Amrac claims big firms had 'very cosy' relationship over TurfTV.

MAJOR bookmakers, who have been accused of unlawfully ganging up to keep new betting shop pictures provider TurfTV out of the market, had a "very cosy" relationship in their "collective boycott", it was claimed in the high court in London yesterday.

Peter Roth QC, for Amalgamated Racing (Amrac), made final submissions on its counter claim to the illegal pricefixing allegations made by Bags (Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services), together with Ladbrokes, William Hill and Betfred.

He told Mr Justice Morgan, as the case entered its eighth week and 28th day, that "cartels and other forms of unlawful collusion are sadly well known to exist".

Roth said many international cartels involved major public figures and the individuals concerned may well be upright citizens in every other respect, but still engage in collusive behaviour.

He said the big bookmakers who did not want TurfTV to disturb their "cosy" position knew that if they could hold out until April 2008, it "would not survive and the problem would go away".

But after Coral signed up in December 2007, Hills and Ladbrokes quickly followed, and TurfTV established itself.

Roth claimed major bookmakers "had the strong incentive and ample opportunity to engage in a concerted practice regarding TurfTV".

Bookmakers have claimed there was no need for a private agreement because of the public statements being made individually about their opposition to TurfTV.

Roth told the judge it would never be known when the actual collusion began, because there was no record of it. He agreed when the judge said: "You say there were very strong feelings, motive in abundance to kill off Amrac, and opportunities in abundance."

When Coral signed up after a change in senior management, the alleged cartel collapsed. Only Betfred of the major bookmakers still refuse to take the service.

Roth said: "There are just too many 'slipups', and other indications of collusive conduct to be explained if, in fact, there was no such collusion.

"The major three bookmakers were apparently content to risk losing the opportunity to gain an earlier adopter discount worth tens of millions of pounds, and to risk enabling a competitor to obtain that advantage for itself; the conclusion can only be they must have had confidence that this would not happen.

"It was only the appointment of Mr Nick Rust to replace Mr Wilf Walsh at Coral which defeated the plan."

When asking the judge to find that Amrac is entitled to damages for the losses it suffered by the delay in getting major bookmakers signed up, Roth rejected the submission by the claimants that Amrac lost nothing as they did eventually sign.

"It's very easy for those who engage in unlawful collusive agreements to say it made no difference," said Roth. "If it made no difference, why do it, particularly as it is unlawful?"