Only Five Clubs Profit Without Pokies - The Big 5?

[iameviljez]

No offence, but that's just silly.

None taken, the hypothetical was deliberately ridiculous, but that was my point. Don't merely allow the law to judge what is right and wrong.

 

[Kwality]

The morality question is one thing BUT as far as footy goes the underlying concern is the sustainability of the business model - these clubs do not generate sufficient income from footy to meet their costs.

 

[Kwality]

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.

Telsor If you truly believe Gunna Gil will champion more money to the WA clubs because they don't have & don't need pokies .... no way Jorge!!

There will be a case to review IF the WAFC don't get management rights of the new stadium BUT that's got nothing at all to do with pokies revenue.

IF you were correct he could simply reduce/eliminate the equalisation charge but only you Telsor might suggest its a possibility.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

The morality question is one thing BUT as far as footy goes the underlying concern is the sustainability of the business model - these clubs do not generate sufficient income from footy to meet their costs.

A very good point. Pokie revenue is on the decline in Victoria and new technologies are entering the market at a rapid rate. The market for the gambling dollar is increasing rapidly.

The situation in Atlantic City should serve as a reminder

Atlantic City, N.J. — A time few could imagine during the not-too-distant glory days of casino gambling has arrived in Atlantic City, where two casinos will close this weekend and a third will shut down in two weeks.
More than 5,000 workers will lose their jobs in an unprecedented weekend in the seaside gambling resort, leaving many feeling betrayed by a system that once promised stable, well-paying jobs.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/L...0/Why-three-Atlantic-City-casinos-are-closing

 

[Aussie in exile]

The morality question is one thing BUT as far as footy goes the underlying concern is the sustainability of the business model - these clubs do not generate sufficient income from footy to meet their costs.

Then the business model is wrong.
The first rule of business is you can't have more going out than coming in.

 

[telsor]

Telsor If you truly believe Gunna Gil will champion more money to the WA clubs because they don't have & don't need pokies .... no way Jorge!!

There will be a case to review IF the WAFC don't get management rights of the new stadium BUT that's got nothing at all to do with pokies revenue.

IF you were correct he could simply reduce/eliminate the equalisation charge but only you Telsor might suggest its a possibility.

In other words, your paranoia/persecution complex is so strong that you cannot believe that the AFL will ever do anything except hurt your club.....

 

[Kwality]

In other words, your paranoia/persecution complex is so strong that you cannot believe that the AFL will ever do anything except hurt your club.....

You can fool some of the people some of the time. IF Gunna Gil were to follow your line of thinking, it would make a mockery of equalisation - your spin on what was said beggars belief.
Its not its effect on WA footy, it is an example of Peters Principle, Gunna Gil wont deliver.

 

[telsor]

You can fool some of the people some of the time. IF Gunna Gil were to follow your line of thinking, it would make a mockery of equalisation - your spin on what was said beggars belief.
Its not its effect on WA footy, it is an example of Peters Principle, Gunna Gil wont deliver.

How so?

The work out the whole think on a variety of criteria, one of which is access to pokies.

Doesn't mean you wont be on the good/bad side of the equation just because you have pokies, just that the extent you are on that side may vary.

e.g If WCE was found to 'owe' $4 before pokies were calculated, and pokies were deemed to be worth $1, then WCE would 'only owe $3... (obviously the numbers are purely illustrative ).

Similarly, Bulldogs might be down to receive $5 without pokies, but as they have lots of pokies, so 'only' get $4.

 

[Kwality]

How so?

The work out the whole think on a variety of criteria, one of which is access to pokies.

Doesn't mean you wont be on the good/bad side of the equation just because you have pokies, just that the extent you are on that side may vary.

e.g If WCE was found to 'owe' $4 before pokies were calculated, and pokies were deemed to be worth $1, then WCE would 'only owe $3... (obviously the numbers are purely illustrative ).

Similarly, Bulldogs might be down to receive $5 without pokies, but as they have lots of pokies, so 'only' get $4.

The equalisation needs $s, & your example, which I would love to believe is how it will work, will reduce the dollars into the fund from the WA sides who can afford to pay, & I dont believe for one minute, the AFL will go down that path as they need the money.

Why is the equalisation calculation not transparent? Another snafu by the AFL administration like the Swans decision, the Etihad stadium deal, et al.

 

[telsor]

The equalisation needs $s, & your example, which I would love to believe is how it will work, will reduce the dollars into the fund from the WA sides who can afford to pay, & I dont believe for one minute, the AFL will go down that path as they need the money.

Why is the equalisation calculation not transparent? Another snafu by the AFL administration like the Swans decision, the Etihad stadium deal, et al.

Make them transparent and clubs will manipulate things to suit.

Good ground deal causing issues? Well, just have the WAFL/WAFC charge more rent at Subi and cut the dividend by the same amount. (to give a simplistic example).

You can bet that the 'football department cap' suddenly has clubs reclassifying things as 'not football dept' that previously were.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

A few years ago I went to Windy Hill Venue to watch an interstate Foxtel game. I expected something like a sports bar. To my dissapointment it was a pokies shithole with two medium TVs.

 

[Kwality]

Make them transparent and clubs will manipulate things to suit.

Good ground deal causing issues? Well, just have the WAFL/WAFC charge more rent at Subi and cut the dividend by the same amount. (to give a simplistic example).

You can bet that the 'football department cap' suddenly has clubs reclassifying things as 'not football dept' that previously were.

