William Hill says its chairman Gareth Davis will not be resigning after UK media reported that Davis was under fire for the failed merger talks between the bookmaker and Canada’s Amaya Inc.
“There are no plans for Gareth to step down. He is leading the CEO search process, which is well advanced, and is working with Philip Bowcock to deliver the key priorities for the business,” a company spokesman told Reuters in an email.
UK newspaper The Times had reported that William Hill would begin searching for a new chairman next year. Talks between William Hill and Amaya broke down after the bookmaker’s main investors—led by Parvus Asset management—came out against the deal.
The proposed merger had seemed like a response to the merger of rivals Paddy Power and Betfair and Ladbrokes Plc with Gala Coral. Davis, who also chairs Wolseley Plc and DS Smith Plc, has seen William Hill walk out of talks on two potential deals in the last 3 months including a three-way merger with bingo hall operator Rank Group Plc and 888 Holdings Plc in mid-August.
According to Reuters, William Hill has lost more than $1 billion in market value this year and two top executives including its Chief Executive James Henderson.
In another matter, the bookmaker is defending its withdrawal procedures following accusations that it and other operators “use their terms & conditions to delay or even avoid payment on winning bets,” according to a report in the UK newspaper The Guardian.
The paper has been outlining cases of gamblers who were forced to wait to withdraw winnings from online sites, and has suggested that the UK Gambling Commission should take a closer interest in online “terms and conditions” that it says discriminate against winning gamblers.
The paper has outlined one case where a gambler had difficulty with William Hill while trying to withdraw about 20,000 pounds he had made on his account. According to the report, the bookie asked for excessive identification verification even though he had a registered account, placed limits on his betting and later that the balance disappeared from his account. The gambler did eventually withdraw the money after the balance returned.
William Hill said that it could not comment on an individual case, but that legally, the firm was “fully entitled” to perform additional identity checks.
“Under the Gambling Commission regulations we are obliged to carry out certain customer due diligence and anti-money laundering checks,” a spokesman told yogonet.com. “We perform a number of automatic checks immediately after account registration, using information provided by the customer, along with electoral roll and debit/credit card verification. If we can’t verify who a customer is or there are any queries, we ask for further details to help identify the account holder.
“In the instance of a particularly large bet or sizeable win, we are fully entitled to ask for further checks to ensure we are happy there is no fraud or money laundering taking place. This is to ensure the company is completely compliant and we meet our regulatory requirements,” the spokesman said.
