Is it time for the Hawks to ditch gaming?

[Samthegun]

If Hawthorn could find a way of distancing themselves from pokies revenue, I'd approve. I don't buy those arguments that it's all choice ... I think it's education. Pokies players simply don't realise that it's all based on a random number generator with percentages assigned to each winning combination. Eventually you're going to lose...

 

[Tyrone Time]

How the Mighty have fallen.

 

[AstonSouffle]

How are we in a better position to get rid of them than Collingwood? Only the dumbest of administrations would make a long term financial decision like this based off a period of success which the club may never experience again.

I don't like pokies, but how is it any different to clubs being involved with selling alcohol, or cigarettes, or the AFL's gambling sponsors?

Your answer is literally saying, 'no, we can't'.

The question is not can the big and powerful Hawthorn survive without pokies, the question is can due to their success allow that to be the main breadwinner to the point where they can forgoe poker machines?

Also you're right it's not different, perhaps the only reason WA isn't the same is the clubs are blocked by legislation. Of course clubs wouldn't give away money, even if it was gained by shoddy means. The question is could they? For the greater good etc etc, and still be sitting pretty. Clearly how you've all rallied to the defence of those blasted money suckers is an answer in itself.

 

[Tas]

We didn't get out of pokies for ethical reasons, we had the opportunity to get back in with some lucrative pokies in a desirable location but chose not to get back into pokies.

What is disturbing to me is that clubs have used the research on problem gambling, which was done to try and help address the issue of problem gambling to instead use that research to find the best locations to place pokies, it is utterly abhorrent and inhumane. Pokies derive 60% of their revenue from problem gamblers, this destroys their lives and does significant harm to their families. It is reprehensible for clubs to use that research to flood the western suburbs with pokies. I honestly don't know how these people can live with their actions. Football clubs are there for the community, to betray them like that is unforgivable. Most of the clubs who have got into pokies or expanded their operations have done so with the knowledge that they are doing significant harm to the community.

 

[the dog's kennel]

And I keep posting ... why Hawthorn? If the thread was about ALL clubs, then maybe it has a point to it, but all people are worried about here is the amount of money Hawthorn are gaining from them. Along with Collingwood, we already pay more than other clubs for the AFL's "equalisation" plan, why shouldn't we be able to generate income through pokies as most other clubs do? This thread is nothing more than an attempt to take another cheap shot at a club which gets off its arse makes things happen rather than sit around waiting for the AFL to give them handouts.

My God, how pathetic are these Hawks supporters trying to justify their pokies?

It's really simple. You guys are rich as #*%$. You have 70,000 members - as you so like to proclaim. You have a sweetheart deal with Tassie. It is easier for you to get rid of the pokies then say Carlton. So why wouldn't you? Then as soon as Carlton can afford to get rid of them they should too. Same goes for Collingwood.

Attitudes such as yours are like those selfish Liberal scumbags who demand that Australia wait until Indian shanty towns have a carbon tax before we start paying to reduce our carbon emissions.

The rich should be leading by example. Especially when they bleat on and on about being the so-called family club and how incredibly well-managed they supposedly are. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I don't want the Dogs to have anything to do with pokies, and we're only just getting by. Have the tiniest amount of moral fibre.

By the way, I do think the entire AFL should be rid of them. But until that day happens, it would be nice for supposedly well-run clubs to lead by example.

Also - well done to the Kangaroos, who really have led by example when it wasn't convenient for them to do so. Unlike Hawthorn they are a class act.

 

[Tyrone Time]

My God, how pathetic are these Hawks supporters trying to justify their pokies?

Socialist Bulldogs fan, well knock me down with a feather.

 

[the dog's kennel]

Socialist Bulldogs fan, well knock me down with a feather.

Wanting to get rid of pokies ASAP has nothing to do with socialism. Unless you consider drug dealers 'entrepreneurs'.

You guys want all the credit for being market leaders. And none of the responsibility.

It must be said, I'm not exactly thrilled with the Dogs' performance in this regard either. The only thing stopping us being right next to the Hawks in leaching millions and millions off addicts is that our proposed Pokies Palace failed.

 

[Prudster]

Your answer is literally saying, 'no, we can't'.

The question is not can the big and powerful Hawthorn survive without pokies, the question is can due to their success allow that to be the main breadwinner to the point where they can forgoe poker machines?

