Only Five Clubs Profit Without Pokies - The Big 5?

[telsor]

You can complicate the issue, or you can show principle. If Woolies support pokies, thats their own moral issue.

OK....

So your version of gun control would be for reputable people to give their guns to less reputable people, while maintaining the same number of guns out there?

 

[madmug]

OK....

So your version of gun control would be for reputable people to give their guns to less reputable people, while maintaining the same number of guns out there?

So I repeat, one can complicate the issue, or address the issue. We are discussing pokies & the issue with AFL clubs, NOT gun control, nor, as is your usual method of trolling, putting words in my mouth. Try sticking to the issue. It is a serious issue.

 

[telsor]

So I repeat, one can complicate the issue, or address the issue. We are discussing pokies & the issue with AFL clubs, NOT gun control, nor, as is your usual method of trolling, putting words in my mouth. Try sticking to the issue. It is a serious issue.

I did.

You know, when I pointed out that the AFL clubs not having pokies wouldn't change the number of pokies out there, thus making it a pointless gesture.

I also asked you where else social responsibility would/should effect where clubs get revenue, but apparently this issue must be viewed in a vacuum, devoid of context and reference to anything else.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but in the real world, things relate to each other, and are used to compare and contrast. Is 'X' better or worse than 'Y' is an important thing to determine, especially in matters of ethics and morality.


BTW...Once again you accuse me of trolling by putting words in your mouth....What did I say you said? I know I ASKED A QUESTION that followed your logic in a different area, but I never said you said that.

I assume this accusation is, once again, merely an attempt to deflect and avoid answering a question you find too difficult.

 

[madmug]

I did.

You know, when I pointed out that the AFL clubs not having pokies wouldn't change the number of pokies out there, thus making it a pointless gesture.

I also asked you where else social responsibility would/should effect where clubs get revenue, but apparently this issue must be viewed in a vacuum, devoid of context and reference to anything else.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but in the real world, things relate to each other, and are used to compare and contrast. Is 'X' better or worse than 'Y' is an important thing to determine, especially in matters of ethics and morality.


BTW...Once again you accuse me of trolling by putting words in your mouth....What did I say you said? I know I ASKED A QUESTION that followed your logic in a different area, but I never said you said that.

I assume this accusation is, once again, merely an attempt to deflect and avoid answering a question you find too difficult.

You are just confusing the discussion. The AFL cannot control disease, war, pestilence, death or anything else. It can make a social statement & show leadership in the community & act in a socially responsible manner.

OK....

So your version of gun control would be for reputable people to give their guns to less reputable people, while maintaining the same number of guns out there?

This is classic you. You make implication of my attitude as if I said it as fact. This is very poor form & is what you do all the time. You make a statement & then implicate that is what I said. Stop doing it.

 

[Furn2]

How many clubs profited without sponsorship from soft drink companies ?

 

[Furn2]

The $23 mil is how much the machines made, eg they took in $23mil more than they paid out. $12mil goes n tax etc leaving $11mil but that $11mil has to cover all your costs of staff etc so the actual profit is nowhere near that.

 

[telsor]

This is classic you. You make implication of my attitude as if I said it as fact. This is very poor form & is what you do all the time. You make a statement & then implicate that is what I said. Stop doing it.

Let's look at what I said.

"So your version of gun control would be"

Now, I have no idea how you can take 'your version...would be' to in any way suggest that what follows is what you said.

I'd also point out the last part of what I wrote

"?"

It's called a question mark...It means I was ASKING if that was indeed what your logic would translate to.

Instead of answering however, you followed your usual method of playing the man, presumably because the ball was too hard.

 

[madmug]

Let's look at what I said.

"So your version of gun control would be"

Now, I have no idea how you can take 'your version...would be' to in any way suggest that what follows is what you said.

I'd also point out the last part of what I wrote

"?"

It's called a question mark...It means I was ASKING if that was indeed what your logic would translate to.

Instead of answering however, you followed your usual method of playing the man, presumably because the ball was too hard.

Instead of exaggerating the issue, then trying to insinuate my attitude to something else. Gun control?, just stick to the issue. Forget the question mark.

Yes I see it as trolling. Their is no logic nor rationality in bringing in something as emotive as gun control except to cloud the issue. I said what I think on the matter of AFL clubs & poker machines. Please stick to that or dont engage with me. Its pointless discussing subjects like that.

And yes, I have no intention of answering such an irrelevant question.

I dont get your or 'others' call of 'playing the man'. How do I argue to such a dishonest way of discussing an issue?

 

[Hawkk]

One premiership for the pokie addicted, one for the Tasmanian tax payer and one for Matt Stevic. It's a solid business plan.

The bitterness is strong in this little power fan...

Perhaps you can hand back the equalisation donation we have given you once you finally start turning a profit

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

As I said before, while it's legal, why is it a problem for sporting clubs to hold a few of the licenses?

legality does not equate to morality

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.

If they don't buy their drugs offa me, they'll only go down the road to that stinky bloke

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).

I'd rather neither

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.

I dunno about that. I also reside in Moreland, and know first hand of some folk that the programs funded by the council aided their recovery.

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]

You know as well as I do telsor that nowt will be done to reduce gambling related harm by either of the major parties.

 

[telsor]

legality does not equate to morality

Agree.

If they don't buy their drugs offa me, they'll only go down the road to that stinky bloke

Except these 'drugs' are legal.

More like deciding it's morally wrong to sell alcohol, and selling the bar you own to another guy to do it instead.

I'd rather neither

Agree.

I dunno about that. I also reside in Moreland, and know first hand of some folk that the programs funded by the council aided their recovery.

I have no doubt such programs help some people, it was more a comment about the ethic standing of our fine counsellors.

You know as well as I do telsor that nowt will be done to reduce gambling related harm by either of the major parties.

Yep.

And there will be winners and losers from that, so until/unless something is done to genuinely reduce the problem, I figure AFL clubs might as well be among the 'winners'.

 

[catman2006]

Pokies have no place in Fooball and all clubs should be getting rid of them, clubs should go on the stock market if they want capital

 

[jatz14]

The, it isn't against the law, and someone else will profit, so why not me argument is a doozy. Its the argument that justified exposing people to asbestos after it was known to be dangerous, and before it was banned. All manner of dodgy, dangerous, exploitative and immoral s**t leaks through the crack of 'it isn't illegal' It is the argument cigarette makers raise whenever their is a restriction on cigarettes. The claim is that if the AFL clubs are responsible and upright, then it is better that they hold the license than someone else, but I suspect if they were as responsible and upright as they made out, they wouldn't be holding the licence.

The pokies in the clubs will ruin lives, and the clubs know this perfectly well, and the justification of, 'well, it isn't illegal so it is all-right' doesn't fly well. When they use that argument they put themselves in the company of some truly shitfull organisations, and if they are fine with that, we are entitled to draw conclusions about them as individuals and organisations.

 

[telsor]

The, it isn't against the law, and someone else will profit, so why not me argument is a doozy. Its the argument that justified exposing people to asbestos after it was known to be dangerous, and before it was banned. All manner of dodgy, dangerous, exploitative and immoral s**t leaks through the crack of 'it isn't illegal' It is the argument cigarette makers raise whenever their is a restriction on cigarettes. The claim is that if the AFL clubs are responsible and upright, then it is better that they hold the license than someone else, but I suspect if they were as responsible and upright as they made out, they wouldn't be holding the licence.

The pokies in the clubs will ruin lives, and the clubs know this perfectly well, and the justification of, 'well, it isn't illegal so it is all-right' doesn't fly well. When they use that argument they put themselves in the company of some truly shitfull organisations, and if they are fine with that, we are entitled to draw conclusions about them as individuals and organisations.

The bit missing you seem to miss from your analogy is this...If you don't expose these people to asbestos, SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

Let's say there are 10,000 pokies out there (I don't know the number)...If AFL clubs give up the 600( again, just a guess) they own/control, then there will still be 10,000 out there. Maybe some will be in different locations (for better or, more likely, worse) and the profits, instead of going to a sporting body that has some public scrutiny over how it uses them will probably go to a company like woolies who will have practically none.

In what way is that an improvement?

