Someone is accumulating, page-36

It's a little strange yeah, and no real track record in gaming involving any of these companies. Some directors do however have gaming experience.

From my understanding the Vivo deal is basically a junket type thing, only more outsourced. They pay a min of USD3m per year for use of a gaming hall and a restaurant etc they built out within the casino's 'underutilised' space. After a certain point the arrangement becomes a revenue share of profits made from the Vivo gaming room.

DNA has mentioned several times that the Star Vegas had unused capacity, and it was their intention to fill it. But yeah, it doesn't look all that good in terms of the related party interests and limited gaming experience of the companies involved. I have to admit I was reading about that Malaysian loss making company and I was scratching my head.

However, the way the Vivo deal has been presented, it is at Vivo's expense to fit out their area, pay USD3m regardless and then revenue share beyond a certain point. So, presented as win-win for DNA as Vivo will bring in players on top of existing business pay DNA as a landlord, and then a revenue cut. We will have to see how the performance of Vivo Tower turns out. I get the feeling DNA is doing these revenue share type things with Vivo and the Slots arrangement to improve the property and get some more money in the door for not much capex outlay.

Interesting point about this affecting the lease, surely DNA wouldn't breach the rental agreement to bring an unproven, 'shell company' as you put it, into the running of the business?