Football Index

Got out at right time then, only purchased one player at start of last year I think Pulisic, sold him few months ago for 50% profit. Sancho was £15 a good few months ago, now £5 that's a stinger for some

Looks like it's finally collapsed. Sancho can now be had for 89p. Plenty going to be wiped out now.

Warnings about this a long time ago. All these Index type bets are fraught with danger some companies in particular! Hope no one lost too much!

on sunderland fan forum but might be worth a quick read
https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/football-index-a-warning-cautionary-tale-for-football-fans.1544040/

The whole thing was fascinating and plenty of the users were completely deluded. It was pointed out to them endlessly that the entire business model was whether intentionally from the start or not essentially a Ponzi and completely reliant on a constant stream of new users to pay the dividends of the early adopters but they just wouldn't have it. It was basically a cult. Thousands are going to have lost serious money but those who were in early will have made plenty if they got out in time.

That's exactly what it was Joe, Caan Berry nailed this months ago. And even if you had never used FI, you only had to look at the business model and t's and c's to see exactly what it was.

So many of them treated it as an investment, talking about their "portfolios". It was also presented this way in their marketing which plenty fell for. As you say people such as Berry (and plenty more months before he got involved) warned them that these "shares" had no intrinsic value. They were only backed by the promise of FI paying dividends which could be altered at any time, decimating their value, but they were were blinded by the green on their account. That's another story as the numbers as presented were deliberately deceiving with no way to display what could actually be realised at any point in time. Shows how gullible people can be but also incredible the regulators allowed this to even be set up, they clearly didn't understand the business.

Yes the regulators have a lot to answer for. When I took a look at it last year, on top of the "shares" clearly being worthless, how they gained or lost value seemed to be open to manipulation and in some cases ie level of media profile, transfer speculation etc wasn't even quantifiable in any meaningful way and again totally open to manipulation. It was definitely smart marketing, and of course people were blinded by green they were never going to be able to realise. Then of course when warnings are given, people who are heavily invested financially become emotionally invested too, and then Stockholm Syndrome takes over.

True, they were in so deep they had no choice but to believe. Then again though having had a look on twitter, incredibly some still seem to think there's a "great product" there if run by the right people. Still don't get it.

On another note this is probably bad news for those of us worried about affordability checks. This is going to look very bad for the gambling industry as it appears people have been allowed to deposit their entire net worth in some cases into this thing. There are plenty of six figure losses about to be realised from people who surely can't actually afford that. There's no way they were doing the proper checks on these accounts surely.

I'm not sure what responsibilities FI had re: deposits. I doubt they had any.

Where's the money gone?

Plenty will have gone into the founders pockets but basically the Ponzi has finally unraveled. Must have spent plenty sponsoring 2 Championship clubs, also over the last year had lots of rebate and increased dividend promotions to try and keep enough money rolling in to keep it afloat but it was never enough. Their daily commissions are far smaller than the dividends they were paying out and until they changed the rules again they couldn't "mint" new shares.

Football Index's advice to it's 'investors'....

"Firstly, anyone who is concerned about their well-being, or the well-being of another user should consider the resources available on our Safer Gambling page or these mental health resources."

"We would also like to stress that while we are aware of the fact that our latest announcement proved upsetting for many of you, we have a zero-tolerance policy with regards to abuse and threats to our employees. Any such behaviour will not be tolerated, and we will pursue all necessary measures should they arise."

So basically

'your money is gone, if that upsets you phone the samaritans'

useless mugs.

They really were mugs. Any glance at their model told you this wasn't viable but anybody who tried to warn them was derided. Lots of them were very unpleasant. Even now some are still saying "the concept" is good, still can't see it.

Sounds like the final stages of denial.

Someone asked on another site whether it was worth buying the shares now because they are so cheap

Debt recovery 50%

Amazing they still have a forum open

https://forums.footballindex.co.uk/category/2/general-trading-discussion



Seem some naive people on there. One guy saying they just need to make Martin Lewis - the Money Saving Expert guy - aware that they've been ripped off and he will launch a crusade to get their money back

One guy posting a six figure loss, his life savings apparently

https://twitter.com/SiFI50065872/status/1368613402638180361

One born every day, even more so these days it seems.

Having seen this on adverts before must say I've never actually understood what it's about and its allure. It was presented like shares in players, but in real terms they don't exist so you're investing in something intrinsically has no value, so can some actually explain it? I find it real difficult why anyone would be ploughing their life savings into something like this, like what is the actual value of your holdings meant to be exactly? That somebody else will buy the worthless shares you hold at higher price?

