There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1372 comments are related to the topic:
Homepage - Community tab
Homepage - Community tab
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,372
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
Anyone else receive a PM.........or just me and Legend200?
|
|
By:
kutgw betfair
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
"We want to explain why this has been done, and also to invite your views and comments: therefore, this thread is not locked and you will be able to leave your feedback. All customer posts will be read and considered."
keep the feedback coming lads rest assured betfair are working on super slots 2/listening (delete as appropriate) |
|
By:
I have every faith that a considered and comprehensible decision is even now winging its way from Betfair HQ.
|
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
Found this on page 2
 |
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
BREW ON
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
no PM for me. No letter. No phonecall. No email.
oh BF, after all these years... this is how little I mean to you? sigh. |
|
By:
Not gone yet.
|
|
By:
Any reply from Betfair yet?
|
|
By:
even if they cant be arsed to reply to the feedback you would think they would like to keep a thread as negative as this from the top of there forum every day
they dont care there as has been proved for years now |
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
Instead of posting just a icon I might aswell post some interesting related stuff
"For High Tech Companies, Going Public Sucks" When Facebook goes public this year, it will raise at least $5 billion, making it the biggest Internet IPO the world has ever seen. The day it debuts on the stock exchange, Facebook will be worth more than General Motors, the New York Times Company, and Sprint Nextel combined. The next morning, Mark Zuckerberg’s smiling face will appear on the front page of newspapers around the world. Magazine2004 But don’t be surprised if that smile looks like the forced grin of someone dragged to the altar. Truth be told, Zuckerberg is going public not because he wants to but because SEC rules have forced his hand. Once a company takes on more than 500 shareholders—a number that Facebook easily surpasses if you include all the investors and employees who have bought or received shares over the years—it must register its stock. That means shareholders can trade it in the OTC (over the counter) markets, out of the company’s control and without its consent or cooperation. No high-profile business wants its shares to be traded in that opaque purgatory of low valuations. And so, like a hapless groom, Zuckerberg is about to become just one part of an institution much bigger than himself—a publicly listed limited-liability joint-stock company. The visionary who turned down a billion-dollar offer to cash out at the age of 22, the imperial CEO with complete control over the company he built from scratch, will now run a company owned by hordes of shareholders from all over the world. Zuckerberg clearly does not relish this prospect, and he has taken great pains to preserve his iron grip on Facebook. When the company goes public, Zuckerberg will still control 56.9 percent of the votes, will be free to single-handedly appoint directors, and will even be able to name his successor. Technically, Facebook may be going public, but Zuckerberg will continue to run it like his own privately held concern. Thanks to those safeguards, Facebook will probably weather its IPO just fine. But when the world’s most successful young tech entrepreneur does everything in his power to minimize the impact of public ownership, it makes one thing clear: The IPO model is broken. Going public might be good for a company’s investors and employees, but it is usually bad for the company itself. It forces CEOs to focus on short-term stock fluctuations at the expense of long-term growth. It wrests control from the founders and gives it to thousands of faceless shareholders. For hugely successful mega-businesses—Apple, Facebook, Google—going public has its benefits. Public companies enjoy cachet, tax advantages, and access to more and better financing options. But for many young companies, the drive to go public results in a death spiral of unsustainable growth. It doesn’t have to be this way. There are better options for financing technology companies. But first we have to kill the tech industry’s senseless addiction to the IPO. For roughly 65 years—say, from 1933 to 1998—the initial public offering was the engine of American capitalism. Entrepreneurs sold shares to investors and used the proceeds to build their young companies or invest in the future. After their IPOs, for instance, Apple and Microsoft had the necessary funds to develop the Macintosh and Windows. The stock market has been the most efficient and effective method of allocating capital that the world has ever seen. That was a useful function, but it’s one that IPOs