Betbright Gone?

Shemale · 06-03-2019 4:39am #1

I got an email last night from Betbright stating "Dedsert (Ireland) Limited, trading as BetBright has ceased offering gambling services to its customers on a permanent basis." The website backs this up https://www.betbright.com/

The wording is weird, it doesn't say they are closing down and I am not sure what else they do. Anyone hear anthing?

Kauto · 06-03-2019 6:37am

Shemale wrote: »

I got an email last night from Betbright stating "Dedsert (Ireland) Limited, trading as BetBright has ceased offering gambling services to its customers on a permanent basis." The website backs this up https://www.betbright.com/

The wording is weird, it doesn't say they are closing down and I am not sure what else they do. Anyone hear anthing?

Have sold their software arm of the business to 888 sport and ceased trading on their betting arm. All ante post bets cancelled etc.

LuasSimon · 06-03-2019 10:18am

Got the same.
Have a small balance circa 50 quid , the card I would have initially lodged with is closed so not sure how I can get the few pound back?
Tried web chat but after 15 minutes no agent I gave up and sent an email.

Gautama · 06-03-2019 10:22am

LuasSimon wrote: »

Got the same.
Have a small balance circa 50 quid , the card I would have initially lodged with is closed so not sure how I can get the few pound back?
Tried web chat but after 15 minutes no agent I gave up and sent an email.

I'd a similar issue with SetantaBet a few years ago. It was a nightmare getting is sorted as I'd let the 30 days elapse. Get on the case straight away.

I withdrew my BetBright balance last night not realising that my card had expired. Hopefully this won't be an issue.

IAMAMORON · 06-03-2019 11:08am

Sounds nasty enough. I wouldn't trust them with anything. Get on it straight away. A week before Cheltenham? Sounds very suss.

91wx763 · 06-03-2019 12:24pm

Kauto wrote: »

Have sold their software arm of the business to 888 sport and ceased trading on their betting arm. All ante post bets cancelled etc.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/online-bookmakers-888-snap-up-betbright-in-15m-takeover/369073

famagusta · 06-03-2019 12:29pm

They are not honouring ante post bets, that is some joke!

PhuckHugh2 · 06-03-2019 12:51pm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2019/mar/06/new-details-hint-at-scale-of-betbright-injustice-on-punters-talking-horses?CMP=share_btn_tw

Shemale · 06-03-2019 2:41pm

famagusta wrote: »

They are not honouring ante post bets, that is some joke!

Woejus carryon, Ricci screwing up ante posts even more so than usual

IAMAMORON · 06-03-2019 3:12pm

Wow Wow Wow. I read the Guardian article, which I would advise every punter on the planet to do so. It is astonishing that they are going to be able to walk away from their liabilities like that.

I always felt there was something about Rich Ricci.... this cements it for me. How is he going to show his face next week ?

Jackhammer9 · 06-03-2019 3:22pm

How can they sell and walk away

Who's in charge

The Rooster · 06-03-2019 3:30pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Wow Wow Wow. I read the Guardian article, which I would advise every punter on the planet to do so. It is astonishing that they are going to be able to walk away from their liabilities like that.

I always felt there was something about Rich Ricci.... this cements it for me. How is he going to show his face next week ?

What they are doing is wrong, but the article is a bit misleading, in that there'll be a lot more people very happy that their ante-post bets are voided than those who are upset. But you have to feel for those who had the potential to win big like the guy in the article.

I'm not sure how much of the company Ricci owns, and he's not one of the directors. But I do know he was a minority shareholder. One paper reported he invested £7m, I doubt his share of the £15m proceeds is £3.5m. Could be as low as 10%.

Per publicly available accounts, Betbright had losses of €18m up to end of 2017.

IAMAMORON · 06-03-2019 3:46pm

The Rooster wrote: »

What they are doing is wrong, but the article is a bit misleading, in that there'll be a lot more people very happy that their ante-post bets are voided than those who are upset. But you have to feel for those who had the potential to win big like the guy in the article.