Wonder how much they benefited from the likes of Bitcoin and the investment craze that has seen lots of investments spike an unbelievable amount in the last year (eg. stuff like Pokemon cards).

wtf is pokemon cards all about, I've seen stuff on it on youtube, seems like something open to manipulation if some cards are more valuable than others, rogue employees etc, Idk, why are cards so valuable anyway, beats me

People wanting the original first edition of stuff from nostalgia as a child. The prices they've been selling at you've probs heard about likely aren't sustainable, but it's like any collectible. It's like the early like Star Wars collectibles are worth a fortune today.

Famous YouTubers plugging it has obviously helped, but that's like how Elon Musk plugging things also sees its share price go up.

Kids today earning 10k a month streaming themselves playing video games on twitch as well, I'm in the wrong job.

I'm just completely baffled by the regulators, the UK gambling commission role in this. People have been betting with FI for years with terms which allow FI to change the payouts of bets placed months or years later.

Is there any other bookmaker allowed to do this? And people are still maybe depositing today and definitely betting today under the same terms! How is this allowed to happen?

n88uk that's it effectively, buying pretend shares in a player.

They were backed by "dividends" which were payouts worth pennies based on media coverage and performance but as seen the T&Cs always allowed them to change the amounts at 30 days notice. Plenty fell for the misleading advertising presenting it as an alternative to the stock market, they always refer to the customers as traders and use terms such as portfolio, shares and dividends. To make these dividends worth winning people had to stake thousands.

It's hard top have too much sympathy with a lot of them though as anyone who was followed this for the last couple of years will know plenty of people saw through this and warned them it was essentially a Ponzi and couldn't work and were always met with abuse. And even now lots of them still don't seem to get it and are continuing to reinvest their dividends and even deposit more so they're going to lose the lot.

They seemed to think they were genius traders because their portfolios were all green. It was impossible to lose at the beginning as all players were rising although even that was deceptive as actual values you could get out at were never (and still aren't) displayed, only the prices you could buy more at.

Those who were in early and had the sense to get out will have done very well though.

The GC surely didn't understand the business or surely it would never have been licensed.

Any shares bought also only had a 3 year lifespan until they were completely worthless

Does seem the GC have a lot to answer for. On my research today reading about it there's some elements that remind me of Full Tilt Poker, the terminology used in the drastic decrease in dividends reminds me of their language when their cash flow was low, and it seems quite obvious from that FI's cash flow was running low and evaporating fast.

Must say I still don't really understand what the attraction to it was. I obviously saw it advertised during football and it never appealed, and I'm seeing people today saying the model is great, they've just f**ked it up, I don't get it though, ultimately you are holding something with no true value, given the market isn't properly regulated, that seems a disaster waiting to happen. Some will compare it to say Bitcoin, but a cryptocurrency has an actual use and niche even if there are risks attached, this just seems completely pointless to me. The idea of comparing it to the stock market seems highly dubious too, given a stock nearly always attached to something of real value.

cryptocurrency has an actual use
55,600..

Crypto
7/2
Safe as houses.

All.marketa suspended and going into administration I'm hearing.

Never looked on the site before-there is a March promotion "£500 Money back guarantee"-covering losses if a profit not made in first 7 days !

Platform is suspended until further notice, that March promotion won't be happening. It is finished.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/football-index-suspends-platform-and-...

Gambling Commission have very serious questions to answer here. I think anyone involved should be writing to their MP about the GC for a kick off.

could be some suicidal people out there, how was the money not ringfenced like it is on Betfair in case of something like this ?

You can bet your bottom dollar the guys at the top have been very well looked after

^^ almost no gaming companies have ring fenced funds.  That was a conscious gambling commission decision.

Fans lose £90m in collapse of Football Index
Gambling regulator accused of being ‘asleep at the wheel’ amid betting firm’s failure
new
Andrew Ellson, Consumer Affairs Correspondent | Ben Ellery
Friday March 12 2021, 5.00pm, The Times
The betting company, founded by Adam Cole, traded imaginary shares in players
The betting company, founded by Adam Cole, traded imaginary shares in players
Share
Save
Football fans have lost nearly £90 million after a major betting firm collapsed into administration, sparking recriminations over how the company was regulated and accusations that customers have been misled.

