William Hill Interested in Acquiring 888

[Zabier]

Fascinating news. I thought 888 had been receiving positive feedback from players and critics over recent times. Did not see a potential takeover from William Hill on the horizon. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[vinylweatherman]

William Hill are too big and arrogant as it is. Them taking over another big and arrogant company isn't good news for players. There must be a few player investors at William Hill given that their share price FELL by 3.6% despite this supposedly being the way forward (growth through acquisition) for gaming companies in an industry that is being more heavily taxed and regulated.

 

[xxshepxx]

WH should concentrate on what they have already.

The product is great, massive selection of games, but the support is piss poor, and thats what annoys me.

 

[243 lines=daft]

The product is great, massive selection of games, but the support is piss poor, and thats what annoys me.

My goodness. Never in the field of human gaming has one poster summed up one company so succinctly!

Hills have a fantastic product.
The range of customised bets they offer on racing beats out everyone else including B365. The live casino is superb. The range of casino games is huge and the promos are many, varied and usually decent.

And yet.. one of the biggest bookmaker brands of all is unaccredited here and nobody seems to have a good word to say about their CS.
It's all a bit strange really. Not as strange as the Ladbrokes freefall, but still very odd.

They remain one of the only good places to play Marilyn Monroe so I'll always have a few quid in there.

 

[vinylweatherman]

My goodness. Never in the field of human gaming has one poster summed up one company so succinctly!

Hills have a fantastic product.
The range of customised bets they offer on racing beats out everyone else including B365. The live casino is superb. The range of casino games is huge and the promos are many, varied and usually decent.

And yet.. one of the biggest bookmaker brands of all is unaccredited here and nobody seems to have a good word to say about their CS.
It's all a bit strange really. Not as strange as the Ladbrokes freefall, but still very odd.

They remain one of the only good places to play Marilyn Monroe so I'll always have a few quid in there.

Don't forget that they pay progressives in small chunks over many years, possibly 30 or 40 depending on the size of the win. It's a policy they inherited from when they bought Playtech and Cpays out, but they are in no hurry to change it. Only a small minority of players will ever experience this very negative side of William Hill.

 

[Jono777]

Am I right in thinking the 888 group also covers the cassava run bingo / casino sites with thousands of different skins?

Lets hope if WH do 'acquire' they don't confiscate winnings as the terms state:-

*Player was smoking during free spins feature
*Player was only partially dressed during his/her deposit
*Player had brown sauce not red on his bacon sarnie and took a bite during play
*Player sent his mom a text message during Wild Desire feature
etc etc etc

Lets hope all the 'jokers' merge one day then we will only have one 'baddie' to avoid instead of several.

Sorry to have been so negative and gone slightly off topic but I wanna see some good news, The 'Bookies' sites used to be my most trusted and faves (especially Ladbrokes) but it now seems they are all rapidly heading in the same direction, IE:down the slippery slope !! and making bad decisions daily!

 

[spintee]

Lol, Yes there are the ones that run the bingo sites or at least hold the main license,

But in all fairness I nether had 1 bit of trouble from the bingo side of things and I have made literally hundreds of withdrawals and not one bit of hassle,

Am I right in thinking the 888 group also covers the cassava run bingo / casino sites with thousands of different skins?

Lets hope if WH do 'acquire' they don't confiscate winnings as the terms state:-

*Player was smoking during free spins feature
*Player was only partially dressed during his/her deposit
*Player had brown sauce not red on his bacon sarnie and took a bite during play
*Player sent his mom a text message during Wild Desire feature
etc etc etc

Lets hope all the 'jokers' merge one day then we will only have one 'baddie' to avoid instead of several.

Sorry to have been so negative and gone slightly off topic but I wanna see some good news, The 'Bookies' sites used to be my most trusted and faves (especially Ladbrokes) but it now seems they are all rapidly heading in the same direction, IE:down the slippery slope !! and making bad decisions daily!

 

[KasinoKing]

Don't forget that they pay progressives in small chunks over many years, possibly 30 or 40 depending on the size of the win. It's a policy they inherited from when they bought Playtech and Cpays out, but they are in no hurry to change it. Only a small minority of players will ever experience this very negative side of William Hill.

Actually, I think you'll find William Hill casino itself does not impose this immoral rule (and they are NOT on the list of Playtechs in the Rogue Pit).
I think it's only all their sister casinos who employ these thieving practises.

KK

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually, I think you'll find William Hill casino itself does not impose this immoral rule (and they are NOT on the list of Playtechs in the Rogue Pit).
I think it's only all their sister casinos who employ these thieving practises.

KK

Same thing really, same company, same owners, same licence, same software, same support it seems too.

