William Hill to close 700 betting shops after fixed-odds betting clampdown

[Dirk Diggler]

Every week we see chains announce mass closures and responses go something like:

Game closures - 'LOL, they are still going? Steam ftw'
High street stores - 'not surprised with online shopping'
Banks - 'Revolut/Monzo dont have branches, why do the rest need them?'


Now this closure is said to be a direct result of targeting irresponsible gambling and you are disgusted at peoples response?

This is a great point, it's only bad when people lose their jobs if there's an inconvenience to the sad guy. If they lost their job to a more convenient way for sad guy to interact with the product, then it's smiles all round.

Stupid, selfish society.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Surely the fact that this will adversely threaten the livelihood of many is a sign of how much success these betting companies have enjoyed over the years and restrictions should have been put in place prior to this.

Letting them enjoy more success at the expense of others will let these people keep their jobs and open more betting shops. When will we draw the line, 10 years from now when it will affect even more jobs?

This should have been nipped in the bud, there are bookies everywhere...

 

[krooton]

They are not the only employer, you just made that up. Besides, you think enticing people to squander £100M annually is justified in order to keep 4,500 people on minimum wage?

Even at the highest band of minimum wage, it equates to around £1.5M. The story here isn't about 4,500 losing their jobs, it's William Hill losing £98.5M of revenue from gambling addicts... Many of whom are on minimum wage.

Wait what?

4.5k people on minimum wage (£16k) is £72 million

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Wait what?

4.5k people on minimum wage (£16k) is £72 million

Whoops, got my sums wrong. That was weekly that I worked out.

Actually, now that you've corrected my error... 72% of the take going on wages alone, then you need to factor the annual cost of 700 shops, the technology/machinery etc.

Something doesn't add up?

 

[mmj_uk]

I suspect the fixed odds betting terminals were just a way of making betting shops more sustainable in the digital era, online betting will have hit them hard as with every other area and now their golden goose has been taken away. I don't really agree with the government intervening in areas that should fall under personal/family responsibility all of the time but that's the country we live in.

 

[StriderX]

Whoops, got my sums wrong. That was weekly that I worked out.

Actually, now that you've corrected my error... 72% of the take going on wages alone, then you need to factor the annual cost of 700 shops, the technology/machinery etc.

Something doesn't add up?

They need to save £100m, so £72m from firing people and the rest is shops plus maybe a temporary absorption while they eventually shutter more down the line.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

They need to save £100m, so £72m from firing people and the rest is shops plus maybe a temporary absorption while they eventually shutter more down the line.

Yes, £28M by closing 4,500 shops. That's just over £6k per shop; I would expect a shop to use that on electricity alone.

 

[StriderX]

Yes, £28M by closing 4,500 shops. That's just over £6k per shop; I would expect a shop to use that on electricity alone.

Its 700? They dont have that many shops...

 

[Gornall]

The gambling shops made no effort whatsoever to control the spending of gambling addicts. The even encouraged it with fixed odds betting terminals.

They were making such huge profits from those machines - which existed solely to exploit problem gamblers - that they can't make ends meet without them.

So they not only enabled problem gambling - they depended on it. That's the difference. A responsible pub can refuse to serve a problem drinker. They don't set them up for a life of alcoholism just for profit.

Then maybe they don't have to fire all their shop workers; they could re-deploy them if they wanted.

Of course you wouldn't expect a business that made massive profits from exploiting gambling addicts to give two hoots about their staff either. Easier to fire them all.

You have zero experience or ability to comment on the sector at all clearly. The amount done for problem gamblers could always be "more", but to say they promote / encourage them is ridiculous.

In an online world then analysis and understanding of the behaviours of someone is simpler than relying on a cashier to understand / recollect peoples patterns.

William Hill has invested in facial recognition and identification processes massively over the past 5 years (as has everyone else in the sector), the amount of money they "turn down" as a result is pretty staggering to be honest. While I don't at all profess that they are doing the absolute best they can, compliance / due diligence is expensive in absolutely every sector so it's a balancing act.

The FOBT's were a key money-maker for the Retail arm of the business, but if you look at the figures William Hill already makes way more money from its online and international markets.

I think most people said, "I'm not going to feel bad for them," vs "I'm glad they got sacked."

Quite the difference.

Hmm, not sure it is. Empathy is empathy, I personally didn't accuse you of saying you were glad they got sacked.

Nobody forces someone to gamble, circumstances and poor choices can dictate that but you seem to completely empathise with them....why not the same for those who just happen to work at WH and lost their jobs potentially plunging them in to the same poor financial situation/desperation of that of a gambling addict?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Its 700? They dont have that many shops...

I knew something didn't add up.

 

[Gornall]

But the people working behind the counter haven't had their lives ruined... that would only be true if their circumstances are poor or the economy is in recession, it's highly likely that a significant proportion of their clientele do have poor (quality) lives due to their abuse of gambling, to the point of ruination and that likely is permanent for some of them.

If this were a recession, i'd be more inclined to sympathy, but the fact is the job figures speak for themselves and these people all have experience.

Not everyone who gambles has had their lives ruined either, it's actually a very small proportion if the studies are representative.

Of the 4,500 at Risk, it's not hard to imagine that at least some of those were barely surviving as it was...couple of months without a job could be devastating to them as well.

