August turnover numbers

[curious]

13 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Can you eliminate the tautology and explain what you actually mean?

Simply that I don't see that one way or another, Entain can not pay the guaranteed minimum through May 2028, unless they can sell their contract to someone else who would then have to pay it.

[Chief Stipe]

37 minutes ago, curious said:

Simply that I don't see that one way or another, Entain can not pay the guaranteed minimum through May 2028

But ENTAIN can - if there is a difference between NZ earnings and the contracted payment then any loss is paid from the ENTAIN consolidated accounts.

[curious]

Just now, Chief Stipe said:

But ENTAIN can - if there is a difference between NZ earnings and the contracted payment then any loss is paid from the ENTAIN consolidated accounts.

Exactly.

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, curious said:

Exactly.

So you said they can't now you say they can?

[curious]

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So you said they can't now you say they can?

You should read my posts before you question them. I think I clearly said that I don't see how they possibly can not and that the payments are as close to a certainty as you can get.

 

Edited Friday at 01:10 AM by curious

[Chief Stipe]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

You should read my posts before you question them. I think I clearly said that I don't see how they possibly can not and that the payments are as close to a certainty as you can get.

 

So you can see it one way or other.

[curious]

38 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So you can see it one way or other.

You might but I don't.

[the galah]

On 3/10/2025 at 1:09 PM, curious said:

Of course I'm making assumptions. So are you. That's the nature of predictive or futures markets. 

However, I believe my assumptions are well founded. I have exact Entain revenue data through the end of the 23-24 season. I have exact turnover data since then through August 25. I am assuming that overall margins remain the same through May 28, which is probably generous given the clear trend from tote to FO markets.

I'm also aware of the annual growth in turnover to date. So, I am assuming that will remain similar for the balance of the guarantee period. The query of course was whether the online monopoly would change that but 2 months in there is no indication of that.

As well, Entain has already written down the value of its TAB NZ operations due to missed targets and market challenges.

And they face growing competition from casino licensing and other off shore marketers, especially where their pricing is not competitive. 

Now if you want to buy a horse to race beyond the guarantee period, or breed a foal that won't even get to the races by then based on your assumptions, then good luck to you.

The sports betting increase through the nz tab,since the geo blocking,is obviously going to be a factor in helping nz racing.

 Exactly how much the nz racing industry will get from increased sports turnover seems unclear at this stage,but you would assume it will significant,just how significant is unclear.

for racing,it was always going to be questionable as to whether the increases in turnover on the nz tab,were going to make up for the lost revenue they were getting from the overseas bookies,who previously took betting and paid fees, on the nz racing product.

then you have to factor in the % increase the thoroughbred and harness will get from receiving the greyhound industries share ,once they finish.

And i do agree with hesi when he talks about supply and demand as regards the horse pool available for racing. Thats something i can't understand why the harness side don't stress more. I.e. there is going to be greater demand for the lower numbers of horses being bred,whatever the quality. 

personally i think the gallops administrators are being more fiscally responsible currently than the harness,and will be in a better position going forward. But i'm still like you,i doubt both sides of the industry can sustain their current level of funding.

But we still can't really know for sure until the impact of the factors i've mentioned play out.

Edited yesterday at 09:11 PM by the galah

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

Exactly how much the nz racing industry will get from increased sports turnover seems unclear at this stage,but you would assume it will significant,just how significant is unclear.

Most of the increased revenue from Sports Betting will be distributed to Sports as per the following extract from the Racing Act 2020.  The only revenue that could be distributed elsewhere i.e. to Racing is for a Sport that doesn't have a National Association.  However even then there is an obligation to distribute it to Sports and Recreation NZ.

The issue that concerns some doom and gloomers is how much of the Racing wagering will be cannibalised by Sports betting particularly new exotic products aimed at Sports.

 

82Application of revenue from sports betting

(1)

TAB must apply the amounts received by it for sports betting, including the net return from bets laid off under section 78(2)(b)(ii), for a racing year in payment of (or in respect of)—

(a)

refunds of bets and winning dividends for that year, including payments to dividend prize pools that will be carried forward and paid out as winning dividends at a future date; and

(b)

goods and services tax; and

(c)

totalisator duty as prescribed by the Gaming Duties Act 1971; and

(d)

the distribution of betting profits (if any) in accordance with section 73; and

(e)

the amounts (not less than the minimum amounts prescribed by, or calculated in accordance with, the method prescribed in regulations under section 128) payable to New Zealand national sporting organisations and Sport and Recreation New Zealand under agreements entered into under sections 79 and 80; and

(f)

all costs, charges, and expenses incurred by TAB NZ in the performance and exercise of its functions, duties, and powers during that year in relation to sports betting.

