Only Five Clubs Profit Without Pokies - The Big 5?

[Frank Grimes]

But why should those that have an interest in them suffer because a small % can't handle their addiction,

I've read several times over the years that 40% of the Pokie revenue is from Problem Gamblers. Club owners obviously don't want to lose 40% of their revenue and are happy to leech off the vulnerable. That's why the Club owners ever really make half arsed attempts on programs they know won't work, so it looks like they are doing something but in reality doing bugger all. That's why when any meaningful reform is suggested in Parliament they howl and moan until the reform is scrapped.

 

[Slax]

I've read several times over the years that 40% of the Pokie revenue is from Problem Gamblers. Club owners obviously don't want to lose 40% of their revenue and are happy to leech off the vulnerable. That's why the Club owners ever really make half arsed attempts on programs they know won't work, so it looks like they are doing something but in reality doing bugger all. That's why when any meaningful reform is suggested in Parliament they howl and moan until the reform is scrapped.

It's why they fought so hard against bet limits on poker machines being introduced and pumped millions into the major political parties to stop the indpendents from getting the legislation up during the last government.

Poker machines fail society, they only make the rich richer whilst destroy tens of thousands of lives. If you want to kick start the economy properly then shut down all poker machines and the money saved will quickly be spent elsewhere and in more meaningful ways.

 

[worthy]

It's why they fought so hard against bet limits on poker machines being introduced and pumped millions into the major political parties to stop the indpendents from getting the legislation up during the last government.

Poker machines fail society, they only make the rich richer whilst destroy tens of thousands of lives. If you want to kick start the economy properly then shut down all poker machines and the money saved will quickly be spent elsewhere and in more meaningful ways.

Alcohol fails society
Cigarettes fail society
Gambling fails society

I don't disagree there is a problem with poker machines, but where does it end, who are you to choose which "evil" stays and which is "shut down", there are "tens of thousands" of people who use them for light entertainment (not me BTW), so you intend to penalise the many to help the weak?
Wreaks of issues.

 

[madmug]

Alcohol fails society
Cigarettes fail society
Gambling fails society

I don't disagree there is a problem with poker machines, but where does it end, who are you to choose which "evil" stays and which is "shut down", there are "tens of thousands" of people who use them for light entertainment (not me BTW), so you intend to penalise the many to help the weak?
Wreaks of issues.

The answer is called harm minimisation. The pokie lobby fought against any attempt to limit the damage those who cant control themselves, the liberal government have supported them.
Clearly they dont care about the health of their patrons. You can have pokies, alcohol & smokes, its about strategies to minimise the damage to vulnerable people & society.

 

[Slax]

Alcohol fails society
Cigarettes fail society
Gambling fails society

I don't disagree there is a problem with poker machines, but where does it end, who are you to choose which "evil" stays and which is "shut down", there are "tens of thousands" of people who use them for light entertainment (not me BTW), so you intend to penalise the many to help the weak?
Wreaks of issues.

If you want to do it like that then maybe, but for starters they should impose restrictions on the noises and flashing lights. A machine sings a little jinlge and says you won, but when the return is less than the outlay it is not a win.

Poker machines have been designed to keep the punter believing that a big win is just around the corner by paying out in little amounts. The other problem is that the machine works off a pre-programmed computer algerythm where you have no impact on the result. Winning or losing is preset and a monkey has just as much chance of winning. Other forms of gambling do require some level of knowledge, pokies have the lowest odds of all forms of gambling of the punter winning. For instance, casinos operate on a margin of only a couple of percent, bookmakers are similar to the extent that online bookmakers now have more people employed monitoring betting patterns and winning percentages of their clients than people setting odds, consistently show you are a winner on sports betting and they'll close you account (read the T&C and you'll see they can close an account refunding the balance to the client at their discretion).

 

[jatz14]

Alcohol fails society
Cigarettes fail society
Gambling fails society

I don't disagree there is a problem with poker machines, but where does it end, who are you to choose which "evil" stays and which is "shut down", there are "tens of thousands" of people who use them for light entertainment (not me BTW), so you intend to penalise the many to help the weak?
Wreaks of issues.

On that basis, why impose any controls on anything. Add whatever why like to that list, make the same argument.

 

[worthy]

If you want to do it like that then maybe, but for starters they should impose restrictions on the noises and flashing lights. A machine sings a little jinlge and says you won, but when the return is less than the outlay it is not a win.

Poker machines have been designed to keep the punter believing that a big win is just around the corner by paying out in little amounts. The other problem is that the machine works off a pre-programmed computer algerythm where you have no impact on the result. Winning or losing is preset and a monkey has just as much chance of winning. Other forms of gambling do require some level of knowledge, pokies have the lowest odds of all forms of gambling of the punter winning. For instance, casinos operate on a margin of only a couple of percent, bookmakers are similar to the extent that online bookmakers now have more people employed monitoring betting patterns and winning percentages of their clients than people setting odds, consistently show you are a winner on sports betting and they'll close you account (read the T&C and you'll see they can close an account refunding the balance to the client at their discretion).