I'm not sure how much of the company Ricci owns, and he's not one of the directors. But I do know he was a minority shareholder. One paper reported he invested £7m, I doubt his share of the £15m proceeds is £3.5m. Could be as low as 10%.

Per publicly available accounts, Betbright had losses of €18m up to end of 2017.

If he is a minority shareholder in fairness he has no call on the matter. But I would assume he would issue some sort of a statement.

All bets are off is no excuse either. The parent company post merger or consolidation should be honouring all those outcomes, losers or winners.

longshotvalue · 06-03-2019 4:00pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Wow Wow Wow. I read the Guardian article, which I would advise every punter on the planet to do so. It is astonishing that they are going to be able to walk away from their liabilities like that.

I always felt there was something about Rich Ricci.... this cements it for me. How is he going to show his face next week ?

888 announced they are honoring the antepost bets

91wx763 · 06-03-2019 6:28pm

Link here https://www.racingpost.com/news/latest/u-turn-888-to-honour-ante-post-bets-placed-with-betbright-following-purchase/369501

yaboya1 · 06-03-2019 6:33pm

Only right. Was a bit scummy otherwise.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-03-2019 1:45am

Likely more posturing from the big players (in this case 888) in preperation for the emmerging (huge) US market.
They're already handy with the poker, casino stuff, so by snapping up (another) sportsbook framework, would be a good market move.

Have a feeling the US open doors will get messy. Would be fine if just for sportsbooks with NFL, NBA, NHL and all that (sports) regular jazz.
But.. if they ever start the $100 a spin (currently facing a uk restriction) via 'high street crack machine betting shops', even online bingo/casino/games, they might get a social revoult.

Read somewhere places like Chicago already have 100,000 sm/crackheads, by adding in a (different) accessible form (one arm bandits, or even that mobile web casino nonsense), it will only create further problems.

irishgeo · 07-03-2019 1:50am

Alisha Tiny Neckerchief wrote: »

Likely more posturing from the big players (in this case 888) in preperation for the emmerging (huge) US market.
They're already handy with the poker, casino stuff, so by snapping up (another) sportsbook framework, would be a good market move.

Have a feeling the US open doors will get messy. Would be fine if just for sportsbooks with NFL, NBA, NHL and all that (sports) regular jazz.
But.. if they ever start the $100 a spin (currently facing a uk restriction) via 'high street crack machine betting shops', even online bingo/casino/games, they might get a social revoult.

Read somewhere places like Chicago already have 100,000 sm/crackheads, by adding in a (different) accessible form (one arm bandits, or even that mobile web casino nonsense), it will only create further problems.

They have casinos already.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-03-2019 1:57am

irishgeo wrote: »

They have casinos already.

Yes and a few racetracks, but they don't have anything like what occours on the uk high streets or the endless tv ads for 'virtual bingo', 'silly slot games' and 'casinos in the sky' - all which let folks make 1,000's disappear with the hour, anywhere they can get a mobile signal.

Recently Ladbrokes said they would close 1,000 shops, directly due to their gov announcing it would reduce the max stake on those blingy FOTB machines from 100, to just 2 notes per spin.

GVC (lad-coral) recently said the 'crackdown' will hit them for £135m for 2019. They must have been really creaming it all these years from the bling machines.

Jackhammer9 · 07-03-2019 12:07pm

Alisha Tiny Neckerchief wrote: »

Yes and a few racetracks, but they don't have anything like what occours on the uk high streets or the endless tv ads for 'virtual bingo', 'silly slot games' and 'casinos in the sky' - all which let folks make 1,000's disappear with the hour, anywhere they can get a mobile signal.

Recently Ladbrokes said they would close 1,000 shops, directly due to their gov announcing it would reduce the max stake on those blingy FOTB machines from 100, to just 2 notes per spin.

GVC (lad-coral) recently said the 'crackdown' will hit them for £135m for 2019. They must have been really creaming it all these years from the bling machines.