You still having trouble understanding the difference between the WAFL & the WAFC.

 

[telsor]

You still having trouble understanding the difference between the WAFL & the WAFC.

I know the difference, I just don't think it matters in this context, especially in what I declared to be a simplistic example.

 

[Albert Ross]

You still having trouble understanding the difference between the WAFL & the WAFC.

The WAFL, WCE and Fremantle are all entirely owned subsidiaries of the WAFC who also own the stadium? That as the owner of the stadium, AFL clubs and local league they are in a position to negotiate any deal that best suits their accounting needs?

 

[Kwality]

The WAFL, WCE and Fremantle are all entirely owned subsidiaries of the WAFC who also own the stadium? That as the owner of the stadium, AFL clubs and local league they are in a position to negotiate any deal that best suits their accounting needs?

Indeed Mr Ross. Any suggestion the the WAFL calls the shots is so far off the mark - a different structure completely to SA footy.

 

[telsor]

The WAFL, WCE and Fremantle are all entirely owned subsidiaries of the WAFC who also own the stadium? That as the owner of the stadium, AFL clubs and local league they are in a position to negotiate any deal that best suits their accounting needs?

Don't worry, I'm sure he understood, but rather than concede the point he quibbled over minutiae instead.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

A very good point. Pokie revenue is on the decline in Victoria and new technologies are entering the market at a rapid rate. The market for the gambling dollar is increasing rapidly.

The situation in Atlantic City should serve as a reminder



http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/L...0/Why-three-Atlantic-City-casinos-are-closing

Atlantic City isn't a comparable example.

The reason for the AC decline is twofold. Firstly the Great Recession has done a number of gaming in the USA (Vegas is only just now recovering). The bigger issue is AC is now facing a lot more local competition, as cities driving distance from the city have started allowing their own casinos. This has been the big killer for them unfortunately.

 

[Albert Ross]

Atlantic City isn't a comparable example.

The reason for the AC decline is twofold. Firstly the Great Recession has done a number of gaming in the USA (Vegas is only just now recovering). The bigger issue is AC is now facing a lot more local competition, as cities driving distance from the city have started allowing their own casinos. This has been the big killer for them unfortunately.

When the horse racing industry started to feel the pinch in the mid-2000s the laws were change to allow slot machines (pokies) on race courses. So now the New York / Delaware /Pennslyvania / Rhode Island people don't have to travel to Atlantic City. The Aqueduct race course in New York proper is the most profitable casino in the country now.

As rfctiger74 suggests, the Atlantic City example is more like the pokie venues up on the Murray who made their money from bus trips of punters from Melbourne, but then suffered when those people could stay at home and play pokies.

If the US finally get around to allowing internet gambling everywhere (it is currently state by state) and allow sports betting outside of Vegas; even Vegas might go into massive decline.

 

[Kwality]

The red ink is on the agenda in Surfers today:
Club chiefs fear unless revenues increase and costs are controlled they will have little choice but to ask the AFL for a greater handout as part of its equalisation program.
While Essendon ($721,517) and Richmond ($1.3 million) and power clubs Hawthorn ($3.4 million) and Collingwood ($2 million) have recently announced substantial profits, it's estimated half of the 18 clubs will be in the red by the time the reporting season is over.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...o-discuss-financial-pain-20141125-11tq4d.html

 

[telsor]

The red ink is on the agenda in Surfers today:
Club chiefs fear unless revenues increase and costs are controlled they will have little choice but to ask the AFL for a greater handout as part of its equalisation program.
While Essendon ($721,517) and Richmond ($1.3 million) and power clubs Hawthorn ($3.4 million) and Collingwood ($2 million) have recently announced substantial profits, it's estimated half of the 18 clubs will be in the red by the time the reporting season is over.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...o-discuss-financial-pain-20141125-11tq4d.html

The bit that always makes me wonder about this is....

"Club chiefs fear unless....costs are controlled" Who controls these costs if not the club chiefs?

Sure, some are beyond them (salary cap, external items), but surely they have control over the budget for their football dept (for example), and if that means 1 fewer development coach, then that's what's needed to control costs.

 

[Kwality]

As the AFL try to get discussions on the next broadcast rights deal relevant & some clubs are looking for a bigger pay day, so the players want more too* - some magic pudding this!
*A showdown is looming between AFL clubs and their players over the spoils from the next broadcast rights deal.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/tv-rights-cash-row-looms-20141126-11upuu.html

 

[telsor]

As the AFL try to get discussions on the next broadcast rights deal relevant & some clubs are looking for a bigger pay day, so the players want more too* - some magic pudding this!
*A showdown is looming between AFL clubs and their players over the spoils from the next broadcast rights deal.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/tv-rights-cash-row-looms-20141126-11upuu.html

I think this is just standard maneuvering by all stakeholders really. Be more surprised if they weren't putting their hands up.

 

[Eugenio94]

Roos have always been battlers. Thus, out of necessity, have developed a culture of low spending and living within their means.

Moves backwards slowly…

But seriously, this is ******* ridiculous. How the hell are the clubs reliant on gaming revenue so desperately? One small tweak with our law and the competition can crumble. Time to lower football expenditure, seems like all clubs are spending money they obviously don't have. This is where the issues will lie in football within the next five years. This precident of increasing football expenses to keep up with the rich clubs could backfire on the competition. Too much money is being spent.

 

[Kwality]

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 ?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

So glad we don't have pokies in WA