As I said earlier, pokies hold no interest for me at all, they're boring TBH, I just want to present another view for consideration.

 

[worthy]

On that basis, why impose any controls on anything. Add whatever why like to that list, make the same argument.

There are controls, you have to be over the age of 18.
What controls can be implemented to help those with a problem, but not persecute those without a problem? The best way of doing something is not always the easiest way.

 

[Kwality]

There are controls, you have to be over the age of 18.
What controls can be implemented to help those with a problem, but not persecute those without a problem? The best way of doing something is not always the easiest way.

Persecute !!
Lived with & without them, never felt persecuted.

 

[worthy]

Persecute !!
Lived with & without them, never felt persecuted.

Bewilderingly, some people do enjoy them responsibly.

 

[fabulousphil]

Bewilderingly, some people do enjoy them responsibly.

Exactly right, in fact thousands upon thousands do, pretty much the same with alcohol.

I personally don't have a problem with pokies, when East i will give them a bash, but no doubt some people have massive problems with them, but they also provide benfits for people ( club members) as well, through cheap meals, subsidised golf, bowls fees etc.

But, i actually don't wan't them legalised in WA clubs.

How is that for a conundrum ?.

 

[madmug]

Exactly right, in fact thousands upon thousands do, pretty much the same with alcohol.

I personally don't have a problem with pokies, when East i will give them a bash, but no doubt some people have massive problems with them, but they also provide benfits for people ( club members) as well, through cheap meals, subsidised golf, bowls fees etc.

But, i actually don't wan't them legalised in WA clubs.

How is that for a conundrum ?.

I trust you dont want them because you can see the social harm they can cause. They cause such harm because the pokie lobby rely on those chronic gamblers who are addicted to them & wont allow any type of control which might actually help those people, but hardly affect the bulk of users.

Hows that for a conundrum, social good versus greed.

 

[fabulousphil]

I trust you dont want them because you can see the social harm they can cause. They cause such harm because the pokie lobby rely on those chronic gamblers who are addicted to them & wont allow any type of control which might actually help those people, but hardly affect the bulk of users.

Hows that for a conundrum, social good versus greed.

Have them at casino, if you wan't to make the effort, i just feel that WA does not need them, we seem to do OK without them, but interestingly we have the highest take up off lotto in Australia and indeed the world ( per capita) , we would just be trading one form of gambling for another, and BTW whats the chances of winning anything substantial by playing lotto.

 

[telsor]

Why is this discussion here? You're not commenting on AFL clubs, so go to Society & Politics and talk about it.

 

[Kwality]

Exactly right, in fact thousands upon thousands do, pretty much the same with alcohol.

I personally don't have a problem with pokies, when East i will give them a bash, but no doubt some people have massive problems with them, but they also provide benfits for people ( club members) as well, through cheap meals, subsidised golf, bowls fees etc.

But, i actually don't wan't them legalised in WA clubs.

How is that for a conundrum ?.

100% Phil, on this we agree. Its a cancer WA should resist. Neither AFL club needs it, but WAFL clubs are not that lucky.

 

[Kwality]

Why is this discussion here? You're not commenting on AFL clubs, so go to Society & Politics and talk about it.

1. FOOTY indeed, funding some teams not others
Victorian AFL clubs and their pokie takes in 2013-14
CARL $17.5m (4 pokie clubs)
COLL $12.7m (3)
ESS $11.9m (2)
GEEL $8m (2)
HAW $18.6m (2)
MEL $9.4m (2)
NM — Nil
RICH $4.1m (1)
STK $2.2m (1)
WB $4.3m (2)
TOTAL = 19 pokie clubs — $88.7m

2. Equalisation
Tasmanians pump money into Vic clubs & now Gil formalises West Aussies equalising pokie profits by too many unsustainable Melbourne clubs - Gil is out of his depth:
“Equalisation is characterised as taking from the rich and giving to the poor — but what it is actually for is to compensate the smaller clubs for the structural inequities they have in their business,” McLachlan said.
“They are their stadium deals — some have got good ones, some have got bad ones; the size of their supporter base, and that is an historical thing; the fixture which has some indirect structural stuff in their like Anzac Day and others; and the fourth one is gaming, where some clubs — you take a Hawthorn who make about a $4 million net profit out of their gaming business — and in Western Australia, you can’t own machines.”

