Betting websites

[asanque]

I've got to say, I'm not at all impressed with the ACT Gambling Commission.

Greg Jones the CEO's comments on the Herald Sun took no responsibility whatsoever, and my latest word is that they are leaving it to the liquidator and can't comment further at this stage.

Edit: I've also now left a message with the liquidator for further information.

 

[JohnC76]

Thanks for your input pmalcom1984
I too am waiting on ACT GRC to "get back to me once they know how its going to be managed"
Two Directors resigned last week? surprise surprise

 

[KENT2008]

got to admit this is looking pretty grim, so basically our balances that were showing and appearing to us was "digital money" and they didn't actually have these funds on hand, which would explain the withdrawal issues

 

[twarby]

I know that I have been having big issues getting cash out for the last 3 months.

there is a thread on another forum which dates back 2 years, and the same sort of problems were occurring, late payments, constant emails demanding to get paid etc.. and the same excuses they were using currently.

It sounds like they have been struggling for ages, and it all finally caught up with them.

 

[asanque]

there is a thread on another forum which dates back 2 years, and the same sort of problems were occurring, late payments, constant emails demanding to get paid etc.. and the same excuses they were using currently.

It sounds like they have been struggling for ages, and it all finally caught up with them.

That's why this has got 'trading whilst insolvent' written all over it, which means potential personal liability for directors.

Having said that, its pretty damn easy to avoid liability.

 

[Lensen]

That's why this has got 'trading whilst insolvent' written all over it, which means potential personal liability for directors.

Having said that, its pretty damn easy to avoid liability.

Not being an expert in the area, if funds have disappeared wherever and there's no chance of a return to punters, is there any likelihood a class action against the regulators/auditors would have any success?

I know that in a class action you're going to lose Xc in each dollar to the lawyers but just not sure what the options are in the increasingly likely notion that there are no funds to return to punters.

 

[asanque]

Not being an expert in the area, if funds have disappeared wherever and there's no chance of a return to punters, is there any likelihood a class action against the regulators/auditors would have any success?

I know that in a class action you're going to lose Xc in each dollar to the lawyers but just not sure what the options are in the increasingly likely notion that there are no funds to return to punters.

I'd think there would be even less chance of this getting up than a case for insolvent trading against directors.

Regulators are never to blame

I did speak to Bent & Cougle and found out the names of the joint liquidators:
1. Keith Sutherland
2. Hamish MacKinnon

There will be a circular to accountholders shortly, but no timeframe was provided.

They only just took over the case on Friday, so they have very limited sketchy information.

From Scott Ferguson's blog
['
re getting your money back, rumours I hear are that the security bond ($250k) will cover no more than half the client balances. It's assumed, but not confirmed, that they have broken the regulations about ringfenced client balances which will really put the heat on the ACT govt for having lax monitoring. ']

 

[Lensen]

Surely if they've been trading whilst insolvent for two years, even if the directors can worm their way out of it, their books would have had to have been audited? What's the point of auditing if their findings aren't binding against the firm providing the audit?

When I was on the board of a $200k p.a. turnover footy club we had to have yearly audits - surely it's at least yearly audits for a $20m business like this?

 

[asanque]

Surely if they've been trading whilst insolvent for two years, even if the directors can worm their way out of it, their books would have had to have been audited? What's the point of auditing if their findings aren't binding against the firm providing the audit?

When I was on the board of a $200k p.a. turnover footy club we had to have yearly audits - surely it's at least yearly audits for a $20m business like this?

This is also from Scott Ferguson's website:

['Art Vanderlay said...
Hi Scott,
I hear that the ACT government audited the books in June and reported they were ok in July so I hope the money is still there in August ???
27 August 2011 14:41
Scott Ferguson said... Same story I heard. Did they use the same auditors that looked at Enron's books? I know that traditionally SportsAlive have been very much a winter sports (ARL/NRL/union) shop, so cash flow out of season has been a problem in the past. So if it's a problem now, they have absolutely copped a beating from punters.... ']

I'm not sure if this will do any good, but I've just lodged disputes against my credit card transactions to Sportsalive for the past 6 weeks.

