dates calendar

[Withadream2]

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

But hopefully the ENTAIN license has conditions that ensure some of that revenue funds Racing

I certainly hope so Chief but if that was the case I would have thought we would know about it by now.  I have my doubts but I hope I’m wrong. 

[Chief Stipe]

51 minutes ago, Withadream2 said:

I certainly hope so Chief but if that was the case I would have thought we would know about it by now.  I have my doubts but I hope I’m wrong. 

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

[Withadream2]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

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

Why would it be important to me? Well I would have thought that was obvious. I want Harness Racing to firstly survive & hopefully thrive beyond the initial 5 years of guaranteed income from Entain, so it would be comforting to know if there was some level of guaranteed income beyond that period. What a bizarre question.  Secondly, many of the financial aspects of the deal with Entain are public eg the addional payment for geo blocking, so why would they not tell interested parties if there was a guaranteed minimum income beyond the 5 years.   You suggested there might be such an agreement in place so it is obviously of interest to you. Why wouldn’t it be of interest to others?.  

[hesi]

5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

What other options were there?

Maybe.  But hopefully the ENTAIN license has conditions that ensure some of that revenue funds Racing.  You all forget that at the end of the day ENTAIN have bought a monopoly license for the NZ market.  That license will have conditions for both parties. 

Many things we will never know about the Entain contract, until 2028 and beyond.

Many things we will also never know, about what the other 2 contenders for outsourcing were offering.  I suspect not as big a carrot as Entain.

Many things also again that we will not know about how much say Entain has with TAB NZ, NZTR and HRNZ, in where the money is spent.  Considering Entain potentially has a lot to lose, I would say a hell of a lot.  Sometimes is does not seem that way with the focus on raising stakes at the expense, in thoroughbred's case, of addressing tracks.

 

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

I want Harness Racing to firstly survive & hopefully thrive beyond the initial 5 years of guaranteed income from Entain, so it would be comforting to know if there was some level of guaranteed income beyond that period.

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.

9 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

What a bizarre question.

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.  

10 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

Secondly, many of the financial aspects of the deal with Entain are public eg the addional payment for geo blocking, so why would they not tell interested parties if there was a guaranteed minimum income beyond the 5 years.  

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.

10 hours ago, Withadream2 said:

You suggested there might be such an agreement in place so it is obviously of interest to you. Why wouldn’t it be of interest to others?.  

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.  

[Chief Stipe]

9 hours ago, hesi said:

Considering Entain potentially has a lot to lose, I would say a hell of a lot.  Sometimes is does not seem that way with the focus on raising stakes at the expense, in thoroughbred's case, of addressing tracks.

@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.

[hesi]

Be good clarify, is it 50/50 GBR or 50/50 gross profit.

Surely it has to be the latter.  Entain's costs in NZ, advertising for a start must be several million dollars.  This all has to be paid before there is any 50/50 divvy up.  Also TAB NZ's running costs.

As you say, a lot of this negativity about Entain is hard to understand and must surely be based on ignorance.

Many things in life are not ideal, but the alternative, would have seen the start of the end for racing in NZ

[Chief Stipe]

14 minutes ago, hesi said:

Surely it has to be the latter.  Entain's costs in NZ, advertising for a start must be several million dollars.  This all has to be paid before there is any 50/50 divvy up.  Also TAB NZ's running costs.

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.

[curious]

32 minutes ago, hesi said:

Be good clarify, is it 50/50 GBR or 50/50 gross profit.

Surely it has to be the latter.  

No. It's the former.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, curious said:

No. It's the former.

Correction. Actually it's gross profit, so before any Entain operating costs.

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, curious said:

Correction. Actually it's gross profit, so before any Entain operating costs.

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.

[curious]

7 minutes ago, curious said:

Correction. Actually it's gross profit, so before any Entain operating costs.

"The Entain–TAB NZ partnership is based on a 50/50 share of Gross Betting Revenue (GBR)—that is, wagering turnover minus customer payouts—with Entain covering all operating and marketing costs, meaning the profit split occurs before expenses."

