Essendon can't live without pokies funding says David Barham

[Bunk Moreland]

You could build gambling machines that didn't have the whistles, bells and flashing lights but then they wouldn't be as effective at fleecing punters...

NSW pubs used to have card machines - you'd play poker against the machine and then could bet on black or red with your winnings to double up. It was boring and they didn't garner revenue like pokies. if anything they lost revenue cos the secondary, black or red bets followed one of about three patterns (ie r, b, r b, b, r or whatever) and most people had worked out those patterns to the point where if you won a game you could follow the pattern till you had enough money for a couple of beers.

You could finish work put two bucks thru the machine and you'd end up with a couple of schooners and the money to play a game of pool on the way home.

If you really wanted you could probably spend a few hours on an old cardie machine and make fifty or a hundred bucks by following the pattern till you'd won five bucks off each bet. You'd probably spend as much time as many people do on pokies but without the flashing lights, noises and general over stimulation. The tech would be advanced enough now that there wouldn't be that pre-programmed pattern you could exploit tho.

Yeah, I'd be happy to see more actual POKER machines or games of some skill as opposed to the trance-inducing spin and "win" s**t.

It would require government to do some research and be ahead of the industry in terms of what they're doing however, which never happens in any field - the businesses have the profit motive and so are always ahead.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Absolute crap, your Friday night blockbusters covers the difference. Equalization funds are given according to the AFL "fixture" of TV rights. Nothing more, nothing less

Whilst I don't agree with the use of pokies and am glad Hawthorn have completely divested from them, the idea that the equalisation pay has anything to do with the AFL fixture for TV rights is rubbish.

Hawthorn have received the least possible in equalisation funding for years and years and we have 0 Thursday/Friday night blockbuster games. I expect West Coast is similar (in receiving very few blockbuster games).

The equalisation determination is based on the wealth of the club and has nothing to do with fixtures.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Can live without them, it would just mean cutting costs and/or getting a bigger distribution of funds from the AFL.

It's not something you can just switch off, you need to transition it. As he said, they're looking at ways to do that.

View attachment 1874906

Well you can just switch it off - as Hawthorn did by selling all venues in one go following a board decision regarding involvement in pokies - but it certainly is costly in terms of turning the tap off.

There's definately room to lower your expenses somewhat - as many clubs with revenue less than $73M (including my own) have done.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Whilst I don't agree with the use of pokies and am glad Hawthorn have completely divested from them, the idea that the equalisation pay has anything to do with the AFL fixture for TV rights is rubbish.

Hawthorn have received the least possible in equalisation funding for years and years and we have 0 Thursday/Friday night blockbuster games. I expect West Coast is similar (in receiving very few blockbuster games).

The equalisation determination is based on the wealth of the club and has nothing to do with fixtures.

that's because atm you're a bottom team. I'm sure you had more good timeslots when you were winning flags.

 

[windyhill]

What was roobet?

Norfs foray into punting central.

 

[emblurr]

What was roobet?

North and Betezy: A winning quinella

The North Melbourne Football Club is pleased to announce a new advertising and sponsorship agreement with major Australian corporate bookmaker Betezy.

www.nmfc.com.au

Good ol' Roobet. The punters slaughtered them.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

So they'll have to fold without pokies? What a load of horse shite.

 

[Caligo]

North and Betezy: A winning quinella

The North Melbourne Football Club is pleased to announce a new advertising and sponsorship agreement with major Australian corporate bookmaker Betezy.

www.nmfc.com.au

Good ol' Roobet. The punters slaughtered them.

Ty. I wasn't aware of it at all.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Ty. I wasn't aware of it at all.

Many clubs had them and they were short lived. BetEzy set up domains for the different clubs, I assume thinking they’d be successful as they would capture the club’s supporters. We had Bomberbet.

 

[Caligo]

Many clubs had them and they were short lived. BetEzy set up domains for the different clubs, I assume thinking they’d be successful as they would capture the club’s supporters. We had Bomberbet.

Yeah somehow I missed all of that. Interesting to read up on it now though.

 

[Bjo187]

What a load of b.s, couldn't care less if we have pokies or not, in fact I think we should. The whole of the nrl would go under without pokies and the afl clubs bring in a slither of what they do off them. It's the responsibility of government to regulate them if it's a social issue, but of course they won't do that because they help to fund government. Look at labor in nsw, they own pokies and it funds their campaigns.

 

[JayJ20]

Personally it doesn’t bother me. If there was a solution that saw the machines closed then I’d be all for it. But there’s not. The licenses are just passed to somebody else and they operate them. It makes zero difference to the people playing them.

Plenty of clubs and organisations trumpet exiting pokies, the reality is they have done absolutely * all to remove pokies - they’ve just brought forward the revenue through a big sale price rather than taking it each year. The machines are still there and still spin away.

It's about morality and many members agree.

Essendon decided to make their operations dependent on taking advantage of people who engage in destructive behaviour. It's disgraceful. Even if it isn't going to stop the use of pokies, don't profit from it.

 

[Bjo187]

It's about morality and many members agree.

Essendon decided to make their operations dependent on taking advantage of people who engage in destructive behaviour. It's disgraceful. Even if it isn't going to stop the use of pokies, don't profit from it.

Mr moral compass over here!

 

[Cleavy]

Luckily for them, the AFL doesn’t have a conscience about gambling so everything is fine.

 

[JayJ20]

Mr moral compass over here!

Exactly.

 

[Caligo]

Mr moral compass over here!

Yep. Some things are morally challenging. Pokies is pretty black and white though.

 

[Bjo187]

Yep. Some things are morally challenging. Pokies is pretty black and white though.

