Talk:Camelot Group

Gambling Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire

Income - retailers 5% or 6%?

One section says retailers increased to 6% in 2009 re-licensing, while the Income section says it's still 5% — has this begun, or still just proposed, which is not made clear in the piece? If just proposed, then when would they be due to be in effect? (Plus, someone would have to had to lose percentage; coming from Camelot as inferred in the piece, or elsewhere?)

Note: I checked various websites, Camelot run ones, and governmental ones, and found no such clear info on such an increase, though one gov one stated it was 5% for retailers (which, knowing the gov't, may likely be inaccurate and out-of-date, or simply nontransparent of current talks)...? Jimthing (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mail

The way the franchise was awarded to Camelot in 2001 caused some controversy, because state-owned Royal Mail held a 20% stake in the Camelot Group.

This statement in the lede is not referenced in the article. And its citation does not relate to it. Valetude (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]