It's a bit rich of banks to refuse gamblers
The banks are using the stigma attached to gambling as an excuse for their meanness, writes Declan Lynch
In the week before Cheltenham, the minds of punters are concentrated on the great prizes which await them. This year in particular, they will need to make serious money on the horses to restore their finances which were so diminished by savings and wise investments -- all that fool's gold.
But even the most single-minded of them were distracted, nay, stupefied, to hear that banks are now reportedly inclined to refuse a mortgage to people with online betting accounts. That they are taking a dim view of applicants with a verified 50-quid-a-week online gambling habit.
Which is a bit rich, when you consider that the same institutions have been sustaining losses in the region of 5,000 trillion during the last quarter, due to what can only be called gambling.
And doubly rich when you consider that online betting is actually a growth industry which could eventually raise revenue for Ireland, and maybe even pay back some of our banking debts.
Of course, the bankers are only using the online betting as an excuse not to do business, but officially they're saying that they're being prudent here, taking into account all factors which may have an impact on a client's ability to repay, year on year. Conveniently for them, it was also reported last week that Paddy Power's online profit grew 34 per cent to €42.8m last year.
Still, even for punters who are attuned more than most to the concept of irony, it is something of a bamboozler, this notion of some banker with a shed-load of toxic debt, shaking his head sadly at a man who lost about 200 quid during the last fiscal year, when a few photo-finishes went the wrong way for him.
And what if there's actually more money going from Paddy Power to him than vice versa? Does the banker then say to him, "What's your secret, baby!?"
Already, the aficionados were struggling to get their heads around the story that RTE's Colm Murray would not be going to Cheltenham this year, supposedly to save money.
Again, there is a suspicion in the minds of bettors that the authorities here may just be looking for excuses. RTE has shunned offers from various companies and private individuals who are so depressed at the idea of a Cheltenham without Colm Murray that they are willing to pay for him.
Officially, RTE was saying it couldn't accept such offers, yet it is happily receiving sponsorship for everything else that moves in the vicinity of Montrose. And everything that is nailed down too.
So it is Jesuitical for them to be claiming that they simply couldn't accept the money of various gobshites who have rallied to the Murray cause. Like the banks, are they perhaps using the addictive nature of gambling and the stigma attached to it to justify their meanness of spirit?
Interestingly, last year RTE also displayed a lack of awareness that Cheltenham for the Irish is not just a racing festival, but is now our de facto national holiday, by blocking access to internet betting sites for employees.
It was also darkly noted at the time that gambling of this kind is overwhelmingly a male pursuit, and that a similar ban on websites largely used by women would have caused uproar.
But that is an esoteric matter, next to the plain bloody-minded refusal to send Colm Murray to tell us that "Irish eyes were smiling". Especially as Irish eyes will be looking at this Cheltenham from a new perspective.
For a long time there, we had a tendency to view Cheltenham as a mad indulgence, an orgy of wild punting in which we could throw our money around in an irresponsible fashion for one week of the year at least. But next week, when we hear of some fellow having a hundred grand on a 6/1 shot in the first race, we will regard him as essentially a fiscal conservative who is seeking a safe haven for his funds, because he does not have the stomach for the roller-coaster ride of blue-chip investments.
Sadly, we will not be seeing some of our multi-millionaires in the parade ring singing ole-ole-ole-ole, because they made an elementary error of
judgement -- they put their money in bricks and mortar.
Indeed, if they had stayed away from all that land and property, and simply stayed in Cheltenham for the last 10 years doing nothing but debauching themselves, singing and dancing and betting wildly on the internet in their trashed hotel rooms, they would have emerged a bit shook, perhaps, but in much better shape financially than they are now. As for the bookies, unlike the most revered names of the financial services sector, they have their limits.
Next to the grandees of the City, they are mostly sober and sensible individuals, clerks in fancy dress, essentially, who didn't get to where they are today by gambling.
And when we hear that Minister Dermot Ahern is about to to regulate the Irish casino industry, in the light of all that has happened to our money in recent times the average casino now seems like a relatively safe place, a worthy institution akin to your old-fashioned small-town credit union -- unless the town happens to be Mitchelstown. And maybe a few other towns, where even the credit union was dealing in figures that would make JP McManus himself go weak at the knees.
Oh, how we used to marvel at the supposedly huge amounts that JP would punt on horses at Cheltenham, when other men would be topping up their pensions.
JP was ahead of the curve there, too.
Four-page Cheltenham Festival special, Sport section, pages 14--17
