Author Topic: Bet365/FA controversy  (Read 3375 times)

Offline rebel23

  • Rebel without a cause
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,319
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #40 on: January 9, 2020, 07:37:48 pm »
Yes and there are people like me. I bet on a regular basis. I have 4 accounts with 4 online bookies. Over the last 5 years I have averaged an income of between £250-400 per month. That isn't to say betting's great and everyone should do it because, as you say, some people develop a very serious problem with it.

Betting is like booze. Can you justify prohibiting it for all because some have a problem? In my opinion no. Can you justify putting limits on it's accessibility and promotion? Yes. It would be irresponsable to do otherwise.


I have never called for prohibition and don't believe in that... I just think executive pay should be capped some how.

Offline John C

  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 42,103
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #41 on: January 9, 2020, 07:41:03 pm »
The entire principle of the agreement is unequivocally wrong and even the Tory's think it stinks. Tempted to lock it but for now I'll move it.

Offline jacobs chains

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,137
  • The fight will not be attaining dreams.
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #42 on: January 9, 2020, 07:41:58 pm »
She's not an executive. She owns 50.1% of the business.

At this point I'm out. Craig has already tried to get this point over.

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,617
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #43 on: January 9, 2020, 08:05:19 pm »


She's not an executive. She owns 50.1% of the business.

At this point I'm out. Craig has already tried to get this point over.

She is an executive. She's joint chief executive and owner. Her 50% ownership gives her a yearly dividend and is a factor in her net worth. Her base salary as an executive is over £277m - a record amount for any executive in the UK. Her dividend as an owner took her total to over £300m. 

B365 have a rep for not paying out big winnings. A guy from NI won £1m on the horses and they wouldn't pay.

Online Barneylfc∗

  • Cross-dressing man-bag wielding golfer. Wannabe Mod. Coprophiliac. Would like to buy an airline seat if he could. Known 'grass'. Wants to go home to He-Man
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 59,611
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #44 on: January 9, 2020, 08:10:40 pm »
Why is this only an issue now? Why havent people been up in arms and outraged since the deal was announced?
Craig Burnley V West Ham - WEST HAM WIN - INCORRECT

Offline Gerry Attrick

  • Sancho's dad. Tight-arse, non-jackpot-sharing get :)
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 49,519
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #45 on: January 9, 2020, 08:12:05 pm »
Why is this only an issue now? Why havent people been up in arms and outraged since the deal was announced?

Who knows? Maybe people have no other reason but to be apoplectic at this time. Always got to be something to get worked up about.

Offline jacobs chains

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,137
  • The fight will not be attaining dreams.
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #46 on: January 9, 2020, 08:21:46 pm »

She is an executive. She's joint chief executive and owner. Her 50% ownership gives her a yearly dividend and is a factor in her net worth. Her base salary as an executive is over £277m - a record amount for any executive in the UK. Her dividend as an owner took her total to over £300m. 

B365 have a rep for not paying out big winnings. A guy from NI won £1m on the horses and they wouldn't pay.
Pretty much all betting companies behave like twats. 365 is no different. My comment about her as an owner of the company was to try and get her pay into some sort of context. She isn't an executive in the traditional sense of the word. In the context that an executive at a FTSE250 would be understood she's an owner. To take her earnings from 365 as those of an average CEO is either disingenuous or just plain daft.

Offline thejbs

  • well-focussed, deffo not at all bias......ed
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,617
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #47 on: January 9, 2020, 10:11:16 pm »
Pretty much all betting companies behave like twats. 365 is no different. My comment about her as an owner of the company was to try and get her pay into some sort of context. She isn't an executive in the traditional sense of the word. In the context that an executive at a FTSE250 would be understood she's an owner. To take her earnings from 365 as those of an average CEO is either disingenuous or just plain daft.

Yes, but it is important to note she is drawing a salary as well as the dividends from her 50% stake. This is why she must be considered as are other executives. She could choose to just take her dividend and a nominal (or even just a normal) wage like many in her position do.  Although, it would be awful to expect her to get by on a meagre £50m or so a year dividend.

It's utterly obscene and abhorrent by any measure. Even more so when it comes at a time when gambling addiction is a massive issue that leaves families ripped to bits.

Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,461
  • YNWA
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #48 on: January 9, 2020, 11:09:51 pm »
Yes, but it is important to note she is drawing a salary as well as the dividends from her 50% stake. This is why she must be considered as are other executives. She could choose to just take her dividend and a nominal (or even just a normal) wage like many in her position do.  Although, it would be awful to expect her to get by on a meagre £50m or so a year dividend.

I believe she takes it in that way as it allows her to be compensated more than the other shareholders (I.e. her brother) to reward her for the work she does. If the dividend was increased then it would also be for the other shareholders.

Offline rebel23

  • Rebel without a cause
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,319
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2020, 08:49:47 am »
Something being done about gambling/advertising:

Quote
Betting firms facing curbs on shirt deals

The biggest shake-up of gambling laws in Britain for 15 years could lead to restrictions on football clubs’ shirts carrying the names of betting companies, including a blanket ban.

Ministers have committed to reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 and it is expected that the regulations surrounding sponsorship of football shirts, and gambling advertising in sport generally, will be among a host of regulations that are assessed.

There has been increasing pressure to tackle the close relationship between football and gambling, especially with the rise of online betting and casinos.

Imposing a blanket ban would have a big impact on the income of clubs: in the Premier League, half of the 20 clubs have betting firms as shirt sponsors and that rises to 15 of 24…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/betting-firms-facing-curbs-on-shirt-deals-xrc85qc6j

Offline rebel23

  • Rebel without a cause
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,319
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Bet365/FA controversy
« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2020, 09:10:30 am »
Gambling with credit cards to be banned..

Quote
Gambling on credit cards to be banned

People are to be banned from using credit cards to place bets in an attempt to curb problem gambling, the Gambling Commission has said.

The ban, which starts on 14 April, comes after reviews of the industry by the commission and the government.

A total of 24 million adults in Britain gamble, with 10.5 million of those doing so online.

Separate commission research shows that 22% of online gamblers using credit cards are classed as problem gamblers.

Neil McArthur, Gambling Commission chief executive, said: "Credit card gambling can lead to significant financial harm. The ban that we have announced today should minimise the risks of harm to consumers from gambling with money they do not have.

"We also know that there are examples of consumers who have accumulated tens of thousands of pounds of debt through gambling because of credit card availability.

"There is also evidence that the fees charged by credit cards can exacerbate the situation because the consumer can try to chase losses to a greater extent.

"We realise that this change will inconvenience those consumers who use credit cards responsibly, but we are satisfied that reducing the risk of harm to other consumers means that action must be taken."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51103006