The Chief Executive of 888 Holdings, Eyal Shaked, turned to the social media platform, Twitter, to voice his frustration with William Hill’s refusal of a combined acquisition proposal from 888 and the Rank Group. Shaked contends that William Hill’s hubris was the primary factor in declining the proposition, which the Financial Times reported to be valued at 364 pence for each share. This appraisal stemmed from the closing values of 888 and Rank on the 5th of August.
The Chairman of William Hill, Gareth Davis, waved off the offer as being “highly opportunistic.” He posited that amalgamating with 888 and Rank would not be consistent with William Hill’s own strategic aims and wouldn’t yield a superior return for their investors in comparison to their present autonomous strategy.
Shaked, conversely, publicly retorted on Twitter, asserting that William Hill’s rebuff of the £3.16 billion agreement due to “unmitigated arrogance” would lead to their demise. He insinuated that this was the breaking point and that 888 stakeholders wouldn’t be keen on subsequent endeavors.
This is not the initial instance where these two entities have entertained the idea of a merger. In the preceding year, William Hill endeavored to procure 888, but their bid, purportedly around £7 billion, was spurned. Seemingly, a pivotal 888 shareholder was not content with the suggested valuation.
Disturbed, she voiced her dissent on Twitter, noting that while the previous year seemed focused on maximizing investor profits, this proposition felt more like a strategic play. Her tweet concluded with a dismissive “Until next time…”
Conversely, 888 and Rank displayed a united stance. A shared declaration conveyed their conviction that this proposition presented a compelling prospect for William Hill and its investors. They stressed their enthusiasm to collaborate with the William Hill board to pursue a recommended agreement.
This proposed amalgamation, they contended, would establish a global gaming giant. This new entity would command the leading position in the UK for both earnings and revenue, showcasing a diverse portfolio encompassing sports wagering, casino offerings, poker, and bingo, both digitally and in physical venues. They underscored the complementary aspects of their brands, technology, offerings, and merchandise.
However, is this arrangement destined for prosperity? The public disagreement between William Hill and 888 has undoubtedly generated tension, making a future accord less probable. This is particularly relevant considering Davis’s affirmation that a tripartite merger wouldn’t generate supplementary value.
Further complicating matters is William Hill’s current absence of a permanent chief executive following James Henderson’s exit in July. Installing a new leader would likely be a requirement for any consolidation, unless there’s an alteration in the strategy, perhaps with Rank’s chief executive, Henry Birch (who, notably, once oversaw William Hill Online), or 888’s chief executive, Itai Frieberger, assuming the role.
The contest for Rank Group appears to have narrowed to a two-horse race. While William Hill and 888 Holdings remain contenders, the possibility of a three-company amalgamation seems to have been abandoned. William Hill acknowledged that a tripartite agreement would be a logistical quagmire, suggesting this streamlining could be beneficial for all parties.
As pressure mounts to navigate the dynamic gambling industry, it’s now a sprint between William Hill and 888 Holdings to determine who can secure an agreement with Rank Group first.
