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 The Commission had withdrawn its case against one of the companies, Fritz Pienaar Cycles, because the business was liquidated.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

AdamA

Jun 9, 2016, 7:06 AM

SAD!

wiledog_x

Jun 14, 2016, 9:34 AM

Unfortunately for us peeps who buy bikes and stuff.... we'll still be paying for this cartel. The Tribunal should've mandated all guilty parties to offer discounts on all their ill gotten gains.... and pay it forward to the cycle buying public. 

 

Sadly, that won't happen..... our only recourse is to not support them anymore.

Shebeen

Jun 14, 2016, 9:49 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.

 

when a dude is referred to as "the godfather" in an industry, then you need to start question things!

5t0pi

Jun 14, 2016, 6:14 PM

Is this situation seen as done and dusted. Or will there be any further investigations?

 

"The commission also took into account the views of the tribunal in a meeting prior to the commencement of a hearing into an exception application by some of the implicated firms, including that the continued prosecution of 20 firms was a waste of public funds given that they were all small businesses."

-http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/two-bicycle-wholesalers-fined-2028818

 

It seems like nothing came of it. Is there maybe something the consumers can do?

FCH

Jun 14, 2016, 6:22 PM

the silence from Shimano group is deafening, sram here I come.

Paul Ruinaard

Jun 17, 2016, 7:17 AM

So Mail and Guardian has picked it up, with some interesting new twists which really add some fuel to the flames.

 

http://mg.co.za/article/2016-06-08-bicycle-conspiracy-runs-out-of-road#.V2OAi4eilvQ.facebook

 

Quoting the article:

 

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.

 
Sepia

Jun 17, 2016, 7:36 AM

The list of collusionist LBS makes for some interesting speculation.

KidCharlemagne

Jun 17, 2016, 8:47 AM

Oh, the display of arrogance and disdain by this "doyen of the cycling industry" is nothing short of outrageous. 

Mongoose!

Dec 22, 2016, 6:01 AM

Some update on the appeal

 

Wonder who is going to pay for this at the end... :ph34r:

 

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Retail/final-blow-for-bicycle-cartel-20161222

lechatnoir

Dec 22, 2016, 7:03 AM

Some update on the appeal

 

Wonder who is going to pay for this at the end... :ph34r:

 

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Retail/final-blow-for-bicycle-cartel-20161222

 

I think if we look in the mirror, we'll know... Hey!! I know that guy!  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :cursing:  :cursing:  :cursing:

Mongoose!

Dec 22, 2016, 7:11 AM

I think if we look in the mirror, we'll know... Hey!! I know that guy!  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :cursing:  :cursing:  :cursing:

 

haha :wacko:

JXV

Dec 22, 2016, 7:25 AM

Some update on the appeal

 

Wonder who is going to pay for this at the end... :ph34r:

 

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Retail/final-blow-for-bicycle-cartel-20161222

Glad they lost the appeal. What they did was clearly illegal. I can't believe so many other business owners got hooked in and didn't even bother to read the regulations before attending. The fact that the agenda blatantly indicated the purpose of the meeting is enough proof of guilt.

 

My problem is the fine is way too low. Typically the competition tribunal/commission fines 10% on affected turnover. These guys colluded to increase retail prices by an additional 15 to 25% over their prevailing margins so after a 10% slap on the wrist the effort was still worthwhile for them. I don't see the disincentive here.

 

The fingered retailers were all let off and only 2 wholesalers punished with a nominal fine. Crime did pay in this case. The proof is in the pudding as I have not seen decreases or even a period of levelling off in bike / parts costs and I think they are still doing it.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Patchelicious

Dec 22, 2016, 7:34 AM

Glad they lost the appeal. What they did was clearly illegal. I can't believe so many other business owners got hooked in and didn't even bother to read the regulations before attending. The fact that the agenda blatantly indicated the purpose of the meeting is enough proof of guilt.

