There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 135 comments are related to the topic:
Hills fined £19 million!!!
Hills fined £19 million!!!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 135
|
By:
For those saying the fine is not very much, I had a look at their 2021 Annual Report (as the offences appear to relate to that period) and they reported £80.3m of EBITDA and an operating profit of £57.3m, so £19.4m is a chunky fraction of that.
|
|
By:
The scum were more than capable of limiting me after I won a grand.
|
|
By:
On the BBC 6' o clock news now
|
|
By:
Do the barstewards who take or authorised the bets get a commission? If so, the barsteward could be earning as much as Dettori at Meydan very recently. And, there's no risk eg barsteward has no horse to fall-off from.
|
|
By:
19 million…..probably more in the pantry……one week to recover…..
|
|
By:
i got barred today from a betfred shop in horsham , the manager had turned off all the screens after i arrived ,he then said are u going to have a bet ? i said thats eff all to do with you , he then said you came in here last month and watched the racing for 90 mins and didnt have a bet ( it was 45 mins ) so i basically told him what i thought and got barred hahaha , so basically dont come in here unless u are gonna bet
|
|
By:
£5 mil less Corporation Tax to pay. So in reality it is £14m.
|
|
By:
Instead of swearing at him why didn’t you just reply possibly?
|
|
By:
I'd not visited a bookie until just very recently when I needed the loo. On the 1st I'd to approach the service counter for permission to be buzzed in; 2nd, funnily enough in a 'freddie' in Carshalton, I walked straight in as the door was opened. Then the manager asked if I'd shut it as I was walking towards the exit.
Is the above the common protocol for every bookie eg ask permission to use; shut door after use? |
|
By:
jimnast im an honest person , i wasnt going to have a bet so why lie ? i used this betting shop twice this year as i travel all over the southeast , perhaps as the shop was empty at 1330 he felt pissed off as him and his assistant are looking at a bleak future in that industry
|
|
By:
nobody ever seems to mention the companies the produce online gaming slots etc. all games constructed by the magic 'random number generator'. this allows them to write their own cheques.
instead of investigating this corruption, they go after the sports bettor who at least has a chance. |
|
By:
amazing wont even take a quid each way off a pensioner.
|
|
By:
The bookies have lost the spirit to take bets. They are too comatosed by fobt, and anything requiring skill is off their IQ level. I hope high street bookies with fobt will be issued with a new licence to trade soon to reflect the digital age. Similarly, online ones. On-course bookies can carry on as they are , accepting cash and card.
|
|
By:
the advent of the fobt allowed them to go full-bore mugs only. anyone demonstrating an iota of nous would no longer be accommodated. at which point their licence to provide bookmaking services should've been revoked. a new licence to act as an amusement arcade issued and taxed accordingly.
|
|
By:
Theyve got £500 of my money they refused to hand back to me to put towards the fine.
|
|
By:
They've been letting me win on their promo games eg Bonus Drop/Free Spins incessantly for the last few weeks every time. Until then I could not remember my last win. The promo games are definitely bent!
|
|
By:
Their Algos ignore losers (profitable to the bookies) and only hunt anyone who has made over £100 profit in a lifetime or shows any skill in picking a winner.
The you are restricted to about £1 on a 3/1 chance. If you win in their betting shops they will 'offer' you SP only.They only accommodate losers and addicts on the machines. The Toothless UK Gambling commission proved once again they are not fit for purpose and should be closed down. They had the chance to suspend WH license and just did nothing and after timed by saying we thought about it. They are and always will be the CHOCOLATE TEAPOT or for the old school THE CHOCOLATE FIREGUARD. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Serious question
If there license was suspended what would happen to people’s funds and anti post bets/current bets. |
|
By:
"anti" = ante
|
|
By:
BBC news certainly giving this an inordinate amount of coverage.Another one of their hidden agendas,of course.
|
|
By:
The Bible."He that is without sin among you,let him first cast a stone at her"
|
|
By:
Remember, William Hill is owned by 888 now. The threat of taking the licence away is just Words. There is literally zero chance of this happening. Put it this way, their lawyers wouldn't let it happen either. And if the threat was there, money would change hands to stop that....
|
|
By:
Dg
Lack of a education and poor spelling hasn’t so far affected the great life I have had ,however as it clearly concerns you I will keep of any threads you start or post on. |
|
By:
*keep off
 and to answer your question - they can just void the anteposts like betbright did untl rich ricci got a bad press. If they close down, then your money can be claimed by the creditors unless a company is one of the few that holds cash in a trust. |
|
By:
The suicide rate has fallen by about a third since the Eighties.
Comparing the 1950s to 1960s when betting shops were legalised, the suicide rate remained unchanged |
|
By:
nobody's committing suicide because of the geegees. get rid of the crack cocaine fobt's and casino
bookies did fine between 1961 & 1999 without any of the fobt and casino sh!tshow. |
|
By:
Interesting words from the " Star Sports " lawyer during their court case ....
Star Sports is contesting the claim, with the company’s lawyers denying that the wealthy punter revealed that he had a problem. They insisted that “there is no general duty of care on a bookmaker to protect a gambling addict from the consequences of his addiction”. That's that sorted then ..   |
|
By:
|
|
By:
We don't know why. No study has ever been undertaken and published AFAIK. Probably never will seeing as detail and understanding doesn't seem to be government or regulation body's strong point.
|
|
By:
When the BBC covered this story they made a point of saying the fine was ONLY 1% of turnover. That was deliberately misleading, trying to seed in the public consciousness that is profit and bookies make billions. It's a clear message that the agenda is really an attack on gambling as a pastime. If they were giving an honest assessment they would be relating the fine to profit and not turnover. Most bookies go bust I reckon.
|
|
By:
Glasgow, I think your're on to something there. If Star Sports can win this case on the basis of that quote, then it will be regarded as a "test case" and will become de facto law and we will be able to gamble to our hearts content in the future!
|
|
By:
If a heavy drinker dies of heart failure or liver disease in his 50s that doesn't mean his local boozer is liable.
The GC fines are due to lack of affordability and source of funds for stolen money checks, not to do with addiction. I don't know the details of the SS case, but I imagine the claimant could well afford to lose. I can understand people glad to see the bookies get a bloody nose with these fines, but who is ultimately going to pay for it is punters, with worse value, less choice and personal intrusion. |
|
By:
If you can't see any link between addiction and affordability - for your own protection, you probably shouldn't be allowed access to a keyboard. Or are you Lee Mottershead?
|
|
By:
Or maybe you think that while William Hill were deliberately and proactively breaking the law, all of the addicts that were betting with them during that period were betting within their means.
|
|
By:
Drink is a good analogy, but smoking better.
|
|
By:
Yeah, drinking and smoking are very similar in that they are barely regulated at all and/or have been permitted to regulate themselves for the past 20 years!
 |
|
By:
Powerful lobbying.
|
|
By:
You're not wrong!
|