888 Share Discussion Threads

[jamesjoel] 11/5/2016 17:30

They still hold 2.59%

[frankiethecabbie] 11/5/2016 17:03

The big question now is why have they sold out at £2-05

[jamesjoel] 11/5/2016 16:14

888 Holdings plc Holding(s) in Company

11/05/2016 3:10pm
UK Regulatory (RNS & others)

TIDM888

RNS Number : 9777X

888 Holdings plc

11 May 2016


For filings with the FCA
include the annex
For filings with issuer exclude
the annex

TR-1: NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR INTEREST IN SHARES(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Identity of the issuer or 888 Holdings plc
the underlying issuer
of existing shares to which
voting rights are
attached: (ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
2 Reason for the notification (please tick the appropriate
box or boxes):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acquisition or disposal of voting rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
An acquisition or disposal of qualifying financial
instruments which may result in the acquisition
of shares already issued to which voting rights
are attached
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
An acquisition or disposal of instruments with
similar economic effect to qualifying financial
instruments
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
An event changing the breakdown of voting rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Other (please
specify):
----------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------
3. Full name of person(s) Sinitus Nominees Limited as
subject to the notification trustee of Ben Yitzhak Family
obligation: (iii) Shares Trust
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
4. Full name of shareholder(s)
(if different from 3.):(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
5. Date of the transaction 11 May 2016
and date on which the threshold
is crossed or reached: (v)
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
6. Date on which issuer 11 May 2016
notified:
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
7. Threshold(s) that is/are Below 3%
crossed or reached: (vi,
vii)
------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------



8. Notified details:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Voting rights attached to shares (viii, ix)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/type Situation previous Resulting situation after the
of to the triggering triggering transaction
shares transaction

if
possible
using
the ISIN
CODE
----------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Number Number Number of % of voting
of of of shares voting rights (x)
Shares Voting rights
Rights
----------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
Direct Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
(xi) (xii)
----------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------


Ordinary
Shares 37,122,358 37,122,358 9,280,590 9,280,590 Nil 2.59% Nil
---------------- ---------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------


B: Qualifying Financial Instruments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resulting situation after the triggering transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Expiration Exercise/ Number of voting % of voting
financial date Conversion rights that rights
instrument (xiii) Period (xiv) may be acquired
if the
instrument
is
exercised/
converted.
--------------- -------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------


C: Financial Instruments with similar economic effect
to Qualifying Financial Instruments (xv, xvi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resulting situation after the triggering transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Exercise Expiration Exercise/ Number of voting % of voting
financial price date Conversion rights instrument rights (xix,
instrument (xvii) period refers to xx)
(xviii)
------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- ---------------------------- -----------------------
Nominal Delta
------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- ---------------------------- ------------ ---------


Total (A+B+C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of voting rights Percentage of voting rights
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
9,280,590 2.59%
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------



9. Chain of controlled undertakings through which the
voting rights and/or the
financial instruments are effectively held, if applicable:
(xxi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Proxy Voting:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Name of the proxy holder:
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
11. Number of voting rights proxy
holder will cease
to hold:
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
12. Date on which proxy holder will
cease to hold
voting rights:
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------


13. Additional information:
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
14. Contact name: Judith Hamburger
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
15. Contact telephone number: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------


This information is provided by RNS

[mylands] 11/5/2016 15:25

Has to be the Shaked family with 48%. The nearest to them is the Ben-Yitzak family with 10%, nobody else comes close to 15%.

[frankiethecabbie] 11/5/2016 15:13

I would imagine it has taken a few weeks to work a 55 million sell order , may see some movement now .

[bulltradept] 11/5/2016 14:48

Bearish formation possibly too coming.

[bulltradept] 11/5/2016 14:42

Too much for that surely? The vol is out of this world.

[frankiethecabbie] 11/5/2016 14:21

No news so must be an institution taking profits

[jamesjoel] 11/5/2016 14:11

Whats happening here somebody dumping millions of shares at £2.05

[yesrupnel] 03/5/2016 08:57

Thanks Frankie - very interesting.

[davieday2] 28/4/2016 07:41

California Online Poker Bill Passes Key Committee Vote Unanimously hxxp://www.onlinepokerreport.com/20526/california-online-poker-passes-committee/


A California legislative committee passed a bill that would legalize and regulate online poker for the second straight year.

The bill — AB 2863 — passed the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee unanimously, 18-0, on Wednesday.

“The question of how to regulate iPoker has been in front of the Legislature for nearly a decade,” committee chair and and bill sponsor Adam Gray said in a press release after the vote. “We have not rushed this process. We have taken the time necessary to thoroughly understand and respond to the concerns put forth by stakeholders. Through this process, we have created a coalition that is willing to acknowledge the problem and support a comprehensive solution.”

Progress on the online poker bill

At the start of the hearing, Gray presented the bill, saying he believes a lot of progress has been made on generating support on the two main sticking points: the horse racing industry’s involvement, and the so-called “bad actor” provision.

The former provision was backed up by nearly unanimous support of the horse-racing industry appearing in favor of the legislation. Progress on the latter was less evident, at least publicly, on Wednesday.

