By Carolina Contreras/Diálogo December 15, 2016 Chile’s and Argentina’s navies, armies, and air forces are ready to aid the population in the event of a natural disaster in either of the two countries at any time. Those were the conclusions reached by the military authorities of both countries on November 24, after evaluating the Solidarity 2016 Exercise, which was conducted from October 4-7. “(Solidarity) confirmed the coordination that exists between both countries’ defense institutions for organizing and providing mutual support. It also tested our compliance with the standards and protocols established for that,” said Air Force General Arturo Merino Núñez, chairman of Chile’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. This exercise provides training on combined joint military response capabilities and interoperability between the two militaries in order to confront a natural disaster, as provided by the Agreement for Cooperation in the Area of Disasters signed by Chile and Argentina in 1997. If needed, one country would assist the other. Since 2001, this exercise has been held every two years, alternating between both nations. Unlike other kinds of military training, Solidarity includes a military staff representing the personnel who would be dispatched in an actual emergency situation. The staff deployment depends on the needs that arise from the threat covered under the training. This year, 142 Chilean and 858 Argentine service members were deployed, in addition to airplanes, land and sea transport vehicles, and civil defense units. Remembering lessons learned During the process of compiling the experiences and lessons learned, “the service members showed a high degree of professionalism, which enabled them to carry out advanced-level training without any setbacks and with a high degree of effectiveness,” said Gen. Merino Núñez. As part of Solidarity 2016, the personnel responsible for resources in the event of an actual disaster established contact and ties among each other, “something that allows for more efficient communication when the time comes for implementation,” said Argentine Army Colonel José Antonio Saumell Robert, who led this eighth edition of Solidarity, in San Martín de los Andes, Argentina. Training by land, air, and sea Solidarity has land, air, and sea components, and it tests the armed forces’ joint-response capabilities when faced with a natural disaster. This year, the training exercises revolved around a volcanic eruption. This, after the April 22, 2015 eruption of Calbuco, the third most dangerous volcano in Chile, which threatened the population of Los Lagos region, and the provinces of Neuquén, Río Negro, and Chubut on the Argentine side of the border. The training taught them how to deal with such an emergency. During the volcanic eruption drill, 10 operational simulations were performed: volcanic eruption, forest fires, joint air operations, water purification in case of pollution, underwater search operations, setting up field hospitals, and the search and rescue of people trapped in collapsed structures. In each operation, the service members had to demonstrate their abilities on land, jumping from moving helicopters, making transport runs in speedboats, and providing medical care. From this experience, procedures were established for dealing with volcanic disasters, and the action protocols used by the Support Implementation Unit, which is in charge of operational and administrative tasks in the event of an actual disaster, were modified. For example, after mobilizing support personnel and resources from one country to another, “administrative details that cannot be clearly identified when carrying out simulated movements were ascertained,” Gen. Merino Núñez explained. In Chile’s case, the process involved determining which resources to employ, and how to prepare, transport, and use them in Argentine territory and then return them to Chile. This logistical, administrative, and leadership challenge was assessed satisfactorily by Gen. Merino Núñez, who highlighted the joint capabilities developed to carry out these kinds of activities. One of the exercises dealt with underwater search and recovery of bodies, aided by sonar technology. Twenty-one service members from the tactical divers and Marine Corps Commandos of the Chilean Navy’s Special Forces Command took part in this exercise, together with their trans-Andean peers. Members of this team provided aid to the population during the earthquake and tsunamis that struck the south of Chile in 2010. “Given that history, they knew how to expand their capabilities to support the citizenry,” said Vice Admiral José Miguel Rivera, commander of Naval Operations for the Chilean Navy. The air contingent comprised 25 service members from the 3rd Air Brigade of the Chilean Air Force (FACh, per its Spanish acronym), who trained on evacuating people from collapsed structures, aided by a Bell 412 helicopter and a FACh search and rescue unit. Seventy-three Chilean Army service members participated in cooperation system command-and-control procedures, testing the degree of effectiveness of the liaison methods and the communications employed by the participating entities. The armed forces’ response capabilities in the face of a volcanic eruption, which they simulated in Solidarity 2016, were added to their capabilities for confronting earthquakes and tsunamis after the 2014 exercise, and massive earthquakes after the 2012 exercise. “The synchronization and synergy that we have achieved with the Armed Forces of Argentina demonstrate that the job of supporting our people knows no boundaries and pushes the limits when answering the call for help imposed by nature,” Gen. Merino Núñez concluded. The next Solidarity Exercise will be held in Chile in 2018. The city and the theme to be developed will be determined next year.
