High stakes game at Christchurch Casino

Chris Hutching

Friday 23rd January 2004

The factions warring over control of the $225 million Christchurch Casino were in the High Court in Christchurch late yesterday as chairman Barry Thomas pulled out all available stops to prevent UK-based shareholder Aspinall selling its 41% stake to listed Sky City.

Thomas described the battle as the fight of his life and said he was adamant he would act in the best interests of all shareholders, as was his duty under company law. Aspinall says it wants the best price it can get. A board of directors meeting next week, which will be attended by an Aspinall's representative from London, may provide Thomas with the opportunity to try and push through a plan whereby Christchurch Casinos issues new shares to Skyline equal to about 15% of the company.

Aspinall has already rejected the idea and the whole matter is likely to become entangled in High Court wrangling, which may have the same effect of frustrating Aspinall.

In December, Thomas (whose company Skyline Enterprises also has 41%) deposed Aspinall's board appointee, Christchurch Casino's chief executive Arthur Pitcher, from his directorship but he has now been reinstated after court action during which he gave "certain undertakings".

Another late bidder who came onto the scene at the end of last year is millionaire hotel magnate Earl Hagaman based in Christchurch.

He has written to the Casino Control Authority saying he represents a group of local businessmen who want to buy the Aspinall stake and allowing Skyline or Sky City to take the stake would not be in the best interests of the country.

"My reasons for this are that casinos are a total monopoly until (and if ever) the New Zealand government decides to issue additional licences.

"Approval of this purchase by either Skyline or Sky City would further cement this monopoly position into place because Sky City already controls three of New Zealand's five casinos and Skyline has very substantial interests in three of them and borders on control in too many instances.

"Admittedly, I have a 42% interest in the Dunedin Casino but if my group were to buy the 41% interest in the Christchurch Casino, I would be but one of at least six independent New Zealand businessmen controlling this interest.

"I believe this dispersal of ownership would be a giant step toward limiting the excessive power and the total monopolistic position the existing casino owners possess," Hagaman says in his letter.

But his offer is regarded as a sideshow because his partners would have to apply to the authority for acceptance as people of good character and Skyline would object.

Comments from our readers

No comments yet