bet365 the world has gone mad

[ronnieronalde]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/21/bet365-denise-coates-paid-herself-an-obscene-265m-in-2017

265 million quid, after taking off weekends and bank holidays and 28 days statutory that means she is paid £1,193,693.69 (one million, one hundred and ninety three thousand pounds and 69p A ducking DAY).

The poor mite had to struggle by last year on a poxy £217 million.

All of that from an industry that causes the poor working class families nothing but heartache (outside of the occasional 28-1 double up) and she's been awarded a CBE for services to the community. 

Now, she may be doing the occasional bit of good, but unless she's giving back 264 million of the absolutely disgusting salary she pays herself, she wants locking up.

I really hope I don't see anyone come on and say it's warranted.

Meanwhile, rough sleeping figures increased by 1300 people in the same year and people piss on the homeless sleeping in shop doorways when they're drunk.

No wonder I'm on the verge of total mental collapse. The world is ducked and we're being ran by a group of self serving, I'm alright jack fuckwits.

My head hurts.

 

 

[Carl Sagan]

She took a risk, saw an opportunity and now employs 400+ people in Stoke. Her company pays more tax in the UK that Apple or Facebook or Alphabet, and probably more than all of them combined. 

She pays her personal taxes too, which are huge. And the company is privately held, so she might as well take a few hundred million out of it a year, given it still made hundreds of millions more in profits. 

She could have twiddled her thumbs and not tried to start an innovative new business. I say good luck to her. 

[ronnieronalde]

Just now, Carl Sagan said:

She took a risk, saw an opportunity and now employs 400+ people in Stoke. Her company pays more tax in the UK that Apple or Facebook or Alphabet, and probably more of them combined. 

She pays her personal taxes too, which are huge. And the company is privately held, so she might as well take a few hundred million out of it a year, given it still made hundreds of millions more in profits. 

She could have twiddled her thumbs and not tried to start an innovative new business. I say good luck to her. 

Carl mate, I don't want to fall out and of course you're entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is it's everything wrong with the world. An innovative new business? Millions of people addicted to spending what they cant afford to spend, an industry that contributes massively to the declining mental health of the population.

I'm honestly sad that there are people who think it's ok. I'm sad that you think it's ok.

[Philmycock]

4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

She took a risk, saw an opportunity and now employs 400+ people in Stoke. Her company pays more tax in the UK that Apple or Facebook or Alphabet, and probably more of them combined. 

She pays her personal taxes too, which are huge. And the company is privately held, so she might as well take a few hundred million out of it a year, given it still made hundreds of millions more in profits. 

She could have twiddled her thumbs and not tried to start an innovative new business. I say good luck to her. 

4300 employees in Stoke!

[ronnieronalde]

2 minutes ago, philmycock said:

4300 employees in Stoke!

she could have 4300 employees in Stoke, pay herself 5 million and still be in great shape.

Instead she's taken out 500 million in two years and it's deserved, justified and warranted?

Like I said my head hurts, this isn't the place for me.

[Carl Sagan]

1 minute ago, ronnieronalde said:

Carl mate, I don't want to fall out and of course you're entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is it's everything wrong with the world. An innovative new business? Millions of people addicted to spending what they cant afford to spend, an industry that contributes massively to the declining mental health of the population.

I'm honestly sad that there are people who think it's ok. I'm sad that you think it's ok.

If you don't like it you are you suggesting you want to ban gambling or severely restrict it or keep it the same? Like millions of people I enjoy a flutter and it can enhance the thrill of a match, but I'm not addicted to it. And I have a really addictive personality. 

If it's going to be legal then people will make money out of it. And I want it to be legal. 

I look forward to a future in which prices might be roughly what they are now, but everyone is earning this sort of money. Imagine what lives we'd all lead then? But someone has to be first. I'm starting a company at the moment and am weighing up the level of personal risk. If high I want the potential reward to be at least in the millions or tens of millions. 

[McRainy]

[bigbadbob]

3 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

You'd have thought with all her cash she could afford a decent hairdresser

[ronnieronalde]

5 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

If you don't like it you are you suggesting you want to ban gambling or severely restrict it or keep it the same? Like millions of people I enjoy a flutter and it can enhance the thrill of a match, but I'm not addicted to it. And I have a really addictive personality. 

If it's going to be legal then people will make money out of it. And I want it to be legal. 