Football Index, which promotes itself as “the football stock market”, failed late yesterday evening after a week of turmoil. The Gambling Commission has suspended the company’s betting licence as it announced an investigation into its operations today. The collapse is thought to be the biggest failure of a gambling business in British history.

Customers expressed fury and disbelief at the collapse and said they felt betrayed, with some reporting that they had lost more than £100,000. Campaigners accused the Gambling Commission of being “asleep at the wheel”.

The company, which was set up in 2015, allowed customers to buy imaginary “shares” in footballers and offered “dividends” based on player performances and their media profiles. But last weekend it slashed the dividends customers could earn by 82 per cent, triggering a massive slump in the value of players on its market. The price of Bruno Fernandes, the Manchester United midfielder, slumped by more than 80 per cent from £5.62 to £1.10 following the announcement.

Football Index justified the move by referring to its terms and conditions, which state it can make “adverse changes” to dividends with 30 days’ notice and said it was necessary “to ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform”.


A later statement by the company said it was necessary because of “substantial losses” in recent months. In November the company issued a statement saying it had “never been in a stronger financial position” and in January, Mike Bohan, its chief executive, stated that he was “extremely excited about our 2021 plans”.

Tweets from him and the company’s founder over the past year were filled with rocket emojis, suggesting the value of the stock market was “going to the moon”. Customers say these statements gave them confidence to buy more shares in players, money they have now lost.

The price of Bruno Fernandes, the Manchester United midfielder and one of the stars of the Premier League, slumped by more than 80 per cent
The price of Bruno Fernandes, the Manchester United midfielder and one of the stars of the Premier League, slumped by more than 80 per cent
POOL VIA REUTERS
Days before the company announced the cut in dividend it also “minted” new shares of players, effectively inviting customers to buy more stakes at values that would soon collapse. The “minting” of shares and a 2 per cent commission on buying and selling on its platform were the company’s two main sources of revenue.

Last night the company released a statement, saying: “The dividend restructure . . . was a necessary step in a business recovery plan to seek the long-term sustainability of the platform. However, it is clear that this has not been well received and we need to find a more agreeable way forward.

SPONSORED


“We are preparing this through an administration with insolvency practitioners Begbies Traynor.”

It added: “Until such time as the administrators are in office, the platform will remain suspended and no trading or payment transactions, such as deposits and withdrawals, will be possible.”

The company said that its aim was to “continue the platform in a restructured form”. However, the withdrawal of its betting licence and the investigation by the Gambling Commission suggests that may now be unlikely, effectively wiping out the value of shares in players, which collectively stood at £87.8 million as recently as a week ago, according to analysis by FI Market Cap. A further unknown amount is held by customers in cash deposits.

The company said this money was held in a “segregated account” but it was unclear when customers would be able to withdraw their cash.

While Football Index is reported to have more than half a million registered users, only about 30,000 are thought to be regular traders, suggesting average losses of nearly £3,000 each.

When the dividend cut was first announced, many customers accused Football Index of destroying the value in the market to limit its liabilities. Over the course of the 2019-20 season it paid out dividends of £11 million. Some have also accused the company of being a “Ponzi scheme” because they believe it was reliant on attracting new customers to pay out the dividends to existing players.

The Times has spoken to a Football Index employee who appeared to support this. He did not want to be identified but said: “It seemed that towards the end the company was operating like a pyramid scheme. I’m sure that’s not what the company’s original intentions were but that’s what it became.

“It constantly needed new money from deposits coming in to make the platform viable. When people stopped signing up it was impossible for that to keep going.

“It was a series of mistakes from senior management. Mike Bohan, the CEO, is really nice. He took over from the founder, Adam Cole, and the hope was it would be a bit of a relaunch after things had got rocky for Adam.

“At first customers were happy with his leadership but things started going badly. The dividend cut ended up being the nail in the coffin.”

He added: “It felt like we were kept in the dark about things. We weren’t told about big decisions — like the cut — until they happened on the day.”

The Times has also seen a warning letter sent to the Gambling Commission in December in which an experienced trader on Betfair, the online gambling company, urged the regulator to investigate Football Index, warning that its current model is “closely aligned to a Ponzi scheme”. The letter also accuses the company of using “extremely misleading” language.

Football Index has denied operating anything akin to a Ponzi scheme.

Companies House records show that Andrew Burns,the chief financial officer at Football Index, resigned as a director a day before the dividend cut was announced. It was unclear whether he is still working for the company. He did not respond to a request to comment.

