Will Hill's Heavy Price Tag For Going It Alone

wanbet-bc518

Friday, January 11, 2008 mgowanbo.cc 博彩518博客和论坛

Will Hill's abandoned attempt to develop its own "NextGen" sportsbetting software was expensive

The latest results from online and land gambling group William Hill plc illustrated the extent of the stiff penalty the group faces for trying to develop its own online betting software.

Following an independent review of the project last year, the UK gambling giant announced it was scrapping its own in-house development program in favour of an outsourced solution, now widely believed to be from the UK company Orbis Openbet, although that has yet to be confirmed.

Outsourcing is no stranger to Will Hill operations - the online division uses poker, casino and bingo technology products from companies such as CryptoLogic and Virtue Fusion.

The excursion into software gambling software development turned out to be expensive as well as unsuccessful, with the group reporting an exceptional non-cash impairment charge on the program to be abandoned of GBP 22 million, and restructuring costs of around GBP 4 million.

Fortunately, overall performance at Will Hill has been strong, according to a trading update this week from the company which revealed anticipated earnings before interest, tax and exceptional items to be around GBP 285 million pounds ($558 million) in the year to January 1.

Reporting on the debacle, The Telegraph newspaper punted Orbis as the new provider, pointing out that it is the software company behind the interactive websites of rivals like Ladbrokes, Paddy Power and the Tote. William Hill will axe its own NextGen Technology and part company with the staff who developed it.

In the absence of a CEO [William Hill has been looking for suitable candidate for the last seven months] Charles Scott, executive chairman, admitted that installing the new system would put William Hill "back a year" in the development of a website that can take complex bets in-running during events.

"A couple of years back, we believed we could get an advantage over our competitors by developing our own system, but in truth we are not software developers," he said.

He added that the new technology, whose supplier he declined to identify, would not be fully implemented until "the fourth quarter of this year".

Analysts cut their forecasts to reflect the NextGen hit, delays to the internet platform upgrade and a looming bill of around GBP 11 million for belatedly signing up to Turf TV. William Hill said it was "in discussions with Turf TV" and Scott said it was "possible" a deal could be struck in the near future.

Scott also confirmed that a new chief executive was unlikely to be appointed until next month at the earliest, saying: "We may not be miles away but it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks."

Asked if Ladbrokes' e-gaming chief John O'Reilly now seemed an even better choice, Scott laughed, adding: "I think he's happy where he is."

He also appeared to rule out former Coral managing director Wilf Walsh, Blue Square boss Martin Belsham, and Sportech chief Ian Penrose.

英国卫报报道：
http://www.guardian.co.uk/busine ... amp;feed=technology

wanbet-bc518

这个新闻算最近最热闹的新闻了。
我早就说过，自己开发博彩平台是件吃力不讨好的事情，已经有多家公司失败了。
威廉希尔这么财大气粗不照样栽了跟头吗？

中文报道：
威廉希尔寻求第三方网络体育博彩平台

wanbet-bc518

Loser Wants $2.1 Million Back From Will Hill

2008年2月14日周四 mgowanbo.cc

UK bookie will vigorously oppose legal suit

A 28-year-old high roller with a compulsive gambling tendency is trying to get UK bookie William Hill to return $2.1 million in losses on grounds that the company was negligent in allowing him to play after he had self-excluded himself....despite the fact that he circumvented the system by opening a fresh account.

The BBC reports that although relatively young, Graham Calvert built a substantial financial base for himself whilst a greyhound trainer, earning up to GBP 30 000 a month and stashing away GBP 700 000.

That was before a yen to gamble big cost him his career, family life and business, he contends. One of his more spectacular losses was betting on the 2006 Ryder Cup and getting it wrong....to the tune of GBP 347 000.

Apparently Calvert began gambling at the end of 2005 but says he needed to bet in the thousands to get the buzz.

At one stage he placed up to 20 bets a day at GBP 30 000 a time. But, by his own admission, in what he describes as "rare moments of clarity", he realised it was all getting out of hand and so excluded himself from a number of bookmakers.

Some of them wouldn't let him bet again while others only allowed him maximum bets of a few hundred pounds. But Calvert was a big time gambler so he went in search of other bookmakers to take on his bets. In May 2006 he opened an account with top UK bookie William Hill.

After placing some big bets he closed that account after just a few days, although he chose to re-open it two weeks later.

After another week, following more bets totalling nearly GBP 300 000, he closed the account and requested a self-exclusion, an operator "responsible gambling" measure whereby a problem gambler can have his account closed for six months to "cool down."  This, his lawyers say, is a facility provided by bookmakers to help gambling addicts break free of their addiction.

Calvert was told: "You will not be allowed to open it [the closed account] under any circumstances. You will not be allowed to bet over the phone with William Hill."

But two months later, Calvert again started betting with William Hill again by opening a new account, although he used his own name. It was through this account that he placed, and lost, the huge bet on the Ryder Cup.

His downward spiral on the new account continued and Calvert ended up going into William Hill branches with sacks full of cash, using up all his savings and borrowing more than GBP 1 million from business associates.

By the time he finally stopped gambling with William Hill he had made a net loss of just under GBP 2.1 million, the amount he is now claiming against them in a High Court case due to start next week.

Calvert's legal team claim that William Hill were negligent in allowing him to continue to gamble after agreeing that he would be self-excluded and that they should be held responsible for the consequences, but the UK bookie is strongly contesting the claims.

Lawyers for William Hill argue that any individual choosing to place a bet does so as a matter of personal and voluntary choice.

The BBC opines that the case is likely to take a long look at the issue of duty of care. Where does the responsibility of both the gambler and the bookmaker start and finish?

It will be for the court to establish exactly how and why Mr Calvert resumed betting and whether William Hill can be held legally liable for his behaviour.