Skip to main content

Andrew Black steps down from Betfair board

On the day Betfair officially announced their intention to list on the London Stock Exchange, one of the two original founders of the firm, and the one responsible for the idea, Andrew Black, has resigned from the board of Betfair. He made it public on Facebook.

This doesn't come as a surprise at all, 'Bert' had admitted some time ago that he was advised to step away from Betfair totally, otherwise he'd forever be getting frustrated with its direction now that he was no longer involved in the firm on a day-to-day basis. Now he can just sit back and enjoy what it has done to his bank balance.

Well done Bert.

Comments

  1. Hi Scott,

    Why does Betfair have to be listed on the Stock Exchage? Surely this cash rich business does not need financing over the long-term or is it for the reason of wanting to more recognised/accepted in the business world. Will commissions be increased as a result for the cost of Betfair being on the LSE?

    I've started my own blog yesterday. It would be good to include it on your blog roll as I'm committed to posting stuff until Xmas.

    I've linked your informative blog to mine

    Thanks

    The Last Chance Trader
    http://lastchancetrading.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Companies have numerous reasons for going public, Betfair's is certainly not raising capital for expansion. Their minority shareholders (mostly staff) have been promised an exit point for years, and being listed on a major stock exchange holds big credibility when lobbying governments in territories reluctant to consider legalised gambling. Betfair can't squeeze much more out of the legalised markets, the big growth prospects are in those yet to permit online betting - USA, China, India etc. The added responsibility of being a listed company where the directors must act in the best interests of their shareholders, rather than deal without conscience, is a big deal for a foreign firm lobbying politicians who don't really understand the industry they have to negotiate with.

    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…