General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
It seems that the market has taken a dim view of punters being denied their £23m of winnings. The share price is down about 70 points from yesterday's pre-debacle level of 810.
If my sums are right that something like £70m of lost shareholder value.
All-in-all that's nearly £100m of unhappiness spread around quite a lot of people.
If my sums are right that something like £70m of lost shareholder value.
All-in-all that's nearly £100m of unhappiness spread around quite a lot of people.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 9
|
By:
if it's solely off the back of this, and not some regulatory issue i'm unaware of (last minute attempt to provide a solution for spain falling through?) i'd argue that they're a solid buy to bounce back, assuming there's no impending negative news on the horizon.
|
|
By:
You could well be right DStyle - and this week movements are exaggerated in thin markets.
But I think it illustrates the damage that can be done by some elementary crappy programming. |
|
By:
Buying shares in companies that have an excellent track record in self destruction is strictly for people that like to gamble.
|
|
By:
Dstyle - I've changed my mind having seen Tony Calvin. If that's the best they've got then it's surely time to go short big time.
If he's the pick of the bunch no wonder they're such a bumbling shambles. |
|
By:
totally agree, dstyle. seems clear this was a loophole that's been fixed, so the only real reason for shares to fall is the market anticipating costs involved in settling claims/fighting legal cases.
and really, I just can't see those being more than negligible. the small timers who got on will be happy with a £50 goodwill payment. bigger punters will know legal action will cost, will almost certainly lose, and will jeapordise their relationship with BF - who some of them probably rely on for a living. prediction: a couple of days hot air, then all quietly sorted out at minimal cost. |
|
By:
i actually think tony calvin didn't do too bad a job; however whoever decided he should go on tv before he was in full possession of all the facts should be sacked. utterly clueless pr. for the vast of majority of people who were watching i would imagine he came across as being evasive, when in fact, he just didn't know.
|
|
By:
How are the shares likely to go on Tuesday-odds for up or down?
|
|
By:
In an interview given later the week, Betfair spokesperson Tony Calvin explained that the event was "highly embarrassing and an unacceptable betting experience for people, but there was a unique set of events that allowed this to happen".
He further went to comment that the problem was caused due to a malfunction of the operator's in-house automated trading program and refuted all claims that speculated that Betfair intentionally tampered with the betting software in order to make players lose their money. http://www.onlinecasinoadvice.com/news/betfair-fixes-major-software-error/ ------------------------------------- Betfair's £23m betting liability was caused by small-scale customer • Software glitch allowed account to exceed limit • 'Unique set of events allowed this to happen' http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/29/betfair-betting-23m-liability-customer Two stories both with conflicting quotes from Tony Calvin. He says in the onlinecasino interview that a betfair bot caused the problem. There is a quote in the guardian interview that a customer's bot was the cause. Did I interpret the quotes correctly. Maybe he implied that the betfair software didn't pick up on the customer's bot malfunction. What's the outcome ? Either way, BF effed up. |
|
By:
pc4 maybe?
 |