Tag: Governance

The Temby Inquiry

The Temby Inquiry was a formal investigation, commissioned by the New South Wales Department of Gaming and Racing in 2004, into the governance and operations of Penrith Rugby League Club.

Conducted by former senior prosecutor Ian Temby QC, the Inquiry examined a range of matters relating to the administration of the Club and the conduct of individuals associated with it. Its report, delivered in December 2004, marked the culmination of a period of conflict that forms a central thread of this series.

While the Inquiry sits outside the early timeline of this series, it becomes an increasingly important reference point as the narrative unfolds.

To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.

Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.

Project Updates

Receive updates when new parts are published.

The Footy Five

The term “Footy Five” was coined by Ron Mulock to describe a group of five directors who, during this period, generally adopted a shared position on a range of issues affecting the Panthers organisation.

Despite the name, the distinction between this group and the other directors was not based on differing levels of commitment to rugby league. Both groups were strongly invested in the future of football in Penrith.

The difference lay more in approach than in objective. One group tended toward a more fixed position on key issues, while the other favoured a more flexible approach in responding to changing circumstances.

The most significant point of divergence related not to football itself, but to broader questions of governance — particularly amalgamation and the future structure of the Panthers organisation.

As the Footy Five is referenced throughout the narrative, it is useful to identify the individuals within the group:

  • Geoff James: Private Enquiry Agent.
  • John Bateman OAM: Local solicitor. Mayor of Penrith (1998-2000)
  • Greg Evans: Owner of the Western Weekender, a local newspaper also prominent in the narrative.
  • Craig Terry: Financial controller at Liquorland.
  • Denis Coffey: Owner of successful engineering company. Ex-player.

Related Topics

Related Themes

Conflict · Governance

To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.

Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.

Project Updates

Receive updates when new parts are published.

Major Player: Ron Mulock

Ron Mulock
Source: Parliament NSW

Ronald J Mulock OA, KCSG

Deputy Premier of New South Wales; Founding Member and Patron, Penrith District Rugby League Football Club

Ron Mulock was a long-serving member of the Australian Labor Party who served as councillor, mayor, state parliamentary representative, senior minister, and Deputy Premier of New South Wales. He was a founding member and Patron of the Penrith District Rugby League Football Club.

Role in the Narrative

Ron Mulock has a significant presence in the Panthers, Passion and Politics narrative.

His association with Panthers dates to the earliest days of the club, and he emerges as an influential figure during the conflicts that unfolded in the later years of Roger Cowan’s tenure. He also contributed to the efforts supporting the award of the Order of Australia Medal to Roger Cowan.

Background

Born: 1930
Died: 2014

Profession: Lawyer – admitted as Solicitor of the Supreme Court in 1955.

Public Roles:
• Mayor of Penrith: 1968–71
• NSW State Parliamentarian: 1971–1988
• Deputy Premier of NSW: 1984–1988

Honours:
• Officer of the Order of Australia (1988)
• Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great (2013)

Recognition by Panthers
• Life Membership, Penrith Panthers (1989)
• Ron Mulock AO Room, Panthers Events Centre (2012)

Relevance to Events Described

Mulock is closely connected to one of the central strands of this story.

During the late 1990s, he opposed aspects of the expansion strategy undertaken by Panthers and was aligned with the group of five directors who became known as the “Footy Five”. The four minority directors were referred to as “Roger’s Four Kinsmen” — a phrase that drew on the name of a well-known musical group closely associated with Panthers.1

Mulock’s long-standing connections within the Australian Labor Party, and his prominence in public life, contributed to a broader perception at the time that he was influential in political attention being directed toward Panthers.

Related Material

Related Themes:

Conflict · Governance

To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.

Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.

Project Updates

Receive updates when new parts are published.

Editorial Note

This profile is presented as contextual background.
Additional material may be introduced as the narrative progresses.

  1. The Four Kinsmen were a popular Australian vocal group who performed regularly at Panthers over many years and developed a close association with the club. ↩︎

The Impact of a Turnover Tax

A turnover tax on gambling is a tax imposed on the total amount of money wagered or “turned over” in a gambling activity, rather than on the profits generated by the gambling operators.

For example, imagine you take $100 to the races, and you place a $100 on the first race, it wins and you now have $350. You continue to bet $50 on each of the 7 remaining races. So, if you add up the amount you bet it comes to $450 – your first bet of $100 plus 7 bets of $50.

A turnover tax on this activity means the tax is calculated on the total value of the the bets placed, $450. Yet, the amount spent by the punter was only $100.

This example shows the very best result for the betting provider would be for the punter to finish the day broke – and the provider would have a revenue of $100. But they would be paying tax on $450.

Of course, it would be possible for the provider to lose hundreds of dollars to this punter, yet still pay tax on the $450 turned over.

Industry opponents of turnover taxation argued that the structure materially reduced operators’ capacity to improve return-to-player rates.

The mathematics of a turnover tax make it extremely restrictive – and, in fact, for some gambling games (like blackjack) even a small turnover tax would mean the game would not be viable.

For example, poker machines in NSW have a minimum return to player rate of 87%.

At a theoretical level this means a couple of things:

  • Firstly, it means the theoretical revenue for the operator is 13% – that is the operator can expect to retain $13 in every $100 staked on their games.
  • Secondly, it means the theoretical turnover for the player is 3.42 times their orginal stake. So, starting $100 and playing until depleted will generate a theoretical turnover of $342.

In the case of a starting stake of $100, theoretically the operator will retain $13. If a 3% turnover tax is applied their obligation to the tax office will be 3% of $342, which is $10.25.

Now, imagine an operator wants to offer a better deal to their patrons with a 90% return to player. So $100 stake produces a theoretical $10 revenue for the operator. The turnover is $388 and a 3% turnover tax will produce a tax obligation of $11.74 – so the tax office will take all the operator’s revenue plus more.

Critics maintained that turnover taxation limited pricing flexibility and distorted game viability.

To receive new Parts and occasional project updates by email, you may subscribe below.

Readers who hold recollections, documents, or material relevant to this history are welcome to contribute via the Commentary & Contributions page.

Project Updates

Receive updates when new parts are published.