RACING in Queensland has been delivered the worst possible Christmas ‘gift’ with a dark cloud now hanging over the $120 million boost the industry thought was inevitable in the New Year.

TattsBet Limited has launched a counter action against the Queensland All Codes Racing Industry Board and Queensland Race Product Co Limited which threatens to derail dreams of prizemoney prosperity which is desperately needed for the industry in the north.

Racing Queensland cannot comment on legal advice but we have asked some astute legal minds to interpret what the action, filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland on December 16, means in layman’s terms and they tell us it appears that:

TATTSBET are claiming that they have made (millions of dollars in) payments under duress – without conceding a liability to do so – and that for a considerable time (they claim as agreed) no payment was made.

At the centre of the dispute appears to be the Product and Program Agreement whereby (according to the court documents):

 

(a)    THE control bodies for racing in the various States and Territories of Australia made available information relating to racing in their respective jurisdictions to control bodies in the other jurisdictions without charge for use by the Plaintiff (TattsBet) and its counterpart wagering entities in the other jurisdictions;

 

(b)   THE mutual availability of racing information was sometimes referred to as a 'gentlemen's agreement' within the racing industry in Australia;

 

(c)    THE means by which the racing information from the various jurisdictions was made mutually available was, or included, by provision of it to the Racing Services Bureau (a business activity conducted by the Victoria Racing Club and subsequently Racing Victoria Limited) and the provision by Racing Services Bureau of that information to, inter alia, the Plaintiff in a format suitable for use by the Plaintiff.

 

In the period from in or about February 1999 to the entry of into the Product and Program Agreement, the parties to the agreement knew, as was the case:

 

(a)   The Totalisator Administration Board of Queensland was to be privatized by action to be taken by the Government in Queensland;

 

(b)   Upon its privatization, the fees payable under the Product and Program Agreement were to provide to the Queensland control bodies revenues which had previously been provided to them by the Government by reason of its ownership and control of the Totalizator Administration Board of Queensland;

 

(c)    That the 'gentlemen's agreement' referred to above could be varied by regulatory action in Queensland and other jurisdictions;

 

(d)   If that occurred, charges of some kind might be imposed for the provision and use of the racing information of the kind that was being provided under the ' gentlemen's agreement',

 

(e)    It was necessary to protect the Plaintiff from the risk of having to pay any such charges in addition to the fees to be provided for under the Product and Program Agreement and prevent it from being liable to pay those charges in addition to the fees to be provided for under the Product and Program.

 

Initial negotiations of the Product and Program Agreement took place in 1999 and involved Dick McIlwain, Barry Fletton and other representatives of TattsBet with Phil Sullivan, Craig Black and Kevin Hasemann (Queensland Principal Club), Kevin Seymour (Queensland Harness Racing) and Khory McCormick (Queensland Greyhounds).

 

TattsBet claim in their filed documents that on or about I July 2008 provisions were introduced in the various other States and Territories of Australia which had the effect of ending the 'gentlemen's agreement' and imposing additional costs on them for securing and using racing information from those States and Territories.   

 

As a result, on or from September 2008, TattsBet claims to have paid for race field publication and use approvals the following amounts:

 

More than $59 million to Victorian racing control bodies.

 

More than $43 million to NSW racing control bodies.

 

More than $16.5 million to Racing SA Pty Ltd.

 

More than $12.2 million to the Gaming and Wagering Commission of WA.

 

Almost $1.9 million to Tasracing.

 

And close to $1 million to the ACT racing bodies.

 

THE TattsBet court documents state that:

 

Neither defendants (Racing Queensland or Product Co) had until on or about 1l September 2012 expressed any disagreement with the making or the amount of the deductions.

 

It states that on or about 11 September 2012 Kevin Dixon, of Racing Queensland Limited,

told Barry Fletton (for TattsBet) that RQ Limited had advice to the effect that the TattsBet was not entitled to make the third party charges deduction, but did not ask that TattsBet stop making the deductions 25 September 2013 or seek to recover the deductions.

 

TattsBet are claiming that at no time, prior to on or about 11 September 2012, did the First Defendant or the Queensland control bodies dispute their entitlement to deduct fees payable under the NSW legislation, or any similar legislation, from the fee payable under the Product and Program Agreement.

AND that until 25 September 2013 the parties to the Product and Program Agreement conducted themselves on the basis (‘the Assumption') that TattsBet was entitled to deduct fees payable under the NSW legislation, or any similar legislation, from the fee payable under the Product and Program Agreement.

 

TATTSBET claim that Malcolm Tuttle of Queensland Racing Limited knew that they were making the deductions from about 10 October 2008; that William Andrews of Queensland Racing Limited and Product Co knew of their intention to make the deductions from sometime prior to November 2008; that Anthony Hanmer of Queensland Racing Limited and Product Co, Michael Godber of Queensland Harness Racing Limited and Product Co and Robert Lette of Queensland Harness Racing Limited and Product Co assumed or expected that the deductions would be made prior to TattsBet in fact commencing to make them.

 

THE TattsBet counter claim sheds a whole new light on industry belief that racing in Queensland can anticipate a major windfall as a result of this case. In fact – depending on what is ruled in the Supreme Court perhaps as early as January – it could be argued that racing in the north may well confront a worse financial state than it currently does.

 

This has nothing to do with the negotiations for a new TAB Agreement, for which Tatts are the favorite to secure a renewal, promoting many in the industry to question how RQ could possible want to continue to work with the Grinch that has spoiled their Christmas and threatened to steal unprecedented prizemoney riches in the New Year.