Ladbrokes plc and Sportingbet plc’s potential offer talks initiated in June this year have been mutually terminated by both companies in an RNS statement made to the stock market this week.
Ladbrokes had until October 17 to put a formal bid for Sportingbet on the table according to the City Code on Takeover and Mergers.
The Sportingbet and Ladbrokes Boards agreed to end discussions “as the parties were unable to agree either a suitable structure or one that delivered sufficient value to shareholders within a meaningful time-frame,” said a Sportingbet spokesperson.
Sportingbet plc confirmed that discussions with GVC Holdings plc regarding a possible disposal of the Group’s Turkish language website are progressing .
Andrew McIver, Sportingbet, group chief executive, commented: “As stated in the Company’s final results announcement last week, the Board of Sportingbet remains focused on its overall strategy of providing a first class sports betting product and of increasing its exposure to regulated markets. The Board remains highly confident of Sportingbet’s prospects as an independent company.”
Richard Glynn, chief executive officer, Ladbrokes plc, said: “”In August of last year we laid out a very clear organic strategy and investment programme for the reinvigoration of Ladbrokes. We were also clear on the intention to explore opportunities which enabled us to accelerate our progress that enhanced shareholder value and without exposure to non mitigatable regulatory liability.
“The potential benefits and risks associated with a combination with Sportingbet were clear to us from the outset and have been well covered by the market. Having completed our analysis we have been unable to agree a structure which delivers increased shareholder value within an acceptable regulatory environment. We have therefore agreed to end our discussions.”
There has been some speculation by analysts that Sportingbet’s Turkish operations and the murky regulatory environment it operates in may constitute an obstacle in the discussions but this was not specifically referred to in the RNS statement.