I look forward to a future in which prices might be roughly what they are now, but everyone is earning this sort of money. Imagine what lives we'd all lead then? But someone has to be first. I'm starting a company at the moment and am weighing up the level of personal risk. If high I want the potential reward to be at least in the millions or tens of millions. 

I'm suggesting that for such a divisive and dangerous product that offers no real enhancement of the quality of life of the majority of it's customers, it's wrong that she earns so much. She pays herself 27 times more than the entire gambling industry spends on trying to help fix the problems her service or product help to exacerbate.

I don't really care what taxes they pay (although I will admit I'm happy they pay it and don't avoid it like the other companies you mention, again a national scandal) they made £660 million profit last year. £660 million profit, that's how much the gambling industry is in my eyes a thief. She took 30% of that. Corporation tax is 19%

She paid herself huge multiples more than Tim Cook the CEO of the most valuable company in the world. 

I'm suggesting it's an obscene and unspendable amount of money, I'm saying they make too much profit. If I was in government I would seriously consider a salary cap on board level salaries. Maybe your tens of millions I'd be grudgingly o.k with but £265 million a year? £500 million over two years?

I'm suggesting all products/services deemed to be harrnful should have an anti social tax applied on top of corporation tax (gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis if and when it's legalised) and I'd make sure it was global, no tax havens, tax paid directly to the government based on where the customer who spends opened their account.

I understand I'm coming across as a bit  (a lot) of a deluded idealist do-gooder but there is enough wealth in the world to fix every financially rooted problem we have. Yet those problems keep getting worse.

 

[Comrade 86]

It's a complicated one. Entrepreneurs take risks, innovate and create jobs. As such, it's easy to argue that they deserve the major financial rewards that those who prove successful in their endeavours enjoy. The issue that I suspect @ronnieronalde is alluding to is the level of rewards that are morally justifiable for any company director, not those that are commercially viable. This is a question for any commercial entity, not just BET365. BET365 employs thousands of telephone support agents with an average hourly rate of around £10 / hour. So, for their 40-hour week, they net a gross income of around £400. Their CEO is currently enjoying a gross weekly wage in excess of £5 million which is approximately 12,750 times that of the largest single group of her employees. Setting aside what is legally defensible, can it be argued that this is not morally offensive, especially after a decade of austerity and with homeless figures and the use of foodbanks by even those in gainful employment skyrocketing?

While one can't argue that Coates is not entitled to draw funds as she chooses (legally she is entitled to draw whatever she likes within the constraints of good company practice) it does seem an obscene amount of money to be paying oneself when compared to the salaries paid to her staff, on whose backs, the business is built. This sense is further compounded when one considers that the firm’s huge profits will, to a significant degree, be generated at no small human cost. Of course, it is not BET365's responsibility to ensure that people gamble responsibly, but they cannot deny that a deal of their profits are made from those whose gambling is hopelessly out of control. Lives are destroyed by unfettered access to gambling services and it’s worth considering that it’s not just the gamblers who suffer, but their families and loved ones too. This state of affairs is hugely exacerbated in heavily deregulated gaming environments such as the UK. Betting 365 days a year would strongly infer addiction so the irony of the business adopting the moniker BET365 as their trading name should not be lost in misty-eyed admiration for the success of their operations. Let us not forget either, that traditional bookmakers are effectively skinning operations whose books are, most often, hopelessly over-round and offer no real prospect for even skilled gamblers to make significant profits on their turnover, hence the huge success of Betting Exchanges which offer a far greater opportunity for those seeking to earn a small profit from playing the sporting markets.

So, what is the compromise and how can it be delivered? Greater regulation of the industry, removing the tax-loopholes that allow UK gambling operators to transact business with UK residents from tax-havens like Gibraltar, increased rates of corporation tax and enforced contributions to combat the damaging effects of gambling addiction would doubtless help. Such measures would also mean that while the customer support teams would still be being paid their minimum wage, company directors might have to tighten their belts a tad were they only able to pay themselves a meagre £20 million a year versus the £265 million Coates has chosen to pay herself. Food for thought, if nothing else.

[ronnieronalde]

5 minutes ago, 86 points said:

It's a complicated one. Entrepreneurs take risks, innovate and create jobs. As such, it's easy to argue that they deserve the major financial rewards that those who prove successful in their endeavours enjoy. The issue that I suspect @ronnieronalde is alluding to is the level of rewards that are morally justifiable for any company director, not those that are commercially viable. This is a question for any commercial entity, not just BET365. BET365 employs thousands of telephone support agents with an average hourly rate of around £10 / hour. So, for their 40-hour week, they net a gross income of around £400. Their CEO is currently enjoying a gross weekly wage in excess of £5 million which is approximately 12,750 times that of the largest single group of her employees. Setting aside what is legally defensible, can it be argued that this is not morally offensive, especially after a decade of austerity and with homeless figures and the use of foodbanks by even those in gainful employment skyrocketing?

