Waterhouse backs Tabcorp-Tatts deal on one condition

One of Australia’s best-known bookmakers, Rob Waterhouse, has given his nod of approval to the $11 billion Tabcorp-Tatts deal, provided state governments up the ante on retail wagering competition.

As the merger is being reviewed by the Australian Competition Tribunal, many critics and supporters have come out of the woodwork.

Mr Waterhouse, the father of Tom Waterhouse who runs William Hill’s Australian branch, told The Australian the deal should only go ahead if certain stipulations are enforced.

“I have no problem with it going ahead but they should throw open the retail betting side of things to other participants rather than having a total monopoly,” Mr Waterhouse said.

“It’s bad enough having a monopoly in each state now, but to only have one company controlling it right around the country is not good for consumers.

“If Tabcorp and Tatts merge, there is going to be one entity controlling all of the retail outlets and giving their punters worse odds.”

Mr Waterhouse also commented on the potential for the three state betting pools to combine.

“There are three pools in Australia: Queensland, NSW and Victoria … the temptation will be to make one pool,’’ he said.

“I hope they don’t do that and I hope they are not allowed to do that. The corporate bookmakers offer the best of those three pools, which is, of course, better for punters.

“If they did that and merged those pools then they couldn’t do that … the government needs to throw it open and let someone else come into it.”

The potential for the combined gambling giants to become too powerful is prominent, which has not only bookmakers on edge, but Mr Waterhouse too since it could harm the racing industry.

Tabcorp and Tatts have fought these allegations, suggesting the merger will increase prize money, but Mr Waterhouse has said: “The more power they have the more dangerous it is for the industry.”

He argued it isn’t in the best interests of consumers since “one entity” would control “all the retail betting, the face-to-face betting in all of the pubs and the clubs”.

Critics which aren’t backing the deal whatsoever include CrownBet, Racing.com and Racing Victoria. The three organisations lodged independent applications to intervene which were all granted by the Tribunal last week.

But there are a number of supporters, including former NSW and Australian Racing chairman, John Messara, who has cited the higher levels of prize money compared to the Macquarie Consortium bid.

There hasn’t been much coverage on the Macquarie bid since Tatts announced the Tabcorp offer was better – by $3 billion.

But Mr Waterhouse said he doesn’t understand why insiders are suggesting the Tabcorp bid is one which represents the interests of the racing industry when compared to the Macquarie bid.

“You have to say quite rightly that the Tabcorp board is only interested in their shareholders and their motive is exactly the same as the motives of any other firm like Macquarie,” he said.

Along with the Tribunal’s decision to grant leave to intervene, a List of Issues submitted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will be considered.

There are 14 issues the ACCC has identified and these largely involve the competition concerns voiced before Tabcorp bypassed the watchdog and went straight to the Tribunal.