I don't think it is at all though. It's legal for people over 18, just like alcohol. Should footy clubs not sell alcohol as well?

 

[yodellinhank]

Well you can just switch it off - as Hawthorn did by selling all venues in one go following a board decision regarding involvement in pokies - but it certainly is costly in terms of turning the tap off.

There's definately room to lower your expenses somewhat - as many clubs with revenue less than $73M (including my own) have done.

Difference probably being that Hawthorn put their pokies money back into the footy dept as "community benefit", instead of local sporting clubs. Who looks after our spiritual home if the bowls club goes belly up?

 

[ferball]

Difference probably being that Hawthorn put their pokies money back into the footy dept as "community benefit", instead of local sporting clubs. Who looks after our spiritual home if the bowls club goes belly up?

I think you could build some really nice townhouses there.

 

[craffles]

Moooooooooooooreeeeeeeeee chilli

 

[Grin]

GAMBLER LOSSES AT CLUB-OWNED POKIES​

MISSING: summary MISSING: current-rows.

Venues operated by AFL clubs	July 2022 - June 2023	July 2021 - June 2022	June 2020 - July 2021	July 2019 - June 2020	Jul 2018 - June 2019
		Impacted by COVID-19 restrictions
Carlton
Club Laverton	$7,194,091.63	$5,359,665.63	$4,062,027.00	$4,744,241.81	$6,377,865.77
Manningham Club	$4,065,993.10	$2,980,000.19	$2,262,983.00	$3,005,328.03	$3,968,025.29
Royal Oak Richmond	$4,659,405.55	$3,622,494.57	$2,919,022.00	$3,291,472.80	$4,275,906.48
The Vic Inn	$3,204,799.08	$2,637,488.01	$1,800,009.00	$2,380,469.59	$3,185,869.41
TOTAL	$19,124,289.36	$14,599,648.40	$11,044,041.00	$13,421,512.23	$17,807,666.95
St. Kilda
St Kilda Football Social Club	$1,803,959.77	$1,489,369.45	$1,240,904.00	$1,741,130.43	$2,362,503.44
TOTAL	$1,803,959.77	$1,489,369.45	$1,240,904.00	$1,741,130.43	$2,362,503.44
Richmond
Wantirna Club	$4,614,584.22	$3,632,048.08	$2,530,927.00	$3,541,751.80	$5,289,823.04
TOTAL	$4,614,584.23	$3,632,048.09	$2,530,927.00	$3,541,751.80	$5,289,823.04
Essendon
Essendon Football & Community Sporting Club	$6,267,845.37	$4,380,935.64	$3,217,910.00	$3,882,059.13	$5,295,945.16
Melton Country Club	$8,453,362.77	$5,778,578.56	$3,853,775.00	$4,362,669.59	$5,874,898.00
TOTAL	$14,721,208.14	$10,159,514.20	$7,071,685.00	$8,244,728.72	$11,170,843.16
Total gamblers' loss	$40,264,041.50	$29,880,580.14	$21,887,557.00	$26,949,123.18	$36,630,836.59

Source: Victorian Gambling and Casino Commission





Monash University gambling expert Charles Livingstone described the revenue stream as “exploitative” of vulnerable people and harmful to the reputation of the clubs.

“Trading on people’s misery is no way to endear yourself to the ordinary person, particularly football fans who really want an entertainment forum which is enjoyable and family-friendly,” he said.

‘Trading on people’s misery’: Gamblers lose highest amount in a decade at AFL club pokies

Gamblers sank more than $40 million into AFL club-owned poker machines in Victoria last financial year, with Carlton pocketing the most money from gamblers’ losses.

www.theage.com.au

 

[dave10]

Sorry if this sounds dense, but can someone explain to me why clubs need so much money anyway? They are supposed to be non-profit. As long as the rules are applied evenly, what is the problem if clubs can't raise revenue from pokies? It's like the weak-arsed excuse from the AFL about the money they make from gambling advertising.

Ok, so let's say you take $100m out of the game... and? Clubs employ less support staff, less coaches, less sports scientists, etc. Maybe the players get paid a little bit less. Maybe we don't need 35 umpires each game. Maybe some of the senior execs don't get the huge bonuses.

The game won't collapse.

But it won’t grow and thrive.

Without the big money, investment in grassroots is impacted, impacting the traction being made in SEQ are other growth markets. Kids won’t take up the game. The game won’t be able to invest in growing its fan bases, the game will meander along and over time get swallowed up by other sports and. Competitors.

Just look at how mismanagement and lack of investment in grassroots has impacted Rugby. Kids don’t play it now, RL and AFL are stealing its share, the national team are broken and the game is broke and poorly led.

Simply, take money out of the game and ‘people’ will go elsewhere and the game will eventually collapse.

 

[peetoo]

View attachment 1874926
This is why.

Essendon not big 4?

 

[peetoo]

that's because atm you're a bottom team. I'm sure you had more good timeslots when you were winning flags.

Not that many overall. AFL rates hawks big 4 only when divvying up revenue

 

[VinnieB]

Well you can just switch it off - as Hawthorn did by selling all venues in one go following a board decision regarding involvement in pokies - but it certainly is costly in terms of turning the tap off.

There's definately room to lower your expenses somewhat - as many clubs with revenue less than $73M (including my own) have done.

Although Hawthorn only very recently (2022) divested from pokies. Kennett had previously said the club couldn’t afford to lose the revenue. They could have sold off earlier as other clubs did, but chose not to until only last year.

I’m sure Essendon will look to do the same at some point.

Just to add, do you think Hawthorn sold the pokies venue for a reason other than funding the development of Dingley?