Today’s tweets by new UKGC CEO give cause for hope of more open engagement in future

In his current ‘Licensing Expert’ article for SBC News, David Clifton commented that “it may be some time yet before we hear Andrew Rhodes’ maiden speech as CEO of the Commission”.

That speech is still awaited, but Mr Rhodes has chosen today (3 August 2021) to use Twitter for what we believe may be his first public announcement on a current matter directly relevant to the Commission’s function as regulator of Great Britain’s gambling industry, i.e. the controversy surrounding Football Index.

His series of tweets on that subject-matter reads as follows:

I had lots of quite angry and sometimes abusive messages late last night, about Football Index. Much of it was similar to previous messages and, as I have always said I read them all, even the rude ones, and I respond to what I think I can. I’ll try to address some points here:

Why no CVA? A CVA may or may not happen – it is not something the GC is involved with and would not be. It’s between the administrators and any potential investor/buyer to set up a CVA. If a CVA does happen, then they will likely make an ‘offer’ for the debts the company has which would be your bets as well as any other debts. This does not mean you would get all your original stake back – it depends on what they offered. Then the CVA would need to apply for a licence to operate from us, which we would be obliged to consider.

I have never said “I dunno” what the bets are worth, as one person said. They need to be valued by the administrators. There are several ways of valuing the debt and whilst many feel this should be the original stake, there are several ways of looking at it. Realistically, this will be part of attempting a CVA and if there is no ultimate rescue for the company the debt would need to be valued as part of winding a company up.

Many have asked me questions about individuals, what I know about the flow of funds, what we will do in certain scenarios etc – I can’t comment on live investigations or individuals while matters are ongoing. I also don’t correct assumptions people make which I think are wrong for the same reason. There are some things I simply cannot get into at this point. Some have asked why the review is not out yet. That is not being conducted by the GC so all I know is that it is due in the summer, but I don’t have a date yet.

I’ve had many tweets demanding GC repay funds or cover losses due to the company going into administration, given it was regulated. Being regulated does not prevent a company going into administration and unlike some other sectors, there is no insurance or compensation scheme t o cover gambling companies that go into administration and then liquidation. Funds protection needs to be made clear by the operator but this will vary between companies and aside from funds held separately, often the cash balances, this does not protect against a company going into administration. Administration for operators is not common – there have been 4 in recent years, though orderly wind-up is a bit more common.

Many have assumed the GC ‘did nothing’ and you are entitled to your view. What I would ask you to have in mind is that we currently cannot say very much at all about these matters because of ongoing investigations and reviews. I’m not asking that people change their view, just that you understand that we have not been able to set out what we know and what we did, which is normal when there are ongoing proceedings.

I realise I may well get another torrent of messages disagreeing with me or making other points, but I wanted to try to address some of the things I felt I could say something on.

This willingness to communicate in such a transparent manner about a matter that is of intense interest to customers of one of the Commission’s licensed gambling operators marks a very different approach than that adopted by some previous Gambling Commission CEOs and Mr Rhodes is justifiably thanked for this in a good number of the replies to his tweets. It is reassuring to see that many of those replies also strongly criticise those who will have sent to him the abusive messages to which he has referred.

In our view, all that Andrew Rhodes has said above with regard to the processes currently underway in relation to Football Index is accurate and in line with our previous website posting entitled “Football Index operating licence suspended (plus a summary of what led up to that & what has happened since)”.

It remains to be seen whether this mode of communication by the new UKGC CEO will continue in future but, in our opinion, it provides an encouraging sign that the Commission might in future be more willing to engage openly with all stakeholders than has rather too often been the case in the recent past.