bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

That's caught my eye. Do you have any additional detail you could provide on the credit card example? It would be good to hear a "real world" example because, whilst we obviously agree on the fundamental issue being discussed, I am always aware that the media tend to exaggerate and sensationalise so it would be good to get some facts if there is dispute.

Using the sample size that the newspaper quoted circa 150/2,000 gamblers used Credit Cards, 22% of those 150 had shown signs of problem gambling. It gave a margin of error to around 94.5%. I don't profess to understand the methods they calculate these things.

In perspective then, we were talking a much lower percentage of customers used a Credit Card compared to the sample, even less when looked at in monetary terms. The models to identify use payment methods as indicators. Someone using a credit card is definitely a factor, but there are many more ahead of it that are bigger indicators. Their betting activity/patterns are way more indicative for example.

I've worked in the sector for 5/6 years now. And it's not just lip service from the companies I've worked for, they genuinely do things to identify and prevent the issues at the expense of commercials. Even commercially, they know that it's better for them longer term to address these issues and make sure the business is sustainable.
 
@Gornall thanks for that.

In reference to your last paragraph, they may be trying to move in the right direction but ultimately by it's very nature it can only be a defence of the indefensible.

Defense of the indefensible? You mean past actions?

There are definitely some cowboys out of there. I think it has a lot of comparisons to the Pay Day Loan market. That product (now particularly with overdraft changes) is actually a massively feasible one, made bad by terrible practice.
 
Well at least she pays a lot of tax:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t365-founder-denise-coates-tops-list-uk-dyson

Denise Coates, head of gambling empire Bet365, was Britain’s biggest taxpayer last year, according to the annual Sunday Times Tax List.

She and her family paid an estimated £276m, ahead of the £143.9m paid by Stephen Rubin, owner of a sportswear group that includes brands such as Speedo and Berghaus.

Third-placed Sir James Dyson was estimated to have paid £103m.

The Harry Potter author JK Rowling entered the top 50 taxpayers (£) for the first time, with an estimated £48.6m bill. She has previously spoken of making a conscious decision to pay full taxes in the UK, refusing to live in “the limbo of some tax haven” and criticising “greedy tax exiles”.

As millions of people struggle with their tax returns this weekend, Rowling is reported to have paid £47m of income tax and national insurance through self-assessment on royalties of about £100m, plus a further £1.6m in taxes on her Pottermore business.

The Sunday Times said its tax list was compiled using publicly available documentation on taxation in 2018-19, and takes into account corporation tax, dividend tax, capital gains tax, income tax, and payroll taxes.

But it admitted that it did not track down every pound of tax paid by the individuals in its list. “In almost all cases, this is merely tax we can see from scanning through a mass of publicly available financial statements.”

Finance and retail dominate the list, along with a number of aristocratic families with huge inherited wealth.

The Duke of Westminster, who at 29 sits on a fortune estimated at £10.1bn, is reported to have paid £69.3m in tax, making him the seventh biggest taxpayer in the country. Earl Cadogan and family, also London property owners, reportedly paid £49.1m tax on their £6.85bn fortune.

Many of the international billionaires living in London’s best addresses, who regularly feature in UK rich lists were missing from the tax list. The Sunday Times said families such as the Hindujas, Blavatniks and Mittals choose to live in the UK but have minimal taxable businesses in Britain.

Few entertainers or celebrities made it into the tax list. The Formula One champion Lewis Hamilton is believed to earn about £40m a year worldwide, but the report said there was not enough information to show he paid enough tax in the UK to warrant inclusion in the top 50. The singer Ed Sheeran appeared to have paid £4.5m in tax in 2018 on his main company, it added.

The Tory donor Lord Bamford and family, who run the JCB construction equipment company, were 10th in the list, with a reported tax bill of £58m, while the Brexit donor and investment brokerage owner Peter Hargreaves was 21st with a £44.8m bill. Another outspoken Brexiter, Tim Martin, one-third owner of the JD Wetherspoon group, was 33rd with a £29.9m bill.

I suppose people do consider the industry as being exploitative,which might be the reason there is negativity,but at least the profits are not being offshored.
 
and I genuinely find it interesting that you are fixating on the ability of people to resist (you've mentioned it a few times now).

Absolutely, you just say 'no'.

