Saw a couple of comments in the results about Betdaq
Exchanges: net revenue +36.1% (Q4:+25.9%)
Exchanges
Betting via an exchange remains an attractive product to customers not only as a substitute activity but also as a complementary product. Revenue from Betdaq and the Ladbrokes Exchange has increased by 36.1% and operating profit(1) by 275% and our exchange business is profitable.
Ladbrokes results
well i cannot see how they can keep this numbers in the future here is the list of restricted territories
Albania
Armenia
AUSTRALIA (INCL. CHRISTMAS ISLANDS)
BAHRAIN
Belarus
BELGIUM
BULGARIA
CANADA
CHINA
Croatia
CYPRUS
Czech Republic
DENMARK
ESTONIA
Faroe Islands
Finland
FRANCE (INCL. GUADELOUPE, MARTINIQUE, FRENCH GUIANA, MAYOTTE, REUNION, SAINT PIERRE AND MIQUELON)
FRENCH POLYNESIA
FRENCH SOUTHERN TERRITOTIES
Georgia
GERMANY
GREECE
HONG KONG
HUNGARY
INDONESIA
ISRAEL
ITALY
Japan
JORDAN
KUWAIT
Lithuania
Luxemburg
MACAO
MALAYSIA
Mexico
MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF
Moldova
MONACO
NETHERLANDS
NIGERIA
NORWAY
PAKISTAN
Peru
PHILIPPINES
POLAND
Portugal
QATAR
Romania
Russia
SAUDI ARABIA
SERBIA
SINGAPORE
Slovakia
SLOVENIA
SOUTH AFRICA
South Korea
SPAIN
SWITZERLAND
THAILAND
TURKEY
Ukraine
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES (INCL. GUAM, US MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS , AMERICAN SAMOA, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, US VIRGIN ISLANDS, PUERTO RICO )
as u can see only uk is allowed to hold a betdaq account thats very bad
Albania
Armenia
AUSTRALIA (INCL. CHRISTMAS ISLANDS)
BAHRAIN
Belarus
BELGIUM
BULGARIA
CANADA
CHINA
Croatia
CYPRUS
Czech Republic
DENMARK
ESTONIA
Faroe Islands
Finland
FRANCE (INCL. GUADELOUPE, MARTINIQUE, FRENCH GUIANA, MAYOTTE, REUNION, SAINT PIERRE AND MIQUELON)
FRENCH POLYNESIA
FRENCH SOUTHERN TERRITOTIES
Georgia
GERMANY
GREECE
HONG KONG
HUNGARY
INDONESIA
ISRAEL
ITALY
Japan
JORDAN
KUWAIT
Lithuania
Luxemburg
MACAO
MALAYSIA
Mexico
MICRONESIA, FEDERATED STATES OF
Moldova
MONACO
NETHERLANDS
NIGERIA
NORWAY
PAKISTAN
Peru
PHILIPPINES
POLAND
Portugal
QATAR
Romania
Russia
SAUDI ARABIA
SERBIA
SINGAPORE
Slovakia
SLOVENIA
SOUTH AFRICA
South Korea
SPAIN
SWITZERLAND
THAILAND
TURKEY
Ukraine
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES (INCL. GUAM, US MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS , AMERICAN SAMOA, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, US VIRGIN ISLANDS, PUERTO RICO )
as u can see only uk is allowed to hold a betdaq account thats very bad
The headline numbers (revenue +36%, profit +275%) look amazing until you read the detail.
There wasn't a World Cup in 2013 of course, but by far the biggest factor behind the "revenue growth" is that Betdaq is included in Ladbrokes accounts since 1st March 2013. So 2014 numbers are 12 months of revenue, 2013 is just March to December. A totally stagnant business will show double-digit revenue growth if you compare 12 months with 10!
The profit growth number is even dodgier. 2013 reported a LOSS of £0.4m, 2014 a profit of £1.1m. "+275%" looks like an attempt to mislead. So 22 months of operation have provided £0.7m of profits for Ladbrokes. That's not even enough to cover what they paid lawyers during the purchase (£1.3m, according to the accounts), let alone the £30m purchase price.
The other interesting number in the accounts is the valuation of the "Contingent Charge". Ladbrokes paid Dermot cash and shares, but there's also a potential payment based on Betdaq hitting unspecified 2016 EBITDA targets. For accounting purposes Ladbrokes include that number in their accounts on a probability basis. At 31st Dec 2013 it was £9.7m. 31st Dec 2014 it was just £2.5m - basically Ladbrokes accountants think the chances of Betdaq hitting its 2016 targets are less than a third of what they were a year ago.
Betdaq MD Lewis Findlay left last month along with a bunch of traders. I haven't seen that reported anywhere.
There wasn't a World Cup in 2013 of course, but by far the biggest factor behind the "revenue growth" is that Betdaq is included in Ladbrokes accounts since 1st March 2013. So 2014 numbers are 12 months of revenue, 2013 is just March to December. A totally stagnant business will show double-digit revenue growth if you compare 12 months with 10!
The profit growth number is even dodgier. 2013 reported a LOSS of £0.4m, 2014 a profit of £1.1m. "+275%" looks like an attempt to mislead. So 22 months of operation have provided £0.7m of profits for Ladbrokes. That's not even enough to cover what they paid lawyers during the purchase (£1.3m, according to the accounts), let alone the £30m purchase price.
The other interesting number in the accounts is the valuation of the "Contingent Charge". Ladbrokes paid Dermot cash and shares, but there's also a potential payment based on Betdaq hitting unspecified 2016 EBITDA targets. For accounting purposes Ladbrokes include that number in their accounts on a probability basis. At 31st Dec 2013 it was £9.7m. 31st Dec 2014 it was just £2.5m - basically Ladbrokes accountants think the chances of Betdaq hitting its 2016 targets are less than a third of what they were a year ago.
Betdaq MD Lewis Findlay left last month along with a bunch of traders. I haven't seen that reported anywhere.