Jonjo Shelvey has been “reminded of his responsibilities” by the Football Association after the Swansea midfielder made provocative gestures during the all-Welsh Premier League derby against Cardiff. Press Association The FA investigated the incident where Shelvey made swimming gestures – an apparent reference to an alleged 1988 incident in which Cardiff fans went into the sea as supporters clashed. An FA spokesman said: “Following an investigation, the FA has reminded Jonjo Shelvey of his responsibilities. No further action will follow.”
Down by a goal going into the second period, Syracuse needed a spark. Orange head coach Paul Flanagan looked to the end of his bench, turning to his fourth line to provide some energy.The fourth line consisting of Cara Johnson, Sadie St. Germain and Jacquie Greco did just that. They pushed the tempo and constantly pressured the McGill players to regain momentum for SU.‘They led the charge for us in the second period,’ Flanagan said. ‘They inspired the rest of the team by how fast they were getting in the zone and just dogging and going after the McGill defensemen.’Led by that reserve line, the Orange came out of the intermission with a purpose and scored two goals to take the lead in the second period. SU held on to beat McGill 2-1 in an exhibition matchup Friday in front of 220 at Tennity Ice Pavilion. The trio of Syracuse reserves provided an energy boost and keyed the Orange’s offensive attack in the decisive second period.The offense scored the game-winning goal with increased pressure by SU on both ends of the ice. Pressure that led to a clean breakaway opportunity for Johnson with the scored tied 1-1 with 2:31 to go in the second period.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textThe sophomore forward received a leading pass from Caitlin Roach that went through two McGill defenders, leaving her in a one-on-one with goaltender Taylor Salisbury. Johnson buried the puck past McGill’s Salisbury in what proved to be the game-winner for SU, giving the Orange a 2-1 advantage.‘I know the fourth line works really, really hard in practice,’ Johnson said. ‘We try every practice, every game. It was great to get out there and get a goal.’By that point, the momentum had already shifted in SU’s favor. The Orange notchedits first goal to even the score earlier in the period when the Orange picked up a power-play goal — an area the Orange offense has struggled with throughout the season.The goal came when freshman defender Kaillie Goodnough wound up for a slap shot, and junior forward Holly Carrie-Mattimoe deflected the puck into the back of the net.Immediately following the score by Syracuse, McGill head coach Peter Smith called a timeout to talk things over with his Martlet squad. Even before the goal was deposited, Smith could tell Syracuse was playing with an aggressive attitude in the second period.‘I thought we were getting outbattled,’ Smith said. ‘It wasn’t just about the goal. They scored the goal on the power play, so it wasn’t really about the goal. But I just thought we were getting outbattled.’In the first period, McGill dictated the pace of the game. The Martlets outshot the Orange 9-2 and got on the board with a score from forward Ann-Sophie Bettez, who went top shelf with a wrist shot against SU starting goaltender Jenesica Drinkwater.But the momentum shifted in favor of the Orange after the first intermission. The Syracuse forecheck pushed McGill on its heels. The only time the Martlets held onto the puck is when they conservatively passed back and forth in the defensive zone.And it all comes back to the much-needed lift the fourth line provided.Johnson said the role of her line is to be pests, constantly getting in its opponents’ faces and bringing an up-tempo style to the ice.‘I like being out there and bring the energy to the team,’ Johnson said. ‘In the first period, we were really down, and me and Sadie knew we had to get out there and raise the energy. Jacquie Greco as well, she brings a lot of energy to the team.’Even in an exhibition, SU played with intensity to take down McGill. Flanagan said his team didn’t treat it as a meaningless game. Although he said exhibition games can be a concern in getting his team prepared, the head coach thought his team went into the game ready for a fight.