Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fairfax trying to rain on the Hawks parade:
Hawks need to go cold turkey on pokie money addiction
The success of the Hawthorn Football Club is worth celebrating, but it is tainted by the club's financial reliance on poker machine revenue.
Congratulations Hawthorn. There's no denying it: three premierships in a row, and four in the past decade, have stamped the Hawks as one of the greatest VFL/AFL teams of all time – on the field.
Now, can we please talk about the elephant in the room?
After tax, Hawthorn makes more than $11 million a year from its poker machines.
... two venues alone, gamblers lose more than $23 million a year, every year. The Victorian government takes a slice of that, but even after tax, Hawthorn makes more than $11 million a year from its poker machines.
The money flows directly into the club's coffers. It pays salaries, buys equipment, improves facilities and more. Gambling money is the reason Hawthorn is financially secure; the club makes more money each year from its gambling venues than any other revenue stream, and that includes memberships and marketing.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ha...on-pokie-money-addiction-20151004-gk15ox.html
Equivalent to Daniel Chick dropping a bucket on the Eagles ?
The Hawks are sharing it about:
Hawthorn president Andrew Newbold said the club will contribute $500,000 in revenue equalisation to the AFL, another $130,000 for a tax on football department spending and about $150,000 in self-funding an increase in the player salary cap that most other clubs had covered by the AFL.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/sport/hawthorns-big-win-to-delivery-huge-profit-despite-tax-hit-20151002-gjzr1h?eid=cpc:nnn-14omn2224-optim-nnnutbrain-outbrain_paid-dom-displayad-nnn-afr-nnn&campaign_code=15caf010&promote_channel=sem&utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=paid%20outbrain#ixzz3ngu3oFEZ
Equalisation is certainly not equitable.
It did say $23 million gross, with the $11 mill being after tax.Hang on.....$11 million profit?
Yeah, I call bullshit. Maybe $11 million gross.
Can't really understand their popularity anyway.
Packer pays more tax than me, doesn't make us financially equal. Like the tax system, it isn't really equitable, it is just less inequitable.How so?
One of the richer clubs is paying a significant amount...Isn't that how it's supposed to work under an equitable system?
How so?
One of the richer clubs is paying a significant amount...Isn't that how it's supposed to work under an equitable system?
It did say $23 million gross, with the $11 mill being after tax.
Packer pays more tax than me, doesn't make us financially equal. Like the tax system, it isn't really equitable, it is just less inequitable.
Arent they paying because of preferential FIXturing?
Hawthorn Football Club and the Melbourne Vixens have joined forces with Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation to promote responsible gambling
Do they care about their actions in society? Or are they just another blood sucking entity? They need to choose.
Highlighting Hawthorn is a bit unfair.
However if it was good enough to clamp down on smoking, then the clubs should wean themselves off other socially destructive habits.
The Gument should raise the tax on gambling & advertise through each club equally & down through community clubs.
Make 'Sport' a truly healthy activity, not this confused message of physical activity & destructive habits.
The AFL need to take a lead in this.
Do they care about their actions in society? Or are they just another blood sucking entity? They need to choose.
True, was responding to the thread "bump" and the hypocrisy of their partnership with the VRGF (one of their other partners is our beloved magpies, so I'll give 'em a whack also).
True, was responding to the thread "bump" and the hypocrisy of their partnership with the VRGF (one of their other partners is our beloved magpies, so I'll give 'em a whack also).
Damned straight. Pokies are the most addictive form of gambling, with a proliferation of machines in areas of low SES. The productivity commission report in 2010 found that of those that are regular players (at least weekly) 15% are considered problem gamblers who contribute 40% of the total gambling spend.
Both the major parties are beholden to this powerful industry. The City of Moreland DID increase taxes on venues with pokies as a means of funding several projects to assist those with problems, which was Kiboshed by the Baillieu government.
[/QUOTE]As I said before, while it's legal, why is it a problem for sporting clubs to hold a few of the licenses?
Those licenses wont 'go away' if the clubs sell them (and it'd be ridiculous to ask them to hold onto them them, paying the licenses and not use them), they'll still have the same number of machines in the same places, just with different owners.
At least the AFL clubs get *some* scrutiny about their ownership and do something about the issues (very little I'll admit, but still more than most owners), and at the end of the day, I'd rather Hawthorn gets the money that Woolies (who own more than all the clubs combined).
The Peoples Republic of Moreland is hardly a great example of the way things should be. (I should know, I live there). This one was (quite typically) about looking to do the right things, even though they must have known they couldn't legally do it.
Introduce plans to get rid of pokies generally (or at least significantly reduce their number) and I'll support it, but if your plan is to stop organisations that actually have a better record than most from owning them and thus forcing ownership into fewer (and less obvious) hands, then I really think people need to consider what they're doing.
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. One can own pokies and still want people to gamble responsibly..
Perhaps that means that the pokies become less profitable, or stop getting used completely, but ultimately pokies are just a service for people to have fun, pass the time, or whatever else.
Smoking is legal. We know the damage, footy avoids it, thankfully.
Pokie profits are majority generated by people with a gambling problem. These facts are known. Shame on sports clubs who do know this to be true. Shame on Gument who know this to be true also.
Its all about the sport acting in a socially responsible way. Closing ones eyes does not help. Saying its ok because others do it too, is pretty lame.
What preferential fixturing is that?
Footy doesn't have a choice but to avoid smoking. Advertising cigarettes is illegal.
I'm also not saying it's OK because others do it, I'm saying it's OK because stopping clubs wouldn't make the slightest difference and I'm against pointless gestures.
BTW. Where does this 'social responsibility' end?
Can you be sponsored by a company that makes money from gambling (e.g Woolworths?).
I'm sure a number of environmental groups would say it's wrong for for Freo to be sponsored by Woodside. (and any number of other companies that potentially damage the environment...like car companies)
What about Alcohol? Are clubs allowed to be sponsored by companies involved in alcohol?
The list goes on and on...I'd say the majority of sponsors would have something about them somebody would object to.
Maybe it'd be easier to have a list of who *is* allowed to sponsor clubs...might be easier....Or we could just use a list that already exists created by representatives of the people...I believe it's referred to as The Law.
If you want to change it, pressure the lawmakers, because they're the only ones who can make an actual difference here.
You can complicate the issue, or you can show principle. If Woolies support pokies, thats their own moral issue.
The claim by clubs receiving the money is that the big clubs get blockbusters, get more fan friendly time slots - are you doubting these claims? Its a Melbourne problem.