Skip to main content

BetBrokers goes broke

Listed UK company, BetBrokers, the firm you were supposed to use if you struggled to get bets on yourself, went into administration last Friday. The peculiar business model always had its doubters (big bookies close down winners, so most end up on Betfair anyway. Do you think bookies really want to take bigbets from unnamed accounts?) and in the end, those doubts won through. But perhaps it was just shabbily run. It wouldn't be the first occasion that a good idea was ruined by people not knowing how to run a business properly.

Comments

  1. I believe you are correct when you say it was shabbily run. Certain board members were pretty cueless. In an interview on the Interactive investor website, their CEO
    (the only Execiutive Director)shows a distinct lack of judgement and knowledge about the gaming business. He doesn't even seem to understand that gambling is illegal in most of the USA. He also has a history of failure on the AIM market as well. Affinity Internet Holdings, the company he promotes as being his great success on the Betbrokers website, went into administration with, apparently, a big hole in the accounts! One of their Non-exec directors is no better. Non- Exec Derek Tullett, is a septugenarian who (according to the BB website) is Chairman of New9to5.com. Is it wise for Tullett to brag about this? Not really, the company went bust sometime ago, but presumably Tullett is not aware of this because if he was, surely he would not be stupid enough to publicise his involvment when the company has gone into liquidation without filing accounts. It seems that there should be little surprise that Betbrokers failed if this is the calibre of people they had running the show. If I were a shareholder I would really want to know what sort of business they were running. For a stock to go from 15p to a fifth of a penny is a shocking performance over less than two years since admission to the markets. Surely there should be questions regarding the original valuation, as their shares only moved one way from day one. A very bad smell about this whole affair.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term 'Ponzi scheme' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up.

So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done.

The…

damage control when trading goals

When trades go bad, some people will say cut your losses immediately, others will recommend having a bit of patience as events tend to level out (i.e. games with two goals in the first 10 mins never end up with 18 goals in 90 minutes). This is something I like to do on certain matches.

Background:
1. You've backed Under 2.5 goals, trying to nick a few ticks at a time as the clock ticks.
2. You've been caught out by a goal.
3. The market has gone sharply against you.

On this particular match from a couple of weeks ago, there was an early goal (sixth minute) before I got involved. The period immediately after an early goal regularly shows a sharp drop in the Under price, so I was trying to capitalise on that. But Watford then scored again after 14 minutes. The Back price I took (3.95) was now out to 12 - I could close out for a big loss (not my style) or wait and wait for the price to come back to somewhere I could close out for minimal damage. But at 2-0 after 15 minutes, it w…