In a choice between 'bad' and 'worse', I say go for 'bad', at least until a better option can be realistically found.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

You have to think a little bit, and not accept the journo's terminology

There are different phrases used in each state but basically pokie machines produce Net Gambling Revenue per machine ie money pumped in less payouts = net gambling revenue. Then a Gaming Tax is applied to that and all states have marginal rates and some have different rates for sporting/social clubs vs general business like a pub. The venue then is left with a Net Gaming Revenue. It then has to pay costs to run the business.

State government pokie taxes are effectively imposing a tax on gross revenue (ie before general expenses) where as an income tax the feds levy are on a net income basis (ie after general expenses).

Hawks Net Gambling Revenue = $23 m - as per article you quoted
Victorian Govt Gaming Tax.... =($12) m - ( marginal tax rates are 0% then 46.7% and then 54.20% for rest of income levels)
--------------------------------------------
Hawks Net Gaming Revnue.... = $11 m - as per the article you quoted
Expenses to run venues ....... = $(7) m - my guesstimate
------------------------------------------
Profit from running the venue = $4 m - as per the article in the opening post of this thread which was for 2013
.......................................................but still is a good indicator if the figures above are for only the 2 venues quoted back then
......................................................."but they are understood to have earned more than $4 million from their lucrative Waverley Gardens
.......................................................gaming venue, and have plans to earn more from their new Caroline Springs venue."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

What the hell does the author/Newbold mean with his "and about $150,000 in self-funding an increase in the player salary cap that most other clubs had covered by the AFL."

 

[Crankyhawk]

I did.

You know, when I pointed out that the AFL clubs not having pokies wouldn't change the number of pokies out there, thus making it a pointless gesture.

I also asked you where else social responsibility would/should effect where clubs get revenue, but apparently this issue must be viewed in a vacuum, devoid of context and reference to anything else.

I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but in the real world, things relate to each other, and are used to compare and contrast. Is 'X' better or worse than 'Y' is an important thing to determine, especially in matters of ethics and morality.


BTW...Once again you accuse me of trolling by putting words in your mouth....What did I say you said? I know I ASKED A QUESTION that followed your logic in a different area, but I never said you said that.

I assume this accusation is, once again, merely an attempt to deflect and avoid answering a question you find too difficult.

Would love some mad hacker to computer virus and f**k up all the pokies.

 

[Kwality]

Pokies have no place in Fooball and all clubs should be getting rid of them, clubs should go on the stock market if they want capital

Colin Carter not a fan of the pokies:
Geelong president Colin Carter says AFL industry slow to realise poker machines are a big problem
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...m/news-story/0fb1dc2f71f335220064247203b177fc

Cant help but wonder what the AFL Commission (the Commisioners not the executive) was thinking as the rush for machines in Melbourne clubs mushroomed? Pls Mr Carter, let us know !

The former AFL commissioner said the Cats — who turned over more than $10 million from two gaming venues last year — had the view that in the “long term that we would probably prefer to be out of the industry” but an exit was not now financially viable.

 

[telsor]

Colin Carter not a fan of the pokies:
Geelong president Colin Carter says AFL industry slow to realise poker machines are a big problem
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...m/news-story/0fb1dc2f71f335220064247203b177fc

Cant help but wonder what the AFL Commission (the Commisioners not the executive) was thinking as the rush for machines in Melbourne clubs mushroomed? Pls Mr Carter, let us know !

The former AFL commissioner said the Cats — who turned over more than $10 million from two gaming venues last year — had the view that in the “long term that we would probably prefer to be out of the industry” but an exit was not now financially viable.

Not now makes sense...Geelong is in a bit of a tough financial situation due to the works on KP, so it's no surprise they want every dollar they can get.

Never is another matter.

 

[tazaa]

Colin Carter not a fan of the pokies:
Geelong president Colin Carter says AFL industry slow to realise poker machines are a big problem
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...m/news-story/0fb1dc2f71f335220064247203b177fc

Cant help but wonder what the AFL Commission (the Commisioners not the executive) was thinking as the rush for machines in Melbourne clubs mushroomed? Pls Mr Carter, let us know !