While one can't argue that Coates is not entitled to draw funds as she chooses (legally she is entitled to draw whatever she likes within the constraints of good company practice) it does seem an obscene amount of money to be paying oneself when compared to the salaries paid to her staff, on whose backs, the business is built. This sense is further compounded when one considers that the firm’s huge profits will, to a significant degree, be generated at no small human cost. Of course, it is not BET365's responsibility to ensure that people gamble responsibly, but they cannot deny that a deal of their profits are made from those whose gambling is hopelessly out of control. Lives are destroyed by unfettered access to gambling services and it’s worth considering that it’s not just the gamblers who suffer, but their families and loved ones too. This state of affairs is hugely exacerbated in heavily deregulated gaming environments such as the UK. Betting 365 days a year would strongly infer addiction so the irony of the business adopting the moniker BET365 as their trading name should not be lost in misty-eyed admiration for the success of their operations. Let us not forget either, that traditional bookmakers are effectively skinning operations whose books are, most often, hopelessly over-round and offer no real prospect for even skilled gamblers to make significant profits on their turnover, hence the huge success of Betting Exchanges which offer a far greater opportunity for those seeking to earn a small profit from playing the sporting markets.

So, what is the compromise and how can it be delivered? Greater regulation of the industry, removing the tax-loopholes that allow UK gambling operators to transact business with UK residents from tax-havens like Gibraltar, increased rates of corporation tax and enforced contributions to combat the damaging effects of gambling addiction would doubtless help. Such measures would also mean that while the customer support teams would still be being paid their minimum wage, company directors might have to tighten their belts a tad were they only able to pay themselves a meagre £20 million a year versus the £265 million Coates has chosen to pay herself. Food for thought, if nothing else.

As an example of what is morally right.

Let's guestimate there are 300 director level roles, everyone under that is a joe bloggs standard worker, some paid more, some paid less.

What difference would it make to society, to the economy, to morale if just once, just this year she said, you know what, even though I only paid myself 217 million last year, I'm surviving and I'm not down to my last loaf of bread.

I want to reward the loyal employees who have helped us build this.

4000 joe blogss employees, here's a bonus of £66,250 EACH.

How much difference would that make to those 4000 individuals and families?

I'll tell you one difference. I'd be bowing down to her leadership skills and sitting here knocked off my feet at her levels of decency.

[Comrade 86]

4 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

As an example of what is morally right.

Let's guestimate there are 300 director level roles, everyone under that is a joe bloggs standard worker, some paid more, some paid less.

What difference would it make to society, to the economy, to morale if just once, just this year she said, you know what, even though I only paid myself 217 million last year, I'm surviving and I'm not down to my last loaf of bread.

I want to reward the loyal employees who have helped us build this.

4000 joe blogss employees, here's a bonus of £66,250 EACH.

How much difference would that make to those 4000 individuals and families?

I'll tell you one difference. I'd be bowing down to her leadership skills and sitting here knocked off my feet at her levels of decency.

Even a £5k bonus for every member of staff would have left her still able to pay herself well over £200 million. Perhaps she struggled getting by on only £217 million in the previous year or felt her staff were not worthy of any financial recognition bar a basic salary despite the huge company profits they helped deliver? Whatever the case, I can't imagine they'll be terribly impressed to read the newspaper reports.

[ronnieronalde]

15 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Even a £5k bonus for every member of staff would have left her still able to pay herself well over £200 million. Perhaps she struggled getting by on only £217 million in the previous year or felt her staff were not worthy of any financial recognition bar a basic salary despite the huge company profits they helped deliver? Whatever the case, I can't imagine they'll be terribly impressed to read the newspaper reports.

To be fair, she and her husband as joint CEO's score highly on the rate the CEO on glassdoor. 77% approval rating. They also pay their employees a 3 monthly bonus and it's a % of salary based on company and not individual performance.

Out of 180 reviews 41 were 5 star (the majority of those in Manchester) 44 were 1 star (interestingly you can't score them zero as many said they would if they could - the majority of those one star reviews were for Stoke)

Overall from the outside looking in, she/they have to get some credit as a decent employer, in my mind this isn't what that is about though.

