Betfair Grp Share Discussion Threads

[corrientes] 28/9/2007 00:12

Thought so

[s h b] 27/9/2007 22:34

LANGDON/BFLUSH

"Would be madness to short a penny share"

You lying hypocritical WELSHMAN.

[bustedflush1] 27/9/2007 22:28

Britishbear

Well said.

These small time loss making "mickey mouse" bookies face a very bleak future if they have a future at all.

[tornadodown] 27/9/2007 22:28

£87M turnover and you say too small.Really I think you need to get your reading glasses on.At this valuation it is a prime takeover target.

[britishbear] 27/9/2007 22:22

Plop.

Betinternet is too small and too late to the party.

Curtains.

[bo doodak] 27/9/2007 20:58

Bustedflush,
You will be well aware then that low Pe's by themselves are meaningless and that it is a measure that can be quite easily manipulated anyway.

This stock does have substantial risks attached to as we all know but consequentially the potential rewards are much higher....thats the bet we all take.

[la vallette] 27/9/2007 18:20

DORG Sheet Stock

[run rabbit] 27/9/2007 18:04

What a load of tosh posted by busted whatever.Seems like there are shorters at work looking at the trades screen. 3 X 25K to hit the market.

[bo doodak] 27/9/2007 16:46

''Strong sell''

We heard you first time. Assuming you do not hold, and rate BET as a sell, why are you wasting time here and not concentrating your intellect upon shares that will make money for you

[bustedflush1] 27/9/2007 16:28

I am not short.

Would be madness to short a penny share.

Shares in betinternet.com and many other online bookies are simply way way too high.

I would personally NOT hold shares in these companies as their business model has no barriers to entry and there are new online bookies popping up on the net on a weekly basis. The market is saturated and is getting more and more saturated.

Strong sell.

[corrientes] 27/9/2007 16:17

if you're trying to encourage selling for your short on the basis of £1,000 odd share sales, it won't work.

[bustedflush1] 27/9/2007 15:59

The share price fall today is not unexpected.

The shares are simply way overvalued for where the company is profitability wise.

Worth 2p max.

Strong sell.

[bustedflush1] 27/9/2007 09:09

"busted I don't know what is wrong with you but these results show great potential for BET"


LOL

The market doesn't agree with you and neither do I.

[tornadodown] 26/9/2007 22:56

busted I don't know what is wrong with you but these results show great potential for BET.Are you a disgruntled ex-employee or someone who has lost their house gambling?

[drjudywood] 26/9/2007 17:30

Online Gambling Hearing in Trenton: iMEGA vs. The UIGEA
Updated 10:56 am: Gambling911.com was live this morning in Trenton, New Jersey where the Honorable Judge Mary L. Cooper (3rd District/Trenton division) heard arguments for a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Judge Cooper was through by 10:35 am EST and determined that "this was a case against a complicated backdrop" and would require her to review further over the coming weeks. No decision was made from the bench. However, iMEGA's legal team felt very confident after today's hearing.

The government was less than commanding in its performance and the attorney representing the US, Jacqueline Coleman Snead, at times seemed "intimidated". She sat alone in the court room while the iMEGA team arrived with two powerful attorneys and its organization representatives.

The Honorable Judge Cooper aggressively challenged the US government and its Motion to Dismiss.

The US Government repeatedly claimed that iMEGA did not have the legal standing to argue first amendment law while also stating that first amendment law did not apply to this case.

Ms. Coleman Snead also claimed that the UIGEA was not intended to prosecute American citizens for betting online and that therefore no US citizen would be adversely affected by this law. iMEGA's attorneys refuted this and pointed out that the civil portion of the law mentions "any person" could be prosecuted.

Originally, the hearing was scheduled for September 4, but the US government needed more time.

iMEGA is seeking judgment restraining the United States from enforcing the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" (UIGEA) through its complaint (iMEGA v. Gonzales, et al,). The current law prevents US credit-card companies and banks from processing payments to online gambling businesses. According to the Act, violators are subject to civil and/or criminal penalties including imprisonment.

iMEGA feels that the law, if allowed to stand, would create a bad precedent that would chill innovation and the growth of e-commerce by US firms, and permit the flow of jobs and Internet firms out of the US to avoid stifling laws. In the case of UIGEA, iMEGA believes that the embrace of readily-available, commercial technology can help remedy the social ills (underage and compulsive gambling, as well as fraud) far better than this law, which - ironically - would likely exacerbate problem gambling.

iMEGA is accepting individual and corporate members in its trade association, as well as donations to the iMEGA Fund, which goes toward the work needed to keep the Internet "free, open and innovative".

-----

Christopher Costigan, Gambling911.com Publisher

Originally published September 26, 2007 9:44 am ET

[bustedflush1] 26/9/2007 17:29

$100 billion in compo.

LOL

If you believe that DRJUDYWOOD you are more stupid than I first thought.

[sea7] 26/9/2007 15:41

These results are exactly what I expected. The group loss reduction from 1.8m
too 76k is good news despite it still being a loss.

As the furor over uigea starts to subside in the sector and clarification is recieved by financial institutions regarding pari-mutuel wagers BET will be able to move on from the upheaveal in the sector relatively unscathed.

I then expect to start seeing some consolidation in the sector where i can
see BET being eyed as a takeover target as i believe it to be one of the
better small companies.

I do hold BET even if it is the smallest of my holdings and was a bit
surpised that there has been no trades so far today and no uplift in
the price as these results show a marked improvement in the state of the
company despite recent events.

[bustedflush1] 26/9/2007 13:16

hevatech

I have seen some good people lose a lot of money in rubbish small time internet gambling companies. Namely Heathorns, premierbet and ubet2win.co.uk


A lot of these small time internet bookies are still way overvalued and a lot of them will fail and go under.

Possible investors needs both sides to the story.

[maestro4] 26/9/2007 13:13

bushfluff is a village idiot, he loathed on talking bull.

[corrientes] 26/9/2007 12:31

Busted flush - ' someone or something that had great potential but ended up a failure' !

[hevatech] 26/9/2007 12:23

'bustedflush1'

Do you have some sort of personal grudge with betinternet.com ??

There are plenty of worse companies out there, why not deramp them instead?

Sounds like BET hits a nerve.

Care to explain why?

[bustedflush1] 26/9/2007 12:09

If you think betinternet.com is cheap then justify why you think anyone should buy this trash ?

[bustedflush1] 26/9/2007 12:08

The ebitda figure (not bottom line profit) does not simply justify the current market cap.

Next years projected ebitda profit does not justify a market cap of £10 MILLION.


Do you understand that ?

I could go further but the above is simple enough for most people to understand.