ENTAIN 2026 Interim Financial Results

[curious]

In a statement to RNZ, Racing Minister Winston Peters said he had "received correspondence" regarding the TAB's proposal, but he would not change the law to allow the TAB to run an online casino.

"Casino products are fundamentally different to wagering products and the Minister has advised TAB NZ of his expectation that it retains its focus on sports and racing."

They can't successfully run their own business so they want to run one they know nothing about? I don't think there was very widespread support from many in the racing industry either. It's an absolute NO for me.

But this is a good example, of what I said above. We are facing a $30m reduction in TABNZ distributions over the next 2 years. I'm interested in how NZTR think they are going to survive that. I can't see any escape from at least another $10-15m in stakes reductions.

And here we are talking about casino licences that wouldn't be in place for years and probably never.

Edited September 4 by curious

[Chief Stipe]

25 minutes ago, curious said:

In a statement to RNZ, Racing Minister Winston Peters said he had "received correspondence" regarding the TAB's proposal, but he would not change the law to allow the TAB to run an online casino.

"Casino products are fundamentally different to wagering products and the Minister has advised TAB NZ of his expectation that it retains its focus on sports and racing."

They can't successfully run their own business so they want to run one they know nothing about? I don't think there was very widespread support from many in the racing industry either. It's an absolute NO for me.

But this is a good example, of what I said above. We are facing a $30m reduction in TABNZ distributions over the next 2 years. I'm interested in how NZTR think they are going to survive that. I can't see any escape from at least another $10-15m in stakes reductions.

And here we are talking about casino licences that wouldn't be in place for years and probably never.

Winston has a short memory.

[the galah]

38 minutes ago, curious said:

In a statement to RNZ, Racing Minister Winston Peters said he had "received correspondence" regarding the TAB's proposal, but he would not change the law to allow the TAB to run an online casino.

"Casino products are fundamentally different to wagering products and the Minister has advised TAB NZ of his expectation that it retains its focus on sports and racing."

They can't successfully run their own business so they want to run one they know nothing about? I don't think there was very widespread support from many in the racing industry either. It's an absolute NO for me.

But this is a good example, of what I said above. We are facing a $30m reduction in TABNZ distributions over the next 2 years. I'm interested in how NZTR think they are going to survive that. I can't see any escape from at least another $10-15m in stakes reductions.

And here we are talking about casino licences that wouldn't be in place for years and probably never.

.

Edited September 4 by the galah

[the galah]

39 minutes ago, curious said:

In a statement to RNZ, Racing Minister Winston Peters said he had "received correspondence" regarding the TAB's proposal, but he would not change the law to allow the TAB to run an online casino.

"Casino products are fundamentally different to wagering products and the Minister has advised TAB NZ of his expectation that it retains its focus on sports and racing."

They can't successfully run their own business so they want to run one they know nothing about? I don't think there was very widespread support from many in the racing industry either. It's an absolute NO for me.

But this is a good example, of what I said above. We are facing a $30m reduction in TABNZ distributions over the next 2 years. I'm interested in how NZTR think they are going to survive that. I can't see any escape from at least another $10-15m in stakes reductions.

And here we are talking about casino licences that wouldn't be in place for years and probably never.

So your saying entain/nz tab can't run their own business properly

and casino licences won't be in place for years,probably never.

Not sure either of those statements accurate.

Edited September 4 by the galah

[the galah]

53 minutes ago, curious said:

In a statement to RNZ, Racing Minister Winston Peters said he had "received correspondence" regarding the TAB's proposal, but he would not change the law to allow the TAB to run an online casino.

"Casino products are fundamentally different to wagering products and the Minister has advised TAB NZ of his expectation that it retains its focus on sports and racing."

They can't successfully run their own business so they want to run one they know nothing about? I don't think there was very widespread support from many in the racing industry either. It's an absolute NO for me.

But this is a good example, of what I said above. We are facing a $30m reduction in TABNZ distributions over the next 2 years. I'm interested in how NZTR think they are going to survive that. I can't see any escape from at least another $10-15m in stakes reductions.

And here we are talking about casino licences that wouldn't be in place for years and probably never.

i also would point entain has many well known on line casino brands.

given they are going to happen,why should overseas players get the licences ahead of a nz entity.I can't follow why you would place overseas operators ahead of a nz entity.

[curious]

16 minutes ago, the galah said:

So your saying entain/nz tab can't run their own business properly

and casino licences won't be in place for years,probably never.

Not sure either of those statements accurate.

I didn't say that at all. Entain are doing a great job of running the nxtab business as far as I can see. It's TABNZ that couldn't.

