Sep
27th
Sistic appeals against finding, million-$ fine begins (TODAYonline)
By Yuda
by Tanya Fong
SINGAPORE - Ticket agent Sistic does not have a dominant position in the industry as it is "competitively constrained by the credible threat of losing its major venue operators", its lawyers said yesterday.
Sistic is appealing against the Competition Commission of Singapore's (CCS) finding last year that it had abused its dominant position to block other firms from competing. It is also seeking to reduce the S$989,000 fine imposed by the CCS.
Yesterday was the first day of the appeal, which is being heard by the Competition Appeal Board. The board includes retired Supreme Court Judge L P Thean and Senior Counsel Amarjeet Singh.
Sistic's lawyers from Drew and Napier, led by Mr Cavinder Bull, argued that the venue operators Singapore Sports Council and Esplanade "have the ability and incentive to credibly threaten to use another ticketing service provider, or to self supply services". The venue operators can easily sponsor a new entrant, Mr Bull reiterated.
Mr Bull cited the findings of the Irish Competition Authority (ICA), which ruled that Ireland's TicketMaster, despite holding a 100 per cent market share, would likely not hold a dominant position as it was constrained by the credible threat of losing major venue operators.
Last June, the CCS had ruled that Sistic had contravened the Competition Act by requiring 17 event promoters and two of the biggest venues in Singapore - the Esplanade and Indoor Stadium - to sign exclusive contracts with it.
The Singapore Sports Council is the venue operator for the Indoor Stadium. Together, the Indoor Stadium and the Esplanade account for between 50 and 70 per cent of all ticket sales here. Appealing against CCS' ruling, Sistic is also seeking to reduce the fine to S$769,000.
In court documents obtained by Today, CCS stated in its opening submissions that the exclusive restrictions in the 19 exclusive agreements between Sistic and its event promoters and venue operators were initiated and imposed by Sistic.
It will argue how these restrictions "made no economic sense except having the primary effect of foreclosing competition".
The CCS will also argue that the exclusive agreements contain "total and explicit restrictions, as opposed to those in the Irish Ticketmaster decision, where the decisions were merely preferential in nature" and that Sistic had also created an indirect network on ticket buyers who because they could only buy tickets from Sistic, would continue doing so and attract event promoters to use Sistic to reach out to more ticket buyers.
The hearing continues.
SINGAPORE - Ticket agent Sistic does not have a dominant position in the industry as it is "competitively constrained by the credible threat of losing its major venue operators", its lawyers said yesterday.
Sistic is appealing against the Competition Commission of Singapore's (CCS) finding last year that it had abused its dominant position to block other firms from competing. It is also seeking to reduce the S$989,000 fine imposed by the CCS.
Yesterday was the first day of the appeal, which is being heard by the Competition Appeal Board. The board includes retired Supreme Court Judge L P Thean and Senior Counsel Amarjeet Singh.
Sistic's lawyers from Drew and Napier, led by Mr Cavinder Bull, argued that the venue operators Singapore Sports Council and Esplanade "have the ability and incentive to credibly threaten to use another ticketing service provider, or to self supply services". The venue operators can easily sponsor a new entrant, Mr Bull reiterated.
Mr Bull cited the findings of the Irish Competition Authority (ICA), which ruled that Ireland's TicketMaster, despite holding a 100 per cent market share, would likely not hold a dominant position as it was constrained by the credible threat of losing major venue operators.
Last June, the CCS had ruled that Sistic had contravened the Competition Act by requiring 17 event promoters and two of the biggest venues in Singapore - the Esplanade and Indoor Stadium - to sign exclusive contracts with it.
The Singapore Sports Council is the venue operator for the Indoor Stadium. Together, the Indoor Stadium and the Esplanade account for between 50 and 70 per cent of all ticket sales here. Appealing against CCS' ruling, Sistic is also seeking to reduce the fine to S$769,000.
In court documents obtained by Today, CCS stated in its opening submissions that the exclusive restrictions in the 19 exclusive agreements between Sistic and its event promoters and venue operators were initiated and imposed by Sistic.
It will argue how these restrictions "made no economic sense except having the primary effect of foreclosing competition".
The CCS will also argue that the exclusive agreements contain "total and explicit restrictions, as opposed to those in the Irish Ticketmaster decision, where the decisions were merely preferential in nature" and that Sistic had also created an indirect network on ticket buyers who because they could only buy tickets from Sistic, would continue doing so and attract event promoters to use Sistic to reach out to more ticket buyers.
The hearing continues.
Viewing 1 - 1 of 1
Subscribe
