Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    adelebernard is offline Brand New Member
    Join Date
    November 2020
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    This is absolutely rubbish!

  2. #22
    Pokerface's Avatar
    Pokerface is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    August 2016
    Posts
    1,090
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 479 Times in 314 Posts

    Default

    This should be an interesting discussion with the British finance minister when he needs to look for the 3 Billion GBP loss of tax revenues that are collected and much needed at this time.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Pokerface For This Useful Post:

    allaboutthebets (12 November 2020)

  4. #23
    LowFlyingBird's Avatar
    LowFlyingBird is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    July 2018
    Posts
    114
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 53 Times in 35 Posts

    Default

    https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...tatistics.aspx

    Looks like UKGC is trying to kill the (remote) online arm of the UK iGaming business.

    They imply motive is for player protection but I would assume it's also going to save the 98K employed by shops or Brick and Mortar casinos.

    Every restriction they've listed is targeted at online market only.

    Limit promotions
    Limit or restrict gambling ads
    Zero CC deposits
    Zero ewallet deposits if funded by a CC
    Pulled many UKGC licenses this year (MGA-UKGC bridge done)
    Limit each customer to $100 in losses per month (doesn't apply to cash at betting shops)

    All the hefty fines they've issued all targeted at fully licensed online casino/sportsbook groups.
    You never read an example of brick and mortar casino getting this kind of attention.

    The UKCG employ about 400 people. They don't seem interested in Online Growth.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LowFlyingBird For This Useful Post:

    allaboutthebets (12 November 2020), AussieDave (11 November 2020)

  6. #24
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,858
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,531
    Thanked 1,730 Times in 989 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LowFlyingBird View Post
    Looks like UKGC is trying to kill the (remote) online arm of the UK iGaming business.

    They imply motive is for player protection but I would assume it's also going to save the 98K employed by shops or Brick and Mortar casinos.

    Every restriction they've listed is targeted at online market only.
    Agreed. I've been rattling that chain for a couple of years now. With all the info you've listed, it certainly paints a clear picture.
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

    igaming affiliates rights - fairness for all iGaming affiliates

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to AussieDave For This Useful Post:

    LowFlyingBird (24 November 2020)

  8. #25
    Parth84 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    July 2011
    Posts
    159
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 17 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    Definitely not good. UKGC has ruined the iGaming business and now they are looking forward to make this impossible for players as well as for iGaming companies and affiliates.

  9. #26
    mickyfu is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    February 2013
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked 324 Times in 194 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LowFlyingBird View Post

    Every restriction they've listed is targeted at online market only.

    Limit promotions
    Limit or restrict gambling ads
    Zero CC deposits
    Zero ewallet deposits if funded by a CC
    Pulled many UKGC licenses this year (MGA-UKGC bridge done)
    Limit each customer to $100 in losses per month (doesn't apply to cash at betting shops)
    Not quite 100%. They did limit the amount of FOBTs that could be in a betting shop, then went on to limit the stakes of the FOBTs. This had a very negative impact on high street bookies.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to mickyfu For This Useful Post:

    LowFlyingBird (24 November 2020)

  11. #27
    Nenad is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2019
    Posts
    425
    Thanks
    266
    Thanked 128 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    It will really be interesting to see how their government will cope with tax revenue loss. As someone said here, why looking at the UK market when is it much better to find other interesting ones, if they are still there...

  12. #28
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is online now Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,858
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,531
    Thanked 1,730 Times in 989 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mickyfu View Post
    Not quite 100%. They did limit the amount of FOBTs that could be in a betting shop, then went on to limit the stakes of the FOBTs. This had a very negative impact on high street bookies.
    Not disagreeing, but the focus on FOBTs was fuelled by a UK Media 'witch hunt' on these gaming machines. At a guess, IF the UK Media didn't grandstand this agenda, I doubt the FOBTs would have been in the firing line.
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

    igaming affiliates rights - fairness for all iGaming affiliates

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •