No Oppo Supporters Hawks and Pokies

[threesixpio]

PS - these discussions are seldom nuanced enough. You can care for someone, acknowledge addiction and acknowledge that nothing can change without the person making good decisions.

 

[threesixpio]

I’ll add that I hope Tassie is big enough for Cryptik and Hawk15

 

[Brishawk]

Show us better.
Better than Oil, better than car companies, better than banks.
It's the fixation on Pokies that is absurd.
And when you DO have options better than oil, better than car companies, better than banks (HSBC, who also sold and dealt in sub prime mortgages that devastated huge portions of the US populace and sent the world economies into a dive and a number of countries banking systems to the brink.....), then it's worth discussing and pushing forward at a Hawthorn general meeting.

But saying it's all bad, get out of it all, and I'm sure we'll come up with something even though no one currently has, is nuts.

Also, pokies are not evil. Neither is candy crush. Neither is FIFA 20, neither are pinnies...
If some end users have troubles with managing their use, help those end users.

It isn’t some users. It’s 63% of the money lost on pokies. The business model is to place them in areas likely to attract and hook problem gamblers. The people who own and operate pokies know exactly what they are doing I.e. preying on vulnerable people.

Australia has one of the least regulated pokies markets on the planet and we don’t even recoup much proportionately back in taxes in order to pay for the damage they cause.

 

[Brishawk]

“It’s all your fault” may lead to people not seeking assistance. Seeking help from others could be characterised as ultimately useless if it is actually “all ones fault” and if one is just “weak”

What is the value of those who take the neo-liberalist line? Let’s say for arguments sake that Gambling was not an addiction (I think it is) - if treating it like an addiction leads to less harm then what’s the problem other than touching a raw nerve for those “blaming types”.

me confused

If you read the link I posted a page or two back, people who eventually do get help claim they would never have admitted the need for help or that they have a problem to anyone, including to a person asking for a survey! So yes, social pressure is likely to cause problem gamblers to hide their issue as opposed to seeking help.

on your second point, neoliberal thinkers are, in my experience, poor at attributing credit and blame. They place far to much blame/credit on the agency of the individual. I think neoliberal thinkers are predisposed to prefer simple explanations for everything. For example, If a person has a problem gambling, it is solvable through their own agency and it is a moral personally failing otherwise. Or if a person is poor they are lazy.

 

[Milkshaker]

Not sure about the business model being to put them in low socio economic areas. That just sounds like convenient spin.

In Tassie they are all in well established pubs and clubs, not the Glenorchy Bus Mall. One 'affluently' situated pub converted their profitless conference room into a pokies room and hey presto they are making money.

Pokies are a soft target. If you want to get rid of gambling ban everything, Horse racing, AFL the lot. That is being real.

 

[Cyril says]

It doesn’t have to be as good financially - from a risk & effort perspective - I don’t think there is too many options that are as good. But Cyril says does & that’s what I was asking for - for like a year. The best I can get is “that’s the board’s job” or similar. We have to make up the revenue (& a bunch more) but it can be diversified & doesn’t have to be ‘as good’ as pokies (from a financial perspective).

From a risk perspective nothing beats a balanced portfolio - we don’t have one.

From a performance perspective pokies just aren’t that great. Many sectors outperform gambling in general. If you want confirmation then consider performance of the gambling related stocks on the ASX (they’re pretty poor) and consider that we can’t get the pokies financials reported separately despite asking for it.

Please show how pokies are attractive financially - produce a counter argument of any description.

 

[4THAWN]

Not sure about the business model being to put them in low socio economic areas. That just sounds like convenient spin.

In Tassie they are all in well established pubs and clubs, not the Glenorchy Bus Mall. One 'affluently' situated pub converted their profitless conference room into a pokies room and hey presto they are making money.

Pokies are a soft target. If you want to get rid of gambling ban everything, Horse racing, AFL the lot. That is being real.

good take.

I mean, great for the other clubs who wants to get out of pokies completely...

but they still are part of a league that has a massive association with gambling

 

[Brishawk]

Not sure about the business model being to put them in low socio economic areas. That just sounds like convenient spin.

