Events

Two wholesalers in bicycle price-fixing charges get R4m administrative fines each

By Press Office · 253 comments

Tuesday 31 May, the Tribunal has issued both its order and its reasons in the Omnico and Coolheat Cycle case. It has awarded an administrative penalty to Omnico of R4627412 and to Coolheat Cycles a penalty of R4250612. The Tribunal has already confirmed six consent orders by wholesalers and 11 retailers in the bicycle sector who were implicated in a price-fixing investigation by the Competition Commission.

The two wholesalers, Omnico and Coolheat, however, chose to oppose the charges and the matter was heard last year by the Tribunal.

The Commission relied for its case primarily on a meeting held on 10 September 2008 where about 200 bicycle wholesalers and retailers attended a meeting at Midrand Conference Centre in Gauteng to discuss increasing their markup on bicycles to 50% from 35%, and the markup on cycling accessories to 75% from 50%. The wholesalers would give the retailers a higher mark-up by increasing the Recommended Retail Price to consumers. Prices to consumers would be increased so that retailers could make higher margins. Prices were set to increase on 1 October 2008, as it was the beginning of the new cycling season and new bicycles and accessories were usually launched at this time and new price lists issued. Details of these discussions had been posted on an online discussion forum called The Hub and was brought to the attention of the Commission.

Evidence presented at the hearing revealed that both Omnico and Coolheat had attended the September meeting that there was agreement among wholesalers to increase the mark-up on wholesale prices for bicycles and cycling accessories in co-ordination.

In determining the penalties the Tribunal took into account some mitigating factors for Omnico. However, it found no such mitigating factors for Coolheat, who had elected not to give evidence at the Tribunal and to explain its subsequent price increases.

The other 17 companies who settled early with the Commission were not fined for the offence as they had admitted they had contravened section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The Commission had withdrawn its case against one of the companies, Fritz Pienaar Cycles, because the business was liquidated.

Issued by:
Chantelle Benjamin
Communications: Competition Tribunal

Omnico’s official statement on this matter – 1 June 2016

“Four years ago the Competition Commission commenced legal proceedings against a number of wholesalers and retailers contending that they were guilty of price fixing. 17 consent orders were obtained by the Commission ( ie these parties agreed to admitting guilt) and no fine was imposed on them. Omnico and another party denied any contravention as alleged by the Commission and as such refused to consent to an order as required by the Commission. Had Omnico simply consented, that effectively would have been the end of the matter and no fine would have been imposed on them by the Commission.

The matter proceeded and the Competition Tribunal, after a lengthy and expensive legal process has ordered that Omnico contravened the Competition Act and imposed a fine.

Omnico is disappointed at the Tribunal’s decision and maintains that it was not party to any anti-competitive agreement as alleged.

In the circumstances Omnico has instructed its legal advisors to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.”

Related posts

Comments

raptor-22

Jun 2, 2016, 9:04 PM

Yeah, but I think its a short sighted attitude. We live in a global world where every single manufacturer bar none is trying to get closer to his customer, not further away. People buy goods in one country and move to or use it in another, why should they not be covered.? 

 

In most instances this is NOT the manufacturers attitude, its the distributors, the manufacturer cares not a jot where he replaces a warranty item, it can be in SA or inner Mongolia for all he cares, as far as he is concerned a warranty is a warranty.

 

Actually its my contention that the distributor does not lose money by supporting so called gray products for warranty, we were the distributors for an American brand of pumps for industry, but some of our customers were global companies who purchased their pumps elsewhere and shipped them around to the job on hand. Often we were called on to attend to warranty issues and we did it with a smile, why shouldn't we, it was no skin off our nose, we simply claimed a warranty part or unit from the manufacturer and without fail it was replaced.

In fact it was good business for us to attend to warranties even if we did not sell the product, because the customer came back time and time again for other items or jobs, never underestimate the goodwill of a happy customer.

 

I had an issue with my Sony camera i bought in SA, it was still under warranty by Sony and I took it to a dealer here, he looked at it to check the fault, made a call and replaced it, no questions about where i bought it, why should he care, Sony replaces it to him and he makes a customer happy who may, next time buy it from him.