‘They had a real good focus,’ Flanagan said. ‘Sometimes you play an exhibition game against some no-name team that comes down here, and it’s tough to generate excitement. The girls were definitely into it, and I thought they did a real good job of it.’firstname.lastname@example.org Facebook Twitter Google+ Comments Published on November 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Share Flutter moves to refine merger benefits against 2020 trading realities August 27, 2020 MoneyMatrix boosts wire transfer options by integrating Klarna’s Sofort August 24, 2020 Share Related Articles Submit StumbleUpon Regulus Partners, the strategic consultancy focused on international gambling and related industries, gives an insight into some of the key developments in the gambling industry as part of its ‘Winning Post’ column.Australia: market development – the state they’re inThe Australian betting market was significantly rearranged this week, with William Hill bowing out and Stars becoming an important player. New South Wales has also launched a public consultation on betting POC taxes, seven months after Victoria’s (with 3.4% state revenues from gambling being referred to as ‘small’). Australia is a market of mixed messages. Regulated online growth has been strong despite a (recently reinforced) ban on in-play and gaming as well as material product fees. Gambling spend per capita is the highest in the world, despite a strident and frequently effective anti-gambling lobby. A cultural propensity to gamble is matched by high mobile penetration, high disposable income and continued popular interest in horseracing. The attractions of the market are obvious, but are they now under threat?There has been significant organic and M&A-driven consolidation in the Australian market. The creation of one major monopoly (ex RWWA) has given Tab a 38% market share online (including telephone) and a 52% market share overall. Its business model is designed around high taxes (or more precisely monopoly rights payments) and product fees, further assisted by an over-index in occasional customers who yield materially higher gross margins than the mean. However, retail is now only 33% of the total market, and is in decline despite significant distribution and investment in self-service terminals (where in-play is allowed, unlike online). This is a fairly similar mix and underlying trend to the UK (where retail has in fact been slightly more resilient, driven by football coupons and SSBT multiples). There are now three major players in the remote market. PPB remains comfortably the biggest corporate, with 26% share and three-year revenue CAGR of 18.3%: outperforming the market’s 14.9% (including telephone) by a convincing 3.4ppts. Equally importantly, a 2017E EBITDA margin of 34.4% gives it material wiggle room for what might be happening next (see below). Stars has created a 15% market share business (NB, not 20% as previously reported), with the blended growth rate of an under-performing WH (flat) and an outperforming CrownBet delivering market growth of 15%; post synergy EBITDA margin of c. 25% is materially below PPB but not by any stretch bad. Ladbrokes is a trailing #4 with 9% share but strong growth (52% 3-year CAGR); the key question is whether this growth has expanded profit margins or effectively been bought. bet365 has been unable to leverage its key in-play strengths and trails at 4% share, 11% growth and poor margins.In summary, Tabcorp can probably take a material increase in costs (especially given market disruption), PPB and Stars can take some, the rest will struggle: POC taxes coming out at 15% will more than halve Stars’ EBITDA and it is clear that the key states of NSW and Victoria are heading in that direction (with declining retail and SA/WA models acting as a catalyst and blueprint). Victoria’s positioning is particularly sensitive. On the one hand, legislators are being told (by both betting and racing) that material POC taxes will hurt product fees, but on the other the optical dangers of a lower figure than other states are being made clear by less pro gambling lobbies. Further, Victoria has precedent for turnover levies and this dangerously distorting system being applied to betting tax cannot be ruled out (the thrust of question 3 of its consultation). Here, the fact that Australian horseracing has effectively filled the gap created by no proper taxation system for corporate bookmakers (with only 10% GST being levied), is cold comfort with an obvious victim. Consequently, given that the underlying profitability of the newcomer likely to at least halve, with no gaming to cross-sell (hopes of poker legislation are probably just that in the current climate) and the risk of distorting as well as expensive taxes, why would anyone choose to be in Australia?The answer to that might be painfully simple. Limiting regulation, escalating taxes and a skewed product mix is in danger of becoming the new normal in many markets, and if an operator can’t make it work in gambling-mad Australia, they have little chance elsewhere, in our view. The irony here is that William Hill couldn’t thrive in the world’s most traditional betting market, but is hoping for a much easier time in the US: if operators think Australia is in danger of becoming an over-taxed patchwork of distorting state-driven regulation which favours domestic incumbents, they ain’t seen nothing yet…UK: in Parliament – Harris bombs bookiesDespite the pressures of running for deputy leader of the Welsh Labour Party