Thomas refuses to back down over casino battle

By Chris Hutching

Thursday 8th April 2004

"The war continues," according to Christchurch Casinos' battling chairman Barry Thomas, who is adamant that listed Sky City Entertainment is not wanted as a shareholder nor entitled to a board seat.

Sky confirmed this week that it has struck a $93.73 million deal to buy all the shares in Aspinall (NZ), which directly owns 30% of Christchurch Casinos and controls another 10.5% indirectly.

But Mr Thomas is also executive chairman and a major shareholder in Queenstown-based Skyline enterprises, which has an effective control of 40.9% of Christchurch Casinos through beneficial shareholdings in subsidiary companies.

If the Sky-Aspinall deal proceeds, the outcome in ultimate control of Christchurch Casinos is likely to hinge on whether there are any pre-emptive rights for the major shareholders in Christchurch Casinos to buy the smaller "independent" stake of 8.5% held by Southern Equities. This is a company owned by Louis Crimp of Invercargill.

A source close to the action said he understood there were no pre-emptive rights. If that is the case it may also suit Sky City in its attempts to persuade the Commerce Commission it will not attain a monopolistic position after the Aspinall deal.

The Sky announcement came after several weeks of High Court action by Mr Thomas. He had unsuccessfully sought to keep Aspinall representatives off the board of Christchurch Casinos as part of his fight to stymie the deal between Sky and Aspinall.

Mr Thomas said he views Sky as a competitor seeking to extend a monopoly over casino gambling in New Zealand because Sky also has 60% of Queenstown Casinos and an interest in Dunedin Casinos through the 33% stake held by Christchurch Casinos.

Mr Thomas also holds stakes and is on the boards of the Queenstown and Dunedin casinos.

He emphasised Sky would have indirect holdings in the Christchurch casino and this would hamper any attempts to gain representation at the board room table.

"It's just a matter of what's technically correct. They have no actual right to go on the board. That's also why they haven't done due diligence. They certainly haven't done due diligence on Christchurch Casinos' accounts. They certainly have asked and we have said no, we don't want them.

"They're competitors and, quite frankly, they operate an entirely different kind of business from us, their whole culture is different and they compete with us."

A business associate of Mr Thomas said he tended to "play for keeps" and would use all the means at his disposal.

Comments from our readers

No comments yet