In Tassie they are all in well established pubs and clubs, not the Glenorchy Bus Mall. One 'affluently' situated pub converted their profitless conference room into a pokies room and hey presto they are making money.

Pokies are a soft target. If you want to get rid of gambling ban everything, Horse racing, AFL the lot. That is being real.

If you read the link I posted you will see there is a source for the claim I made.

 

[Brishawk]

From a risk perspective nothing beats a balanced portfolio - we don’t have one.

From a performance perspective pokies just aren’t that great. Many sectors outperform gambling in general. If you want confirmation then consider performance of the gambling related stocks on the ASX (they’re pretty poor) and consider that we can’t get the pokies financials reported separately despite asking for it.

Please show how pokies are attractive financially - produce a counter argument of any description.

FYI Woolies are the biggest owner of pokies.

 

[flinchfree]

“It’s all your fault” may lead to people not seeking assistance. Seeking help from others could be characterised as ultimately useless if it is actually “all ones fault” and if one is just “weak”

What is the value of those who take the neo-liberalist line? Let’s say for arguments sake that Gambling was not an addiction (I think it is) - if treating it like an addiction leads to less harm then what’s the problem other than touching a raw nerve for those “blaming types”.

me confused

You can't accurately treat what you misunderstand and mischarecterize.
Pokies aren't addicting, participating in activities that allow you to escape that which you wish to escape is addicting.
Eating isn't addicting. The feelings you smush down, the chemicals you activate, the privacy you engage the activity in, the isolation from being around others who might judge, etc etc are addicting. Because the pain is such that you need to do something to stop feeling the way you're feeling.

You don't treat someone who has eating disfunction by working with them to not be around food. Your treat their emotional state, you treat the feelings that drive them to want to eat unceasingly, you encourage outside activity to not leave the subject alone with thoughts that become despondent and drive the activity, you change how they think about food and make it more utilitarian, more functional, more about the healthy activity of nourishing the body. You give the person a context and platform they can make choices that are positive. Nothing permanent is achievable without treating the problem, as opposed to the outward expression of that problem.

 

[Cyril says]

FYI Woolies are the biggest owner of pokies.

When they announced they we’re getting of hotels, gaming and liquor, theshare price jumped.

Further, the reasons cited were they were chasing better ‘value-accretive’ opportunities.

Analysts said that getting out of this sector would enhance Woolworths reputation.

The whole investment represents 30% of Woolies (including pubs and liquor) and is seen as being a dud compared to the rest of their business. They’ve had a lot of trouble offloading it.

 

[Milkshaker]

If you read the link I posted you will see there is a source for the claim I made.

Was not posted in response to your post just the references to low socio economic placement of the machines throughout the thread.

I would not lose a wink of sleep if all gambling was banned. I am not employed by the industry though.

 

[Cyril says]

We're not the biggest company in anything, we're barely bigger than what is considered a small business. The pokies arm makes money and has done so consistently for a long time.

There's considerable risk and cost to moving into another area especially when it's not our core business and unlike companies like Woolies we dont have billions backing us to cover any losses.

I agree 100% with your second para BTW - transaction risk is real and has to be managed. The flip side is concentration risk, particularly in such a contentious sector.

 

[Cyril says]

And again.
Do they make their profits by not harming something or someone?

I assume you are asking a rhetorical question.

 

[Cyril says]

Like what?

Many sectors have performed better than gambling - take your pick if you want better returns. Classified advertising, healthcare, renewable energy, technology consulting - there are dozens of better sectors.

But I wouldn’t rush from being overweight in one asset to being overweight in another asset - hence I think your question perhaps isn’t the right one to ask.

I assume no one here has their own investment portfolio stacked with gambling stocks to the extent our club has - why overweight so heavily in this one area?

 

[Cyril says]

S


so you’re saying we should open up a chain of various retail operations, a bank or get into mining?

No, I’ve never said that.

 

[Cyril says]

If getting out of pokies means we can't get that new equipment...

Thanks for being really clear with your argument.

I’ve clipped the main bit I don’t understand - why do you think pokies are necessary for us to be able to buy new equipment?

I am sure that most successful clubs in most sports don’t own gambling venues - yet they can afford equipment and they enjoy success.

