So much for the peoples lottery - Camelot seems to be calling the shots.
I'm sure Richard Branson will still do it for free.
How could Branson run it for free? His previous bid would've cost 50% more to run than Camelot's!
Which would've meant less for good causes and/or prize money.
How could Branson run it for free? His previous bid would've cost 50% more to run than Camelot's!
Which would've meant less for good causes and/or prize money.
Getting a company to do it "no for profit" would make virtually no difference to the prizes or money going to charity - even if costs were kept to the same level.
Am I the only one not bothered? I do a lucky dip on a Saturday and an LD on the euro millions on a Friday....maybe also on a Tuesday if its a big, big rollover. I'm not going to cry over an extra £1 that I imagine would only go to waste on something else anyway.
As they say, you've got to be in it to win it.
I'm not bothered about it either. What can you buy with that extra £1? Very little.
Most likely earlier in the thread. It has been stated by several posters that Branson's company would've taken 15% of the money as operating costs, versus Camelot's 10%.
Most likely earlier in the thread. It has been stated by several posters that Branson's company would've taken 15% of the money as operating costs, versus Camelot's 10%.
According to one of the comments on this article on the BBC website - Branson's lottery would have been different to Camelots - and the jackpot would have actually been even harder to win (going from 1 in ~14 million - to 1 in ~22 million).
i'll be stopping playing when this price increase comes in.bunch of swindlers have had enough off me.i remember in the late 90s(i think)reading about the money that camelot gave out to good causes.there was a few charitys that were turned down,but the royal opera house in london was given EIGHTY MILLION POUNDS for the building to be refurbished. they said such an important cultural place like this had to be saved from crumbling or some cobblers like that.its time for another company to be given a chance to run it.
This angered me and i'm a big Opera buff, i don't demand or want my passion funded at the expense of worthy causes, the Churchill Papers was another thing i was livid about.
As for Scamalot when they increase the scratchers ect in price then ticket sales across the board will plummet, greed beyond belief,i am sorry that the good causes have saw a real term reduction in their lottery funding but its about time the cut their cloth accordingly.
they have been running ads telling us they are not increasing the price
I'm just playing the Euromillions now if I'm paying £2 I want a decent prize and Euromillions is usually 11 million with out roll-overs
If they want me to pay two quid the it has to be a guaranteed £10 million jackpot, and they need to stop withholding monies from the prize funds for future raffles.
And if money goes unclaimed then after the cut of date for claiming put it back into the prize fund, i dont see why it needs to go into the good cause pot,
16 pages in and no one has said it's a 'tax on stupidity'. I'm surprised.
Rather I think of it as a tax on despair.
They have (or something very similar to it) - about 6 pages ago. Its a standard line that always gets trotted out in discussions about the lottery.
The lottery is no more a tax on stupidity than any other type of gambling. Gambling is always weighted in the favour of the people running it - and so you are at a disadvantage before you even start - but people gamble anyway for many reasons.
The only difference between it and gambling in a casino/betting shop/pub fruit machine etc is that part of the stake on the lottery goes to good causes (for each line - you are actually only staking about 50p as a bet towards the prize fund - rather than £1) - and so the average return on stakes is necessarily lower.
It is exactly that, think of the Robin Hood analogy but Robin robs the poor to fund/subsidise elitist hobbies/passion.
Doesn't robbery necessitate that the money is taken against the peoples will.
Everyone has a choice whether or not to play the lottery and there are plenty of alternative games to gamble your money on.
If you dont like your money going to the causes chosen by the Heritage Lottery Fund - i'm sure there are local bookies who would appreciate some extra income. Buying a new sovereign ring or Jag is a worth cause indeed
I currently buy a Wednesday and Saturday ticket and tick the plus 5 box.
If the plus 5 game is still going I won't play that. So I will pay £4 instead of £3.
Only ever won £2.50 3 times on the extra game anyway.
It will generate more profit for them but will be countered by a lot of people who stop or buy less tickets.
