Five questions answered on Betfair’s rejection of CVC Capital’s takeover bid

CVC shot down.

Online gambling firm Betfair has rejected CVC Capital Partners’ take over bid. We answer five questions on why the company rejected the bid.

What offer did CVC Capital Partners make to Betfair?

CVC, which also owns Formula 1, made a preliminary bid of 880p per share to take over Betfair, offering the company around £912m in total.

Why did Betfair reject this bid?

According to The Telegraph, the company said in a statement released today that the offer “fundamentally undervalues the Company and its attractive prospects".

According to the market, how much is Betfair worth?

On Friday shares in Betfair closed at 805p, which values the business at about £834m.

What else has Betfair said?

Betfair's chairman, Gerald Corbett, speaking to The Telegraph, said: "We have a unique business with a market position, profitability, cash flow and prospects that this proposal fails to recognise.”

He added: "We will provide an update to the market on 7 May 2013 to set out the good progress we are making in the implementation of our strategy, including cost efficiencies, and our recent trading performance."

How well have Betfair done in recent years?

The company, which was founded in 2000 by Ed Wray – a former JP Morgan trader – and former professional gambler Andrew Black, has struggled over the last two-and-a-half years that it has been a public company.

Its shares fell dramatically from its IPO price of £13 a share, following an over-hyped flotation, and last December it announced it was pulling out of Russia and Canada because of their unclear gambling regulations, despite the fact the markets made up almost a quarter of the company’s revenue.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Forget gaining £350m a week, Brexit would cost the UK £300m a week

Figures from the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility reveal the negative economic impact Brexit would have. 

Even now, there are some who persist in claiming that Boris Johnson's use of the £350m a week figure was accurate. The UK's gross, as opposed to net EU contribution, is precisely this large, they say. Yet this ignores that Britain's annual rebate (which reduced its overall 2016 contribution to £252m a week) is not "returned" by Brussels but, rather, never leaves Britain to begin with. 

Then there is the £4.1bn that the government received from the EU in public funding, and the £1.5bn allocated directly to British organisations. Fine, the Leavers say, the latter could be better managed by the UK after Brexit (with more for the NHS and less for agriculture).

But this entire discussion ignores that EU withdrawal is set to leave the UK with less, rather than more, to spend. As Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes in a letter in today's Times: "The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15bn per year - or almost £300m per week - as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350m weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it. Those are the numbers and forecasts which the government has adopted. It is perhaps surprising that members of the government are suggesting rather different figures."

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to which Emmerson refers, are shown below (the £15bn figure appearing in the 2020/21 column).

Some on the right contend that a blitz of tax cuts and deregulation following Brexit would unleash  higher growth. But aside from the deleterious economic and social consequences that could result, there is, as I noted yesterday, no majority in parliament or in the country for this course. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.