Gvc Share Discussion Threads

[noujay] 10/10/2017 12:58

Can't help but feel 888 would be a better option than LADS as they have are UK centric. Culturally too as they also operate in some of the grey markets.I noted that KA in the conference call was clear that GVC didn't feel there were any VAT issues in Germany and had taken advice subsequent to the 888 results which announced a provision for this of some $50m. Seems to me that after the Shaked sale of last week and weakness in 888 it might be a more logical move.How earnings enhancing it could be through synergies I have no idea but they've made this type of acquisition previously and is far sooner they had a tilt at that then the bricks and mortar of Hills and Lads.

[srpactive] 10/10/2017 12:51

Yes, I was thinking after the review lads and wmh get together
and get a big hold in the online market with genius ceo
to sort the lot out, easy to do this buy gvc with KA.

1200p bid would do it, if lads is worth £3.6m gvc certainly is and more.

dyor

[loganair] 10/10/2017 12:33

Why may GVC wish to take over Ladbrokes???

The size of the GVC and Ladbrokes combined customer base.

The merger of its online businesses with the mixed business of Ladbrokes Coral would find a fit that would enhance the new company’s market position and result in substantial cost savings.


On the other hand - The strength that GVC has in its online business would compensate for the current weakness in William Hill’s online operations....Hills may therefore bid for GVC????????

[srpactive] 10/10/2017 12:12

One possibility is that someone will come and buy
gvc, I do not want it but we cannot rule it out,dyor.

[cheshiremoggie] 10/10/2017 12:10

If this deal goes ahead then the valuation would be well into the ftse 100. I guess that's quite exciting for those of us who were around when the valuation was £100m.I wonder what the share price would be though?How would the dividend situation pan out?LCL does churn out decent dividends so maybe the medium term would be good?Interesting days.

[noujay] 10/10/2017 12:06

Always seems odd to me that large orders are reported without the matching trade that must have occurred in order to fill them!

[srpactive] 10/10/2017 10:20

QP

As you know some people want the share price to
rise others do not, I think you will find your answer
it that.

active

[quepassa] 10/10/2017 10:03

In about 20 years Fenners has became just about the only person I have filtered.
Believe me on some threads I have waded through an awful lot of rubbish without filtering the posters - who knows they may find something of use.

But he fails even the lowest bar setting for me - best ignored.

QP

[fenners66] 10/10/2017 09:26

Lads quoted at £2.5bn - so why pay £900m more?
I know you get a bid premium - BUT that has to assume massive cost savings - say £100m a year - how can that be done?

Also if the current government reaches a weak reform of FOBT what about the next ?
That brings a political risk into this business.

I would just annihilate them online and avoid the take over.

[cheshiremoggie] 10/10/2017 09:13

KA said recently that there was no chance of a deal while the fobt issue was outstanding- these talks are, I presume to get the deal fast tracked once the review is over. I assume (hope) the price is very much dependant on the outcome of the review and well under the £3.6b offered before...

[loganair] 10/10/2017 09:03

Last time round GVC offered £3.6 billion for LADs, currently LADS is valued at just under £2.5 billion. Maybe this time round GVC can get LADs for £3 billion.

I am astounded that GVC are wishing to take over LADs until they know what is the out come of the Fix Odds machines are unless GVC already has a good idea that the outcome is not going to be as bad as initially feared.

[shaker44] 10/10/2017 06:31

But everyone, incl Lad knows the weakness of bricks and mortar, and the regulatory overhang. May be just the right time for us to do an opportunistic deal at a good price. I have done similar myself in the past. Kenny is no sucker. He will only go for this if good for him and us.at the right price.

[diviincomesearch] 10/10/2017 05:48

I just can’t see a LAD takeover being a sensible option.

We’ve got 12% organic growth; wait until the dust has settled at least after the review has been conducted.

The company has no need to leverage itself up with bricks and mortar assets which are the focus of the review.

[trentendboy] 09/10/2017 21:40

As a LADS holder I would be happy to be taken over. Incidentally I also held BPTY and Sportingbet.Both deals have worked out well for me.I bought a lots of LADs a few years ago but they have not done too well although the dividends have been decent

[woodhawk] 09/10/2017 19:27

Can you expand on that TEB? I currently have no position in LAD.

[trentendboy] 09/10/2017 18:24

As a big LADs and GVC holder relatively speaking I would be happy with the deal. Underwater on Lads but good to get a piece of a giant

[festario] 09/10/2017 18:17

Fascinating article, and lots of detail there.We never had such an insight into previous acquisitions.Now I realise it's going to be a game of musical chairs, but the music stops AFTER the fotb review.At that point, shares in LADS and WMH will be trashed, potentially... and that's when the big boys will move in.If I see that the outcome of the review is negative, I will buy shares in both LADS and Hills on any sharp drop.Because M and A activity will quickly resurrect them.

[woodhawk] 09/10/2017 18:04

Thanks for that, deej4y, an interesting read.

[cheshiremoggie] 09/10/2017 17:33

I think most of us realise KA and friends are experts in most matters involving gambling. It doesn't mean they cant make a mistake.

We are simply discussing that.

Personally, I think the worldwide potential for the online industry is massive. This is where the future lies. Management time spent on parochial bricks and mortar matters is wasted time IMHO.


CM.

[timanglin] 09/10/2017 17:29

Shaker44 the issue is about the potential valuation and or liability of the bricks and mortar. As we don’t know what the proposed deal is we can’t really comment. However GVC have up to now been astute, in particular with the SBT bid. IMHO.

[shaker44] 09/10/2017 16:59

Amazes me that some posters question whether Kenny and his advisers understand the bricks and mortar UK betting issues. Of course he does! If I had so little confidence in his business acumen I would flog my shares and move on.

[oohrogerpalmer] 09/10/2017 16:46

I think the vast majority of the bricks & mortar is just leased so shouldn't cause too many issues.
The biggest issue is the Fobt's which generate the most revenue in the shop's, surely any merger will take into account the government's action on them??

[cheshiremoggie] 09/10/2017 16:22

The only way I'd be happy with a LADS merger is if the bricks and mortar side was hived off into a separate entity with a view to selling it to someone who wants a slowly declining income stream, punctuated by violent attacks on shops with only a single member of staff and campaigns by the anti-betting lobby who can easily see where to protest.

Does Kenny really want to go round inspecting dingy shops with scared staff, wiping his finger over the counters and loos to check for dirt?

With online, you get none of these issues, it's clean and its the future. Has anyone under 30 ever been to a betting shop? I like a little flutter now and again and I haven't been for 25 years.

I'm sure KA is aware of these issues but is he humble enough to realise he cant fix them?

We will see.

CM.