Chief Stipe

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.

Yes that appears to be @Pitman 's business model and the strike rate of 10.7 reflects that. @Pitman has the same opportunities to adapt the same model as Te Akau to the South Island conditions. Don't forget he has won two National Premierships from his South island base. So not impossible. How is it "unfair"? I've yet to see anyone post anything anywhere online that convinces me that it is unfair. Riccarton and South Island racing in general would be all the poorer without Te Akau's significant investment in their Riccarton stables and other support services. I don't understand why everyone is so quick to knock Te Akau for any reason they can find. Riccarton isn't a "satellite stable" whatever that really means. It is a full time operation from which horses raced 305 times last season representing 37% of Te Akau's starts nationwide. Only Pitman and Carston had more. @Newmarket are you becoming NZ Racing's Prince of Darkness?

WHAT IN YOUR OPINION IS THEIR INTENTION?

But based on my rudimentary understanding of accounting wouldn't Gross Revenue where 50% is treated as a cost and 50% treated as revenue equal zero?

Was Shannon "Shown the Door"? His press release was he wanted to pursue other opportunities. Geez @Gammalite have you bought into @JJ Flash negative spin on the AUSTRAC issues? The Star Entertainment problems were many magnitude greater than ENTAIN/Ladbrokes. I've discussed that at length on the Thoroughbred forum. If the future wasn't rosy for ENTAIN why has their share price increased 45% this year? As I pointed out in earlier posts ENTAINS non-compliance is more comparable with Sportsbet and other cases where the enforceable action has been limited to remeidal actions to fix their systems and independent audit of those changes. Certainly not in the league of Sky Casino or Crown Casino nor anywhere near the non-compliance of Westpac Bank.

How would that be accounted for in ENTAIN's accounts? Is the 50% treated as a cost to ENTAIN? e.g. a license to operate fee? What are the taxation implications?

From a taxation perspective how will ENTAIN account for the distribution to TABNZ? As a license cost and therefore reduce their own tax liability. Assuming that they pay tax on their net proft.

Those costs should be reducing as ENTAIN negotiate new supply contracts. Plus the software licensing costs for the wagering systems must be lower as it is an internal charge now since ENTAIN own the software. No need for as many NZ based bookies either.

@hesi turf track maintenance has been a neglected issue for 30 years or more. The administrators are still stuck in the mode that increasing stakes will fix everything. They forget that you still need safe and fair tracks to race on. In that respect Harness have an advantage as their tracks require lower maintenance than turf or even the Polytrack.

There is a guaranteed income beyond 5 years. The profit from the NZ operation is shared 50:50. That's the terms on which the license has been granted. I don't see it as bizarre. What I do find bizarre is the negativity around this industry saving deal. The NZ TAB was insolvent and needed $30m of taxpayers money to stay afloat. All I hear from supposedly supporters of the industry is uniformed commentary about ENTAIN share prices and AML legal issues. ENTAIN is a FTSE 100 with a current Market Cap of NZD$14.5 billion. It's not public funding. There IS guaranteed funding beyond 5 years. The question is will it be more or less than what it currently is. The biggest difference is the industry revenue is no longer provided through a statutory body that has been constantly propped up by the NZ taxpayer. Perhaps the industry should start looking at living within its means and or promote itself better. The latter is something we all can do. No I know there is an agreement in place which was made public. I have forgotten the detail I.e. is it 50% of Gross Betting/Wagering Revenue.

Why would you be told the commercial arrangements of a private corporation? For that matter why is it important to you?