 

As I say, to me its a short sighted attitude. 

 

 

The two distributors implicated in this saga are culprits of not honouring warranty on items purchased outside of SA, despite many of their brands having a global warranty. the practice is not to look after the brand but to look after their sales.

 

Also google anti-competitive claims against Shimano and you'll see a string a cases lodged by SRAM against them. 

 

When I wanted to import a Ducati 748 many years ago as part of my goods when moving back from Europe, I had no problem with the local supplier honouring warranty. No problem with Campagnolo , Dell, Yamaha, Pioneer no problem wit any of the global brands. But the local distributors of some especially the Shimano distributor.........

 

I buy all my Shimano from CRC. Will never spend a dime on their kit in SA while the distributor remains.

Malpiet

Jun 2, 2016, 9:42 PM

So true I was in europe on holiday and my panasonic camera was giving battery issues, took it into a panasonic dealer in amsterdam and 2days later it was sorted. Apparently its a factory fault on them.

 

no questions asked.

Mongoose!

Jun 3, 2016, 4:40 AM

 

 

Edit

Eldron

Jun 3, 2016, 5:30 AM

Yeah, but I think its a short sighted attitude. We live in a global world where every single manufacturer bar none is trying to get closer to his customer, not further away. People buy goods in one country and move to or use it in another, why should they not be covered.? 

 

In most instances this is NOT the manufacturers attitude, its the distributors, the manufacturer cares not a jot where he replaces a warranty item, it can be in SA or inner Mongolia for all he cares, as far as he is concerned a warranty is a warranty.

 

Actually its my contention that the distributor does not lose money by supporting so called gray products for warranty, we were the distributors for an American brand of pumps for industry, but some of our customers were global companies who purchased their pumps elsewhere and shipped them around to the job on hand. Often we were called on to attend to warranty issues and we did it with a smile, why shouldn't we, it was no skin off our nose, we simply claimed a warranty part or unit from the manufacturer and without fail it was replaced.

In fact it was good business for us to attend to warranties even if we did not sell the product, because the customer came back time and time again for other items or jobs, never underestimate the goodwill of a happy customer.

 

I had an issue with my Sony camera i bought in SA, it was still under warranty by Sony and I took it to a dealer here, he looked at it to check the fault, made a call and replaced it, no questions about where i bought it, why should he care, Sony replaces it to him and he makes a customer happy who may, next time buy it from him.

 

As I say, to me its a short sighted attitude. 

 

In theory I would agree with you but practically I'm a win-win kinda guy.

 

Your pump analogy is great but it doesn't cover "grey" product. If there were another company like yours bringing in pumps cheaper than you and expecting you to cover all the warranties on their products you'd be out of pocket. That isn't right. Plus you had the financial incentive of winning maintenance contracts from these companies. There is no such incentive for distributors on bicycle components.

 

My only real issue with grey products is the after sale service. The official importer is lumped with the warranty costs of staff, millions of rands of spares, warehousing, shipping, supply chain etc - the grey importer is not. That is not a fair.

 

I'm all for people finding loopholes and reducing the cost to the client but it doesn't sit well with me for people to enjoy the reduced cost of grey product and then still expecting it to be fully warranteed.

 

If CRC/CWC struck up some kind of warranty deal with Shimano where they paid a portion of their Shimano turnover for global warranty different story but for them to enjoy the profit and never have to carry the cost of after sales doesn't sit well with me.

raptor-22

Jun 3, 2016, 6:00 AM

Nope the official distributor doesn't loose out because the stock they use to replace a warranty item is returned by the brand owner. Nobody loses. That's why I like SRAM. They replace parts under warranty regardless where you bought t and local prices are more competitive than CRC to encourage sales through the official distributor. That's competitive behavior

Eldron

Jun 3, 2016, 6:07 AM

Nope the official distributor doesn't loose out because the stock they use to replace a warranty item is returned by the brand owner. Nobody loses. That's why I like SRAM. They replace parts under warranty regardless where you bought t and local prices are more competitive than CRC to encourage sales through the official distributor. That's competitive behavior

 

What about warehousing, keeping millions of rands of stock, shipping, staff - who pays those costs?