She has a very good Muslim friend and they alternate visits for meals to each other. When it is his turn to mums, he brings his own pans, as ours have been used for pork.
She has a very good Muslim friend and they alternate visits for meals to each other. When it is his turn to mums, he brings his own pans, as ours have been used for pork.
Comments
How could Branson run it for free? His previous bid would've cost 50% more to run than Camelot's!
Which would've meant less for good causes and/or prize money.
Is there a link to any figures?
Did he ever pitch to do it "for free"
"Not for profit" /= "for free"
Camelot's profit margin from the lottery is between 0.3% and 0.4% (which is actually lower than the 0.5% figure quoted earlier in the thread)
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-do-we-need-richard-branson--to-run-the-national-lottery-1817748.html
Getting a company to do it "no for profit" would make virtually no difference to the prizes or money going to charity - even if costs were kept to the same level.
I'm not bothered about it either. What can you buy with that extra £1? Very little.
Most likely earlier in the thread. It has been stated by several posters that Branson's company would've taken 15% of the money as operating costs, versus Camelot's 10%.
According to one of the comments on this article on the BBC website - Branson's lottery would have been different to Camelots - and the jackpot would have actually been even harder to win (going from 1 in ~14 million - to 1 in ~22 million).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/893007.stm
I cant find an information on Branson's bid in order to verify this though.
This angered me and i'm a big Opera buff, i don't demand or want my passion funded at the expense of worthy causes, the Churchill Papers was another thing i was livid about.
As for Scamalot when they increase the scratchers ect in price then ticket sales across the board will plummet, greed beyond belief,i am sorry that the good causes have saw a real term reduction in their lottery funding but its about time the cut their cloth accordingly.
We are in the age of austerity.
If they want me to pay two quid the it has to be a guaranteed £10 million jackpot, and they need to stop withholding monies from the prize funds for future raffles.
And if money goes unclaimed then after the cut of date for claiming put it back into the prize fund, i dont see why it needs to go into the good cause pot,
Lets be honest, none of us ever get anything more than a tenner anyway, so I'm liking the look of £25 instead.
That wont be a worry for us,we play online but come the day of the price rise the account is closed.
Way too many draws, pitiful prize money,Scamelot has killed the cash cow, the novelty has worn off.
Rather I think of it as a tax on despair.
It is exactly that, think of the Robin Hood analogy but Robin robs the poor to fund/subsidise elitist hobbies/passion.
They have (or something very similar to it) - about 6 pages ago. Its a standard line that always gets trotted out in discussions about the lottery.
The lottery is no more a tax on stupidity than any other type of gambling. Gambling is always weighted in the favour of the people running it - and so you are at a disadvantage before you even start - but people gamble anyway for many reasons.
The only difference between it and gambling in a casino/betting shop/pub fruit machine etc is that part of the stake on the lottery goes to good causes (for each line - you are actually only staking about 50p as a bet towards the prize fund - rather than £1) - and so the average return on stakes is necessarily lower.
Doesn't robbery necessitate that the money is taken against the peoples will.
Everyone has a choice whether or not to play the lottery and there are plenty of alternative games to gamble your money on.
If you dont like your money going to the causes chosen by the Heritage Lottery Fund - i'm sure there are local bookies who would appreciate some extra income. Buying a new sovereign ring or Jag is a worth cause indeed
I really like that, it's a very succinct way of saying all the things I want to say when some smug prat says the lottery is a tax on stupidity.
If I win I will be anonymous. Why is it people think it cool to tell everybody?
If the plus 5 game is still going I won't play that. So I will pay £4 instead of £3.
Only ever won £2.50 3 times on the extra game anyway.
It will generate more profit for them but will be countered by a lot of people who stop or buy less tickets.
She has a very good Muslim friend and they alternate visits for meals to each other. When it is his turn to mums, he brings his own pans, as ours have been used for pork.
I think you posted this on the wrong thread pet