Koch slams Kennett over pokies

[beta_condition]

So if China sponsored Port it would be ok?

I wouldn't be worried about losing $200k in their first visit. There would have been alot of start up costs which are absorbed in the first year. Standard business to lose money at the start up.

Yes the whole argument is based around poor investment of overseas games and the whole deal being a money pit, it's like people didnt even listen to what Kennett actually said and just started shaking their fists.

 

[beta_condition]

Like a cash strapped Hawthorn heading to Tassie to bleed the apple isle without any intention of helping them get their own team?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It's not Hawthorn duty to create a Tasmanian football team, nor is it Hawthorns fault the AFL has neglected Tasmanian football. The Tasmanian government pay hawthorn a tourism sponsorship, which the city of Launceston has greatly benefited from.

 

[00Stinger]

Yes the whole argument is based around poor investment of overseas games and the whole deal being a money pit, it's like people didnt even listen to what Kennett actually said and just started shaking their fists.

Maybe you should learn how businesses work rather than just agreeing with what your president says. A president that we know only has one way of doing things, selling off assets!

Year 1 = big start up cost, which usually result in a loss.

Follow years = increased profits

Saying a $200k loss in the first year of a potential long term investment is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

 

[beta_condition]

Maybe you should learn how businesses work rather than just agreeing with what your president says. A president that we know only has one way of doing things, selling off assets!

Year 1 = big start up cost, which usually result in a loss.

Follow years = increased profits

Saying a $200k loss in the first year of a potential long term investment is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

Lol only if interest is sustainable, nothing suggest theres any interest within the Chinese market for the Sport of Australian rules, you can't expect something to be sustainable without growing a bases for the following in the first place and playing one sub par game a year wont attract an interest.

 

[00Stinger]

Lol only if interest is sustainable, nothing suggest theres any interest within the Chinese market for the Sport of Australian rules, you can't expect something to be sustainable without growing a bases for the following in the first place and playing one sub par game a year wont attract an interest.

So how do you find out if the interest is sustainable? Pull up shop after one year?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Maybe you should learn how businesses work rather than just agreeing with what your president says. A president that we know only has one way of doing things, selling off assets!

Year 1 = big start up cost, which usually result in a loss.

Follow years = increased profits

Saying a $200k loss in the first year of a potential long term investment is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard

If you are going to argue start up costs at least get the figures right

 

[Catoggio76]

They all pee in the same bowl, they rely on the TV handouts.

 

[beta_condition]

So how do you find out if the interest is sustainable? Pull up shop after one year?

Build up grass roots first and gauge interest not dive into a multi million dollar investment would probably be a smart idea.

 

[hoianbulldog]

AFL clubs walking away from pokies wont make squat of difference to the punters who throw their money at them. The money will simply go to the new licence holders.

Until govt start reducing the number of pokies (to zero) the problem will remain, its just a matter of who else fills their pockets along with the govt.

Should an AFL club make money or are we better off if that money flows to woolies?

 

[Furn2]

I'd rather the footy clubs make the money than other companies or individuals - at least whilst they keep churning out the same returns.

Time to change the laws at state level. Reduce the number allowed at any venue and dismantled the 'pokie barn' venues. Maybe cap it at a dozen machines per pub, if you want to go somewhere and give all your money away then make it somewhere the staff know your name. In time the machines might become illegal but I wouldn't rush to do that.

That would be a nice way to drastically slash the profitability of a lot of the venues that AFL clubs run. The smart clubs would see the writing on the wall and sell up ahead of time.

In NZ, pubs are only allowed like 8 pokies. If you go to a venue on a Thursday night, there'll be like 6-7 people in the pub playing pool, eating etc and about 20-30 people queuing up to get into this tiny pokie room. You could get rid of 80% of the pokies in Vic and it wouldn't change a thing for the hardcore addicts.

 

[00Stinger]

If you are going to argue start up costs at least get the figures right

If you read up you will see I went by the figures the poster gave me

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/po...t/news-story/52bfdcd6e667af48d8b97922a7c88eb5

Port seem to think they profited off the venture

 

[00Stinger]

Build up grass roots first and gauge interest not dive into a multi million dollar investment would probably be a smart idea.

They are after the commercial dollar more than grassroots establishment tbf

 

[Malibu#27]

So can you explain how they made money out of it if the quoted figures of $200K losses by both Port and the AFL are true.