 

[redsfan]

Don't forget that they pay progressives in small chunks over many years, possibly 30 or 40 depending on the size of the win. It's a policy they inherited from when they bought Playtech and Cpays out, but they are in no hurry to change it. Only a small minority of players will ever experience this very negative side of William Hill.

Not quite. They did actually remove the term and from their sister sites but when one of the management team who removed it left, they put it back in.

 

[spintee]

Not quite. They did actually remove the term and from their sister sites but when one of the management team who removed it left, they put it back in.

Any site that removes such terms only to be replaced should be auto wiped of any persons list, There is no reason for it and only to hold the player to ransom

 

[243 lines=daft]

^

Is there any thread or discussion that mentions Hills doing this?

If so I agree that is bang out of order and should surely see them toasted on the same fiery fork as their sister sites.
But before that we should really clarify the evidence if such exists.

 

[paul7388]

I will never find out but I am pretty sure that if you won a progressive jackpot on William hills main site you would get it paid in one go.

The bookies will payout over a million in football bets to a customer so I hardly think they will tell a customer you won a million pound jackpot in the casino but your payments will be split over 2 years. The fact that you can withdraw £100,000 a day to your bank without having to get special permission to withdraw so much would make a mockery of them not paying out a jackpot.

It is one of the largest and best bookmaking sites in the world . Its the same with Ladbrokes who aren't the best anymore but if you win £1,000,000 on there playtech jackpots you would also get it quickly as a cheque for full amount.

 

[redsfan]

^

Is there any thread or discussion that mentions Hills doing this?

If so I agree that is bang out of order and should surely see them toasted on the same fiery fork as their sister sites.
But before that we should really clarify the evidence if such exists.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...ith-predatory-progessive-terms.57604/?t=57604

 

[vinylweatherman]

Not quite. They did actually remove the term and from their sister sites but when one of the management team who removed it left, they put it back in.

That is most damning of all. It makes it clear it's not an oversight on their part from when the previous owners had this term, and used it to screw Sylvia P out of CAD $2 million. The reaming of Sylvia is ample demonstration as to WHY such a term is unacceptable. It might just have been deemed acceptable were the payments over a couple of decades underwritten by an independent insurance backed guarantee. In Sylvia's case, she was lucky to ONLY have been screwed out of the 2 million, for 6 months into the payment schedule, and after she was tricked into accepting half at once and forfeiture of the remainder, Joyless casino was sold off to William Hill, who decided they would not be held responsible for any outstanding debts from the previous owners. They refused to make a goodwill gesture as Sylvia had "agreed" to the deal. They also admitted that there was no trace of the other 2 million in the accounts from the previous owners, so the money wasn't just stolen from her, it was stolen from the company too!

What did Playtech do? Look the other way of course, just as they always do.

If William Hill follow their usual operational procedures, they will also screw players at 888.com if they buy it, just as they now do with the "sister" sites. Only their main site, bearing their well known brand, can be expected to play fair.

 

[243 lines=daft]

Okay so just to clarify then, my own earlier understanding was correct that the actual William Hill casino itself hadn't been removing and readding these ropey terms.

Playtech have to take a huge share of the blame for these terms being in place at so many casinos. Take for example Supercasino (an otherwise excellent operation that have some of the most generous roulette bonuses, who pay out winnings quickly and operate an efficient customer support). Yet they have this 'rogue' term in place which sticks out like a sore thumb against the high quality of the rest of their product.
If Playtech allow Supercasino to dictate their own preferred payout schedule for progressives, and Supercasino see that there is precedent for keeping substantial sums of these wins in their business for a long period, then the temptation is just being dangled in front of their faces to do so.

And the point maybe being missed is that as a business, a casino like Supercasino etc might well see adopting such terms as 'NOT WRONG' per se, just sensible for their business model. Offering the player half and keeping the rest seems to us 'wrong' (and I agree it's wrong) but as (1) there is precedent and (2) Playtech allow it then it could appear to a sensible way to add to the business's bottom line.
The real problem is with Playtech.

 

[spintee]

There has been some moans about supercasino, (t.v)

So I wonder if it is playtech that has this rule for all there casinos? And not the casino it self to blame, As it was weird how someone said W.H got rid and than it was back,

Okay so just to clarify then, my own earlier understanding was correct that the actual William Hill casino itself hadn't been removing and readding these ropey terms.

Playtech have to take a huge share of the blame for these terms being in place at so many casinos. Take for example Supercasino (an otherwise excellent operation that have some of the most generous roulette bonuses, who pay out winnings quickly and operate an efficient customer support). Yet they have this 'rogue' term in place which sticks out like a sore thumb against the high quality of the rest of their product.
If Playtech allow Supercasino to dictate their own preferred payout schedule for progressives, and Supercasino see that there is precedent for keeping substantial sums of these wins in their business for a long period, then the temptation is just being dangled in front of their faces to do so.

