Skip to main content

the shambles of Sports Alive continues to unravel

The only good thing to come out of this utter schemozzle is that laws should be tightened and hopefully enforced in future. But then again, that's what was supposed to happen with the banks....

Tote chief snubs $14m claim

The liquidator of failed sports betting company Sports Alive has demanded $14 million compensation from TOTE Tasmania chief executive Craig Coleman and Victorian directors.

In a letter early this month, liquidator Hamish MacKinnon demanded the money be paid by December 14.

It is understood Mr Coleman has refused to pay and the TOTE Tasmania board has refused to discuss the situation.

...
...

The letter alleged Mr Coleman had a conflict of interest in simultaneously being chairman of Sports Alive and chief executive of TOTE.

In a letter to all Sports Alive directors, Mr MacKinnon alleged: Sports Alive was trading while insolvent from June 2008, including the period under Mr Coleman's chairmanship. Sports Alive was in breach of the Race and Sports Betting Act by failing to keep punters' money separate from administrative funds. Directors had breached their duties and had failed to act in good faith in the best interests of the company.


For allowing this to go on for three years, the ACT Gaming and Racing Commission should be criminally liable... but they'll weasel out of it, like a typical pointless bureaucracy. Any other state or territory in Australia would have flagged this very early and barred them from trading while insolvent. No betting licence in the ACT is worth the paper it is written on anymore.

Comments

  1. John D19 January 2012 at 00:19

    Hi Scott,

    Just catching up with your blog, and like to comment about this post. The ACT Commission may have been inept, but other bodies in Australia are not totally vigilant either. For example, in Betfair's current appeal to the High Court they have argued, amongst other points, that given their revenues are capped at 5% net commission by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission, to have to pay Racing NSW's 1.5% turnover fee would account for most of their revenue, thus grossly unjust. This argument appears continually in both Betfair's application and appeal to the High Court.
    However, as you know Betfair's revenues are not capped at 5% net commission as some, not all, do pay the PC. The PC of between 20%-60% is considerably greater than the claimed normal 5% commission. Are the Tasmanian Gaming Commission turning a blind eye to this charge on some accounts?
    What I would love answered by a journalist such as yourself is have Betfair misled the High Court by claiming revenues of no more than 5% (it's there in black and white - literally - in the transcripts) or have Betfair breached their licensing agreement by charging the PC to some accounts?

    Regards, John.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scott19 January 2012 at 00:28

    sorry John, don't see the relevance. Having dealt with the TGC with a previous firm, I doubt there's anything they don't have their bunch of meddling bureaucrats involved in.

    A bookie falling over because a govt body was negligent in ensuring the business was solvent and punter funds were safe is not remotely similar to a debate over the legalities of an unpopular charge - it's like comparing the safety of an airline to another firm charging for excessive baggage fees...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comments, but if you're a spammer, you've just wasted your time - it won't get posted.

Popular posts from this blog

Spot-fixing - you will never, ever be able to stop it

According to this report , IPL tournaments so far have been rife with spot-fixing - that is fixing minor elements of the game - runs in a single over, number of wides bowled etc. The curious part of that article is that the Income Tax department are supposed to have found these crimes. What idiot would be stupid enough to put down 'big wad of cash handed to me by bookie' as a source of income? Backhanders for sportsmen, particularly in a celebrity- and cricket-obsessed culture like India are not rare. They could come from anything like turning up to open someone's new business (not a sponsor, but a 'friend of a friend' arrangement), to being a guest at some devoted fan's dinner party etc. The opportunities are always there, and there will always be people trying to become friends with players and their entourage - that is human nature. This form of match-fixing (and it's not really fixing a match, just a minor element of it) is very hard to prove, but also, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...
33 comments
Read more

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur...
14 comments
Read more