The 200K wasn't a profit or loss, it was an additional cost. Its also the 1st year of a multi year venture, with most setup costs sunk in the first year.
Its like when you buy a pokie venue, your first year is a loss as you're paying setup/renovation costs, these costs reduce over time but the pokie revenue continues to flow.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

If you read up you will see I went by the figures the poster gave me

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/po...t/news-story/52bfdcd6e667af48d8b97922a7c88eb5

Port seem to think they profited off the venture

So you missed the last few lines in Wilson article that a combined $400K was lost. She seems to have got info from Gill whilst it appears the books are closed to anyone else questioning it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

AFL clubs walking away from pokies wont make squat of difference to the punters who throw their money at them. The money will simply go to the new licence holders.

Until govt start reducing the number of pokies (to zero) the problem will remain, its just a matter of who else fills their pockets along with the govt.

Should an AFL club make money or are we better off if that money flows to woolies?

Post of the thread.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

The 200K wasn't a profit or loss, it was an additional cost. Its also the 1st year of a multi year venture, with most setup costs sunk in the first year.
Its like when you buy a pokie venue, your first year is a loss as you're paying setup/renovation costs, these costs reduce over time but the pokie revenue continius to flow.

So I take it the ground is ready to be played on at any moment. Who is footing that bill every time you go there.

 

[LFC2010]

Should an AFL club make money or are we better off if that money flows to woolies?

I wonder how much of the pokie money woolies make goes back into the communities?

 

[master bate]

In NZ, pubs are only allowed like 8 pokies. If you go to a venue on a Thursday night, there'll be like 6-7 people in the pub playing pool, eating etc and about 20-30 people queuing up to get into this tiny pokie room. You could get rid of 80% of the pokies in Vic and it wouldn't change a thing for the hardcore addicts.

Well they aren't losing money when they are queuing! And it makes it a loss less desirable for people who might want to give them a try.

I'd rather make some progress on a decent first step than do nothing like we currently are.

 

[Malibu#27]

So I take it the ground is ready to be played on at any moment. Who is footing that bill every time you go there.

Pretty much, its more maintenance cost moving forward, rather than setup.

 

[theyellowsash]

AFL clubs walking away from pokies wont make squat of difference to the punters who throw their money at them. The money will simply go to the new licence holders.

Until govt start reducing the number of pokies (to zero) the problem will remain, its just a matter of who else fills their pockets along with the govt.

Should an AFL club make money or are we better off if that money flows to woolies?

Post of the thread.

I agree, it's much better for everyone that pokies addicts lose their money to allow clubs and blokes like Kennett (beyond blue my ass) to become right, instead of wasting it by buying food for their families at a filthy institution like a supermarket

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Pretty much, its more maintenance cost moving forward, rather than setup.

So sounds like Port has budgeted for all of that "maintenance" as you have classified it - or is that coming out of AFL budget as I suspect

 

[Bostonian]

One of the things I respect about wa is that they haven't allowed pokies. They should be banned and burnt nation wide.

What a poster boy you are for totalitarianism.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I agree, it's much better for everyone that pokies addicts lose their money to allow clubs and blokes like Kennett (beyond blue my ass) to become right, instead of wasting it by buying food for their families at a filthy institution like a supermarket

Your posts need more hyperbole.

Fact is pokies are legal, and they're owned by local entities who put back into the community.


If AFL clubs walk away from them, who then owns them, and where does that money go?

 

[yeahmate]

To address the pokies problem, how about 1 in every hundred thousand times the machine delivers a lethal electrical shock to the user with a compensatory jackpot to the deceased’s family?

On topic though, Kennett has had a clear agenda since getting back in charge of Hawthorn to agitate for the AFL to distribute more money to Hawthorn. He likely couldn’t give a rats about China or St Kilda or any of the crap he publically espouses, he’s just slinging mud around because Hawks already equal lowest distribution of $$$ from city hall so he’s got nothing to lose and he knows if he mouths off enough he might get his own way just so the AFL can pull him back into line and shut him up. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. Typical politician tactics. Kochie likewise doesn’t give a crap about pokies and the punters in the western suburbs of Victoria he’s just throwing back some diversionary mud to avoid scrutiny of his loss making China foray which probably gets him and the missus a nice little all expenses paid vacation each year as well as the opportunity to big note himself at society cocktail parties as some sort of sporting visionary

 

[hoianbulldog]

I wonder how much of the pokie money woolies make goes back into the communities?

We both know the answer to that.