Is Gil the full quid? WA clubs have a good stadium deal courtesy of the WA Govt supporting local footy, not middle men profiteering by the Melbourne Club at the expense of footy (& cricket of the Vic variety) so the AFL want the WA clubs to kick in then this gem and in Western Australia, you can’t own machines - where does this factor in AFL calculations Gil? This bloke is a dud.

 

[telsor]

1. FOOTY indeed, funding some teams not others
Victorian AFL clubs and their pokie takes in 2013-14
CARL $17.5m (4 pokie clubs)
COLL $12.7m (3)
ESS $11.9m (2)
GEEL $8m (2)
HAW $18.6m (2)
MEL $9.4m (2)
NM — Nil
RICH $4.1m (1)
STK $2.2m (1)
WB $4.3m (2)
TOTAL = 19 pokie clubs — $88.7m

2. Equalisation
Tasmanians pump money into Vic clubs & now Gil formalises West Aussies equalising pokie profits by too many unsustainable Melbourne clubs - Gil is out of his depth:
“Equalisation is characterised as taking from the rich and giving to the poor — but what it is actually for is to compensate the smaller clubs for the structural inequities they have in their business,” McLachlan said.
“They are their stadium deals — some have got good ones, some have got bad ones; the size of their supporter base, and that is an historical thing; the fixture which has some indirect structural stuff in their like Anzac Day and others; and the fourth one is gaming, where some clubs — you take a Hawthorn who make about a $4 million net profit out of their gaming business — and in Western Australia, you can’t own machines.”

Is Gil the full quid? WA clubs have a good stadium deal courtesy of the WA Govt supporting local footy, not middle men profiteering by the Melbourne Club at the expense of footy (& cricket of the Vic variety) so the AFL want the WA clubs to kick in then this gem and in Western Australia, you can’t own machines - where does this factor in AFL calculations Gil? This bloke is a dud.

Firstly, why did you quote me here, after 6 months and out of context to boot? I was clearly referring to the discussion about the morality of gaming that was going on at the time, which is not a football issue.

Secondly, selectively quoting from an article, but not including a link so people can make their own assessment is pretty lame, not least because that article makes clear that the figures above are 'net gaming income' and NOT profits.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...4-financial-year/story-fni5ezdm-1227102811873

Thirdly, On equalisation, Gil was clearly saying that WA clubs would get more support from the AFL because they are unable to access this income stream. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

 

[Pessimistic]

Seems to me the criteria just change all the time so hawthorn get to pay, yet still get treat like a middle order club.

I like how clubs saw the writing on the wall and there was a rash of coach sackings before the deadline where they would have also paid a footy tax on severance pay

 

[pazza]

Not mentioned in the article and discussion is how clubs are structured.

Take Essendon.

It can be clearly proven that Essendon doesn't directly profit from it's pokie revenue, as the club is structured in such a way where the social club (otherwise known as Essendon Football Community and Social Club - EFCSC) is the direct profit. And it is also the distributor of the funds to the cricket, athletics, tennis, hockey, croquet clubs. So in reality, the article doesn't tell the full story.

 

[Kwality]

Not mentioned in the article and discussion is how clubs are structured.

Take Essendon.

It can be clearly proven that Essendon doesn't directly profit from it's pokie revenue, as the club is structured in such a way where the social club (otherwise known as Essendon Football Community and Social Club - EFCSC) is the direct profit. And it is also the distributor of the funds to the cricket, athletics, tennis, hockey, croquet clubs. So in reality, the article doesn't tell the full story.

Does the footy club provide any guarantees?

 

[pazza]

Does the footy club provide any guarantees?

I'd have to check the records, but, as far as I am aware, no. It did when it restructured the social club in the 1970's however..before putting Ted Fordham and his wife in charge of it in 1977.

 

[iameviljez]

Has been said many times before but I'm proud that my club does the right thing and makes a profit without using those things

I wish I could say the same about my own club.

 

[iameviljez]

I would have thought if the activity was legal, then each club has that avenue open to them when it comes to raising revenue. If the laws of the land altered in any way, then my club would have to curtail their involvement and seek other ways to generate income. I really can't see the point of the thread.

The law isn't the only directive of morality. For example, if the law switched tomorrow to legalise dope, should clubs then sell it?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The law isn't the only directive of morality. For example, if the law switched tomorrow to legalise dope, should clubs then sell it?

No offence, but that's just silly.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

No offence, but that's just silly.

But he has a point.

As people in the public eye, and people who are able to earn a sizeable living purely because of the spectator element of sport - there is a certain standard of behaviour that clubs expect players to meet... and often this has little to do with the actual law, and is more dependant on public perceptions and based on a moral code.

Why can't members (effectively the "owners" of a club) also expect the same from the organisations as a whole?

Personally I think that the association of the AFL and its clubs with both the Gambling and Alcohol industries are two massive failures of the sport - despite whatever financial gain there is.