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. 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. 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

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

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T