 

SRAM doesn't cover regardless of where you bought - Rockshox in particular have unique codes on them and if you have one that wasn't brought in by the local agent you'll get shown the door chop chop.

 

Both Coolheat and Cape Cycles are pretty decent when it comes to helping people (sometimes even parts they didn't supply locally) but for them to carry the costs and while CRC/CWC carry the profit is not fair.

Tumbleweed

Jun 3, 2016, 6:36 AM

CPA is pretty clear about it. Warranties on grey products have to be covered by the person/concern that sold it to you.  

BDF

Jun 3, 2016, 6:38 AM

What about warehousing, keeping millions of rands of stock, shipping, staff - who pays those costs?

 

SRAM doesn't cover regardless of where you bought - Rockshox in particular have unique codes on them and if you have one that wasn't brought in by the local agent you'll get shown the door chop chop.

 

Both Coolheat and Cape Cycles are pretty decent when it comes to helping people (sometimes even parts they didn't supply locally) but for them to carry the costs and while CRC/CWC carry the profit is not fair.

These costs should be recovered from the manufacturer through a warranty claims administrative process. The local agent does not carry the cost for the warranty claim (if it was a genuine warranty claim)

 

A great example of this is Navworld with Garmin. It doesn't matter where in the world you bought the Garmin, Navworld will handle the warranty and recover the costs from Garmin.

Eldron

Jun 3, 2016, 6:56 AM

These costs should be recovered from the manufacturer through a warranty claims administrative process. The local agent does not carry the cost for the warranty claim (if it was a genuine warranty claim)

 

A great example of this is Navworld with Garmin. It doesn't matter where in the world you bought the Garmin, Navworld will handle the warranty and recover the costs from Garmin.

 

If that all works out (and it doesn't in the real world - Shimano do not cover staff/warehouse rental/interest on millions of rands of spares etc) then what about the fairness aspect?

 

Why do CRC/CWC get to make profit only and not have to support product?

 

Garmin is a poor example - compared to shimano/campag/sram they have a tiny product portfolio. Garmins cheapest product is ~R1,000. Shimano/SRAM/Campy way less. Tough to create critical mess when a lot of your products are under R100.

 

Either way - everyone's experience is different. My experience with the evil evil local suppliers is that they're pretty awesome people that have made a plan to help and my customers on many occasions.

 

Of all the 40+ local distributors I've dealt with only 1 has managed to disappoint me. That's pretty good odds I'd say.

Warrenfly

Jun 3, 2016, 8:10 AM

Two wholesalers in bicycle price-fixing charges get R4m administrative fines each - 31 March 2016

 

Today, Tuesday 31 May, the Tribunal has issued both its order and its reasons in the Omnico and Coolheat Cycle case. It has awarded an administrative penalty to Omnico of R4627412 and to Coolheat Cycles a penalty of R4250612.  The Tribunal has already confirmed six consent orders by wholesalers and 11 retailers in the bicycle sector who were implicated in a price-fixing investigation by the Competition Commission.

 

The two wholesalers, Omnico and Coolheat, however, chose to oppose the charges and the matter was heard last year by the Tribunal.

 

The Commission relied for its case primarily on a meeting held on 10 September 2008 where about 200 bicycle wholesalers and retailers attended a meeting at Midrand Conference Centre in Gauteng to discuss increasing their markup on bicycles to 50% from 35%, and the markup on cycling accessories to 75% from 50%. The wholesalers would give the retailers a higher mark-up by increasing the Recommended Retail Price to consumers.  Prices to consumers would be increased so that retailers could make higher margins. Prices were set to increase on 1 October 2008, as it was the beginning of the new cycling season and new bicycles and accessories were usually launched at this time and new price lists issued. Details of these discussions had been posted on an online discussion forum called The Hub and was brought to the attention of the Commission.

 

Evidence presented at the hearing revealed that both Omnico and Coolheat had attended the September meeting that there was agreement among wholesalers to increase the mark-up on wholesale prices for bicycles and cycling accessories in co-ordination.

