Club off field finance growth

[Roachy8]

Ladies for Gentlemen was recently up for sale

tigers should have bought in, so on game day they get our cash when we are coming and when we are going

You know I googled that at work!

Also, interesting reference since a lot of thread is discussing pokies...

 

[theflea]

The issue is what happens when we LOSE money. If our super funds get nailed in a downturn, you can guarantee stocks selected by a footy club will fair worse (given they don't have the ability to hedge across a diverse range, and they have jack s**t market knowledge)

Anything we invest in should be something we are able to have some kind of ability or competitive edge in (ie pokies, we get a tax break as a community NFP)

Investing in property, pubs, and stocks has cost plenty of clubs plenty

Pretty sure the lions lost plenty on the share market.

 

[theflea]

Pretty sure we have some pokies. We had more (eg The Royal Oak) but Bruce Matheson handed the license to Carlton.

There was talk of a car park (beneath PRO?) that would be a cash cow. If we get someone else to pay to transform PRO into a boutique stadium we'll make plenty of cash on minnow matches.

Great idea but we would have to fund it and we don't own the land anyway.

 

[TigerTime3]

WRT the first bolded bit, let someone else profit from it, IMO I would rather not have the club associated with pokies.

As to second bolded bit, no-one is advocating that the club should be mediocre, the club should and must entertain other investments options. Pokies aren't the only game in town.

The club already makes some money from pokies,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...4-financial-year/story-fni5ezdm-1227102811873

I prefer we take the lead and explore other options, RFC should not follow, they should look to lead.

Norf don't make a cent off Pokies, so they're the leaders.

We're half-pregnant morally and also 15 million dollars behind the others.

And even morally, Norf's decision doesn't help a single Australian family actually stop gambling - it just means someone else pockets their cash. This is one of those issues that allows a club to pat themselves on the back without actually doing anything of substance.

 

[telsor]

Norf don't make a cent off Pokies, so they're the leaders.

We're half-pregnant morally and also 15 million dollars behind the others.

And even morally, Norf's decision doesn't help a single Australian family actually stop gambling - it just means someone else pockets their cash. This is one of those issues that allows a club to pat themselves on the back without actually doing anything of substance.

It's actually worse.

The only reason they don't have pokies has nothing to do with a moral stand. The 'sold' them (actually, traded) to docklands so they'd forgive some of their debts. They don't have pokies because they were, quite literally, the last liquid assets they had.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Pretty sure the lions lost plenty on the share market.

Lions and I think a couple of other clubs lost a bit in the GFC via shares

It's not what we have our skill set in, or a competitive advantage. Why would we choose it?

 

[nut]

There is 1 pokie machine for every 108 people in Australia...over 200,000.... we have enough. Lets not take the easy road. Lets go down a different path.

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

pr0n is lucrative

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

yellowtube

 

[Tiger7374]

All investment opportunities have risk and reward...the higher the reward, the higher the risk...aka share market historically outperforms the property market..but the share market 'corrects itself' more often than the property market...que lose your holdings.

I was happy the guys were looking at the basketball stuff...and happy they passed on it. They were looking to lever the club's core strength...us...I assume they passed because they couldn't use Y&B...and I reckon personally we fans can only consistently fire one live gig a week.

Whatever they choose, if they engage us...it will be the difference between a standard return and a better return...

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

All aboard the Bangwagon

 

[Tiger7374]

Pokies...scratch my head there...

Not going to buy into the moral argument...other than if someone wants to gamble, they will find a way to gamble.

Have to buy/lease the licence/machine...and if we don't own a heap...and if we don't own the venue...then high traffic use will cost a pretty penny re rent...and management...and security...and maintenance..to run a good pokies profit you need your own high traffic venue and economies of scale...and we are not setup for that.

But in saying that...it is a way to gradually get a number of machines in time so eventually we do have critical mass...

 

[TigerTime3]

There is 1 pokie machine for every 108 people in Australia...over 200,000.... we have enough. Lets not take the easy road. Lets go down a different path.

This fact is true whether we opt in or opt out.

It seems like an irrational decision in which we want to be seen as doing 'the right thing' (because of our core values) while still dabbling in them while shooting ourselves in the foot financially and doing absolutely nothing to reduce the real number of families affected by gambling (which is what it's about!).

 

[theflea]

There is 1 pokie machine for every 108 people in Australia...over 200,000.... we have enough. Lets not take the easy road. Lets go down a different path.

Sure, but what is it that is going to give a great return and minimal risk, also without any debt(we would still have debt with pokies min you)?

 

[TigerTime3]

Can anyone answer this question: How can we go without a guaranteed 15 million dollars a year on moral grounds when not 1 person's suffering is reduced as a result of our pointless action?

World famous moral philosopher Peter Singer's standard for measuring good is by how much suffering is created or eliminated.

By his reasoning, our actions have honourable intentions but are ultimately not worthy of praise from a moral perspective because they don't reduce suffering.

Therefore, we're making it harder for ourselves to win a premiership with no moral tradeoff. However, I realise this argument could be applied in other industries, so for our aim to be honourable, we would need to include a long-term influence over others - something we have yet to engage in. Benny probably does have a long-term plan to see all clubs get off Pokies, I'll admit.

 

[Tiger7374]

This fact is true whether we opt in or opt out.

It seems like an irrational decision in which we want to be seen as doing 'the right thing' (because of our core values) while still dabbling in them while shooting ourselves in the foot financially and doing absolutely nothing to reduce the real number of families affected by gambling (which is what it's about!).

Our core objective is to finance a footy department that delivers a premiership...our core values are to be a good corporate citizen and to operate within the law and the sport. If it's legal, it's ok...let the citizens decide every 3 years what's to be legalised or not.

Sure, but what is it that is going to give a great return and minimal risk, also without any debt(we would still have debt with pokies min you)?

If we are going full in...we will need debt...but if we gradually build to scale...we can arrive in x years with a good amount of machines...and options...

 

[nut]

We could make honey? .