no longer serve. Going public is more difficult than it used to be—Sarbanes-Oxley regulations have made filing much more difficult, and today’s investors tend to shy away from Internet companies that don’t have a proven track record of steady profitability. That has created a catch-22: By the time a company can go public, it no longer needs the cash. Take Google. It had already been profitable for three years before raising $1.2 billion in its 2004 public offering. And Google never spent the money it raised that year. Instead, it put the cash straight into the bank, where the funds have been sitting ever since. Today, Google’s cash pile has grown to more than $44 billion. Of course, tech industry startups don’t have to wait for an IPO to raise capital. Hordes of venture capital firms and angel investors are clamoring to offer them money. (And there are more all the time; VCs invested $18.2 billion in 2011, up 32 percent from 2010.) And many entrepreneurs don’t need as much capital anyway—cloud technology has made it vastly cheaper to start a web company. That’s one reason why startups haven’t been in any rush to go public. In 1985 most VC-backed companies were less than four years old at the time of their IPOs. By 2009 most of them were more than 10 years old. If the primary goal of the IPO is no longer to provide funds for promising young companies, what purpose does it serve? For the most part, it has become a reward for the founders, employees, and early investors—a jackpot for those who placed their bets correctly. That’s not as bad as it sounds. Without the promise of going public, companies couldn’t use stock options to attract talented employees—a crucial tool for startups, which usually can’t offer competitive salaries. And it’s the possibility of a future IPO that makes a company attractive to venture capitalists and angel investors in the first place. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with this arrangement. It simply allows young companies to raise cash while deferring their IPO until they’re more established. But it has created a series of perverse incentives, in which investors’ interests conflict with—and usually trump—those of the companies they fund." here it is the rest of the article... http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/03/ff_facebookipo/all/1 |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
I would be SO happy to see Facebook disappear up its own backside. It's nothing more than a means for harvesting data, and the sooner the masses wake up and smell the (targeted advertising) coffee the better off they'll be.
|
|
By:
I totally agree YYW but the point of this article is not facebook but the pressures companies have to go public for no reasons at all and how it ends up doing them more harm than good in the long term
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
ttt
|
|
By:
And again
|
|
By:
maybe Betfair is right, this community thing is weak and this thread is now showing how weak it is
You put 4 or 5 winners in a row on a thread and it suddenly bursts with replies but you then try and make a stance against Betfair arrogance on something that is being made against us all and this thing simply suffers a slow death In small things, seamingly unimportant, is when you have a chance to take the pulse of what is really happening and with this small, unimportant example, we have a chance to understand why the financial and the political sector got away with all that they did and keep doing it... because people simply don't care enough to move their a..rses and fight it, and that just gives them the drive to keep doing it and in the end, as always, we are the ones that end up paying for it |
|
By:
Fair point Lusitano. Let some of us NOT go away in this instance.
|
|
By:
Indeed.
|
|
By:
Indeed.
|
|
By:
Lusitano71 23:46
maybe Betfair is right, this community thing is weak and this thread is now showing how weak it is You put 4 or 5 winners in a row on a thread and it suddenly bursts with replies _____________ Please show me this thread  |
|
By:
I think he meant 4 or 5 losers
 Talking of which are we ever going to get a reply Betfair. When I was a lad to ask for feedback,get it and then not bother to acknowledge it would be considered the height of bad manners. |
|
By:
- Customers can permanently turn off Instant Games in their preferences (found by clicking on the 'cog' in the top right corner).
Why isn't this in your FAQ's? (and for a dummy like me how do I find the 'cog') |
|
By:
LOL Virgin
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
1.01....nobody at BF has ever looked at the comments on here....slots is there to stay...
|
|
By:
That is of course always possible. But why ask for feedback if you intend to ignore it completely. I would have thought from a PR viewpoint some sort of comment makes more sense than the present deafening silence.
|
|
By:
Bingo next
|
|
By:
mwnn
stop wasting ya posts.. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Delta
|
|
By:
10p a post is not to be wasted
|