 

In determining the penalties the Tribunal took into account some mitigating factors for Omnico.  However, it found no such mitigating factors for Coolheat, who had elected not to give evidence at the Tribunal and to explain its subsequent price increases.   

 

The other 17 companies who settled early with the Commission were not fined for the offence as they had admitted they had contravened section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act. The Commission had withdrawn its case against one of the companies, Fritz Pienaar Cycles, because the business was liquidated.

 

 

Issued by:

Chantelle Benjamin

Communications: Competition Tribunal   

---

 

 

Omnico’s official statement on this matter

1 June 2016

 

“Four years ago the Competition Commission commenced legal proceedings against a number of wholesalers and retailers contending that they were guilty of price fixing. 17 consent orders were obtained by the Commission ( ie these parties agreed to admitting guilt) and no fine was imposed on them. Omnico and another party  denied any contravention as alleged by the Commission and as such refused to consent to an order as required by the Commission. Had Omnico simply consented, that effectively would have been the end of the matter and no fine would have been imposed on them by the Commission.

 

The matter proceeded and the Competition Tribunal, after a lengthy and expensive legal process has ordered that Omnico contravened the Competition Act and imposed a fine.

 

Omnico is disappointed at the Tribunal’s decision and maintains that it was not  party to any anti-competitive agreement as alleged.

 

In the circumstances Omnico has instructed its legal advisors to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.”

so how do all of you avid riders feel now that you know you have been ripped off by your favorite local bike shop? These guys agreed to some of the highest markups in the retail sector and all we have to do is pay. I can now understand how a bikeshop owner can afford to have fancy toys, properties and farms. Not so sure if I am willing to call these guys my friends anymore.... 

raptor-22

Jun 3, 2016, 8:10 AM

I agree it's not fair to buy from CRC and ask ccs to warranty an item. But CCS hand over to local shops is competitive enough for local retail pricing to be attractive enough to prevent me from wanting to buy SRAM from CRC.
I only buy shimano from CRC because the local pricing is just stupidly expensive and out of line with international trend. So why would I support an entity that prices handover high so retailers sell high and then engages in anti competitive behavior with those retailers? For me that's a loose loose situation.

The stink of this situation has driven my purchase decisions since it broke in 2008. People who sit together to plan how to hurt people who are also trying to make a living are the lowest of the low.

BDF

Jun 3, 2016, 8:13 AM

If that all works out (and it doesn't in the real world - Shimano do not cover staff/warehouse rental/interest on millions of rands of spares etc) then what about the fairness aspect?

 

Why do CRC/CWC get to make profit only and not have to support product?

 

Garmin is a poor example - compared to shimano/campag/sram they have a tiny product portfolio. Garmins cheapest product is ~R1,000. Shimano/SRAM/Campy way less. Tough to create critical mess when a lot of your products are under R100.

 

Either way - everyone's experience is different. My experience with the evil evil local suppliers is that they're pretty awesome people that have made a plan to help and my customers on many occasions.

 

Of all the 40+ local distributors I've dealt with only 1 has managed to disappoint me. That's pretty good odds I'd say.

I have no gripe with the LBS whatsoever. Neither do I have a gripe with the online retailers. The latter have made products available to people who would otherwise have not made a purchase at all or at least, would have purchased the less premium option to save costs.

 

Merely stated that warranties are supported by the manufacturer, which in my experience so far has been the case.

NotSoBigBen

Jun 3, 2016, 8:18 AM

I agree it's not fair to buy from fed and ask ccs to warranty an item. But ccs hand over to local shops is competitive enough for local retail pricing to be attractive enough to prevent me from wanting to buy SRAM from CRC.

I only buy shimano from CRC because he local pricing is just stupidly expensive and out of line with international trend. So why would I support an entity that prices handover high so retailers sell high and then engages in anti competitive behavior with those retailers? For me that's a loose loose situation.

 

The stink of this situation has driven my purchase decisions since it broke in 2008. People who sit together to plan how to hurt people who are also trying to make a living are the lowest of the low.

