AGMs

6 questions lodged at 2024 Star Entertainment hybrid AGM


December 10, 2024

Below is the text of the 6 written questions submitted at the 145 minute Star Entertainment hybrid AGM held at its Queens Wharf Brisbane casino on November 28 2024. There was no early proxy disclosure in these formal addresses and huge rem protest votes, including a strike

Q1. Whilst we clearly did plenty wrong, the regulators of our casinos in Sydney, Brisbane & the Gold Coast have massively over-reacted & shareholders are more than $3b under-water. It is ridiculous that casino companies are being forced to go cashless when the same rules won't apply to the pokies rooms in Australia's 5000 pubs & clubs. Why aren't any of the casino operators making this case publicly? Are we too scared to take on the powerful pubs & clubs? Do we liaise with the AHA & Clubs NSW or do they see us as the enemy?

Answer: Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q2. The 3 shareholders in the Queens Wharf project have collectively lost over $1.5b so far. Thankfully we're only 50% of it. Could the CEO provide some insight on how the joint venture works in terms of board representation, management control & pre-emptive rights if any of the parties wished to exit. Who are the key individuals that we deal with it at both of the other 25% shareholders and how associated are they? Also, who are the key lenders to the joint venture & are there any cross guarantees provided by the 3 shareholders?

Answer: The chair Anne Ward seemed to think these were detailed operations questions but eventually handed over to Steve McCrann who provided a reasonable answer. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. Did any of the 5 main proxy advisers - ACSI, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA - recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including this rem report item? If so, what reasons did they give and did this lead to any material proxy protest votes. Please don't say proxy adviser recommendations are confidential. It also would have been better to disclose the proxy position to the ASX along with the formal addresses, to allow for a more fully informed debate. Will you commit to do this next year?

Answer: The chair Anne Ward claimed it was normal to hold proxy disclosure back until after the debate which is wrong. She also claimed proxy reports are confidential but said some were opposed. There ended up being huge rem protest votes including a strike. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q4. In terms of board composition, could new director Peter Hodgson and the chair comment on the prospect of our largest shareholder Bruce Mathieson being given a board seat. Do we regard his 15% shareholding in Endeavour Group as an insurmountable conflict of interest given that Endeavour is the world's largest poker machine operator with around 12,500 machines spread across more than 300 hotel gaming rooms. Also, has CEO Steve McCann met with Mr Mathieson since being announced as CEO? Is he a helpful shareholder?

Answer: Question wrangler "Patrick" broke this into two parts and censored the conflict of interest element, Peter Hodgson never addressed it and Anne Ward just said they were open to suggestions for new directors. Watch video of exchange via Twitter. Watch Steve McCrann describe his many meetings with the helpful and supportive Mathiesons.

Q5. When disclosing the outcome of voting on all resolutions today, including this one off grant to Steve McCann, could you please advise the ASX how many of our 170,000+ shareholders voted for and against each item, similar to what happens with a scheme of arrangement? This will provide a better gauge of retail shareholder sentiment on all resolutions and insight into the chronically low retail shareholder participation rate. You've got the data, so why not let the sun shine in?

Answer: Anne Ward is one of those "we follow the law and do nothing more" types. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q6. We've never seen a CEO contract quite like this one at an ASX listed company. Could Steve McCann please comment on whether he negotiated these extraordinary provisions directly himself, or whether he was represented by a talent manager. Also, who led the discussion at the Star end and why were we so generous with these termination provisions, even if Star went broke?

Answer: Question wrangler "Patrick" censored this down and we never heard from Steve McCrann. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.