[curious]

2 minutes ago, the galah said:

i also would point entain has many well known on line casino brands.

given they are going to happen,why should overseas players get the licences ahead of a nz entity.I can't follow why you would place overseas operators ahead of a nz entity.

Entain will get licences for sure and so they should, but that has nothing to do with NZTAB nor is it of any benefit to NZ racing.

Edited September 4 by curious

[the galah]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

Entain will get licences for sure and so they should, but that has nothing to do with NZTAB nor is it of any benefit to NZ racing.

entain and nz tab are partners in nz,at least thats what i thought.

are you saying entain will get some nz licences andthen  exclude the nz tab.

is that actually how it would work.are you sure?

Edited September 4 by the galah

[curious]

Just now, the galah said:

wnatain and nz tab are partners in nz i thought.

Only by the agreement to run the NZTAB and share the profits from racing and sports betting. If Entain get online casino licences that is their separate business, nothing to do with the agreement with TABNZ. 

[curious]

10 minutes ago, the galah said:

entain and nz tab are partners in nz,at least thats what i thought.

are you saying entain will get some nz licences andthen  exclude the nz tab.

is that actually how it would work.are you sure?

They expect to get 3 licences last I saw. They won't be excluding NZTAB. They have no business arrangement with NZTAB in relation to casino licences.

Totally certain. Not sure where you get that idea.

[the galah]

6 minutes ago, curious said:

Only by the agreement to run the NZTAB and share the profits from racing and sports betting. If Entain get online casino licences that is their separate business, nothing to do with the agreement with TABNZ. 

just checked with mr google,he seems to think the nz tab would benefit.

but your saying,entain was chosen as a partner knowing they would then promote their on line casinos to the customer base that bet on racing and sport with the nz tab.

i;m confused,You seem to be saying the nz tab will have to compete against entain ,their partner for the betting dollar.

[curious]

5 minutes ago, the galah said:

just checked with mr google,he seems to think the nz tab would benefit.

but your saying,entain was chosen as a partner knowing they would then promote their on line casinos to the customer base that bet on racing and sport with the nz tab.

i;m confused,You seem to be saying the nz tab will have to compete against entain ,their partner for the betting dollar.

The only benefit would be if there were cross selling between the two which Entain has cited as a potential benefit. I suppose it depends which way that goes. But yes. the NZTAB will be competing against online casinos for the betting dollar as they do now.

[the galah]

33 minutes ago, curious said:

The only benefit would be if there were cross selling between the two which Entain has cited as a potential benefit. I suppose it depends which way that goes. But yes. the NZTAB will be competing against online casinos for the betting dollar as they do now.

so,people,.you,chief,act,lots seemingly are against the nz tab getting an on line casino  licence,instead preferring overseas operators to get all the licences.The fact that all  profits will then go overseas seemingly irrelevant.

and entain is likely to get 3 of the 15 licences,and with that hope to get up to 50% of the  on line casino market turnover by using the tab customer base.But they also say,the on line casino's ,won't divert money from racing and sports betting at the tab,but will somehow make people spend not only on the on line casino betting but also those customers will then start betting on racing and sport.Like the punters will seemingly have more money to play with because they are now betting on both. 

and your saying the nz tab gets no share from entain having on line casino licences,but google says that the nz tab will benefit massively from that.

is that right,because i find the logic all very hard to understand.

[curious]

I think you are missing the point. At present, NZers can bet with 100s of online casinos worldwide, including the likes of Sky City and Christchurch Casino but those offerings have had to be made from overseas jurisdictions. Under the new licensing the NZ operations will be able to offer online services directly to their NZ  customers without going through that. Presumably, those two will be head of the list for licences. The aim of the licensing is to reduce the number and increase the regulation of online casinos operating here that NZers can bet on.

None of this has anything to do with NZTAB, TABNZ or NZ racing. Your argument makes no sense. If Entain NZ decide to launch a nationwide chain of cafe's you would say that TABNZ/NZ racing should get a share of the profits? Or that if say Sky City get a licence, they should share any profits with NZ racing?

It just ain't happening and is irrelevant to the current situation that NZ racing is facing.

 

Edited September 4 by curious

[the galah]

27 minutes ago, curious said:

I think you are missing the point. At present, NZers can bet with 100s of online casinos worldwide, including the likes of Sky City and Christchurch Casino but those offerings have had to be made from overseas jurisdictions. Under the new licensing the NZ operations will be able to offer online services directly to their NZ  customers without going through that. Presumably, those two will be head of the list for licences. The aim of the licensing is to reduce the number and increase the regulation of online casinos operating here that NZers can bet on.

