Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Alan Spence, who owned 2011 Irish St Leger Jukebox Jury, and is the vice president of Chelsea Football Club and the Racehorse Owners Association, is defending a claim in the Chancery Court in London that he owes David Solomon approximately £800,000 in gambling debts and damages over a multi-year period.
Gambling debts owed by Classic-winning owner Alan Spence should be voided as they were placed with a man running an illegal bookmaking operation as a business, a court heard on Wednesday.
Solomon, who stated his main business was in office furniture, said he laid bets for "friends and acquaintances" only, and that he was also owed money from bets that Spence had been asked to place for third parties but had not done so, instead keeping the money for himself.
Last week, Spence admitted that he had lied about being insolvent to avoid paying Solomon the full amount he was owed, and that he had "known" he was not placing bets for Solomon despite being asked to do so and saying that he was.
Solomon's representative Duncan Heath said:
"Someone who has been this dishonest should not walk away and claim that because [Solomon] doesn't have a licence [he can] get away with it.
"If you have debts, you should pay them, and people should be able to rely on what someone else says to them"
Stuart Isaacs KC, sitting as judge in the hearing, said he expected to deliver a verdict next month.
Full report here:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/gambling-debts-should-be-voided-as-bets-were-placed-with-illegal-bookmaker-claims-owner-alan-spence-aUAsp4b6d2P7/
Gambling debts owed by Classic-winning owner Alan Spence should be voided as they were placed with a man running an illegal bookmaking operation as a business, a court heard on Wednesday.
Solomon, who stated his main business was in office furniture, said he laid bets for "friends and acquaintances" only, and that he was also owed money from bets that Spence had been asked to place for third parties but had not done so, instead keeping the money for himself.
Last week, Spence admitted that he had lied about being insolvent to avoid paying Solomon the full amount he was owed, and that he had "known" he was not placing bets for Solomon despite being asked to do so and saying that he was.
Solomon's representative Duncan Heath said:
"Someone who has been this dishonest should not walk away and claim that because [Solomon] doesn't have a licence [he can] get away with it.
"If you have debts, you should pay them, and people should be able to rely on what someone else says to them"
Stuart Isaacs KC, sitting as judge in the hearing, said he expected to deliver a verdict next month.
Full report here:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/gambling-debts-should-be-voided-as-bets-were-placed-with-illegal-bookmaker-claims-owner-alan-spence-aUAsp4b6d2P7/
Show More
If I remember correctly, there was a legal precedent in the not-too-distant past that bets agreed by two individuals can be enforced legally, but obviously the big question here is whether or not Solomon was acting as an illegal bookmaker?
unregulated gambling debts arising from unlicensed operators cannot be legally recovered through the court.
Gambling debts owed by Classic-winning owner Alan Spence should be voided as they were placed with a man running an illegal bookmaking operation as a business, a court heard on Wednesday.
suprised it got to court but karnt bleeve ennithink in this crazee world.
suprised it got to court but karnt bleeve ennithink in this crazee world.
Gambling Act
296Exceptions to offences
(1)A person does not commit an offence under section 33 by providing facilities for—
(a)private gaming, or
(b)private betting.
(2)Section 37 shall not apply to or in respect of the use of premises to carry on—
(a)private gaming, or
(b)private betting.
(3)A person does not commit an offence under section 33 or 37 by making or accepting a bet, or by offering to make or accept a bet, if he acts otherwise than in the course of a business.
"Solomon, who stated his main business was in office furniture, said he laid bets for "friends and acquaintances" only"
296Exceptions to offences
(1)A person does not commit an offence under section 33 by providing facilities for—
(a)private gaming, or
(b)private betting.
(2)Section 37 shall not apply to or in respect of the use of premises to carry on—
(a)private gaming, or
(b)private betting.
(3)A person does not commit an offence under section 33 or 37 by making or accepting a bet, or by offering to make or accept a bet, if he acts otherwise than in the course of a business.