This is purely about her obscene individual salary. I'd love to see her husband's pay as joint CEO as well.

 

*when I make comments like these I do like to do it from a researched point of view and I do like to be balanced, in that respect I think it's also important I point out she does things I have a lot of respect and admiration for. The bet365 foundation has raised approximately 100m for charity since it was set up and she and her husband adopted four kids from the same family, which is a truly wonderful thing to do.

Still, her individual salary plus the 90m in dividends shared between her and family members this year is sickening.

[Boycie]

To be fair, she did give Mel £2million for a reptile this year.

[Sith Happens]

6 hours ago, Lambchop said:

You know the answer to the child gambler issue dont you? Charge them more board :)

 

[Angry Ram]

6 hours ago, Lambchop said:

Snow falls od Devils Dyke !!! Never.

This is gold.

[Anon]

Maybe some of the people moaning about her could build their own companies from the ground up and then they could spend every penny of their earnings fixing society's ills.

[Wolfie]

6 hours ago, ronnieronalde said:

I don't really care what taxes they pay (although I will admit I'm happy they pay it and don't avoid it like the other companies you mention, again a national scandal) they made £660 million profit last year. £660 million profit, that's how much the gambling industry is in my eyes a thief. She took 30% of that. Corporation tax is 19%

 

Gambling is legal and if her company didn't run it, then another one would. You are calling them thieves because of the high profits, presumably and would like to see them pay out more & make less money for themselves.

It has got me wondering, though. If you make gambling firms pay out more, would it make it better or worse for problem gamblers?. I don't gamble because I know the chances of winning are low. What if those chances were higher?. Would it make people bet more frequently and with larger bets because their chances are better?.

I don't know.

[ronnieronalde]

15 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Gambling is legal and if her company didn't run it, then another one would. You are calling them thieves because of the high profits, presumably and would like to see them pay out more & make less money for themselves.

It has got me wondering, though. If you make gambling firms pay out more, would it make it better or worse for problem gamblers?. I don't gamble because I know the chances of winning are low. What if those chances were higher?. Would it make people bet more frequently and with larger bets because their chances are better?.

I don't know.

I'm not asking them to pay out more at all. I agree fully with you that would be dangerous.

I'm asking for their profits/salaries to be capped or taxed heavily and put back to good use. An anti social tax put into a pot to be used to fix some of the issues the industry causes. (homelessness, alcoholism, abuse, break down of marriages, addiction) at the moment at least from what I can find, officially the industry spends around 10 million a year helping addicts.

How much does it cost for other bodies to clean up their mess.

Remember when the sports industry banned cigarette and alcohol advertising? Surely it's time to consider the same for gambling.

Has it worked, you could argue that people have been made more aware of the risks, either way smoking across all ages is on the decrease.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/adultsmokinghabitsingreatbritain/2015

 

Smoking prevalence for adults was 24 per cent (25 per cent of men and 22 per cent of women). There has been an overall decrease in smoking prevalence from 39 per cent in 1980. In recent years prevalence has been falling more steadily

The decrease in prevalence since 1980 has been most marked among those aged 50-59, smoking prevalence fell from 44 per cent in 1980 to 24 per cent in 2005

The proportion of people who have never smoked has been rising steadily, from 43 per cent in 1982 to 53 per cent in 2005

[ronnieronalde]

31 minutes ago, Anon said:

Maybe some of the people moaning about her could build their own companies from the ground up and then they could spend every penny of their earnings fixing society's ills.

Really? is that what I asked her to do? Such a cheap comeback, sorry but it is.

You fancy giving one of the moaners a loan of 15 million quid to get started? That's the loan she/they took out way back when. Fair enough the loan was secured off the back of their bricks and mortar bookmaking chain.

My main gripe is one person is benefiting to the tune of a salary of 500m quid over two years from an industry built on people losing money. Let's not start talking about the value if she sold it with 2.2 BILLION in revenue annually.

She's wealthy beyond any level. I'm not asking her to spend every penny of her earnings fixing societies ills. I'm not asking her to do anything, I'm discussing why I think it's wrong and I'm suggesting what she could have done with THIS YEARS salary.

I think if I'd have read her salary was 26.5 million I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm not saying close them down. I'm just saying I find it obscene that one person is making so much dosh out of other peoples misfortune, for them to make the profit they make, a lot of  people have to lose a lot of money. 

Oh and by the way watch how quickly they suspend accounts if someone wins too much.