The tack employed by the bill’s proponents was also noticeably different this time around than in the past. Consumer protection emerged as a central theme in supporters’ statements, with the idea that Californians will play online poker on unregulated sites whether the state acts or not.

“The bill in print right now accomplishes what is most important and sometimes gets lost in this discussion, and that’s protecting consumers,” Gray said.

That refrain included Poker Players Alliance executive director John Pappas, who did a live demo on the internet showing how many sites currently take online poker players from California.

Several people who spoke in support of the bill also noted the Assembly’s support of a bill regarding daily fantasy sports, which was moved forward largely because of consumer protection concerns.

Horse racing, all-in on online poker

The horse racing industry spoke openly in support of the online poker bill and and a $60 million subsidy that it would receive as a part of the legislation, in exchange for giving up the ability to operate in a regulated online poker market.

Beyond just speaking quietly in support of the bill, industry reps were openly pushing for the bill to be passed as a way to help prop up horse racing in the state. Whether the additional, strong support of online poker legislation helps shift the dynamic in the state remains to be seen.

There continues to be a concern that the $60 million subsidy for horse racing is an unrealistic — and unattainable — figure.

Gray, on more than occasion, indicated that he believed the horse-racing industry issue had been settled, and that he was focused on getting tribes on board regarding suitability.

Same tribal lines on online poker

The tribal divisions that have slowed the progress of past online poker bills were on display again on Wednesday.

The loudest opponents of the bill — the Pechanga and Agua Caliente tribes — continued to appear as de facto opponents of the bill.

Pechanga officially took no position on the bill, while Agua Caliente said it stood as “opposed unless amended.”

Both Pechanga and Agua Caliente continued to repeat the refrain that “bad actors” should not be allowed into the market. (This continues to be aimed at PokerStars and its presence in the U.S. market after the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006.)

“While we have not yet come to a consensus on this issue, through recent meetings with tribal leaders, we have made serious progress,” Gray said in his opening statement.

The Morongo, San Manuel and United Auburn tribes, as well as the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, all appeared in support of the bill.

During questions after testimony was given, Gray said that suitability was the last major issue to be resolved in his bill. He indicated that he was meeting “every two weeks” with stakeholders regarding the presence of a bad-actor provision.

Not the same online poker bill

While an iPoker bill cleared the same hurdle last last year, this represents the most progress for online gaming in the state to date.

Last year’s bill was a “shell” that included no actual regulatory language, while the 2016 version is a robust piece of online gambling legislation.

California is trying to become the fourth state to legalize online poker in the U.S., joining New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware.

What’s next for the online poker bill?

The bill no longer requires approval by the Appropriations Committee in the Assembly, so it heads to the full Assembly.

It’s unclear how soon we might see action on the bill, although Gray promised that it would include suitability language by the time it comes up for a vote before the full Assembly. Given the sticky nature of that problem, it might not occur in the immediate future.

The bill’s prospects, without the support of all the tribes in the state on bad-actor language, would appear to be poor. If Gray can do what has been impossible so far and get the opposing tribes on board, then the equation changes significantly.

The bill must be passed by a two-thirds majority to reach the Senate.

Statements issued after the online poker vote
•Adam Gray
•The Morongo-San Manuel coalition
•The Rincon Band

Jeffrey B. Banke / Shutterstock.com

[wildshot] 25/4/2016 11:20

Thank you Daniel Levi BMD but how is that in any remote form relevant to this thread?

[daniel levi bmd] 25/4/2016 11:15

FYI



Dan
x

[trentendboy] 25/4/2016 11:13

Nice start to the day.

The news today (below) shows that consolidation is far from over. GVC's excellent results and assimilation of sportingbet and BPTY show that there is a lot further to go. 888 have a serious bid premium built in IMO - it cannot stay stand-alone for long IMO

Private equity firm CVC Capital Partners has significantly expanded its gambling asset portfolio, signing a deal to acquire a majority stake in German-facing betting operator Tipico Group.

[trentendboy] 21/4/2016 14:44

I agree.

Good for 888 but also good for others.

I wonder what it means for PTEC who offer the out of house tech

[frankiethecabbie] 21/4/2016 13:04

American companies must start looking soon as it certainly looks like the USA will expand their regulated market this year, a bit like the way they are buying up all our premiership football clubs .

[rhcm] 21/4/2016 12:10

Thanks Frankie
From above link - The recent wave of M&A is likely to continue as operators look to become bigger and more diversified to offset rising costs and compete more effectively.
Apart from w.hill, who else would be interested in bidding for 888?.

[frankiethecabbie] 21/4/2016 11:27

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-European-gaming-firms-can-only-bet-on-online-playing--PR_347597

[ricardothebrave] 14/4/2016 12:30

Buying opportunity soon now that the dividend monkeys have all left.

[trentendboy] 11/4/2016 09:07

That is not really the ranking of interest looking at networksStars are still ahead on sitesStill, the bid cannot be far off now.888 is the last affordable independent alongside 32red

[rhcm] 10/4/2016 16:27

average player count