 

My problem is the fine is way too low. Typically the competition tribunal/commission fines 10% on affected turnover. These guys colluded to increase retail prices by an additional 15 to 25% over their prevailing margins so after a 10% slap on the wrist the effort was still worthwhile for them. I don't see the disincentive here.

 

The fingered retailers were all let off and only 2 wholesalers punished with a nominal fine. Crime did pay in this case. The proof is in the pudding as I have not seen decreases or even a period of levelling off in bike / parts costs and I think they are still doing it.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Which bike shops were all implicated in this?

JXV

Dec 22, 2016, 7:39 AM

Which bike shops were all implicated in this?

Long list in post #204 further back in this thread..... quoted from an online news site....some well known names.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Jpollard

Dec 22, 2016, 7:51 AM

Man, really liked hotspot till I read this. Well, I'm off to find a new place to blow my money.

Patchelicious

Dec 22, 2016, 7:55 AM

Long list in post #204 further back in this thread..... quoted from an online news site....some well known names.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

This?

 

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.
Patchelicious

Dec 22, 2016, 7:56 AM

Surely the brands who are distributed by these wholesalers would want to distance themselves from this?

NotSoBigBen

Dec 22, 2016, 8:01 AM

Some update on the appeal

 

Wonder who is going to pay for this at the end... :ph34r:

 

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Retail/final-blow-for-bicycle-cartel-20161222

*Sarcasm font on

 

I'm sure they'll pay it from their cash in the bank and won't get it from us consumers

 

*Sarcasm font off

 

Sent from my LG-D958 using Tapatalk

Simon123

Dec 22, 2016, 8:03 AM

Repost the list please?

 

I've had a run in with Coolheat back in the day.  Was a certain mr Fowler though.

 

They still the Shimano peeps?

Tumbleweed

Dec 22, 2016, 8:06 AM

Repost the list please?

 

I've had a run in with Coolheat back in the day.  Was a certain mr Fowler though.

 

They still the Shimano peeps?

 

It's in patch's post...

Sydd

Dec 22, 2016, 9:43 AM

And yet the distributors don't learn from this and continue to try and screw the small operations that do excellent work. Who died and let them try to decide who can excel in the industry and who can't.

 

Makes me sick. Anyway, quality of work speaks a lot louder than a big brand store name in the end.

Jewbacca

Dec 22, 2016, 9:43 AM

Cool heat hey..

 

Omnico are also the devil but cool heat are not only rude, obnoxious and awkward, they are also really bad at representing Shimano.

 

As an ex bike shop owner I really do speak from experience.

 

Cape Cycle systems, Paragon, etc all used to work with the shops. These guys just dictated to you. (Not sure if still the case.... but sending goods 3 months after it was mentioned to the agent looong after you told them not to bother as they didn't have stock at the time and then taking you to task for refusing to pay because, well, you needed it in June not in August and aren't interested......)

 

I will never own a Cannondale/Mongoose etc as long as they are run by these bullies.. (I know they don't care but pffft... one needs the small victories! hahaha)

Sepia

Dec 22, 2016, 10:10 AM

Cool heat hey..

 

 

There are also some other interesting names on that list.  Some of them  seen to be redeemers of the bicycling industry.

What would they all be doing at the meeting..............

 

Why do we still believe a leopard will change its spots?

Mongoose!

Dec 22, 2016, 10:10 AM

Wonder when Shimano "online offshore competition" will be eliminated as Sram did tried?

Jewbacca

Dec 22, 2016, 11:16 AM

There are also some other interesting names on that list.  Some of them  seen to be redeemers of the bicycling industry.

What would they all be doing at the meeting..............

 

Why do we still believe a leopard will change its spots?

I agree... But it is amazing how easy it is to just 'slip in' to the pricing systems and mark ups.

 

We always tried to be fair, often selling direct orders (not pre bought stock) at cost for builds etc... but the Omnico/Supplier 1.64 (64%) mark up is pretty universal.

 

I think it may even be more now....

Add a comment

You must log in to comment