Gambling campaigners say the company’s collapse highlights the deficiencies of gambling regulations. Football Index promoted itself as being regulated by the Gambling Commission but the commission would only state that its regulation of the company was restricted to “its provision of remote general betting to consumers”. This suggests that the buying and selling of shares in players was unregulated or should have come under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority.

Matt Zarb-Cousin of the Clean Up Gambling campaign, said: “If the remote general betting licence Football Index were trading off covered their main product, then it should never have been licensed by the Gambling Commission as clearly this business model is unsustainable. But if their main product didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission, then it was an unregulated form of betting. This constitutes illegal gambling, and so action should have been taken to close it down. The regulator is culpable either way.”

He added: “Both the Gambling Commission and DCMS [Department of Culture, Media and Sport] have been asleep at the wheel. There are now very serious questions to answer about why this product was licensed in the first place, and why they did not respond earlier to warnings.”

Football Index was approached for comment but has not yet replied. In previous statements, the company has denied misleading customers. It has said that the board decided to continue “business as usual” until a new plan was agreed and adopted because it considered that this would be “less disruptive to and in the best interests of stakeholders”.

It added: “Once it was clear that the reduction and restructure of dividends to the degree announced was necessary, we suspended placing issuance orders and announced the reduction and restructure to customers as soon as reasonably practicable . . . There was no intent to mislead customers.”

A spokesman for the Gambling Commission said: “When the Gambling Commission licenses an operator we look at suitability, including their financial circumstances, but we do not oversee their businesses on a day-to-day basis or monitor the financial health of operators directly in real time. That would impose significant regulatory costs and could give a false sense of security to customers.”

Share

the more you read about these people at football index the more you realise just what absolute cretins they are.

we regulate any stealing of  property
gotta be handy with the steel
if you know what I mean.....

Mar 12, 2021 -- 11:33PM, scandanavian_haven wrote:

the more you read about these people at football index the more you realise just what absolute cretins they are.

As someone that's only come in on the story at the end the more I read I'm also struggling to see how more didn't see through it. Like the guy who sent out all the warnings in like December that it was a scam, and yet was apparently battered by the majority of people at the time.

Could have a knock on effect I imagine that could have an adverse effect the industry as a whole. Seems obvious the gambling commission has f*cked up, and their could be reprimands and consequences for that. Though of course ultimately those that have perpetrated this fraud are bound to get away scot free with their millions banked.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56378282

It's bizarre that folks fall for this hokum.

Squeaky-clean John Motson staying stum, any comment from the company's chief cheerleader?

JoeMontana 07 Mar 21 11:47 ...the entire business model was whether intentionally from the start or not essentially a Ponzi and completely reliant on a constant stream of new users to pay the dividends of the early adopters...

Spot on, Sad thing was it generated plenty of excitement in the early days, I hope footie fans didn't get too heavily involved, the potential loss figures seem high.

As usual the Gambling Commission "were gone to lunch". The present UK government choice of the regulator for the gambling industry and one of the most useless organisations in the UK. First sentence sums them up:
https://beta.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/public-and-players/guide/complain-about-a-gambling-business

"Matt Zarb-Cousin of the Clean Up Gambling campaign, said: “If the remote general betting licence Football Index were trading off covered their main product, then it should never have been licensed by the Gambling Commission as clearly this business model is unsustainable. But if their main product didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission, then it was an unregulated form of betting. This constitutes illegal gambling, and so action should have been taken to close it down. The regulator is culpable either way.”"

I cannot disagree in any way.

Sancho reached £13 at the same time you could buy a share in the entire club for a Lady Godiva.

Caan Berry aka Geeks Toy should get some acknowledgement writing to the Gambling Commission on the
11th of December 2020 in regard to the Ponzi(Pyramid) scheme.
Naturally it was ignored, but he did put out to the world by doing so.

Market-making activities seemed suspect

The review revealed the value of the market and the players’ values could be directly impacted by BetIndex.

As well as creating new shares and adjusting the algorithm, BetIndex was able to buy and sell shares through its own account run by a market maker.

The review said this market maker reported directly to the board but was not subject to independent oversight.

This market maker could buy and sell to impact the market but had insider information which was not available to other players and a detailed understanding of the algorithm. This individual worked seven days a week and had a share portfolio totalling £2.9m, the review disclosed.

The review followed up by saying: “Given the complex nature of the product and the fact that the market was able to impact the outcome of the ‘event’, there was a question as to whether the product was suitable for a gambling licence.”

'king hell