I agree that it's very bad that betting company's deposit money into peoples empty accounts to try and get them started again BUT the simple solution is to use only that money to gamble then stop.
Even with my Dad's gambling addiction over the last 50 years that I know of, he limits to £20 a day and no more.
 
Absolutely, you just say 'no'.

I agree that it's very bad that betting company's deposit money into peoples empty accounts to try and get them started again BUT the simple solution is to use only that money to gamble then stop.
Even with my Dad's gambling addiction over the last 50 years that I know of, he limits to £20 a day and no more.

To be honest, for me that's a lot. I know it's all relative but for the average person that's a great deal of gambling.

Yes, as far as bookmakers & casinos etc. are concerned. I understand that might not be everyone's opinion, but if I'm being completely honest then I have to say that it is mine. I genuinely don't see any redeeming aspects in the industry.

That's fair enough, some people enjoy things I don't and so on. There doesn't have to be something 'redeeming' for it to be a bit of fun in some peoples lives. Everything in moderation and all that.
 
Policing, health service and welfare costs mainly in having to deal with gamblers turning into criminals to feed their habit (robbery, assault, burglary, manslaughter, murder, fraud...) or when they cause their family grief/lose their job/go homeless or whatever other possible outcome that can befall them/their victims.

Having a moral **** by blaming the initial gambler as many seem to enjoy doing, doesn't really do anything.

So should we ban alcohol? Do you also want to compare the cost of alcohol related violence, hospital treatment with revenue generated?
 
Yes, as far as bookmakers & casinos etc. are concerned. I understand that might not be everyone's opinion, but if I'm being completely honest then I have to say that it is mine. I genuinely don't see any redeeming aspects in the industry.

Do you want to ban alcohol and smoking?
 
Do you want to ban alcohol and smoking?
If you only look at a benefit v's harm assessment both those things would be banned, Tobacco is already very heavily controlled and I suspect restrictions to steadily increase to the point where it is in effect banned. Booze is a tricky one partly because it is so easy to make yourself so controlling it is very difficult but we are already seeing minimum pricing coming in and I would again expect a slow increase in restriction and control an out right ban is unlikely.

I wouldn't ban Booze, Tobacco or gambling but I would definitely regulate them and the gambling industry has repeatedly shown it is incapable of regulating itself and loves to exploit people who are dangerously addicted so regulation should be forth coming and I would include in that the same sponsorship and advertising bans as Tobacco.
 
Warren Buffet calls gambling a tax on the stupid which I agree with. In general I agree with letting companies do as they please, but putting football behind a wall of gambling seems to be wrong, no one should be forced into a potentially addictive behaviour in order to watch a sport, people who struggle with a gambling addiction should be able to watch football without being tempted back into what is potentially dangerous and damaging behaviour for them.
 
If they can afford to put themselves into debt they can afford to subscribe to SKY or some dodgy IPTV.

It's not on Sky, it's shown exclusively through the gaming company's website - that's what the second part of the sentence that you didn't quote referred to.

people who struggle with a gambling addiction should be able to watch football without being tempted back into what is potentially dangerous and damaging behaviour for them
 
No one needs this much money, just a few million will make more from interest than most people can spend (unless they are a complete moron). Why not give it to employees and give them all a nice wage.

The gambling industry is one which can't really fail. The house always wins ofc. It's also quite common for people to get their accounts banned from online casinos when they are on a winning streak. It's dodgy AF.
 
No one needs this much money, just a few million will make more from interest than most people can spend (unless they are a complete moron). Why not give it to employees and give them all a nice wage.

The gambling industry is one which can't really fail. The house always wins ofc. It's also quite common for people to get their accounts banned from online casinos when they are on a winning streak. It's dodgy AF.

Is it quite common to ban accounts?

I've seen common things enforced such as maximum stakes on certain sports where people have an affiliation...e.g. if they are a trainer of a horse for example. Typical 'pushbacks' scenarios such as card counting etc are very difficult to do online, and also easily caught so I can imagine it's possible, but to say it's common for a 'winning' streak is just baseless.

Not aware of anyone in this sector who bans players for getting on a winning streak, the usual run is to limit their bonuses but let them play knowing the odds eventually fall in the house's favour.
 
Back
Top Bottom