(2)

The surplus, if any, of the amounts received by it for sports betting that remains after making the payments referred to in subsection (1) must be applied by TAB NZ in accordance with sections 65, 71, and 72.

Compare: 2003 No 3 s 57

[curious]

1 hour ago, the galah said:

 Exactly how much the nz racing industry will get from increased sports turnover seems unclear at this stage,but you would assume it will significant,just how significant is unclear.

...But we still can't really know for sure until the impact of the factors i've mentioned play out.

I agree with that, but with current public, political and media support growing, I'd say sports will get at least a more equitable share of the TAB revenue generated from sports betting. 

Personally, I think that sports should get all that net revenue, not racing.

I think $20m of the recent Entain $100m payment has been allocated to sports with a decision pending about how that should be distributed. As far as I am aware, in Australia, racing does not receive a direct share of sports betting turnover.

[the galah]

26 minutes ago, curious said:

I agree with that, but with current public, political and media support growing, I'd say sports will get at least a more equitable share of the TAB revenue generated from sports betting. 

Personally, I think that sports should get all that net revenue, not racing.

I think $20m of the recent Entain $100m payment has been allocated to sports with a decision pending about how that should be distributed. As far as I am aware, in Australia, racing does not receive a direct share of sports betting turnover.

yes,but the tab was set up for racing ,hence it can be argued racing deserves the cut of the revenue generated from sports betting that it currently receives.Each sports organisation has a negotiated contract with the tab as to how much they receive.i posted what they were getting in another thread not that long ago,i can't remember whether it was a harness or gallops thread.

from memory each national sporting organisation used to get about 5 years ago a minimum of 23 % of net betting revenue and an additional 3%,which  goes to sport nz who distribute  to all the sporting codes.NSO's can try and negotiaet a greater %,but that wasn't guaranteed.

of course net betting revenue is effected by whether favorites have a run,as if they did,gross betting revenue  could be high, but net betting revenue not so good. I think some nso would have tried to add a gross betting revenue clause in their contracts,but we don't know what is actually in any contracts between the tab and the sporting organisations.

and then of course the main reason entain got into nz,was their share of the revenue they believed would be generrated from the sports betting and entain ,being a partner of the nz tab isn't going to want to give away greater % of profit and will be pretty hard nosed in negotiations with sports groups,which will help the nz tab being their partner. 

so sports betting is obviously of  significane to nz racing and we are fortunate that is the case and that the tab/entain have control now of the nz sports betting. Just how significant is too early to tell you would think,maybe its a big deal,maybe its not. Racings desperately needs every bit of revenue it can get,.

the thing about what we are discussing is,the authorities never seem transparent enough for us to make informed conclusions.And you get the impression, thats because they are only guessing.So that doesn't fill anyone with much confidence.

Edited 23 hours ago by the galah

[curious]

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

and then of course the main reason entain got into nz,was their share of the revenue they believed would be generrated from the sports betting and entain ,being a partner of the nz tab isn't going to want to give away greater % of profit and will be pretty hard nosed in negotiations with sports groups,which will help the nz tab being their partner. 

I don't think Entain would have anything to do with it. It's the revenue from them to NZTAB that is distributed to racing and sports, so what share any of them get is negotiated between the code or sport and NZTAB. What the respective allocations are from NZTAB's 50% has no affect on Entain's 50%.

Edited 23 hours ago by curious

[the galah]

2 hours ago, curious said:

I don't think Entain would have anything to do with it. It's the revenue from them to NZTAB that is distributed to racing and sports, so what share any of them get is negotiated between the code or sport and NZTAB. What the respective allocations are from NZTAB's 50% has no affect on Entain's 50%.

i just goggled it. and if we can trust google to get it right,entain does  contibute a share of its sports betting profits to  nz sports organisations.

If it didn't and they took out the 50% profit prior to the nz tab distributing to the nso's,then that would mean the nz tab would be gettiing only half of the profits from  sports betting that it was prior to partnering with entain.

So surely they,nz racing and the govt and nz tab, wouldn't have negotiated a contract with entain where sports betting returns to the racing industry could be , in reality be reduced and nz racing  worse off? 

Edited 20 hours ago by the galah

[curious]

2 hours ago, the galah said:

i just goggled it. and if we can trust google to get it right,entain does  contibute a share of its sports betting profits to  nz sports organisations.

If it didn't and they took out the 50% profit prior to the nz tab distributing to the nso's,then that would mean the nz tab would be gettiing only half of the profits from  sports betting that it was prior to partnering with entain.