Why are pokies critical to our success?

 

[Steven Tyler]

Many sectors have performed better than gambling - take your pick if you want better returns. Classified advertising, healthcare, renewable energy, technology consulting - there are dozens of better sectors.

But I wouldn’t rush from being overweight in one asset to being overweight in another asset - hence I think your question perhaps isn’t the right one to ask.

I assume no one here has their own investment portfolio stacked with gambling stocks to the extent our club has - why overweight so heavily in this one area?

Because it’s profitable

 

[Cyril says]

Because it’s profitable

We can do better.

While the evidence is everywhere to pick just three data points:
- CSI Markets rank the sector 44th overall in terms of financial attractiveness
- Stern Business School rank the sector 34th overall in terms of return on investment
- Woolies are pulling out of the sector for many reasons including to protect their reputation

It’s just not that profitable.

Cheers

 

[Brishawk]

You can't accurately treat what you misunderstand and mischarecterize.
Pokies aren't addicting, participating in activities that allow you to escape that which you wish to escape is addicting.
Eating isn't addicting. The feelings you smush down, the chemicals you activate, the privacy you engage the activity in, the isolation from being around others who might judge, etc etc are addicting. Because the pain is such that you need to do something to stop feeling the way you're feeling.

You don't treat someone who has eating disfunction by working with them to not be around food. Your treat their emotional state, you treat the feelings that drive them to want to eat unceasingly, you encourage outside activity to not leave the subject alone with thoughts that become despondent and drive the activity, you change how they think about food and make it more utilitarian, more functional, more about the healthy activity of nourishing the body. You give the person a context and platform they can make choices that are positive. Nothing permanent is achievable without treating the problem, as opposed to the outward expression of that problem.

Science disagrees. Pokies are addictive. Appreciate everyone has different views but let’s at least no divorce opinions from positions established through research

 

[Brishawk]

We can do better.

While the evidence is everywhere to pick just three data points:
- CSI Markets rank the sector 44th overall in terms of financial attractiveness
- Stern Business School rank the sector 34th overall in terms of return on investment
- Woolies are pulling out of the sector for many reasons including to protect their reputation

It’s just not that profitable.

Cheers

What if you don’t have to pay tax on the profits like charities and sporting clubs? Also you can’t use an index of gambling firms when the largest owner of pokies isn’t in the index.

 

[Brishawk]

When they announced they we’re getting of hotels, gaming and liquor, theshare price jumped.

Further, the reasons cited were they were chasing better ‘value-accretive’ opportunities.

Analysts said that getting out of this sector would enhance Woolworths reputation.

The whole investment represents 30% of Woolies (including pubs and liquor) and is seen as being a dud compared to the rest of their business. They’ve had a lot of trouble offloading it.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t a profitable business. Likely it is labour intensive sector when you consider the pokies are attached to bars and restaurants in which they have exhausted the potential of efficiencies of scale and are now trying to offload a part of the business at its full value with downside risks attached to ageing venues requiring capital investment to upgrade.

this is a wholly different scenario to the hawthorn Football Club which operates a small number of venues (is it two?) which they have developed from scratch. We also have tax advantages on pokies over woolies.

 

[grumbleguts]

Bobby Sands says hello.

Wow :O I mentioned him in the class room yesterday.

 

[Cyril says]

What if you don’t have to pay tax on the profits like charities and sporting clubs? Also you can’t use an index of gambling firms when the largest owner of pokies isn’t in the index.

Pokies aren’t the only tax-free investment.

No index is perfect. If this business was so attractive it wouldn’t rank so unbelievably poorly.

 

[Cyril says]

That doesn’t mean it isn’t a profitable business. Likely it is labour intensive sector when you consider the pokies are attached to bars and restaurants in which they have exhausted the potential of efficiencies of scale and are now trying to offload a part of the business at its full value with downside risks attached to ageing venues requiring capital investment to upgrade.

this is a wholly different scenario to the hawthorn Football Club which operates a small number of venues (is it two?) which they have developed from scratch. We also have tax advantages on pokies over woolies.

If it is so special relative to anything that can be measured then would be great to see the numbers released by HFC and others.

Any numbers?