"Solomon, who stated his main business was in office furniture, said he laid bets for "friends and acquaintances" only"
I didn't mean you Rico, I meant the bloke claiming that Spence owed him. Surely that sort of relationship would have been word of mouth with no signed agreements?
Loper, from the article:
Last week, Spence admitted that he had lied about being insolvent to avoid paying Solomon the full amount he was owed, and that he had "known" he was not placing bets for Solomon despite being asked to do so and saying that he was.
Last week, Spence admitted that he had lied about being insolvent to avoid paying Solomon the full amount he was owed, and that he had "known" he was not placing bets for Solomon despite being asked to do so and saying that he was.
Thank you George, but I thought that the amount owed was in dispute?
Loper, I think Spence wants everything voided:
Gambling debts owed by Classic-winning owner Alan Spence should be voided as they were placed with a man running an illegal bookmaking operation as a business, a court heard on Wednesday.
Gambling debts owed by Classic-winning owner Alan Spence should be voided as they were placed with a man running an illegal bookmaking operation as a business, a court heard on Wednesday.
Thanks George.
My timeline on this story is all over the place, because I'd previously heard that he was claiming insolvency to lower the amount payable?
My timeline on this story is all over the place, because I'd previously heard that he was claiming insolvency to lower the amount payable?
According to the article, Spence has admitted that he lied about being insolvent to avoid paying Solomon the full amount he was owed.
If you don't have access to the full article, Spence's legal team have argued that "Mr Solomon was acting in direct competition to bookmakers"..."Had been engaged in bookmaking for a prolonged period, and had concealed the extent of his activity through disclosure failures, which allegedly would have shown that his client base extended far beyond people well known to him and that he was hedging bets extensively on Betfair."
Thanks George. Lessons to be learned there.
I'm surprised that someone like Spence who seemed successful in life, and is old enough to know better, could have got himself into such a mess.
I'm surprised that someone like Spence who seemed successful in life, and is old enough to know better, could have got himself into such a mess.
Spence win or lose , comes out of this as a very dubious character, proven to not only be a liar , but welshing on bets too .
There are a lot of very good owners who stand the test of time but a worrying few go skint. My sympathy would be with trainers who don't get paid.
His position as vice president of the ROA is untenable as he has admitted using or acting as an illegal bookmaker himself ( the mysterious guy called George referred to in the article)
The ROA are supposed to act in owners interests and one of those would be increasing prize money so Spence is avoiding the levy and therefore the money available for racing.
I hear that the ROA have temporarily suspended him but according to their wensite he is still vice president
The ROA are supposed to act in owners interests and one of those would be increasing prize money so Spence is avoiding the levy and therefore the money available for racing.
I hear that the ROA have temporarily suspended him but according to their wensite he is still vice president
People with money have tended to go to extreme lengths to maintain / keep them. Mr Spence and Mr Dettori are the latest individuals shoring up this notion.
Was it not Alan Spence involved in a Tote Credit scandal years ago ?
Was in the guy who owned Freight Forwader a decent hcap hurdler with Elsworth i think back in the 80s .Colours seem to ring a distant bell.
Yes it was. Just looked it up in the History of the Sporting Life.
1980 back when John McCririck was a top investigative journalist.
Alan Spence won £199039 on a £100 e/w yankee with Tote Credit. It included Baronet in the Cambridgeshire and Ardross in the Jockey Club Cup.
Transpired he was £178,000 in the red on his Tote Credit account at the time. ( Down from £225,000) that summer.
And his credit limit was supposedly only £1,000 !
McCririck also discovered the Tote had been recording some of Spence's bets as being placed oncourse when they were placed off course , thus ripping off the Treasury due to the betting tax differential which existed at that time.
1980 back when John McCririck was a top investigative journalist.
Alan Spence won £199039 on a £100 e/w yankee with Tote Credit. It included Baronet in the Cambridgeshire and Ardross in the Jockey Club Cup.