The former AFL commissioner said the Cats — who turned over more than $10 million from two gaming venues last year — had the view that in the “long term that we would probably prefer to be out of the industry” but an exit was not now financially viable.

They must owe something silly on the machines?
I dont get how the Cats get full access to the gate, have poker machines and make a loss..

 

[Kwality]

They must owe something silly on the machines?
I dont get how the Cats get full access to the gate, have poker machines and make a loss..

GEELONG has announced a net loss of more than $3 million in 2015, with a poor commercial result exacerbated by costs of nearly $4 million attached to the stage four redevelopment of Simonds Stadium.
Geelong also had to contribute $300,000 to an AFL fund introduced as part of the competition's new equalisation policy.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-23/geelong-records-loss-of-more-than-3m-in-2015

 

[Prudster]

They must owe something silly on the machines?
I dont get how the Cats get full access to the gate, have poker machines and make a loss..

I'd imagine it's pretty simple. The Cats budget the profits from pokies and their match day revenue, and then spend an appropriate amount depending on that. Since they saw less revenue than expected (partially due to on field performance, lower capacity for KP due to the upgrades, etc.), as well as significant expenses related to the KP upgrade, they had a yearly loss. Really it's not that big a deal as a once off, and with an increase in members/stadium capacity, as well as an expectation of greater on field performance, they aren't even close to being in trouble financially.

 

[tazaa]

GEELONG has announced a net loss of more than $3 million in 2015, with a poor commercial result exacerbated by costs of nearly $4 million attached to the stage four redevelopment of Simonds Stadium.
Geelong also had to contribute $300,000 to an AFL fund introduced as part of the competition's new equalisation policy.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-12-23/geelong-records-loss-of-more-than-3m-in-2015

I'd imagine it's pretty simple. The Cats budget the profits from pokies and their match day revenue, and then spend an appropriate amount depending on that. Since they saw less revenue than expected (partially due to on field performance, lower capacity for KP due to the upgrades, etc.), as well as significant expenses related to the KP upgrade, they had a yearly loss. Really it's not that big a deal as a once off, and with an increase in members/stadium capacity, as well as an expectation of greater on field performance, they aren't even close to being in trouble financially.

They are in a strong position financially. Im not disputing that. But with full access to the gate its interesting to see why they cant lay off the Pokies? Hence there must be a level of debt attached to acquiring them perhaps that still needs to be paid off? I know its why North will never go near them again.

 

[Prudster]

They are in a strong position financially. Im not disputing that. But with full access to the gate its interesting to see why they cant lay off the Pokies? Hence there must be a level of debt attached to acquiring them perhaps that still needs to be paid off? I know its why North will never go near them again.

No doubt it does cost money to set up pokies and the establishments they are housed in, but Geelong would likely recoup most or all of this if they were to sell them. What they probably wouldn't recoup is the $10 million revenue and probably a couple of million of profit that they make from them. Given they're already taking on significant debt, getting rid of something that's such a great help to their bottom line is just not gonna happen.

If they were forced to get rid of them, i'm sure they could find a way to make things work, but there's simply no need for them to be doing that any time soon, and especially not while they're paying off KP.

North won't go near them because they can't afford them? That to me is quite concerning, and likely a situation Geelong don't want to get themselves into, which is why they want to hang onto their pokies.

 

[tazaa]

No doubt it does cost money to set up pokies and the establishments they are housed in, but Geelong would likely recoup most or all of this if they were to sell them. What they probably wouldn't recoup is the $10 million revenue and probably a couple of million of profit that they make from them. Given they're already taking on significant debt, getting rid of something that's such a great help to their bottom line is just not gonna happen.

If they were forced to get rid of them, i'm sure they could find a way to make things work, but there's simply no need for them to be doing that any time soon, and especially not while they're paying off KP.

North won't go near them because they can't afford them? That to me is quite concerning, and likely a situation Geelong don't want to get themselves into, which is why they want to hang onto their pokies.

Yeh nothing will change whilst theyre renovating KP.
The amount of debt you take on when you acquire pokies is not worth it. Hence why if you already have them its better for you and if you dont then dont bother.