 

Maak my so kwaad ek borsvoed sommer 'n krokodil  :cursing:

Mongoose!

Jun 3, 2016, 10:38 AM

.

Tumbleweed

Jun 3, 2016, 10:56 AM

Maak my so kwaad ek borsvoed sommer 'n krokodil  :cursing:

 

And to think that some of the shops on the list posted earlier are recommended regularly here on the hub... :whistling:  

jcza

Jun 3, 2016, 11:31 AM

Seems like loads of people have a problem with "cheap" Shimano from Europe

 

https://independentbikeblog.com/2015/02/04/the-s-word-dealers-speak-out/

Mongoose!

Jun 3, 2016, 11:34 AM

as per minutes / notes of the said meeting posted here on page 9 :

 

Is Cajees really such a bad shop?

raptor-22

Jun 3, 2016, 12:13 PM

Seems like loads of people have a problem with "cheap" Shimano from Europe

 

https://independentbikeblog.com/2015/02/04/the-s-word-dealers-speak-out/

 

 

More reason to buy Campag or SRAM. That's what it means to me.

 

For a small shop in the US it probably means better pricing. For a small shop in SA it means stuffall.

shaper

Jun 3, 2016, 12:39 PM

as per minutes / notes of the said meeting posted here on page 9 :

 

Is Cajees really such a bad shop?

Just do a forum search of Cajees.. there plenty of comment.  Here one https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/159626-my-experience-with-cajees/?hl=cajees

GrumpyOldGuy

Jun 3, 2016, 1:53 PM

In theory I would agree with you but practically I'm a win-win kinda guy.

 

Your pump analogy is great but it doesn't cover "grey" product. If there were another company like yours bringing in pumps cheaper than you and expecting you to cover all the warranties on their products you'd be out of pocket. That isn't right. Plus you had the financial incentive of winning maintenance contracts from these companies. There is no such incentive for distributors on bicycle components.

 

My only real issue with grey products is the after sale service. The official importer is lumped with the warranty costs of staff, millions of rands of spares, warehousing, shipping, supply chain etc - the grey importer is not. That is not a fair.

 

I'm all for people finding loopholes and reducing the cost to the client but it doesn't sit well with me for people to enjoy the reduced cost of grey product and then still expecting it to be fully warranteed.

 

If CRC/CWC struck up some kind of warranty deal with Shimano where they paid a portion of their Shimano turnover for global warranty different story but for them to enjoy the profit and never have to carry the cost of after sales doesn't sit well with me.

Sure, I hear you Eldron, but unfortunately in business you cant stack everything in your favour, eventually it becomes too onerous for somebody, usually the customer.

 

As a distributor of any product I think one needs to factor in that a small percentage of your claims will be iffy, this could be due to grey products or downright fraud, but its part of the deal, if you are not prepared to accept that, then in my opinion you want too big a cake slice.

 

You are correct we benefited from future maintenance contracts, but had we said "sorry boys, not our problem", we would have also walked away from those contracts and a lot of good will, most people and companies are not unreasonable, its not difficult to find middle ground be it in the form of a small handling fee, or a minor labour charge or a call out fee, whatever, I think its important to look for ways to be inclusive, a rigid attitude to what is now a global phenomenon (internet purchases) is just riding a road to nowhere. 

GrumpyOldGuy

Jun 3, 2016, 1:56 PM

The two distributors implicated in this saga are culprits of not honouring warranty on items purchased outside of SA, despite many of their brands having a global warranty. the practice is not to look after the brand but to look after their sales.

 

Also google anti-competitive claims against Shimano and you'll see a string a cases lodged by SRAM against them. 

 

When I wanted to import a Ducati 748 many years ago as part of my goods when moving back from Europe, I had no problem with the local supplier honouring warranty. No problem with Campagnolo , Dell, Yamaha, Pioneer no problem wit any of the global brands. But the local distributors of some especially the Shimano distributor.........

 

I buy all my Shimano from CRC. Will never spend a dime on their kit in SA while the distributor remains.