Whenever someone screams about people losing jobs i always wonder how exactly business is meant to evolve if they're forced to never fire someone or streamline.

It's just basic logic, companies fail because the customers don't exist, crying about the employees losing a job is frankly self-serving when you're literally the reason for it. Should i cry for the slavers who lost their job hundreds of years ago for equivalent reasons around a social expectation that it was fine up to a certain point?

A basic tenet of capitalism is that this is natural and that there is another job elsewhere assuming growth has continued, so there's no need at all to scream at people who find this to be a non-issue and value the reduced abuse of vulnerable people.

I'm not screaming at the loss of jobs, I also think it's a natural part of progression...things change, people move, so on. But just like those that are say affected by gambling, redundancy can have the same impact. Out of work a few months, already living hand to mouth - it's not a position I'd want to be in and that's why I empathise.



---

Both arguments are the same on both side of the fence.

-Why should I care about a gambling addict, they are in control of their lives.
-Why should I care about the staff, they are in control of who they work for....

Maybe I'm too empathetic, but I can see why it's pretty **** for both employee and consumer...nobody wins here - Society is just passing the buck down the road with some extra collateral.

 

[Minusorange]

Because people are saying its good they lost their jobs as they work for a bookies

Please, do show quotes where people have specifically said it's good people have lost jobs

Saying "I'm not going to feel sorry for them" is not the same as saying "haha good they deserve it"

I would expect one to be intelligent enough to understand the massive difference if one is capable of stringing an actual sentence together

But maybe you're one of those minimum wage, low skill, low intelligence folk so feel a common bond with your brethren to jump to their defence and expect us to cry a river for their job loss ?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

We all have sympathy for the workers but i am struggling to feel sad about the closures themselves.

Like i said, this is little different to when there were mass closures at game/HMV/Lloyds/Sainsburys.

Do we need 4 betting shops on every high street?

Much less than needing 4 supermarkets, that is for sure

 

[Minusorange]

Should i cry for the slavers who lost their job hundreds of years ago for equivalent reasons around a social expectation that it was fine up to a certain point?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48881327

Slavers still exist, I wonder if those demanding we feel sorry for the bookie workers will demand we feel sorry for these slavers getting shut down, they're just trying to earn a living and survive right ?

 

[drs101]

the current business model is based on machines that have been scientifically designed for gambling addicts, this type of gambling is not the same as going to the dogs or horses and having an experience and day out, or even the casino, its a distilled form designed to extract as much money out of you as possible as quickly as possible.

 

[diamount]

They are not the only employer, you just made that up. Besides, you think enticing people to squander £100M annually is justified in order to keep 4,500 people on minimum wage?

Even at the highest band of minimum wage, it equates to around £1.5M. The story here isn't about 4,500 losing their jobs, it's William Hill losing £98.5M of revenue from gambling addicts... Many of whom are on minimum wage.

Addicts will get their fix regardless. Whether that means going to a competitor, buying 100 scratch cards a week, whatever the case - they will get their fix unless the underlying problem is fixed like any addiction. Cheering the fact that 7000 people are going to become reliant on state handouts is never good. But lol at you saying I made a number up when you obviously pulled that 100mill figure out of your behind.

 

[StriderX]

Addicts will get their fix regardless. Whether that means going to a competitor, buying 100 scratch cards a week, whatever the case - they will get their fix unless the underlying problem is fixed like any addiction. Cheering the fact that 7000 people are going to become reliant on state handouts is never good. But lol at you saying I made a number up when you obviously pulled that 100mill figure out of your behind.

Minimum wage employees are already reliant on state handouts. Also as long as those people keep to themselves in their dens rather than shoveling on the high street, that's a win. It's obvious that you can't really fully get rid of gambling, so hiding it is the next best thing, along with some mental health schemes to help people if they want it.

Again those people can find other jobs.

 

[cheesyboy]

Pretty **** job to just stand in a room pretending to sell bets whilst the computer in the corner makes all the money.

Essentially, these are non-jobs. A smiling face to make the whole process of coining your food budget into bottomless machines seem a bit less tragic.

I don't believe the figures anyway. I'd be shocked if even 1/3rd of those 700 betting shops actually closed.

 

[StriderX]

don't believe the figures anyway. I'd be shocked if even 1/3rd of those 700 betting shops actually closed.

Why... the business was stagnant anyway seemingly over recent years (certainly weren't opening new ones from my experience), i fully expect them to disappear keeping only the most well traveled.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203401/number-of-betting-shops-by-operator-in-the-uk/

https://www.statista.com/statistics...of-all-gambling-sectors-in-the-uk-since-2009/

 

[diamount]

Minimum wage employees are already reliant on state handouts. Also as long as those people keep to themselves in their dens rather than shoveling on the high street, that's a win. It's obvious that you can't really fully get rid of gambling, so hiding it is the next best thing, along with some mental health schemes to help people if they want it.

Again those people can find other jobs.

The word is supplemented - now that they are unemployed - that 50% they received from the government will now be 100%. Again - the closure of stores will have little effect. Bookies are dime a dozen on every high street and if for some reason WH is the only one in the area, they'll take it online which will have likely increase their outgoing even more.