So surely they,nz racing and the govt and nz tab, wouldn't have negotiated a contract with entain where sports betting returns to the racing industry could be , in reality be reduced and nz racing  worse off? 

I think you should double check with google where it gets that from.

Here's a similar AI query that I just did which matches my understanding.

Does Entain directly fund NSOs in New Zealand?

No, Entain does not directly fund National Sporting Organisations (NSOs) in New Zealand. Instead, all funding flows through TAB NZ, which remains the statutory body responsible for distributing betting revenue to both the racing industry and sporting bodies.

[Chief Stipe]

50 minutes ago, the galah said:

yes,but the tab was set up for racing ,hence it can be argued racing deserves the cut of the revenue generated from sports betting that it currently receives.

Yes the TAB was originally set up for racing.  That wasn't because there wasn't any sports betting occuring with the local pub bookie itwas because the main game in town was racing AND the administrators (the "old boy whales of the time") wanted to control the betting and create a monopoly.

Sports betting was not approved in NZ until 1996 and again the NZ TAB was given the monopoly.  Ironically Sports then faced the same problem that the new legislation is aiming to stop and that is the use of someone elses product to generate revenue.

Sports betting didn't start in OZ until 1983 and that was on the back of the advent of the Packer driven Circus of One Day cricket.  The OZ TAB was the only agency allowed to take bets - on football, cricket and boxing.  Sportsbet was allowed to set up in 1996 and provided competition.

The NZ TAB is not owned by NZ Racing.  It has never been owned by Racing.  It is a statutory entity that exists only because Government has allowed it to exist.  The argument that NZ Racing built it up and funded it is spurious at best.  

[Gammalite]

28 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Sports betting didn't start in OZ until 1983

One bloke in Darwin took bets from 1983 Chief. On-course only at races piggy backing 'Sports Betting' on the back of a licensed Bookmaker at the races.

Took 10 years but finally in 1993 the Northern Territory government Legalised Sports betting away from the track.

So 2 blokes sat in a office in Alice Springs with 2 telephones and a pen and paper , and took phone bets from Around Australia all day long lol , CENTREBET was off and running.

By the turn of the century they (Centrebet) were turning over $300,000,000 per year . 

They sold out their 'small' business  to a local competitor in 2003 for $47,000,000.

You may ask why Alice Springs and Darwin ? because they Tax at half the rate of other states. Even to this day I believe.  The revived 'Centrebet name'  from other companies still trades out of the Northern Territory.

Their are that many on-line betting companies these days it's crazy

 

[the galah]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I think you should double check with google where it gets that from.

Here's a similar AI query that I just did which matches my understanding.

Does Entain directly fund NSOs in New Zealand?

No, Entain does not directly fund National Sporting Organisations (NSOs) in New Zealand. Instead, all funding flows through TAB NZ, which remains the statutory body responsible for distributing betting revenue to both the racing industry and sporting bodies.

google and AI,seems they don't agree.

so you seem to be saying

pre entain the nz tab paid the new zealnad sporting organisations their share from the tab's 100%,then after entain took over,the nz tab pay the nso's the same %,but from only a 50% share. 

so you appear to be saying the nz governmant negotiated a deal where sports betting would have to double for the tab to be making the same amount as it was pre entain.

at least thats what it sounds like you are saying to me.

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes the TAB was originally set up for racing.  That wasn't because there wasn't any sports betting occuring with the local pub bookie itwas because the main game in town was racing AND the administrators (the "old boy whales of the time") wanted to control the betting and create a monopoly.

Sports betting was not approved in NZ until 1996 and again the NZ TAB was given the monopoly.  Ironically Sports then faced the same problem that the new legislation is aiming to stop and that is the use of someone elses product to generate revenue.

Sports betting didn't start in OZ until 1983 and that was on the back of the advent of the Packer driven Circus of One Day cricket.  The OZ TAB was the only agency allowed to take bets - on football, cricket and boxing.  Sportsbet was allowed to set up in 1996 and provided competition.

The NZ TAB is not owned by NZ Racing.  It has never been owned by Racing.  It is a statutory entity that exists only because Government has allowed it to exist.  The argument that NZ Racing built it up and funded it is spurious at best.  

i get that.

i never said the nz tab  was owned by nz racing.

i  can reasonably argue racings past association with the nz tab is the reason why racing currently get a cut of the sports betting money.

Its not a spurios argument i make. Its real.