What's happening in the north, problem gambling is much worse than the UK

Ladbrokes-Coral are changing to £2 FOBT , no obligation on the others to do likewise

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-03-2019 1:52pm

Jackhammer9 wrote: »

What's happening in the north, problem gambling is much worse than the UK

Ladbrokes-Coral are changing to £2 FOBT , no obligation on the others to do likewise

Read somewhere Ireland (ROI) is second only to Australia, for actual individual punter loss ratios, so yes the uk may have higher 'frequency' (via FOBT & Tv ads) the average losses may be greater in Ire.

New FOBT limits will apply to all their operaters once (if ever), it goes through their parliment. Thousands of shops closing as a direct result, is a very interesting insight.

But the point was the close (takeover) of BB, and other investments/mergers all signify great focus towards the US emmerging markets.

Jackhammer9 · 07-03-2019 2:01pm

Alisha Tiny Neckerchief wrote: »

Read somewhere Ireland (ROI) is second only to Australia, for actual individual punter loss ratios, so yes the uk may have higher 'frequency' (via FOBT & Tv ads) the average losses may be greater in Ire.

New FOBT limits will apply to all their operaters once (if ever), it goes through their parliment. Thousands of shops closing as a direct result, is a very interesting insight.

But the point was the close (takeover) of BB, and other investments/mergers all signify great focus towards the US emmerging markets.

The new law won't apply to NI

Ladbrokes doing it on a voluntary basis

£400 million in tax annually from FOBT to UK revenue

Jackhammer9 · 07-03-2019 2:06pm

Gambling Act 2005 only applies to the Mainland UK

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-03-2019 2:20pm

Jackhammer9 wrote: »

The new law won't apply to NI

Ladbrokes doing it on a voluntary basis

£400 million in tax annually from FOBT to UK revenue

Largely irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, they might only have a handful of shops in the North anyway. NI is already protected with other legislation e.g. They can't call into the TV Roulette shows that used to be on one of the big 5 channels. They can't even participate in the Health lottery thing.

The expected tax loss is still smaller, than the operator's profit loss.

The UK gov is still making a legal move to restrict it from 100 to 2 per spin (just a matter of timing). The point was that this single event is causing 1000's of shops to close, is a real eye opener.

The other point was the close (takeover) of BB, and other investments/mergers all signify great focus towards the US emmerging markets.

The US is loosing circa $4bn pa to black market betting, which is the main justification for the industry renewal.

IAMAMORON · 09-03-2019 7:57pm

aidankkk wrote: »

888 announced they are honoring the antepost bets

I am watching a recording of the morning line. Seemingly only honoring Antepost Cheltenham 2019 bets and Rich Ricci refused to comment. They are refunding all other bets. They basically went bust and then sold the tech side of the business.

I would be fuming if I had any decent antepost bets in the pipeline.

famagusta · 09-03-2019 8:46pm

IAMAMORON wrote:

I would be fuming if I had any decent antepost bets in the pipeline.

IAMAMORON wrote:

I am watching a recording of the morning line. Seemingly only honoring Antepost Cheltenham 2019 bets and Rich Ricci refused to comment. They are refunding all other bets. They basically went bust and then sold the tech side of the business.

There is a guy on Twitter with a couple of lovely football antepost bets, one to win 18 k, disgraceful if stake is just returned,
If that prick has a winner at chelt I hope he gets booed

IAMAMORON · 09-03-2019 9:49pm

famagusta wrote: »

There is a guy on Twitter with a couple of lovely football antepost bets, one to win 18 k, disgraceful if stake is just returned,
If that prick has a winner at chelt I hope he gets booed

How he can look anyone in the eye is beyond me. It is no wonder he wears shades in the rain. I find it slippery that he is involved with bookmakers and at the same time courting the press with where his runners are going. There was a debacle a few years ago with Vautour if I remember correctly.