Why would three years of success, success which may not come again for decades, make a big impact in our long term financial decisions? Do you really think the few million extra that we bring in over a few years makes that much of an impact? With equalisation ramping up and us looking to build a new home base, that money is already spent on giving us an opportunity to have success again in the future

Also you're right it's not different, perhaps the only reason WA isn't the same is the clubs are blocked by legislation. Of course clubs wouldn't give away money, even if it was gained by shoddy means. The question is could they? For the greater good etc etc, and still be sitting pretty. Clearly how you've all rallied to the defence of those blasted money suckers is an answer in itself.

It's a flawed argument, because these clubs/pokies have large upfront costs, that take time to get a return on the investment. If pokies were never available, that money would have been invested into something else, but you can't just take away tens of millions of dollars worth of investments and replace them with nothing, or with something that will take several years to turn a profit.

Hawthorn's current profits are already committed to things like equalisation payments, building our new training base, and diversifying our investments, which will reduce our reliance on pokies, and eventually put us in a position where we could phase them out without harming our ability to compete on field.

As for Hawthorn fans running to defend pokies, perhaps it's because this thread is the same old rehashed crap, only it's focusing only on Hawthorn, who are in no better of a position than a Collingwood to get rid of pokies. Gee, i wonder why Hawk fans object to that

 

[tige19]

This is a poor and bizarre OP

 

[Chief]

Yes I did. So why single Hawthorn out? Did you even read my post?

Given the huge influx of cash from prize money, memberships, donations, and sponsorships: is it time for the club to bite the bullet and jettison gambling as a source of revenue?

TLDR version: If any club can do it, the Hawks can. Is it time they did? Yes or no.

 

[Chief]

This is a poor and bizarre OP

Hey! I had 10 beers, it was the best I could do.

 

[tige19]

Hey! I had 10 beers, it was the best I could do.

Forgiven mate lol

 

[Prudster]

TLDR version: If any club can do it, the Hawks can. Is it time they did? Yes or no.

Prize money is a very temporary thing which we may not receive again for decades. Nothing else in that list places us above Collingwood, so why single out Hawthorn?

 

[Long Live HFC]

as I've posted on our board.

HFC's primary role should be winning premierships and maximising its revenue streams in order to do so. poker machines are legal entertainment and it's not the club's job to determine what's good "for society". if it's a choice between grandma's pension and more hawthorn silverware, i'd be the first to thank her for her sacrifice.
play to win.

 

[Chief]

Prize money is a very temporary thing which we may not receive again for decades. Nothing else in that list places us above Collingwood, so why single out Hawthorn?

Why single out Collingwood?

It's just a topic of discussion. Forget about other clubs. Your club has just achieved the near-impossible and nobody would be incredibly surprised if they went again in 2016.

Given all this, if anyone can do it you guys can. Should they take the lead and get out of the pokies business?

 

[Whats a Battle]

I haven't read this thread but YES WE SHOULD DITCH THE POKIES.

I've made a fair few arguments about this on the Hawks board.

 

[Whats a Battle]

We didn't get out of pokies for ethical reasons, we had the opportunity to get back in with some lucrative pokies in a desirable location but chose not to get back into pokies.

What is disturbing to me is that clubs have used the research on problem gambling, which was done to try and help address the issue of problem gambling to instead use that research to find the best locations to place pokies, it is utterly abhorrent and inhumane. Pokies derive 60% of their revenue from problem gamblers, this destroys their lives and does significant harm to their families. It is reprehensible for clubs to use that research to flood the western suburbs with pokies. I honestly don't know how these people can live with their actions. Football clubs are there for the community, to betray them like that is unforgivable. Most of the clubs who have got into pokies or expanded their operations have done so with the knowledge that they are doing significant harm to the community.

Great post. And while it is true that your club didn't get out of pokies for ethical reasons, they chose not to get back into pokies for ethical reasons. And for that, they should be commended.

If a much smaller club can record profits without pokies, I don't see why Hawthorn can't.

 

[Tasmaniac]

Of course we should keep pokies.

They produce a large, and continuous positive cash flow for our club, which allows us to invest further in our football dept, and long term facilities.

Gee some people have strange idea's about voluntarily giving up huge, legal positive cash flows.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Overly simplistic. Pokies in every club of every suburb wouldn't work if punters were only losing $50 every weekend or so. Problem gamblers are a part of the system, and you have to remember that it's not simply the individual who chooses to gamble who pays the price. It's their families that get put under hardship. Think of it this way: remove the pokies, and you'll save countless families from hardship and breakdown. That doesn't mean banning gambling. It means not having pokies on every ******* suburban street corner.

