SUPREME VENTURES Ltd., local gaming operators, have raised concerns that a review of the industry by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Commission (BGLC) has delayed the company's launching a new game that has been registered for two years.
However, Howard Mollison, BGLC Chairman has dismissed the charge saying they have repeatedly informed the company that the review will be complete within a month and a decision on the launching of the game will follow. Sources close to the Commission also suggest that the complaint has been fuelled by the appearance of two other games from Supreme Ventures' competitors.
"We have a valid licence for a Keno game that allows players to win up to $200,000 on a $10 bet," Supreme's Vice President Roger Williams stated on Monday. "We submitted the rules of the game to the BGLC after paying a $4 million licensing fee. Six months after submitting the rules we still have not received permission to commence selling the game." The company was, according to Williams, initially granted licences for three games but only introduced two. However, the company has paid the administration fee for two years on the third game and are now want to launch the third. The company grossed some $8 billion in their first year of operations and currently runs the popular Lucky 5 game and Cash Pot.
"We are publicly requesting an explanation from the BGLC on the matter as our private inquiries to date have been greeted with an inconclusive silence that is unbecoming of a regulatory body," he stated. According to Mr. Williams, the Commission had previously informed him that they were reviewing the industry and would not respond on the game until next month.
"We are upset that after putting us on hold the BGLC allowed TELLO to enter and leave the market," he said. "Last week our main competitors (Jamaica Lottery Company) were allowed to introduce a new game (Three Way Drop Pan) to the market on the basis that this game was a bet type of an existing game." He reasoned that the approval of the rules should be a mere formality. "It appears as if they are going back to square one, backpedalling on their approval," he said. "We are really just giving the Commission a reasonable opportunity to respond and seeking clarification because the action appears to be inconsistent with the dialogue we have been having."
"Our licence fees were paid from the beginning of the year, that's where our confusion comes from," he said.
However, Mr. Mollison told The Gleaner yesterday that there was nothing sinister behind the delay and that there was a possibility that the competing games were approved because they were in a more advance stage of the process.
"We sent them an indication that within the next month we should complete the exercise we are currently conducting and within the next month they should get a definitive response," he said. "To the extent that we have contributed to the delay, we understand the concern and are working assiduously to complete (the review)."
Certain aspects of the review, which, in Mr. Mollison's words, is taking "an overall look" at the gaming industry was "necessary given certain events". The number of players attempting to accommodate the market and the number of games the market can cope with may be the root of this review.
Sources close to the Commission asserted that the competitive tussling in the lotteries market, may cause "the level of anxiety to rise" when one company launches one game ahead of another.