None of this has anything to do with NZTAB, TABNZ or NZ racing. Your argument makes no sense. If Entain NZ decide to launch a nationwide chain of cafe's you would say that TABNZ/NZ racing should get a share of the profits? Or that if say Sky City get a licence, they should share any profits with NZ racing?

It just ain't happening and is irrelevant to the current situation that NZ racing is facing.

 

yes,i understand new zealanders can currently bet with lots of different on line casinos worldwide. I know a few people who have done that.And i'm aware the likes of sky and the christchurch casino will get some of the 15 licences the government has said they will grant.I understand the aims of the nz govt you mention and of course the nz govt want revenue from it as well.

But when you say the new licences have nothing to do with the nz tab,well obviously they do.The nz tab want one of the on line casino licenses so they can generate greater profit.And then some of that greater profit would then flow to racing if that ever happened.

and you and chief and others have said,no you don't want the nz tab getting that licence,effectively also meaning you don't think racing should get any of that increased profit.

and your analogy about cafe's makes no sense to me. Cafes aren't in the business of gambling.entain is a gambling business.

and you saying i'm expecting sky to give racing a share of their easrnings. Thats odd.

i would point out entain have said they will target their nz tab customers. thats nothing to do with sky.They obviously believe they will increase there overall business. That makes snese. BUt will on line casinos negatively impact the money spent on racing by gamblerst

you've clarified a couple of things i wasn't aware of with earlier posts,but your last post has got a bit carried away i think .not to worry.

i still would like to see the nz tab get one of the on line casino licences as i think some of the increased profits would help nz racing. i think its better to end up going there than to some shareholder in some overseas company.And don't say that was never going to happen. Because you know the nz tab is still trying to get a licence.

Edited September 4 by the galah

[curious]

Well sorry they can't even apply without a change of legislation allowing them to do so.

[the galah]

44 minutes ago, curious said:

Well sorry they can't even apply without a change of legislation allowing them to do so.

that point took a while for it to sink in.lol.

my argument seems to be applicable to the past when they were lobbying for a change,not the present.

good you've persisted and helped get that to sink in.

personally i think its a shame it never happened for the reasons i've mentioned.. 

so entain will push to sell betting on racing and especially betting on sport to their nz tab customers that use their on line casino products ,but then again they will also push hard to sell on line casino products to their sport and racing customers.i'm guessing  you agree with that,as they will be aware/have access to who each's customers are.They would find it easier to sell on line casino to racing customers than racing to on line casino customers from what i read earlier in the night.

.So,what  racing gains from entain having an online casino products is speculation by the sounds of it. When mr google said the nztab will get massive financial benefit,mr google is being overly optimistic by the sounds of it.

Edited September 4 by the galah

[curious]

On that, I'd say so.

Mr. AI tells me.

Will casino gambling grow the pie or cannibalise racing?

There are two competing theories:

• Positive view: casino products attract new customers and create cross-selling opportunities into racing and sports betting. Entain has specifically referred to cross-selling opportunities. [realmoneyaction.com]
• Negative view: existing TAB customers simply shift some spending from racing bets to casino games, producing little or no net gain for racing.

The actual customer behaviour is unknown.

How much offshore spending can licensed operators capture?

The government's rationale for regulation is partly to bring activity currently occurring on offshore sites into a regulated New Zealand market. [dia.govt.nz], [dia.govt.nz]

However, nobody yet knows:

• what market share Entain might win;
• how many licences competitors will obtain;
• how effective restrictions on unlicensed operators will be.

Bottom line

For racing, the upside case is that an Entain casino licence creates another profitable revenue stream, strengthens Entain's New Zealand business, and ultimately increases payments associated with the TAB partnership. [realmoneyaction.com]

The key unresolved issue is that there is currently no publicly known mechanism guaranteeing that casino revenue flows through to racing stakes or industry distributions. Until the licence conditions and the relevant commercial arrangements are clearer, the size of any benefit to racing remains uncertain. [dia.govt.nz], [dia.govt.nz], [realmoneyaction.com]

[Shab]

Whats the takeout likely to be for online casino gambling?

[curious]

38 minutes ago, Shab said:

Whats the takeout likely to be for online casino gambling?

The government share of GGR, do you mean? Duty and tax ~32%

[Shab]

20 minutes ago, curious said:

The government share of GGR, do you mean? Duty and tax ~32%

That'd be on the bloodsuckers profit. Are the games online the same as those in a real casino? Has any return to player information been provided before these licenses are granted and this evil kicks off?