 

[pmalcolm1984]

This is also from Scott Ferguson's website:

['Art Vanderlay said...
Hi Scott,
I hear that the ACT government audited the books in June and reported they were ok in July so I hope the money is still there in August ???
27 August 2011 14:41
Scott Ferguson said... Same story I heard. Did they use the same auditors that looked at Enron's books? I know that traditionally SportsAlive have been very much a winter sports (ARL/NRL/union) shop, so cash flow out of season has been a problem in the past. So if it's a problem now, they have absolutely copped a beating from punters.... ']

I'm not sure if this will do any good, but I've just lodged disputes against my credit card transactions to Sportsalive for the past 6 weeks.

Auditor is Bentley's in Sydney.

Will be interested to see how long it takes the insolvency crew to get an email around.

Obvious they have broken the segregated account rule... Plain to see from the slow payments in past.

Assuming they owe punters $500k (I cannot see how it could be close to this, I would think much, much more, but lets run with it), there is a $250k security bond... Can the liquidators take fees from the proceeds of the security bond?!? And, if they raise another $250k+ (net of fees) if say, they sold the client book (business was worth $15m+ based on TAB numbers... But would any bookie pay $250k for effectively a mailing list, a large portion of which are propbably already in their books), does this go to account holders before other creditors?

Will be a llllllllooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggg drawn out process at best. The longer it is, the more they can charge in fees.

The only two people who always get paid are the lawyers and the liquidators. Fact!

 

[pmalcolm1984]

I'm not sure if this will do any good, but I've just lodged disputes against my credit card transactions to Sportsalive for the past 6 weeks.

This

Best chance you have of getting funds back quickly. Long bow to draw, but you've paid for a service you haven't received. Just like any chargeback situation.

 

[asanque]

Auditor is Bentley's in Sydney.

Will be interested to see how long it takes the insolvency crew to get an email around.

Obvious they have broken the segregated account rule... Plain to see from the slow payments in past.

Assuming they owe punters $500k (I cannot see how it could be close to this, I would think much, much more, but lets run with it), there is a $250k security bond... Can the liquidators take fees from the proceeds of the security bond?!? And, if they raise another $250k+ (net of fees) if say, they sold the client book (business was worth $15m+ based on TAB numbers... But would any bookie pay $250k for effectively a mailing list, a large portion of which are propbably already in their books), does this go to account holders before other creditors?

Will be a llllllllooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnngggg drawn out process at best. The longer it is, the more they can charge in fees.

The only two people who always get paid are the lawyers and the liquidators. Fact!

JUst my thoughts, so take it with a grain of salt.

I'd presume that any monies in the segregated bank accounts plus the 250k would go to punters first.

However, I'd also expect the amounts owing to be well in excess of $1 million.

Anything else from the sale of business would go to all creditors equally.

 

[Lensen]

This is also from Scott Ferguson's website:

['Art Vanderlay said...
Hi Scott,
I hear that the ACT government audited the books in June and reported they were ok in July so I hope the money is still there in August ???
27 August 2011 14:41
Scott Ferguson said... Same story I heard. Did they use the same auditors that looked at Enron's books? I know that traditionally SportsAlive have been very much a winter sports (ARL/NRL/union) shop, so cash flow out of season has been a problem in the past. So if it's a problem now, they have absolutely copped a beating from punters.... ']

I'm not sure if this will do any good, but I've just lodged disputes against my credit card transactions to Sportsalive for the past 6 weeks.

Hmm, thanks.

One of the more frustrating issues is that I actually have the ability to access a hell of a lot of information on SportsAlive due to where I work - just that if I get caught doing so I'd probably lose my job!

Will have to wait and see, I guess. Let me know how you go with the chargebacks.

 

[Jas 44]

Surely if they've been trading whilst insolvent for two years, even if the directors can worm their way out of it, their books would have had to have been audited? What's the point of auditing if their findings aren't binding against the firm providing the audit?

When I was on the board of a $200k p.a. turnover footy club we had to have yearly audits - surely it's at least yearly audits for a $20m business like this?

Sports Alive would have had to provide the following to the Gambling Commission: audited financial statements every year; bank statements; extensive details of every betting transaction (incl amount won/loss; amount bet; client account details etc).

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-261/default.asp

Another example of the incompetence of the Commission is the fact that the minimum security gurantee/bond has not been reviewed/increased since its determination in 2003 ($250 000). This is despite the fact that gambling turnover and revenue has increased dramatically (see the Commission's Annual Reports) since that time. The Commission didn't forget however to release its new fee determination.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2003-22/default.asp

 

[JohnC76]

I am reluctant to contact my bank and request charge back to my CC.