[Gammalite]

38 minutes ago, hesi said:

As you say, a lot of this negativity about Entain is hard to understand and must surely be based on ignorance.

Many things in life are not ideal, but the alternative, would have seen the start of the end for racing in NZ

Not sure if they do everything correctly though.

Dean Shannon , a great trotting investor man for decades,  was 'Shown the Door' at the end of June as Entain are still in Money Laundering issues that see them in Federal court at the moment.  Dean was at the helm for 7 years odd as the Aus -NZ head CEO of the Entain operation.

NOTE One of the big Casino set up in Australia 'Star Entertainment ' have an impending $400,000,000 fine attempting to be put on them by the Crime watchdog AUSTRAC for laundering tens of millions through 2022 . 

AUSTRAC are currently chasing ENTAIN in the courts , so not looking too rosy for them in near future .

Shannon’s departure comes as Entain Australia reaches the pointy end of its own legal fight with AUSTRAC, taken to Federal Court over alleged breaches of “serious non-compliance with Australia’s money laundering laws.”

[Chief Stipe]

43 minutes ago, curious said:

"The Entain–TAB NZ partnership is based on a 50/50 share of Gross Betting Revenue (GBR)—that is, wagering turnover minus customer payouts—with Entain covering all operating and marketing costs, meaning the profit split occurs before expenses."

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?

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

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?

I'm sure it would be, maybe a reduction in gross profit or maybe an operating expense. Not quite sure, but certainly deductible before EBITDA.

Edited 19 hours ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

44 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

Dean Shannon , a great trotting investor man for decades,  was 'Shown the Door' at the end of June as Entain are still in Money Laundering issues that see them in Federal court at the moment.  Dean was at the helm for 7 years odd as the Aus -NZ head CEO of the Entain operation.

 

Was Shannon "Shown the Door"?  His press release was he wanted to pursue other opportunities.

45 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

NOTE One of the big Casino set up in Australia 'Star Entertainment ' have an impending $400,000,000 fine attempting to be put on them by the Crime watchdog AUSTRAC for laundering tens of millions through 2022 . 

 

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.

47 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

AUSTRAC are currently chasing ENTAIN in the courts , so not looking too rosy for them in near future .

Shannon’s departure comes as Entain Australia reaches the pointy end of its own legal fight with AUSTRAC, taken to Federal Court over alleged breaches of “serious non-compliance with Australia’s money laundering laws.”

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.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

I'm sure it would be, maybe a reduction in gross profit or maybe an operating expense. Not quite sure, but certainly deductible before EBITDA.

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?

[curious]

8 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

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?

Doesn't a 50% cost subtracted from 100%, leave 50% gross in the Entain accounts?

[Gammalite]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

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.

I hope you're right Chief.

BUT to go to Federal Court is Very Serious indeed. ENTAIN are charged with Serious and Systemic NON Compliance with anti- money laundering financing laws.  

The Entain share price is heading Downwards mate. be like a car off a cliff shortly. 

Dean Shannon is a TOP bloke that I knew racing harness horses. He would of been SCRAMBLING for the Door Chief , with all the Entain case about to happen. His involvement is unknown , but the CEO generally takes the Fall first when a company is on the ropes. He should just return to QLD and race his trotters I reckon. Take Seymour on 👍😎 and keep out of those Federal Courts.  

[Gammalite]

21 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

The Star Entertainment problems were many magnitude greater than ENTAIN/Ladbrokes.  I've discussed that at length on the Thoroughbred forum.

seems like the same charges Chief. ENTAIN doing exactly what Star Entertainment did . 

You Cannot take Bets from known Criminal organisations to 'Move their Proceeds of crime' 

ENTAIN have had more than just our great trotting man Dean resign. there's a few. 

This All sounds VERY serious. Sorry I didn't see what you discussed on Gallops thread .