and campaigning for women’s pension rights, the formidable Carolyn Harris (Lab, Swansea East) still found time this week to take a swipe at the betting sector. In fact, she took more than one – submitting seven written Parliamentary Questions in relation to both FOBTs and to the recent high-profile money laundering and social responsibility failures at William Hill’s online operations.Harris has the bit between her teeth on gambling regulation. As chair of the Labour Campaign for Gambling Reform, she is likely to retain a strong interest in the industry even after the conclusion of the current DCMS review (assuming of course that the review does ever end). Other MPs appear less bothered. Just 43 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 174 (‘Fixed Odds Betting Terminals’) – half the number who signed the very similar EDM 61 in the 2015-2017 Parliament. No MP has signed EDM 174 since October last year, in spite of all the rhetoric and press coverage (perhaps a sign of the extent to which larger affairs of state dominate parliamentary thinking).Elsewhere, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) became the latest to quiz the Government on the status of yet another interminable gambling review – the DCMS investigation into the regulation of society lotteries. Meanwhile, MP comments in The Times on the subject of advertising ban for junk food may have read across for gambling. Sarah Wollaston (Cons, ), the chair of the Select Committee on Health is reported to have said that: “when it comes to children … it’s absolutely right for government to make progress and pull the levers that will make a difference”. Irrespective of the Government’s apparent preference for a compromise solution (RG ads rather than ad restrictions), the issue of gambling advertising may have a way to run yet.Next Tuesday will see the publication of the Government’s Spring Statement. It is expected to be a fairly low-key affair and – while we would not rule out the odd consultation – we do not foresee any changes to gambling taxation being announcedUK: regulatory reform – a train (of thought) bound for nowhere The legendary poker player, Doyle Brunson tells the story of a college student called Tom who carried to the card table a book with the title ‘How to Bluff Constantly and Win’. Several hours later, as he cashed in his winnings, Tom threw the book on to the table for the other players to read. The pages were blank – all except the first one which simply contained the word “Don’t”.On the face of it, it looks as though Ladbrokes Coral may have overplayed its hand on FOBTs. Last Friday, the BBC claimed that LCL had threatened to withdraw sports (and notably racing) sponsorship if FOBT stakes were cut. Five days later, the company appeared to backtrack on the comments, explaining that it had simply intended to point out that any hit to revenue would have cost implications – and that sponsorship was one area that might be affected.In between the BBC story and LCL’s apparent climbdown, Paddy Power played its hand – emphasising its pride in supporting racing and its commitment to continue to do so, regardless of the Government’s decision on FOBT stakes (presumably because it is economically rational, as some parts of LCL probably knew while other parts got political). This was a typically agile and opportunistic move from PPB, demonstrating (with some justification) that the group continues to take a different approach to regulatory risk management and PR than its ABB peers.The FOBT defence erected by the major high street bookmakers has been constituted largely of third-party ‘shields’ – the articulation of consequences for others in the event of Government intervention. We are told that people will lose their jobs, HM Treasury will miss out on taxes and racing will face a funding crisis. There are two obvious issues with this approach. First, it highlights a failure to make the consumer case for non-intervention. Second, it seeks to depict costs which management teams are trying to control as societal benefits. The jobs case appears weak when sector employment is falling as a result of management action; the tax case is undermined by a case history of duty allergy (historically in Great Britain; currently to some extent in Australia); and the tears for racing appear rather amphibian given recent spats over media rights and the ABP scheme.There is also something a little perverse about threatening to take action in one area of public policy concern (sponsorship) if greater restrictions are placed on another. Moreover, the idea that racing will suffer if FOBTs are meddled with provides support for allegations that Britain’s retail betting companies have forgotten how to be bookmakers.Of course, the bookmakers are right to point out that a margin squeeze will affect each of these areas; and Government should approach policy change with eyes open. However, the game becomes dangerous when explanations are perceived as threats. As we (and Kenny Rogers) have pointed out before, “you’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, and know when to run…”Germany: retail betting tax – everyone wants a cutA small but potentially significant number of German municipalities are adding