I mean, how far back to I go - to when Sportsalive last paid out or my most recent deposit? If I go back to last monies received from SA then I have deposited approx $430 in a few weeks and I left a significant sum in my account at the time. By 'charging back' would i not be effectively forfeiting my account balance of $10k? Because, if i didnt make payment then I assume I am technically not entitled to the earnings made off the deposit.
As naive as it sounds I'd rather hold out for part if any of my account balance than void it altoghether (if this is the case)..

 

[The_Next_JB]

JUst my thoughts, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'd presume that any monies in the segregated bank accounts plus the 250k would go to punters first.
However, I'd also expect the amounts owing to be well in excess of $1 million.
Anything else from the sale of business would go to all creditors equally.

Thought i'd add a little to the questions over who gets paid first. I actually am studying liquidation in accounting at the moment, so this is basically straight from the australian accounting standard.

All creditors rank in the following order:
1. Liquidators Fees - Not supposed to be first, but there's always a clause they use that allows them to pay themselves first
2.Secured Creditors - secured debts and mortgages
-ranking slightly below secured debts & mortgages are debts secured by a floating charge
3. Liquidation expenses - expenses incurred in the liquidation process
4. Wages and superannuation contributions payable to employees - the text is vague on this, but states that in some cases employee entitlements can be as highly ranked as secured creditors
5. Employee leave entitlements
6. Preferential Unsecured Creditors
7. Ordinary Unsecured Creditors
8. Deferred Creditors

It's genuinely very difficult to fully understand under what area accounts would come under, but i'm fairly confident that it would be one of the unsecured creditors. probably ordinary unsecured creditors. Hopefully this clears things up a little bit

 

[Cizzler]

Great thread guys and helps me understand the predicament we are in.. in short we are ****ed.

I'm well versed in insurance and can defintely confirm that the directors & officers may be personally liable if found guilty of insolvent trading whereby we can join a class action of sorts.

Now if they purchase D&O insurance (50/50 here as they are not a public trading company) we have a much better chance of seeing our money, albeit next decade.

A lot to still play out and I guess I'll wait for this contact to be made to all account holders... so frustrating.

 

[pmalcolm1984]

Point taken with the chargebacks.

I deposited funds that I hadn't punted with so I'm in a different boat.

Obviously the accounting standard is relevant, but this is a little unique.

Personally, I would view credit balances as a fixed charge on the segregated account that doesn't exist due to the co-mingling of funds.

Have spoken to liquidators (not the ones on this job) and they reckon this will be a shitfight. Not an easy job in any regard.

 

[asanque]

Thought i'd add a little to the questions over who gets paid first. I actually am studying liquidation in accounting at the moment, so this is basically straight from the australian accounting standard.

Good summary

The segregated accounts fall outside the standard rules though.

However, I'd be guessing the accounts weren't properly segregated.

['Money in the segregated sports betting account must not be utilised
for the payment of debts of the sports bookmaker, (except as provided
by these Rules) and those monies are not to be attached or taken in
execution for satisfying a judgment against the sports bookmaker
other than a judgment for a debt so payable.']

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/di/2005-261/current/pdf/2005-261.pdf

I am presuming the security guarantee is for the benefit of punters.

 

[asanque]

My chargeback requests are also based on the fact that I had sought withdrawal of my money over the 6 week period but was not paid out.

My money was held on trust by Sportsalive and their failure to pay out meant that they did not provide the services required.

Or something like that.

 

[Lensen]

The ASIC site states the following documents were received today:

30/08/2011 7E3914955 4 5011A Copy of Minutes of Meeting of Members, Creditors,
30/08/2011 7E3914950 4 205M Notification of Resolution Winding Up The Company

Does anyone have access to these documents?

 

[Lensen]

Betchoice Betchoice.com.au
#sportsalive betchoice is giving all sportsalive customers a $250 bonus bet. just send your client details to marketing@betchoice.com

 

[Pangit]

Betchoice Betchoice.com.au
#sportsalive betchoice is giving all sportsalive customers a $250 bonus bet. just send your client details to marketing@betchoice.com

I have found out from a good source that they were not losing money at all.....any massive bets were bet back. The directors are at home counting the money as I speak. Not to mention the MASSIVE fraud that was swept under the carpet a while ago, somebody has to pay for that!!

 

[twarby]

more hearsay

 

[Pangit]

more hearsay

Absolute fact...I assure you.