,000] on Richmond-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 25}

$1000 @ $17.98 [collect $17,980] on Dominic Thiem v Alexander Zverev (2020 US Open Men’s Final – Thiem won 2-6 4-6 6-4 6-3 7-6) | Lachie Neale (2020 Brownlow Medal) | Richmond (2020 AFL Premiership) | Penrith {September 13}

$1000 @ $16 [collect $16,000] on Geelong-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 6}

$100 @ $154 [collect $15,400] on Classique Legend (won TAB Everest at Randwick on October 17) | Richmond (2020 AFL Premiership) | Penrith {September 6}

$1000 @ $15 [collect $15,000] on Richmond-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 2}

$500 @ $27 [collect $13,500] on Richmond-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {August 10}

$750 @ $16 [collect $12,000] on Geelong-Penrith (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 8}

Melbourne

$20,000 @ $4 to collect $80,000 {August 31}

$20,000 @ $3.25 to collect $65,000 {October 3}

$8000 @ $4 to collect $32,000 {August 24}

$3300 @ $6.50 to collect $21,450 {March 11}

$2500 @ $7.50 to collect $18,750 {July 2}

$6000 @ $3 to collect $18,000 {October 9}

$4000 @ $3.75 to collect $15,000 {August 19}

$3000 @ $5 to collect $15,000 {August 5}

$8000 @ $1.80 to collect $14,400 {October 17}

$2000 @ $6.50 to collect $13,000 {February 5}

$2000 @ $12.18 [collect $24,360] on Geelong (2020 AFL Grand Final Team) | Melbourne {August 19}

$2000 @ $12 [collect $24,000] on Geelong (2020 AFL Grand Final Team) | Melbourne {October 10}

$1000 @ $90 [collect $90,000] on Geelong-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {June 4}

$5000 @ $13 [collect $65,000] on Richmond-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {September 21}

$5000 @ $10.50 [collect $52,500] on Richmond-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {October 11}

$5000 @ $10.45 [collect $52,250] on Richmond (2020 AFL Premiership) | Melbourne {October 12}

$1500 @ $24.75 [collect $37,125] on Geelong-Richmond (2020 AFL Exacta) | Melbourne {October 16}

$400 @ $90 [collect $36,000] on Geelong-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {July 1}

$500 @ $63.25 [collect $31,625] on Joel Selwood (2020 Norm Smith Medal) | Melbourne {October 16}

$2100 @ $12 [collect $25,200] on Geelong-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {October 16}

$1000 @ $23 [collect $23,000] on Geelong-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {August 19}

$6000 @ $3.40 [collect $20,400] on Geelong-Melbourne (2020 AFL-NRL Premiership Double) {October 22}

TO WIN GRAND FINAL (OPENED LAST SATURDAY NIGHT)

Penrith

$20,000 @ $2.15 to collect $43,000 {October 19}

$10,000 @ $2.10 to collect $21,000 {October 17}

$9000 @ $2.20 to collect $19,800 {October 22}

$5120 @ $2.15 to collect $11,008 {October 18}

$4190 @ $2.15 to collect $9,008.50 {October 18}

Melbourne

$25,000 @ $1.75 to collect $43,750 {October 19}

$10,000 @ $1.75 to collect $17,500 {October 18}

$10,000 @ $1.70 to collect $17,000 {October 20}

$9000 @ $1.75 to collect $15,750 {October 18}

$8000 @ $1.75 to collect $14,000 {October 18}

$6000 @ $1.75 to collect $10,500 {October 18}  ** two separate bets **

$3000 @ $3.31 [collect $9,930] on Arizona v Dallas (NFL Week 6 – Arizona won 38-10) | Melbourne {October 20}





Source link

Unpacking the ‘Australia precedent’ for rebalancing power between Big Tech and news publishers


Article content continued

What is the ‘Australia precedent’?

Numerous governments, from the United States to Europe to India, have been grappling with the outsize influence of large technology companies, but France and Australia have been two of the first to adopt policies that attempt to directly address the impact on publishers.

In July 2019, France added a press publishers’ right to its intellectual property laws, forcing major internet platforms to acquire licences from publishers before displaying or reproducing news content.

Australia has since proposed to take this requirement a step further by allowing news publishers to bargain collectively against Facebook and Google when negotiating such licences. Further, the Australian model sets timelines for the negotiation rounds and a compulsory, binding arbitration if no deal is reached.

Australia’s proposed code also forces internet companies to provide data related to a publisher’s content and audience to the news providers.

How would negotiations play out under the Australian rules?

If implemented, the Australian draft rules would give Facebook and Google 90 days to negotiate directly with publishers in the country, either individually or collectively, to obtain a licence for their content. If deals aren’t struck in that time frame, a 45-day binding arbitration process would follow.

Australia’s two largest publishers say they expect the requirements will result in additional revenues of between A$500 million and A$750 million per year, or about 10 per cent of Facebook and Google’s combined regional revenues.



Source link