Only Five Clubs Profit Without Pokies - The Big 5?

Prudster

Premiership Player
Aug 30, 2010
3,430
3,389
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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 ?

I'd love to see sources for those numbers. Based on the article last year posted above, our revenue from pokies last year was about 18 million, meaning it's gone up 5 million in 12 months? And we made about $4 million dollars of profit from pokies last year, and that's nearly tripled in 12 months?

Maybe that is what has happened, but i'm extremely dubious at those figures, especially when they don't define exactly what they represent. Nor do they define what expenses are taken out from them - just the costs of running the machines, or the costs of running the entire club (because the pokies do subsidise this). It doesn't necessarily discount the article's points, but i really do hate when figures are cherry picked to take advantage of the ambiguity.

On a side note, i still don't understand why there's so much outrage over pokies, yet nobody really cares that the AFL and its clubs profit from equally harmful things like alcohol, gambling, etc.

Edit: okay the big difference in figures might be because the previous article didn't include the new club we opened, which is probably now adding to the figure. Although that wouldn't explain how pokies revenue increased by $5 million, yet pokies profit went up by $7 million. Unless opening the new club has reduced costs by $2 million, it doesn't really make sense.
 
Last edited:
If Pokies are so bad, ban them or reduce their number. (something I'd be in favor of).

While they're legal though, why is it a problem that some of the profits go to football clubs rather than the rich people/corporations that would otherwise own them?

For example, North not having pokies doesn't make the slightest bit of difference...There are still the exact same number of machines out there that there would be in North hadn't been forced to sell theirs.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
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-nnn:eek:utbrain-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.
 
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-nnn:eek:utbrain-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.

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?
 

jatz14

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 13, 2011
11,368
16,074
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
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?
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.
 
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.

Packer probably pays less tax than you actually, but that's another matter...

More equitable != even.
 

CLUBMEDhurst

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 23, 2008
7,283
4,943
Under the moonlight, the serious moonlight
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man City
gambling_charter620.jpg


Hawthorn Football Club and the Melbourne Vixens have joined forces with Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation to promote responsible gambling

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2014-12-12/hawks-and-vixens-join-forces-on-responsible-gambling



*in' hypocrites
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood


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.
 
Do they care about their actions in society? Or are they just another blood sucking entity? They need to choose.


Never! The AFL isn't JUST ANOTHER blood sucking entity, they're the blood sucking entity others aspire to be!
 

CLUBMEDhurst

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 23, 2008
7,283
4,943
Under the moonlight, the serious moonlight
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man City
Highlighting Hawthorn is a bit unfair.

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).

However if it was good enough to clamp down on smoking, then the clubs should wean themselves off other socially destructive habits.

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.

The Gument should raise the tax on gambling & advertise through each club equally & down through community clubs.

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.

Make 'Sport' a truly healthy activity, not this confused message of physical activity & destructive habits.

The AFL need to take a lead in this.

They are a very conflicted organisation on this issue

Do they care about their actions in society? Or are they just another blood sucking entity? They need to choose.
 

Prudster

Premiership Player
Aug 30, 2010
3,430
3,389
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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).

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. For the majority of people, that is all they are, paid entertainment. Owning pokies, and trying to support people who gamble irresponsibly can definitely be done side by side. Just as AFL clubs can profit from alcohol and still support the message of drinking responsibly.

It's certainly better than AFL clubs who own pokies and don't partner with VRGF, or support that message.
 
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.

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).


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.


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.[/quote]
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 

CLUBMEDhurst

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 23, 2008
7,283
4,943
Under the moonlight, the serious moonlight
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Man City
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. One can own pokies and still want people to gamble responsibly..

I doubt it. take the addicts outta the equation and the profits will plummett

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.

An incredibly naïve view. They're specifically designed to empty money from the player, utilising psychological conditioning principles and a massive R&D budget. It's packaged as fun to make it more palatable

For the majority of people, that is all they are, paid entertainment. Owning pokies, and trying to support people who gamble irresponsibly can definitely be done side by side. Just as AFL clubs can profit from alcohol and still support the message of drinking responsibly.

It's certainly better than AFL clubs who own pokies and don't partner with VRGF, or support that message.[/QUOTE]

Not a fan of the term, responsible gambling, as it increases the stigma on a largely marginalised group.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
 

Prudster

Premiership Player
Aug 30, 2010
3,430
3,389
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You can complicate the issue, or you can show principle. If Woolies support pokies, thats their own moral issue.

What's the difference? If Hawthorn sold our pokies to some company who then sponsored us, would that change anything? Or is it just a matter of hiding your affiliation enough so that you have plausible deniability? Whether you own the machines, or your sponsor does, it is still doing the same thing and it is still the same people who will be affected by it.
 
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.

Really? Do the Melbourne clubs get every game on FTA TV into their home market?

I'm sure club sponsors don't pay a single cent more for that extra exposure, do they, meanwhile Vic clubs aren't getting that exposure, but are paying for a massive asset that the non-vic clubs will share ownership of equally...


BTW. If it's a Melbourne problem, why are most non-vic clubs recipients?
 
Back