But here's something for the Trotting blokes to chew on.

Brodster said ENTAIN would be the death of NZ racing . certainly they are sticking some dynamite around anyway. 

here's a snippet from earlier in the year from the guardian

The deputy chief executive officer of one of the biggest gambling companies in Australia, Entain, has resigned in the midst of a high-profile legal challenge by the nation’s financial intelligence agency.

Lachlan Fitt has served as the chief financial officer of Entain Australia, which runs the Ladbrokes and Neds gambling brands in Australia, since 2018, and has driven the company’s mergers and acquisitions strategy.

 

The managing director of Entain NZ, Cameron Rodger, has also resigned, just one week after the global chief executive, Gavin Isaacs, left the company with immediate effect

The resignations come at a delicate time for the global gambling giant, which was taken to the federal court by Australia’s financial intelligence agency (Austrac) in December. Austrac alleges Entain committed “serious and systemic non-compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws”.

Austrac accused Entain of accepting $152m in bets from 17 high-risk customers who had “suspected criminal profiles and associations” despite being aware they may have been laundering money, federal court documents allege.

[Chief Stipe]

24 minutes ago, curious said:

Doesn't a 50% cost subtracted from 100%, leave 50% gross in the Entain accounts?

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.

[Chief Stipe]

14 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

seems like the same charges Chief. ENTAIN doing exactly what Star Entertainment did . 

 

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.

15 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

You Cannot take Bets from known Criminal organisations to 'Move their Proceeds of crime' 

 

Yes we all know that hence AML laws.  But knowing who is or isn't a criminal isn't that easy to ascertain.

17 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

ENTAIN have had more than just our great trotting man Dean resign. there's a few. 

This All sounds VERY serious. Sorry I didn't see what you discussed on Gallops thread .

 

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.

20 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

accepting $152m in bets from 17 high-risk customers who had “suspected criminal profiles and associations” despite being aware they may have been laundering money, federal court documents allege.

$152m is chicken feed.  In the Crown case there was ONE individual turning over more than the NZ TAB turns over in total!!!

[Chief Stipe]

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

 

[Gammalite]

25 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes we all know that hence AML laws.  But knowing who is or isn't a criminal isn't that easy to ascertain.

true. otherwise they wouldn't be able to function would they ? if 'easy to Ascertain'. 

25 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

46 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

accepting $152m in bets from 17 high-risk customers who had “suspected criminal profiles and associations” despite being aware they may have been laundering money, federal court documents allege.

$152m is chicken feed.  In the Crown case there was ONE individual turning over more than the NZ TAB turns over in total!!!

Yes the Star Entertainment case involved about over 100 different customers in question , so that is more than the 17 that have bought ENTAIN into disrepute.  

So you say if you take proceeds from 17 crimes its different to 100 ?? shouldn't be . it's the same offence. 

Currently 11 'Former' Directors and executives of Star Entertainment are being 'Processed' One by One , and of course are serving sentences of varied fines and terms of disqualification from Managing Corporations.

No doubt this will happen with the Entain Directors as well from all those 'resignations'. But the Company itself will face a Fine sooner or later .

STAR Entertainment are fighting the $400,000,000 proposed fine. 100,000,000 is target.

Currently they are trying to offload assets to get by . They failed to sell the brand new Brisbane Queens Wharf development so owe investors 40 million just this month alone 🙄. Operating cost for star are off the scale with $27,000,000 Loss every quarter at the moment.

hows this for a Drop off Chief ??  The quarter ending June 30 this year saw 'Star' get $270,000,000 Revenue. and the same quarter last year was $393,000,000. 🤣😆  they're really missing those 100 'dodgey' investors lol .  

I hope you're right and 'ENTAIN' has a better outcome though. For NZ's gambling/racing sake. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Gammalite

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Gammalite said:

I hope you're right and 'ENTAIN' has a better outcome though. For NZ's gambling/racing sake. 

I fail to see how the outcome could possibly have any impact on NZ racing?