The £10 billion merger between Flutter, owners of Paddy Power and Betfair, and the Stars Group, which owns Sky Betting and Gaming, is to be investigated by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority.
The CMA announced it would look into whether the deal would cause a "substantial lessening of competition" in the UK gambling market, and has invited any interested party to comment on the transaction by February 18. The brands controlled by Flutter and the Stars Group make up around 40 per cent of the UK’s online sports betting market.
The probe follows a similar merger investigation on Just Eat and Takeaway.com.
The deal between Flutter and the Stars Group was announced in October and is expected to close in the second or third quarter of this year. If it is successful, the merger will create the largest online betting operator in the world by revenue. ,,,, i dont know how long this post will last here
Dr Crippen • March 2, 2016 4:00 PM GMT......... Having a couple of quid on the horses doesn't do any harm. I have a bet myself sometimes.
casemoney • March 2, 2016 4:33 PM GMT........... Paddy Pishy Wont lay a Bet
kincsem • March 3, 2016 5:57 PM GMT....... Google these … Tony O’Reilly Gorey Post Office Paul O’Brien Finglas Credit Union Mark Cooney Halifax & LLoyds Bad gamblers. Worked with money. Bookmakers fail to question source of funds. There are probably many more.
dustybin • March 10, 2016 11:32 AM GMT......It's called regulation and if big business continually gets pandered to then there would be non. Sharp practise exists because humans exist and they are greedy, they are told by our government that opportunism is virtuous and that enterprise equates to salvation. But the reality is totally different. People continually find ever more conceited and deceitful means to lower the bar of what is acceptable. Whether it's bank accounts, insurance companies, energy opaqueness or telecommunications tactics they all opporate to a similar blueprint now which is that they will try any and all means to take all they can wishing the law, but will test that law continually in 'competition' with each other. Bookies need regulating on the actions they take to pay shareholders who are holders of capital that seek payment for simply owning it. It's a vile world.
Dr Crippen • March 10, 2016 11:52 AM GMT.......dustybin It doesn't. It's called regulation
dave1357 • March 10, 2016 12:20 PM GMT........Crippen - the bookie in question ignored blatant money laundering. A bank would have been fined millions. The least that the UKGC should have done was to mandate that those responsible were not fit and proper to work in the industry.
dustybin • March 10, 2016 12:25 PM GMT........ I was answering your rhetorical question with regard 'why the spotlight is cast on bookies' I was saying it isn't a selective issue, it's regulation in action of all sectors, and that there is an ever increasing need for such action as a direct result of opportunism. It's correct that these are attributes of the capitalist world. But simply suggesting that these are the parts that power the virtues of say the welfare state mechanism or the NHS is erroneous because the simple reality is that these get funded after profits have striped the value out of everything first. Like the assertions of 'captain of industry' or 'crumbs from the table' these are euphemisms at best and lies at worse. They are the vernacular of those with vested interests for the status quo to continue....while driving it's not them that are the ones sacrificed.
dustybin • March 10, 2016 12:30 PM GMT........... From a personal view on the issue of bookies' actions being under scrutiny then I believe they absolutely have to be even more so than many other sectors, not simply because of the direct issues of crime related to them but because as a product that they 'sell' is completely ethereal and degenerate in nature. Other than horse racing that could be argued to have been invented as a vehicle for the opporate game of gaming then all the other sports would happily exist without the bookmakers speculating on nothing of substance.
DAFFODIL1 02 Mar 16 15:40 Paddy Power 'encouraged gambler until he lost his home, jobs and family'http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/29/paddy-power-encouraged-gambler-lost-home-jobs-family-gambling-commission-report?CMP=fb_gu Dr Crippen •
The problem with the betting industry is that basically there are no rules . Part of the reason for that is historical , not that long ago bookmaking was illegal ( I still remember bookie friends having to go to court to pay their 10 bob fine every so often , strange when some of their customers were sitting on the bench ).
The fact that gambling debts are unenforceable by law ( presumably that still applies ) was also a limiting factor , presumably in line with "if you can't win , you can't lose " .
The fact that increasingly the betting industry is becoming more about "guaranteed profit" rather than gambling has not yet been addressed by the powers that be . The relationship between bookmaking and "sponsors" also needs scrutiny , soccer in the headlights at present .
Traditionally bookmaking had as its bedrock the principle "if you can't win , you can't lose " .
You cant win playing any numbers game , like myself the bookies know about probability , increasingly and stealthily the bookie industry have moved towards areas where they cannot lose , and they now push that to people who are addicted to gambling .
The bookies CAN lose on events over which they have little(?) or no control , horse racing traditionally being the bedrock of that . The fact that nearly everyone with any betting sense in that area is either barred or limited shows where the "sporting" element of the relationship between the bookies and the punters has gone .
Exchanges have also changed the picture . Punters can now bet against one another world wide 24/7 , effectively changing the dynamic which once upon a time was largely controlled by the bookies ( trainer connections etc ). Another reason the bookies have changed their tack . Bookies always played the arbing game , few admitted it , but a couple of hours in the heat of the betting ring way back was evidence of that , why did bookies have "runners" ? Nowadays all the on course bookies work aligned to the exchange markets , guaranteed profit in most cases .
The bookies know all the angles , cannot fault them for wanting to make profit , we all want profit , but failing to have any effective rules is a nonsense . Self regulation is a recipe for no rules , and the public need protection from themselves as a lot of the public are not the sharpest tools in the box . Plus dodging the "age" issue must be one of the easiest things to do , lots of younger people involved in problems re that .
The problem with the betting industry is that basically there are no rules . Part of the reason for that is historical , not that long ago bookmaking was illegal ( I still remember bookie friends having to go to court to pay their 10 bob fine every s
One "employed " guy I knew way back ( limited income therefore) was the worst "gambler" I have ever known . Even when you gave him decent "information" ( we got excellent tips from insiders back in the 50's , 60's) he invariably backed something else in the race , on the basis presumably that he "knew better" . He also played golf ( uselessly) with guys who could play well ( for big money) , reckon they "passed him around " weekly . Profit sharing it might have been termed .
We all wondered about the source of his "money tree" , the odd boast about occasional wins cut no ice with those of us who knew the scale of his activity . Most of his betting was in bookies adjacent to where he worked , both of those bookies garnered lords knows how much when money was money , it put them securely on their feet before they sold out ( very profitably) to a big chain .
When the sh1t hit the fan ( he "disappeared" ) it became public knowledge that he had stolen over £100,000 from his employers . In those days a good semi detached house cost £2000 to put the sums in perspective . Bookies laughing all the way to the bank . All cash bets . Any civil servants who occasionally were in behind the counter checking for betting duty evasion etc were only there for the beer . If I knew what was going on , so did others , but there was no reason to "shop" him , given the scenario then .
One "employed " guy I knew way back ( limited income therefore) was the worst "gambler" I have ever known . Even when you gave him decent "information" ( we got excellent tips from insiders back in the 50's , 60's) he invariably backed something els