How come we don't know for sure where Min is running next week? Why not just say it now? For some reason both the stable and the owner like to keep this up in the air until the final decs are made. It is not fair on the punters. At least Paul Nicholls shoots from the hip about where he is sending his runners.

The Mig · 10-03-2019 7:22am

I’d say Rich hasn’t a clue where his horses are running thanks to Willie

The Rooster · 10-03-2019 7:50am

As I said earlier, Ricci was a minority shareholder, likely had absolutely no say in any of this, and lost millions on Betbright.

IAMAMORON · 10-03-2019 10:20am

The Rooster wrote: »

As I said earlier, Ricci was a minority shareholder, likely had absolutely no say in any of this, and lost millions on Betbright.

I definitely agree with the fact that he might be only a minority shareholder. But that does not admonish him from his corporate responsibilities. Not commenting and burying his head in the sand is not good enough for me.

It is a dangerous precedent to be allowing gambling firms get away with this. It sounds like it is going to be a classic shrug the shoulders and move on. In the meantime a punter is down 18k.

It is the punters who keep the horses on the track, they need to be respected.

The Rooster · 10-03-2019 11:54am

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I definitely agree with the fact that he might be only a minority shareholder. But that does not admonish him from his corporate responsibilities. Not commenting and burying his head in the sand is not good enough for me.

It is a dangerous precedent to be allowing gambling firms get away with this. It sounds like it is going to be a classic shrug the shoulders and move on. In the meantime a punter is down 18k.

It is the punters who keep the horses on the track, they need to be respected.

A 10% shareholder who is not a director has no legal corporate responsibility.
The bookmaking part of the business went bust. **** happens. They were lucky that the technology part is regarded as one of the best in the business, so the investors only lost half their money instead of it all.

I agree with your second paragraph, but who should fund this? Do you really think a 10% shareholder who’s already down millions should stump up personally? Out of the goodness of his heart?

Yeah, one football punter is *potentially* down 18k, and that will really suck if it comes through, but there’s hundreds or more punters who have received refunds for void bets that were going to be losers too.

When you buy insurance , there’s a levy added, so when an insurance company goes bust, consumers are paid out under this fund. Should a levy be added that punters have to pay every time they place a bet, to fund payouts when the next Betbright happens? I don’t think too many punters would be a fan of this. We’d all like to take the position - a payment should be made, but not by me, somebody else should make it.

Shemale · 10-03-2019 12:37pm

Ricci was the executive chairman

PhuckHugh2 · 11-03-2019 9:35am

The Rooster wrote: »

A 10% shareholder who is not a director has no legal corporate responsibility.
The bookmaking part of the business went bust. **** happens. They were lucky that the technology part is regarded as one of the best in the business, so the investors only lost half their money instead of it all.

I agree with your second paragraph, but who should fund this? Do you really think a 10% shareholder who’s already down millions should stump up personally? Out of the goodness of his heart?

Yeah, one football punter is *potentially* down 18k, and that will really suck if it comes through, but there’s hundreds or more punters who have received refunds for void bets that were going to be losers too.

When you buy insurance , there’s a levy added, so when an insurance company goes bust, consumers are paid out under this fund. Should a levy be added that punters have to pay every time they place a bet, to fund payouts when the next Betbright happens? I don’t think too many punters would be a fan of this. We’d all like to take the position - a payment should be made, but not by me, somebody else should make it.

They did not go bust. They just packed it in. There is a big difference.

Also the fact that punters got voided bets returned is completely irrelevant and shouldnt have happened in the first place. It should not be used as a smoke screen to quieten people who were potentially about to win big. If you strike a bet you expect 1 of a number of outcomes. Voiding all bets because the bookmaker decides they dont want to do business anymore should not be one of them.
What if someone who had a pile of antepost bets decided today that they were going to give up punting and ask for the all outstanding bets to be voided. Sure there is a chance they could have taken the bookies to the cleaners. However likely that is.
They would be absolutely laughed out of it and rightly so.