Transpired he was £178,000 in the red on his Tote Credit account at the time. ( Down from £225,000) that summer.
And his credit limit was supposedly only £1,000 !
McCririck also discovered the Tote had been recording some of Spence's bets as being placed oncourse when they were placed off course , thus ripping off the Treasury due to the betting tax differential which existed at that time.
Alan Spence, owner of horses with Reg Akehurst et al. Horses ridden by various jockeys such as Gary Carter (warned off remember Dodona, owned by a certain A Spence), Paul Doe (warned off), Chris Catlin (slipped through the net), Jamie Mackay (various non-trier bans), I think we can see a theme here.
Was that his son on one of Simon Notts betting people interviews ( a professional gambler )....wonder if father has passed all his knowledge onto son
loper, I missed plenty off, didn't have time to check which other ones have been warned off. Either the game is cleaner now than that era, or the BHA have been pressurised from the ROA and the like to let things go. NO BAD HEADLINES.
He has had plenty of horses with Nicky Henderson and with a few flat trainers. Probably most will be sold now. Terry Ramsden started the trend of borrowing to buy horses. It seems insane that anyone would lend money for that purpose other than to trainers buying new stock.
Let's hope he coughs up, and the taxman recoups the duty evaded.
assuming you're not talking about the spence goings on of the 80s, I think that if the judge decides in solomon's favour, he must also either say the bets weren't illegal or say that it isn't up to him to deem them so. So no betting tax due.
Classic-winning owner Alan Spence must pay gambling debts totalling more than £840,000 after a judge rejected that the sums were unenforceable due to them being placed with an illegal bookmaker.
Stuart Isaacs KC, sitting as judge, said the case “provides a glimpse into the world of unlicensed betting” which “involved frequent deception of each other and of third parties which at the time neither party seems to have considered was either legally or even morally wrong”.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/classic-winning-owner-ordered-to-pay-more-than-840000-in-gambling-debts-aKs2F1R7bgry/
Stuart Isaacs KC, sitting as judge, said the case “provides a glimpse into the world of unlicensed betting” which “involved frequent deception of each other and of third parties which at the time neither party seems to have considered was either legally or even morally wrong”.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/classic-winning-owner-ordered-to-pay-more-than-840000-in-gambling-debts-aKs2F1R7bgry/
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2026/645.html&query=(solomon)+AND+(spence)
This is a good read and a complete fraction of the evidence was reported by the RP.
This is a good read and a complete fraction of the evidence was reported by the RP.
His son is a 'professional gambler' it must be easy to make the game pay when you're a massive Welcher
When Solomon went on a winning streak in the summer of 2022, Spence claimed he had started placing bets with an unlicensed bookmaker named ‘George’ who had approached him at Glorious Goodwood.
According to Spence, he and ‘George’, for whom he did not have a contact number or know his surname, would meet daily in the car park of The Bear pub in Esher, where ‘George’ would lay the bets Solomon had requested, even if the events had already taken place.
Subsequently, Spence told Solomon that ‘George’ had vanished without paying and that their money had gone.
According to Spence, he and ‘George’, for whom he did not have a contact number or know his surname, would meet daily in the car park of The Bear pub in Esher, where ‘George’ would lay the bets Solomon had requested, even if the events had already taken place.
Subsequently, Spence told Solomon that ‘George’ had vanished without paying and that their money had gone.
