Chief Stipe

95%+ of NZ punters don't have an OZ account with other providers. So now they only have one choice. The question is is the market big enough for the sports punter to find value. The other question is are ENTAIN able to lay off on other markets?

Well I agree in the sense that it is the same modus operandi that the industry administrators have followed for at least 3 decades. In those times it was called reserves and unfortunately when times got tough it was used on stakes and capital costs. Hopefully this new fund will be used for infrastructure maintenance and renewal. That said if you are saying it isn't enough then I agree with you.

NZTR SOI Document attached. NZTR SOI 2026-28.pdf

Sometimes @Gammalite I don't know if you or @the galah actually read what is posted. I'll say it again one more time. The quantum of the non-compliamce by ENTAIN is nowhere near the same as Star Entertainment. The quantum of any penalty will reflect that disparity. ENTAIN may very well get what SportsBet have got and that is enforceable action to remedy flaws in their monitoring systems. You have no idea whether they do or don't. However a public company finds it very hard to hide cash if not impossible. AUSTRAC have done a thorough investigation just as they have with every other organisation they have investigated. I just don't get why you want to slag ENTAIN. FFS read what I have said the penalty matches the quantum of the non-compliance. $45m is not a lot off the bottom line when your profit is AUD$2.1 billion!!! As I've said before ENTAIN may not even get a financial penalty. But it certainly will be less than $400m and close to $45m. TABCORP had 105 breaches (Entain 17) as well as credit card fraud. SportsBet had one individual whose turnover was more than the NZTAB annual turnover and the money was funnelled out of Hong Kong.

There was already money allocated in the budget for track infrastructure. I might add that $10m would barely fix one track.

But the industry doesn't formally call them satellite stables do they. The two in NSW are treated as the same stable. The same applies in NZ. Hence the South Island Premiership should be decided on who has the most number of wins in the South Island.

I did find some irony @Huey in @Pitman 's response to a question about the 2000 Guineas being a target when his 3yr old colt won. He replied that "Te Akau have proven that your horse doesn't have to leave the South Island to win the Guineas"!

ENTAIN didn't commit the first crime. Following your logic WestPac and the CBA should be closed down. Correct. BTW I agree with the rest of your post. It is becoming tedious all the uninformed comment. The AML issue is a legacy issue and many many good honest legitimate businesses have struggled with implementing systems to meet the evolving legislation.

Wrong. Try again.

Wow something positive from Racings Prince of Darkness. Though if you are true to your word you didn't have a bet with ENTAIN. Bit like going to the pub amd both having a drink. Why demean all the workers employed locally at what you call a satellite stable. The so called satellite stable is as big as most of the permanent local trainers. On the one hand you bemoan the fact that there is no competition in the wagering market in NZ yet wish to impose rules the limit the chances of a stable to compete fairly. Even then these rules you infer only serve to assist one stable. At the end of the day Te Akau's investment at Riccarton aids that training centre immensely and improves the quality of South Island racing. Which I note you have been quick to deride in the past.

Your hypothetical questions are nonsense. Both trainers have the same opportunities to pursue either of the two business models. As do owners. Each to their own. I was just presenting some facts to counter the misperception that Te Akau's strike rate and return in the South Island is poor. When it isn't. Some would have you believe that the horses that are sent there are no better than the horses already there with other trainers.

Makes business sense. That doesn't appear to be the case given their investment to date. Who said he got the DCM? Perhaps he left of his own accord. Not withstanding the fact that ENTAIN are streamlining their operation. Yes I do think they are here to help racing. It wouldn't be very prudent to bite the hand the fed them the opportunity in the first place. Are you suggesting HRNZ should put the money on Term Deposit and have zero stakes? Anyway they are still restricting your betting so that must improve their profit.

What do "most of us know"?

I don't get your point @Gammalite The "record fine" didn't last long as a record. Three years later WestPac was fined $1.3 billion. $45m is loose change to ENTAIN.

Any guess who the sire and mare are?

Just for @Pitman benefit. Te Akau won $2.2m in stakes in the South Island.

But it may never get to Court. Speaking of banks WestPac $1.3b fine and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia $700m fine were all taken to the Fed court by AUSTRAC for insufficient AML systems and processes. Don't forget ENTAIN bought the Ladbrokes business and a lot of the issues listed in AUSTRAC's claim relates to the business. ENTAIN have been working to implement new systems and processes to reduce the chance of money laundering occurring. However it isn't a simple process.

You are talking in riddles. Please be the first to tell the world what purpose this investment fund is for. As for drinking too much my choice is Speights and only Champagne when achieving Group success!! I can afford the former and only partake of the latter when winning.

But you keep missing the point @Gammalite Star Entertainment were done for their Casino operation ONE individual turned over more than AUD$2 billion in taxable income. There were others as well THAT'S why they were fined $400m. The illegal turnover was AUD$70 million EVERY week. ENTAIN are not in that league. You can quote all the hack journalists all you wish but the facts are in black and white in the AUSTRAC Statement of Claim.

You miss the point the level of non-compliance is nowhere near other cases. As I keep repeating it is more akin to the Sportsbet case (arguably not as bad as them) where no fine was incurred. Westpac bank was fined AUD$1.3 billion but there non-compliance involved billions of dollars NOT $157m.

You miss the point - there may be no fine going on precedent. If there is it won't be anywhere near what the doom and gloomers of the NZ Racing Industry predict. Certainly I very much doubt there will be a "huge fine" that would force ENTAIN to abandon their Australian and NZ businesses. The latter is a 25 year license.

Waller has two stables in Sydney, one on the Gold Coast and one in Victoria. His wins in each location count for each States Premiership. He has one assistant Trainer and several foreman. Te Akau have two trainers (Mark Walker and Sam Bergerson) and 3 Assistant Trainers. Reese Trumper (Matamata), Ben Gleason (Cranbourne) and Hunter Durant (Riccarton). What's wrong with that? But they do attend. Really @Gammalite you really need to catch up with the programme. Modern technology and systems allows a Trainer to manage effectively from a remote location. However you still need skilled and licensed individuals on the ground. Be it Assitant Trainers or Foreman. Te Akau has invested heavily in acquiring young talented staff. Why should they be slayed for it? Surely you are not suggesting that Chris Wallers winners in Queensland and Victoria shouldn't count because he lives in NSW?

@Gammalite I suggest you read ALL of the following thread.

NO it isn't because the quantum of the offending is much less. PLUS Entain was already in discussions with AUSTRC to improve their compliance and had a systems and process upgrade in progress. Yes we all know that hence AML laws. But knowing who is or isn't a criminal isn't that easy to ascertain. You are buying into the same hogwash as @JJ Flash , @Transparency and even @Brodie. I'll post the Topic link here and you can go have a read. YES it is SERIOUS but the level of offending is nowhere near other offenders. It is closer to Sportsbet whose penalty was enforceable remedial work on their systems i.e. no substantial fines. $152m is chicken feed. In the Crown case there was ONE individual turning over more than the NZ TAB turns over in total!!!

True. But doesn't the 50% given to TABNZ have to be shown on the opposite side of the ledger? So for example $100 GBR less $50 = $50 left. But on the revenue side ENTAIN now have $50 and on the cost side they have $50. Or is $50 given to TABNZ not accounted for in the taxation accounts as a cost? I realise I'm opening myself up to ridicule but I'm just thinking aloud.