And the point maybe being missed is that as a business, a casino like Supercasino etc might well see adopting such terms as 'NOT WRONG' per se, just sensible for their business model. Offering the player half and keeping the rest seems to us 'wrong' (and I agree it's wrong) but as (1) there is precedent and (2) Playtech allow it then it could appear to a sensible way to add to the business's bottom line.
The real problem is with Playtech.

 

[243 lines=daft]

I doubt it's a rule Spintee, but could it be that Playtech have promoted this loophole to these casinos more proactively than we've all assumed.

There have always been two things about the whole thing that don't make any sense


Puzzle 1 - Such a large group of casinos including a number of name brands all deciding to adopt a similar rogue rule independently? How likely is that?

Puzzle 2 - Playtech/the casinos not responding while Bryan was both contacting them and progressively demoting the casinos in question (with the associated harmful publicity to Playtech as a brand)


IF in fact Playtech have been promoting the loophole to these casinos, that could explain both of these puzzles.
So is this what has really been going on?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Okay so just to clarify then, my own earlier understanding was correct that the actual William Hill casino itself hadn't been removing and readding these ropey terms.

Playtech have to take a huge share of the blame for these terms being in place at so many casinos. Take for example Supercasino (an otherwise excellent operation that have some of the most generous roulette bonuses, who pay out winnings quickly and operate an efficient customer support). Yet they have this 'rogue' term in place which sticks out like a sore thumb against the high quality of the rest of their product.
If Playtech allow Supercasino to dictate their own preferred payout schedule for progressives, and Supercasino see that there is precedent for keeping substantial sums of these wins in their business for a long period, then the temptation is just being dangled in front of their faces to do so.

And the point maybe being missed is that as a business, a casino like Supercasino etc might well see adopting such terms as 'NOT WRONG' per se, just sensible for their business model. Offering the player half and keeping the rest seems to us 'wrong' (and I agree it's wrong) but as (1) there is precedent and (2) Playtech allow it then it could appear to a sensible way to add to the business's bottom line.
The real problem is with Playtech.

Supercasino is UK facing and with a UK licence. One positive aspect is that the progressive money CANNOT be squandered on "operational costs" with the company then saying they don't have the money to carry on paying the player. This also makes it odd that the UKGC are allowing this. It's possible that they won't once there is an issue with a UK player winning a Supercasino progressive and being told it will take 20 years to pay, with the player then making a formal complaint that as a player funded pool payout, it should be paid at once, just like the national lottery.

 

[spintee]

I doubt it's a rule Spintee, but could it be that Playtech have promoted this loophole to these casinos more proactively than we've all assumed.

There have always been two things about the whole thing that don't make any sense


Puzzle 1 - Such a large group of casinos including a number of name brands all deciding to adopt a similar rogue rule independently? How likely is that?

Puzzle 2 - Playtech/the casinos not responding while Bryan was both contacting them and progressively demoting the casinos in question (with the associated harmful publicity to Playtech as a brand)


IF in fact Playtech have been promoting the loophole to these casinos, that could explain both of these puzzles.
So is this what has really been going on?

I have a few more puzzles also but I guess they never be completed, I been gambling for years and nether really dived into the deep end, But i do always wonder, I am nether going going to see a big win any anyway or have so Unless I win on a few quid from loto tiks I have bought than stick to my few hundred quid withdraws if lucky, But I no where I be playing if I do hit abit of gold,

 

[spintee]

Supercasino is UK facing and with a UK licence. One positive aspect is that the progressive money CANNOT be squandered on "operational costs" with the company then saying they don't have the money to carry on paying the player. This also makes it odd that the UKGC are allowing this. It's possible that they won't once there is an issue with a UK player winning a Supercasino progressive and being told it will take 20 years to pay, with the player then making a formal complaint that as a player funded pool payout, it should be paid at once, just like the national lottery.

Its got to be won first than if did no dout it will be not from U.K player, Really gets on my tits when genuine players put there hard earned cash to not receive wins

 

[fun4all]

Deal off, from the BBC website

Well that didn't last long. Last week online gambling firm 888 Holdings confirmed that it received a takeover approach from William Hill, and its shares soared. But today 888 said that talks have ended. William Hill's offer was worth 200p a share plus a 3p dividend per share, 888 said in a statement today.

 

[conker]

Deal off, from the BBC website

Yeah, apparently a major 888 shareholder was holding out for more cash. Will Hill don't want to pay more so the deal is now off.