Edited 16 hours ago by the galah

[curious]

17 minutes ago, the galah said:

google and AI,seems they don't agree.

so you seem to be saying

pre entain the nz tab paid the new zealnad sporting organisations their share from the tab's 100%,then after entain took over,the nz tab pay the nso's the same %,but from only a 50% share. 

so you appear to be saying the nz governmant negotiated a deal where sports betting would have to double for the tab to be making the same amount as it was pre entain.

at least thats what it sounds like you are saying to me.

Yes but it's net to TABNZ without the operating expenses and by my estimates, in 2029, will be about 2/3 - 3/5 what the guaranteed payments are now, though still more than what their net was before the Entain deal, without the risk.

[the galah]

24 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes but it's net to TABNZ without the operating expenses and by my estimates, in 2029, will be about 2/3 - 3/5 what the guaranteed payments are now, though still more than what their net was before the Entain deal, without the risk.

so,your saying, the government negotiated a deal with entain ,which nz racing was all for,to give away a % of profit from sports betting ,so they could get the one off payments and get  a smaller % of a big pie,instead a bigger % of a smaller pie pre entain,.,due to the geo blocking.

then the obvious question i would ask is.

if entain invested in the nz tab because they saw the potential profits that could be generated from the nz tab having a monopoly on nz sports betting after the geo blocking,then why didn't the nz tab just go it alone and have the governmant introduce geo blocking without the need for entain.

if your answer is,because of the initial $150 million payment and the 20 million payment  from the geo blocking,then it still doesn't make sense if you look at the long term. I'm not saying your wrong,it just doesn't seem to be that clever to me.

Edited 16 hours ago by the galah

[curious]

10 minutes ago, the galah said:

so,your saying, the government negotiated a deal with entain ,which nz racing was all for,to give away a % of profit from sports betting ,so they could get the one off payments and get  a smaller % of a big pie,instead a bigger % of a smaller pie pre entain,.,due to the geo blocking.

then the obvious question i would ask is.

if entain invested in the nz tab because they saw the potential profits that could be generated from the nz tab having a monopoly on nz sports betting after the geo blocking,then why didn't the nz tab just go it alone and have the governmant introduce geo blocking without the need for entain.

if your answer is,because of the initial $150 million payment and the 20 million payment  from the geo blocking,then it still doesn't make sense if you look at the long term. I'm not saying your wrong,it just doesn't seem to be that clever to me.

The relative distribution of the net profit between racing and sports didn't change with the Entain deal. I'm really not quite clear what you are talking about. The Entain deal was done for the benefit of both.

[mikeynz]

From what I believe the distribution some of NZ sporting bodies get is very significant,.

Racing shouldn't get any but if it helps the overall business, that's Entain going, that helps.

Edited 15 hours ago by mikeynz

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, mikeynz said:

From what I believe the distribution some of NZ sporting bodies get is very significant,.

Which they are entitled to are they not?

[Chief Stipe]

41 minutes ago, the galah said:

so,your saying, the government negotiated a deal with entain ,which nz racing was all for,to give away a % of profit from sports betting ,so they could get the one off payments and get  a smaller % of a big pie,instead a bigger % of a smaller pie pre entain,.,due to the geo blocking.

TAB NZ have had to give NZ Sports a percentage of the revenue earnt from their sport long before the ENTAIN deal.  The legislation that was passed in 2020 however extended the amount distributed to Sports by legally requiring the money earnt by Sports who didn't have a national organisation to go to NZ Sports and Recreation.

The ENTAIN deal splits the net wagering revenue 50:50 between ENTAIN and Racing/Sports.  

[the galah]

37 minutes ago, curious said:

The relative distribution of the net profit between racing and sports didn't change with the Entain deal. I'm really not quite clear what you are talking about. The Entain deal was done for the benefit of both.

well,we've  been talking about who provides the new zealand sporting organisations with the money from  sports betting.

when i suggested,the money came from  entain and the nz tab , you said no, its solely the nz tab and that entain got to keep all of their 50% of the sports betting profits and that the nz tab paid the 23% to the nso out of the nz tab's  50% shae of the profits. In other words the nso share came out after the nz tab got its 50% share,not before, as if it was before,then that would have meant entain were contributing,which you said,no they weren't to.

then i said, if entain could see they could make so much money from sports betting through geo blocking,then why didn't the nz tab ask the nz governmant to do the geo blocking without the need for entain,thus getting to keep all that extra revenue the geo blocking created.

Then you mentioned the 2029 projected  figure as if that was a good thing and i came back and again said well why didn't the nz tab just ask for the geo blocking and take all the extra profit in the future ,thus not needing to give away hundreds of millions over the next 25 years.

then you seemed to say,hey you've lost me. And then i assume you went and took 2 panadol.

Edited 15 hours ago by the galah