Yah, indeed, I bought my Harley in SA and Harley here have had no issues with supporting the maintenance contract and warranty, all it required was a change of registration numbers and "Viola" ... done deal. 

Tumbleweed

Jun 3, 2016, 2:05 PM

Yah, indeed, I bought my Harley in SA and Harley here have had no issues with supporting the maintenance contract and warranty, all it required was a change of registration numbers and "Viola" ... done deal.

I seen warranties being handled by local peeps for overseas purchases here. There is still the burden of providing PoP to ensure the bike/component was not obtained in the grey market. I was once had a customer at the shop get advice for a number of weeks, then go off to a discounter to buy the bike...and then have the cheek to try claim a free first service from us when it was set up wrong by the discounter.

GrumpyOldGuy

Jun 3, 2016, 2:50 PM

I seen warranties being handled by local peeps for overseas purchases here. There is still the burden of providing PoP to ensure the bike/component was not obtained in the grey market. I was once had a customer at the shop get advice for a number of weeks, then go off to a discounter to buy the bike...and then have the cheek to try claim a free first service from us when it was set up wrong by the discounter.

Sure, I think a lot of distributors locally in SA are accepting the fact that folk move around the world and supporting the brand is just as important for their future business as the name of the manufacturer. 

Yes, I had to show I had actually paid for the Harley legitimately with papers and I had to re register it on the USA data base with a local registration number, but thats part of the legal process which I imagine is the same all over, but Yah, you always get the chancer I guess.

 

Just as another example and I wonder how a local distributor would handle this, lets take a hypothetical case of a couple on Honeymoon in Austria, great ski slopes, great food, all looks good, but Hey, you want a better video of your lovely new wife than your mobile is capable of producing, so not wanting to waste your valuable honeymoon memories you rush out and buy, lets say, an action camera at the local store, you take some great video's and return home. 

A few weeks later it develops an issue, you take it in to your local shop explain the issue and rightly expect it to be repaired under warranty, but are refused based on the fact it was not bought domestically. This is not right, this is not a good business decision and does nothing but make the customer antagonistic and irritated, and for what, a camera the manufacturer will replace anyway? I have to ask is it worth it.?

 

Please let me reiterate, this is a hypothetical question, I have no idea if a SA distributor would react like that or not, for all I know they may say sure, no problem, I am just showing how a legitimate customer can be inconvenienced and irritated by rigid terms and conditions, and bear in mind a camera could just as easily be a wheel set, a seat, a pair of shoes, it makes no difference, the outcome is the same, an unhappy customer who feels done in.

raptor-22

Jun 3, 2016, 3:11 PM

If it's a garmin no problem . If it's a go pro...?

IcemanGP

Jun 9, 2016, 6:54 AM

Lloyd Gedye - Mail&Guardian - Thursday, 09 June 2016
 

The Competition Tribunal has fined two bicycle dealers who denied being part of a cartel, but those who admitted guilt have got off scot-free.
 
It’s one thing to find out that you have been paying more than you should for your bicycle and parts because of a cartel, but it’s another thing entirely to be told by a cartel member to “get on your bike” when you voice your outrage.
 
It was Coolheat Cycle Agencies’ managing director, Stephen Meltzer, who responded in this way to angry cycling enthusiasts on the website TheHubSA when the minutes from a meeting of colluding bicycle wholesalers and retailers were first exposed in 2008.
 
Meltzer has been described as the “doyen of the cycling industry”, of which he has been part since 1979 when he founded Coolheat. He came in for heavy criticism from the Competition Tribunal last week when it threw the book at two cycling wholesalers, handing down judgment in the long-running bicycle cartel case.
 
In total, 11 bicycle retailers and six wholesalers had already admitted colluding, but two were adamant that they had done nothing wrong and so went before a tribunal hearing in May last year.
 
But the tribunal decided otherwise and found both Omnico and Coolheat Cycle Agencies guilty of price-fixing, fining them R4.6-million and R4.2-million respectively. They have 120 days in which to pay the fines.
 