Thanks to dave1357 for providing a link to the judgement. Paragraph 46 (referring to a different case) is fascinating. The implication is that any so-called propunter who turns to tipping or to racing journalism or to television punditry ought to be paying tax on his gambling winnings, which is an extraordinary thing for a propunter to let himself in for:
"Just like Mr Hakki, the Appellant is a professional gambler in the sense that he derives his entire and not inconsiderable income from gambling; but, crucially, like Mr Hakki, he does not undertake any other income-generating activity linked to that gambling which could in itself be characterised as a trade or other form of self-employment. Consistent with the well-established line of earlier revenue cases, a gambler, however sophisticated, organised or successful, as a matter of law will never, on that basis alone, be carrying out an activity amounting to self-employment. It is only when gambling is linked to some other business activity, which in and of itself amounts to self-employment, that winnings from mere gambling may fall to be assessed as part and parcel of that business, as was the case in Burdge v Pyne (see paragraphs 19 and 20(iv) above). Whether that other business activity is such as to amount to self-employment may depend upon the facts of a particular case; but, whatever the factual background, mere gambling without more can never amount to self-employment."
The previous paragraph gives examples:
"Such winnings are only self-employed earnings for any of these purposes where they are an adjunct to a trade or profession in which the individual is engaged, e.g. where the individual makes his winnings as a dealer at a gambling club which he owns (Burdge v Pyne), or where a poker player receives a fee for regularly appearing on television to advise the audience as to how to play poker and makes winnings from other people participating in the programme (see Hakki at [17]). But, without such an association, as a matter of law a gambler's winnings cannot amount to profits or gains arising from a trade, profession or employment, and cannot be within the scope of the self-employed earning for the purposes of the child support scheme."
"Just like Mr Hakki, the Appellant is a professional gambler in the sense that he derives his entire and not inconsiderable income from gambling; but, crucially, like Mr Hakki, he does not undertake any other income-generating activity linked to that gambling which could in itself be characterised as a trade or other form of self-employment. Consistent with the well-established line of earlier revenue cases, a gambler, however sophisticated, organised or successful, as a matter of law will never, on that basis alone, be carrying out an activity amounting to self-employment. It is only when gambling is linked to some other business activity, which in and of itself amounts to self-employment, that winnings from mere gambling may fall to be assessed as part and parcel of that business, as was the case in Burdge v Pyne (see paragraphs 19 and 20(iv) above). Whether that other business activity is such as to amount to self-employment may depend upon the facts of a particular case; but, whatever the factual background, mere gambling without more can never amount to self-employment."
The previous paragraph gives examples:
"Such winnings are only self-employed earnings for any of these purposes where they are an adjunct to a trade or profession in which the individual is engaged, e.g. where the individual makes his winnings as a dealer at a gambling club which he owns (Burdge v Pyne), or where a poker player receives a fee for regularly appearing on television to advise the audience as to how to play poker and makes winnings from other people participating in the programme (see Hakki at [17]). But, without such an association, as a matter of law a gambler's winnings cannot amount to profits or gains arising from a trade, profession or employment, and cannot be within the scope of the self-employed earning for the purposes of the child support scheme."
Yeah the whole judgement is an absolutely wiki on gambling tax issues etc.
Mr Spence, man up and pay up. Then stop betting. You cannot have your cake and eat it too without consequences.
Not a question of manning up as e has to pay,implausible
On income tax for gambling, older forumites might remember cubone handed in his licence to avoid being taxed on winnings if they were judged to be part of his business as a bookmaker.
Spence must have some ego!
Why on earth would a multi-millionaire risk their reputation trashed in court when he could easily have paid the debt off in the first place?
I just suppose it goes to prove what a loser he is.
Why on earth would a multi-millionaire risk their reputation trashed in court when he could easily have paid the debt off in the first place?
I just suppose it goes to prove what a loser he is.
I think it goes to show that he may well be in financial diffilcuties.....it just hasn't come out yet!!!
A
A
Mr Spence was trying to wriggle out of a gambling debt with a bookie by deliberately and knowingly lying in court. I'd not want to be a business associate of his in any financial dispute.
The man puts self-interest and his money before principle and integrity. A BAD loser!
The man puts self-interest and his money before principle and integrity. A BAD loser!
Stood down from his ROA role. Should be warned off. What are the BHA waiting for?
He ought to have resigned prior. The court case can only be a negative. Good riddance.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539