I hate pokies. The government should outlaw them.

Having said that they are no different to any other vice. While they are legal I see no issues with clubs profiting from them, better than someone else. If clubs ditch pokies they should ditch profiting from alcohol sales also.

 

[Prudster]

Why single out Collingwood?

It's just a topic of discussion. Forget about other clubs. Your club has just achieved the near-impossible and nobody would be incredibly surprised if they went again in 2016.

Given all this, if anyone can do it you guys can. Should they take the lead and get out of the pokies business?

I singled out Collingwood because they are probably the only club with pokies who are ahead of us in every factor that you mentioned. But i also didn't create a thread singling out Collingwood. If this is about pokies, then there's no reason to only look at Hawthorn and not just all clubs with pokies. Either way, the discussion is the same old rehashed arguments from the Footy Industry board.

I'm really not seeing how our success is that relevant. Geelong won three flags recently and they are struggling to turn a profit a couple of years later. Brisbane turned to shit after their threepeat. Hawthorn nearly folded after our success in the 80's. Sure, none of those examples were in the same financial position that Hawthorn are in right now, but it just shows that the benefits of success can be eroded very quickly. To make a long term, multi million dollar financial decision based on a couple of years of success, which may not be achieved again for decades, would be extremely poor management.

As it stands, most clubs with pokies are invested to the point that they would struggle to get out in the near future, simply because you can't take away a multi million dollar investment and not replace it with anything. One certainly wouldn't do it just because they made a small amount (in the grand scheme of things) from a short term period of success.

 

[Furn2]

No, obesity is a much bigger problem, why don't people target all the pushing of sugar filled "sports drinks" ?

 

[Tas]

Great post. And while it is true that your club didn't get out of pokies for ethical reasons, they chose not to get back into pokies for ethical reasons. And for that, they should be commended.

If a much smaller club can record profits without pokies, I don't see why Hawthorn can't.

Clubs like Hawthorn and Collingwood are in a perfect opportunity to diversify because they have very good cash flow from football operations, and they can diversify out into non-football investments without getting into pokies. Pokies is a relatively cheap investment, it generates a lot of money for the capital outlay if you deploy them somewhere prone to problem gambling. However, these clubs make enough money to look at other more legitimate investments.

I used to work in wealth creation, making rich people richer, and it was never about taking the cheap or easy option, those usually have finite or low ceilings. It takes money to make money, the more you have, the wider range of options you have. It is always the most desirable option to do what is ethical, make investments which help people rather than harm them.

Clubs want to diversify outside of football revenue because football is seasonal and the bills keep coming even when the season ends, clubs that are doing it tough tend to run into cash flow problems out of season. There are different types of investments, some are suited for improving cash flow, but do not have high profitability or high asset growth, others have relatively low or no dividend or distributions but have high asset growth. There are numerous options for clubs that wish to secure their future.

I suggested to our club that we should add a very minor investment surcharge to memberships and get the AFL to agree to adding it to the door prices as well which would go into a long-term asset accumulation investment, had our club done something like that in the mid 70s we would have had investments on the books in the order of $120-150m right now. Clubs do not look forward far enough ahead into the future, most clubs have their eyes focused too much on the short-term and there aren't many great short-term investment options.

 

[Bayer_]

I hate pokies. The government should outlaw them.

Having said that they are no different to any other vice. While they are legal I see no issues with clubs profiting from them, better than someone else. If clubs ditch pokies they should ditch profiting from alcohol sales also.

State governments are desperate for revenue, so they won't be banning them anytime soon. But the AFL is meant to be a leader on social issues.

The only thing stopping it happening in the AFL is greed from the football industry and the AFLPA.

 

[Todman]

Overly simplistic. Pokies in every club of every suburb wouldn't work if punters were only losing $50 every weekend or so. Problem gamblers are a part of the system, and you have to remember that it's not simply the individual who chooses to gamble who pays the price. It's their families that get put under hardship. Think of it this way: remove the pokies, and you'll save countless families from hardship and breakdown. That doesn't mean banning gambling. It means not having pokies on every ******* suburban street corner.

So for a few problem gamblers you would ban the whole enterprise. If problem gamblers are not putting their families first they don't deserve to have them.

 

[Bayer_]

So for a few problem gamblers you would ban the whole enterprise. If problem gamblers are not putting their families first they don't deserve to have them.

Youre arguing for a (very subjective) principle over an outcome. Is it such a problem that you need to drive to the casino to donate a handful of pineapples to an algorithm?