[the galah]

so curious,this thread has helped me see the full picture .Previously i always felt i never had quite enough information to fully understand what and why.

so perhaps you can point out if you think what i say is now correct or not.

it seems,the tab made the $150m payment offer to the government for very limlted number of on line casino licences ,2 or 3 ,in 2023. They made that offer on the basis they would get a licence and that the advantages would be they were a nz entity,therefore the govt would have more control over them and that they would pay tax in nz and the racing and sporting communities would benefit hugely. Had the govt accepted that,then racing would essentially be running for stakes similar to the likes of saturdays in sydney. The reason being the profits are so massive.That was turned down by the act minister of internal affairs,one assumes for a couple of reasons.Politically the public wouldn't have been that impressed that all that money went to 2 or 3 companies and i assume because act must have wanted the minsiter of internal affairs portfolio for a reason and you would guess they were trying to pursue policy that suited those that may have backed the act party. thats the way i guess things work.And the governmant would have thought the they could get the most money from issuning 15 licences,not just a handful.

then in 2025 sky lobbied the same minister on similar grounds saying "the safest way to ensure on line casino profits are subject to nz income tax was to allow only nz companies to hold licences. But they would have done that knowing really that just meant them and the christchurch casino being the main players.And of course they feared entain taking a large part of market share as they would have access to the tabs customer base.

so all the while,entain had their eye on this massive prize.

to them the racing payments and getting the racing product was just a means to an end.

to them it was a multi step process.With the nz government wanting to prop up racing,they sweetened the deal for racing,but racing was never of any interest to them,no matter what they said.. 

the ultimate prize entain was after wasn't ever the sports betting,it was really the on line casino licences.Having the monopoly over the sports betting was the means to the end.Having the sports and racing bettors as customers was their target audience for their on line growth.. 

so the reason i've read so much talk from entain bosses internationally about how exciting the new zealand profits will be,was they were always focused on the on line casinos's as the basis for their comments.

like i read last march how the entain global boss had said the nz on line gambling business is worth 1.3 billion annually. And that entain estimated they would get around half of that business.And the reason they could get such a lions share was they had the nz tab's customer base and they had the monopoly on sports and racing betting,therefore they could use their access to all the nz racing and in particular the nz sports bettors,to target them and get those customers to bet with them on their on line gaming/casino.Effectively meaning their share of the on line gaming would be  a business that was worth $650m annually to entain.

so thats why enatin have been so focussed on their nz paty of their company being such a massive winner for thamThats why they say in there annual reports and talks to shareholders.

now the question is,as you quoted in a post above,will entains targeting tab customers ,will that cannabilise the sports and racing turnovers. I read what you posted and i've read other studies and it seems unclear from what i read.Some say no it won't ,that it will be beneficial,but the odd study and facts and figures say yes it can,that racing will be impacted and one even said sports betting can be.

according to one article last year the growth in on line spending by nz'ers was up by 38% and sports dropped by 37% but that appears due to nz tab getting the monopoly.

but there does appear justification for several nz sports bodies calling for greater control as they fear losing funding due to the impact of on line casinos taking market share.

so i think i now fully undrstand how and why . Let me know curious if you think the picture i paint may not be as you see it.

Edited September 5 by the galah

[Shab]

Poor old Curious be hours wading through this ramble. You dont put up millions cos you're a bunch of good guys who just wanna be known as the 'saviours' of nz racing.

[curious]

53 minutes ago, Shab said:

Poor old Curious be hours wading through this ramble. You dont put up millions cos you're a bunch of good guys who just wanna be known as the 'saviours' of nz racing.

Yeahh. Too much for me so I got AI to summarise for me. Of course the wild card is that the DIA recently concluded that there was no legislatve reason for TABNZ not to apply for a licence so it will be interesting to see if they rock up to this months auction.

Broadly, I think you've put together a plausible picture of the commercial incentives, but there are a few places where I'd separate facts, reasonable inferences, and speculation.

