Numerous former Supreme Ventures Limited (SVL) retailers in Jamaica are still said to be angry over the company’s decision to terminate their contracts after they introduced new lottery entities into their shops.
According to the Jamaica Observer, Xesus Johnston, CEO of SVL subsidiary Prime Sports Ltd, recently said that the decision to end the contracts of some retailers was a regular business move that has been in the works for some time.
“We are not victimising anyone. We have been doing a channel and business realignment since 2019,” Johnston said, even as he pointed to issues caused by the selling of two competing products in one shop.
“We have got complaints, and seen videos circulating on social media, about channel conflict where people go into a location and they bought a product, thought it was a Supreme Ventures product and when they came to redeem it, they realised they had bought someone else’s product.
“That kind of channel conflict we’ve always thought would be real and now we’re seeing it play out in the market. That’s an area of concern for us and so we keep having to differentiate our product, promote to the customers and differentiate our brand.”
Johnson further elaborated that SVL’s rationalisation reflects the reality of the world today.
He added: “If you think about distribution, traditionally it was only through retailers — brick and mortar. We’ve now added digital — online, where we now have our games online and you can purchase from SV Games with a debit or credit card.
“Plus, we’ve added another innovative sales channel called Super Sellers which is individuals who can walk on the streets with a wireless terminal and sell our gaming products by meeting customers in their neighbourhoods or high-traffic areas.”
However, Dwight Richardson, who has operated three SVL retail locations over the past 11 years, believes his contract was terminated because he decided to introduce terminals from another service provider in two of his stores.
Richardson told the Observer: “I have taken on one of the new service providers, Mahoe Gaming, and I think that in taking on that new provider I have been disenfranchised by Supreme Ventures. I also believe that I have been prosecuted for being one of the persons who will stand up to Supreme Ventures.
“They (SVL) have said it was a business decision for us to take on the new players and a business decision for them. I made a choice and they also made a choice, but I believe that they have acted unjustly in some ways.”
Richardson admitted that his contract with SVL provided for its termination without cause by either party after a 30-day notice.
He also commented that even with the two products being sold simultaneously in two of his stores, there was no mix-up. He argued that SVL’s reason for the termination of his deal makes no sense, especially in one of his locations.
He said: “My location at the intersection of Half-Way-Tree and Oxford roads is one I can’t see which lottery provider would not want a location like that. The nearest possible place for one to have another machine is at least a quarter-mile away.
“So why would SVL give up such a prime location? I don’t believe that was a strategic move. I believe that I’m being punished.”
Richardson pointed out that he’s had no problems with SVL over the 11 years he served as a retailer and had made his payments to the company on or before each due date. Since the confirmation that new players would be entering the lottery market, he has been vocal during meetings with SVL representatives.
He said since receiving his termination notice he has not sought a meeting with SVL, but he’s concerned about how the company is dealing with cutting ties with its former retailers.
“The termination notice stated that I must forward all monies outstanding in a timely manner. I got an email stating what was owed. I got an incorrect invoice which repeated one location three times instead of the three locations. However, I went ahead and paid against what they asked me to pay.
“I did that about eight or so days ago but to date, I have not received a letter of release that should be forthcoming to show that I have settled my account.”
Richardson continued: “If they gave me a 30-day notice you would expect that this letter, which is a relatively standard one, would be done. So you gave me 30 days and I made the payment, you would expect that four or five days later I would get the letter of release. I find it very hard to understand why I have not received the letter.
“In a brief discussion with an SVL official about the letter of release he asked that I wait until the process plays itself out. I know for a fact that if I did not pay over their money, as I normally do, it would be a different ‘sankey’.”