to mounting ‘DACH’ pressures by seeking to add a 3% local turnover tax to 5% existing Inter-State taxes. Ironically, this is in part due to a court’s recognition of the limitations of square footage tax, while recognising that the existing 5% levy was ‘rather low’. Operator cries of double taxation probably confuse a legalistic point borne out of balancing POS regimes with simply being taxed by more than one authority for the same thing (as in normal in many Federal jurisdictions for GST, for example). More significantly, it is showing that a number of German authorities think: a) 5% turnover tax is indeed rather low, and; b) punitive taxes which reduce supply are overall a ‘good thing’. The economic and channelling arguments against this position are clear, but a lobby which looks too similar to ‘betting companies don’t like tax’ does not seem to be cutting much ice. This might be a tax increase which falls hardest on German retail franchisees, but it would be naïve at best to assume the remote sector and retail ‘supply chain’ is not immune to the logic, or the impactBrazil: gambling reform – when a black swan is just a swan in the darkMany commentators reacted with surprise to the ‘shock’ news that one of Brazil’s progressive gambling liberalisation bills was soundly defeated in Senate Commission of Constitutionality and Justice Committee 13-2. The decision has been described as a distortion, with a full chamber likely to be much more sympathetic to the allure of legalised resort casinos and regulated online gambling. We would be less sure. It is a global pattern that gambling liberalisation wins the support of interested parties who take meetings with sympathetic stakeholders and persuade themselves that they are being listened to in the corridors of power. Often, with a shadow timetable the anti-lobby are at work, but never the twain shall meet. Then, the force of conservative reaction to economic and social liberalism comes as a surprise – every time. What will be really surprising is a gambling lobby which recognises the concerns of its anti-gambling (or anti certain types of reform) counterparts and seeks to address them head on – economic arguments always look cheap (to most politicians) next to social ones, and pro-gambling lobbies tend to give the latter field to their opponents. The defeat of this particular bill is not a black swan moment – it is painfully common, and it will continue to be common while the global gambling industry lobbies as it does.Global: Football World Cup – BoJo boycott scare Operators’ hearts would have been in their mouths for a short while this morning as it was reported that Boris Johnson had threatened to withdraw the England football team from this summer’s World Cup, after the suspected poisoning of a Russian dissident in Salisbury at the weekend. The Prime Minister’s spokesman moved quickly to clarify that Johnson was referring to the attendance of diplomats and political representatives at the event in Russia, rather than the team. While some may question the extent to which British civil servants (or even the England football team for that matter) would be missed in any event, operators will be acutely aware that as big a betting event as the World Cup will be, if it were to take place without an England team at all (given that a tournament life expectancy of three games is the best that fans can realistically expect anyway), their anticipated big business on the event would be materially negatively impacted. In a fluid and escalating situation, the Foreign Secretary’s (or his aides’) pronouncements on this subject might have to be given more attention than normal by the sector…Global: eSports – land based tournaments gaining tractionFollowing the announcement that the Luxor Las Vegas would open its dedicated 30,000 sq ft eSports facility in March, Caesars Casino have joined the eSports fray. Partnering with H1Z1 Pro League, Caesars Casino will host the Battle Royale eSports League starting on the 21st of April in its 50,000 square foot production facility dubbed, ‘Caesars Entertainment Studio’. The Tournament will host 15 professional teams over two 10 week cycles, culminating in a championship in the Autumn. Facebook are partnering as the dedicated streaming provider, and fans will be incentivised to tune in, receiving in game redeemable rewards. In a statement Caesars claimed that this latest eSports development builds on the strategy to be at the leading edge of all forms of Interactive Entertainment.In the UK, European Gaming League also announced it is hosting its ‘Gears of War’ eSports Tournament at the Sheffield Ponds Forge Arena, on the 21st and 22nd of April with a total prize fund of $20,000(yes USD not GBP!). These unrelated developments suggest that there is a growing optimism for land based eSports tournaments, given the size of the investment, albeit one that does not yet contain a direct betting involvement. How soon will we see a land based eSports tournament combined with real money gaming? Whilst there may be a betting appetite from punters so far most eSports providers are treading extremely cautiously. Winning Post: Swedish regulator pushes back on ‘Storebror’ approach to deposit limits August 24, 2020