Where I think you're essentially correct

1. The TAB did propose a very different model.

The documents released under the OIA show that TAB NZ proposed a model involving a much more limited number of online casino operators and suggested that an exclusive or near-exclusive market could generate an upfront payment of about $150 million to the Government. The proposal was made in late 2023 and was rejected by Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden. [rnz.co.nz], [scoop.co.nz]

2. TAB and SkyCity both argued that local ownership would keep profits and tax revenue in New Zealand.

Both organisations argued that an open licensing model risked offshore firms extracting profits overseas and reducing the funding available to New Zealand racing and sport. [asgam.com], [rnz.co.nz]

3. Entain clearly sees major value in the future NZ online casino market.

Public reporting indicates Entain executives have discussed seeking multiple licences and targeting a very large share of the future NZ online casino market, leveraging their existing TAB customer relationships and distribution advantages. [news.world...ectory.com], [agbrief.com], [igaming.org]

4. The TAB customer base is strategically valuable.

I think you're right that one of the biggest assets Entain acquired through the TAB deal was not just racing turnover itself but access to a large, verified betting customer database. From a commercial perspective, that customer base potentially becomes valuable for cross-selling other regulated gambling products if licences are obtained. That is a reasonable business conclusion from Entain's public comments. [news.world...ectory.com], [agbrief.com]

---

Where I'd be more cautious

"Entain never cared about racing."

I wouldn't state that as a fact.

A more defensible statement would be:

"Racing was likely valuable both in its own right and as a strategic entry point into a wider gambling ecosystem."

The Entain-TAB deal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Racing turnover, sports betting turnover, monopoly protection and potential future gaming opportunities all contribute value. We can observe the incentives, but we can't know management's private motivations with certainty.

---

"The ultimate prize was always online casino licences."

Possibly, but not proven.

I'd phrase it as:

"The future online casino market may have become significantly more valuable than the racing product itself, which would explain Entain's strong interest in New Zealand."

That's different from saying racing was merely a pretext.

---

"ACT rejected it because they were pursuing policy preferred by supporters."

This is where I'd be most careful.

The documented reason given by the Minister was that she opposed government involvement in operating online casinos and preferred a regulated competitive marketplace rather than a government-linked monopoly. [rnz.co.nz], [asgam.com]

You can disagree with that reasoning, but attributing it to political supporters is speculation unless direct evidence exists.

---

On the key question: will casino gambling cannibalise racing and sports betting?

This is the most interesting part.

My view remains:

Some cannibalisation is likely.

The real question is how much.

There are three possibilities:

Scenario A: Minimal cannibalisation

• Existing sports bettors continue betting on sports.
• Casino products attract largely different spending.
• Total gambling expenditure increases.

This is broadly what Entain and other operators would hope.

Scenario B: Partial cannibalisation

• Some TAB customers shift a portion of their spending to casino games.
• Sports and racing turnover growth slows.
• Casino growth more than offsets losses.

Personally, I think this is the most likely outcome.

Scenario 😄 Major cannibalisation

• Significant migration from racing and sports betting into casinos.
• Racing funding growth stalls.
• Sports bodies receive less than expected.

This is the scenario several sporting organisations appear worried about and one reason they have sought safeguards. [asgam.com]

---

My overall assessment

I'd say your understanding is now about 80-90% of the way there.

The only parts I'd soften are:

• "Entain never cared about racing."
• "The prize was always casinos."
• Political assumptions about ACT's motives.

Everything else, particularly:

• why TAB wanted restricted licences,
• why SkyCity wanted local ownership,
• why Entain values its TAB customer base,
• why sports organisations are concerned about funding,

fits well with the publicly available evidence. [rnz.co.nz], [asgam.com], [news.world...ectory.com]

The biggest unresolved issue, in my view, is not whether Entain wants casino licences. That's fairly obvious. The real unanswered question is whether a future Entain online casino operation becomes a new profit stream that ultimately increases racing funding, or whether it gradually diverts spending away from wagering products that currently fund racing and sport. I don't think the evidence is yet strong enough to be certain which effect will dominate in New Zealand.

[the galah]

1 hour ago, Shab said:

Poor old Curious be hours wading through this ramble. You dont put up millions cos you're a bunch of good guys who just wanna be known as the 'saviours' of nz racing.

I would have to say curious's reply,whether he had help from ai in small parts or not,is in my opinion the most intelligent,understandable explanation i've ever read on bit of a yarn.And bit of a yarn does have some very smart people posting.

i'll admit,i read my rambling post and not long after thought to myself,why did i post that,curious is never going to reply to that.Well now i'm extremely pleased i did.

I've read the so much comment over the years about the entain deal,the  tab,online licensing,government decisions,motivations for decisions,what entain was truly after,how did it impact a ,b,c etc,etc.

and despite everything that i've read,no one has ever fully explained it all.And its been obvious from what so many post,they still don't fully understand all the factors either.I was hoping for some clarity.well i got it.

I'm very impressed by curious.i had high expectations,but will say he far exceeded that with his reply to me.

Thanks curious for taking the time and thanks for such an informative reply.

Edited September 5 by the galah