The decision to take their chances at the tribunal proved costly, as the others who had admitted their guilt were let off without a fine. They are: Melody Street 18, Hotspot Cycles, Maverick Cycles, Saloojee’s Cycles, West Rand Cycles, Bowman Cycles, Albatros Fishing & Cycling, Citek Cycle Distributors, Maillot Jaune Trading, Bicicletta, Le Peloton, Thule Car Rack Systems, Dunkeld Cycles, Summit Cycles, Bester Cycles, Johnson Cycle Works and New Just Fun Group.
 
Omnico was given a 50% discount on its fine because it had only implemented the collusive agreement in a limited way, but the tribunal fined Coolheat the full possible amount because of Meltzer’s behaviour.
 
In its judgment, the tribunal pointed out that Meltzer was in attendance throughout the hearing but chose not to testify. It also criticised his dismissive and condescending attitude on TheHubSA, where the minutes from the meeting on colluding were first published in September 2008, sparking the Competition Commission’s investigation.
 
In response to an irate public comment on the website, Meltzer wrote that “the minutes on TheHubSA are not entirely the same as what was actually mentioned in this meeting. There are a lot of issues, which have been relayed, which have been incorrectly minuted. Do yourselves a favour, get on your bike and go enjoy yourselves.”
 
The tribunal’s judgment reads: “One would have expected him in such circumstances to be enthusiastic to provide the tribunal with an explanation of his posts rather than leaving readers thereof with the impression that he ridiculed those who expressed outrage at the alleged collusion.”
 
A fellow colluder, Fritz Pienaar of Fritz Pienaar Cycles, said he was “disappointed” that some industry players who had supported the proposal to increase margins distanced themselves from the decision when they saw how angry consumers were on TheHubSA.
 
The brazenness with which the cycling industry organised itself into a cartel is startling. During the hearing last year, the tribunal heard testimony about meetings that were organised in 2008 to set the recommended retail selling price for all bicycles and parts.
 
The agenda for a meeting held on September 10 2008 at the Midrand Conference Centre, which more than 200 people from the industry attended, states explicitly that the subject is “margins in the bicycle retail industry”.
 
The agenda also refers to “proposed new mark-ups of 50% on bicycles and 75% on bike accessories”, and a proposed date, October 1 2008, on which to implement the increases. The mark-up at the time was 30% to 35% on bicycles and 50% on bicycle accessories.
 
Revealingly, the last item on the agenda is “price-fixing concerns”.
 
Pienaar confirmed at the tribunal that, as minuted, he said at the meeting: “Many of you are concerned that this may be some form of price-fixing; it isn’t and this is not illegal.”
 
Pienaar was also implicated in allegations of threats and coercion against another bicycle wholesaler, Probike, which initially refused to be part of the meeting because of concerns about collusion.
 
Probike did not attend the first two meetings, held in May and June 2008.
 
Probike’s Brandon Els expressed his concerns about collusion to Pienaar in late August 2008 after being invited to the third meeting.
 
Pienaar is alleged by Els to have responded with the threat of a group boycott against the wholesaler.
 
“Mr Pienaar made it clear in my boardroom that retailers who attend the meeting would be encouraged to cancel their accounts with Probike if it did not support the initiative to raise the mark-ups,” Els told the tribunal. “I felt that he was threatening Probike to ensure we attended the meeting.”
 
The tribunal’s judgment records: “According to Els, it was this threat that made him decide to send [Probike employee Dave] Wyatt to the September meeting.” But Pienaar denied threatening Probike.
 
Following the publication of the minutes of the meeting on TheHubSA, Els said he distanced Probike from the proposed margin increases.
 
He told the tribunal that after that there were “just short of 10 retailers” who cancelled their accounts with Probike.
 
“I believe these were closed as a result of Probike refusing to increase its recommended retail pricing to the retailers, and due to the views I expressed on the Hub about the proposal to increase the prices of cycling product,” Els told the tribunal. “Those accounts were retailers that I know to be affiliated to Mr Pienaar.”
 
The tribunal’s judgment brings to an end the commission’s investigation into the bicycle retail and wholesale sectors.

Add a comment

You must log in to comment