Essendon can't live without pokies funding says David Barham

[VinnieB]

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

I would think it’s in the AFL’s and broadcaster’s best interest to give prime time slots to games likely to draw the greatest viewers.

Maybe the Hawks aren’t one of those clubs.

Simple.

 

[peetoo]

Hawthorn made a nice profit from the sale of pokies they sold and the pokies are still operating.

Happy we did get out of the business but it’s not quite right to say we are no longer profiting.

 

[peetoo]

I would think it’s in the AFL’s and broadcaster’s best interest to give prime time slots to games likely to draw the greatest viewers.

Maybe the Hawks aren’t one of those clubs.

Simple.

It does make sense. Draft picks per club tell us that Gold Coast and GWS have the best talent and should be the most watched. It doesn’t work like that.

 

[VinnieB]

It does make sense. Draft picks per club tell us that Gold Coast and GWS have the best talent and should be the most watched. It doesn’t work like that.

History, rivalry, fan base, performance on the field, specific players are just some of the factors why viewers tune in for the entertainment.

Supposedly having the best talent because of the draft really means little. Particularly when it doesn’t lead to success on the field.

 

[Yoda_]

My biggest take out from those figures is that EFC spent over $1.5mill on IT expenses last year, but still nobody can retrieve that pesky spreadsheet.

legally only required to hold documents for 7 years.. IT was (coming on) 12 years ago dude, let it go

 

[Yoda_]

Morals….

So it’s ok to earn money by sponsorships from fast food chains which harms the community with obesity, diabetes…

Sugar Sugar sugar….. no warning text on candy.

The treatment of animals in the meat industry is cruel, mentality insane…

What’s the difference with pokies and online gambling? For some gambling can be a disaster like a drug habit. But at least with pokies they get out and socialize and not just stay at home.

But everyone has their own standards, but I say if it’s legal then clubs can do what they want. I support the club that plays, don’t give hoots what they do or don’t do for the community. I mean if say your club go back or continue with pokies or become Chippendale dancers will you stop supporting them?

Just because I barrack for a club does not mean I need to agree or defend their actions.

There are many here on high horses, but nitpicking about one subject. But every club is supporting some thing that is seen as morally wrong, as well all clubs supports right things as well.

If it’s a big problem then why not make it illegal?

Like why are **** cigarettes still legal?

Touched on something that most simpletons seem to overlook.

Watch broadcast on one of the plethora of platforms, SEN, Triple M, Fox Footy, Channel 7 and you can't go a preview without Billy Brownless, Dale Thomas, Josh Jenkins, Campbell Brown giving us the odds of the game yet here we are thinking unadvertised revenue in a clubs pocket is worse than the plain daylight robbery of online gambling more readily available than poke machines.

The AFL makes more money from gambling revenue than any other paying advertiser, people can moan all they want but its safe to say they (gambling industry) is not going anywhere.

 

[Yoda_]

Probably not much.

You need supporters to attend games to generate big revenue, as well as having multiple streams outside of that.

Relying on Big 4 crowds to do it for you will only affect a handful of games per year.

I think clubs having pokies venues is deplorable, so I applaud North not going down that path.

Some North supporters seem to want to take the moral high-ground about not having pokies venues and being debt-free, when that's entirely down to the AFL completely propping them up.

The same AFL that makes a ridiculous amount of money through gambling sponsorships/revenue...

People still don't want to acknowledge that whilst we've had more prime ministers than new clubs introduced in the AFL since our last flag, the Essendon supporter base around the country is still one of the "big 4". Continually turning up, even interstate we pull large crowds.

People can argue all they want and use the chip on there shoulder but Essendon is still a big club. A sleeping giant, sure, when we become relevant we will become insufferable, we're just not very vocal about it because we are all aware how little infield success we've had in two decades

 

[Tandy]

View attachment 1874926
This is why.

So Essendon rely on pokies yet receive the same from the AFL as many clubs who don't. Goes to show what a s**t show Essendon has been the last 30 years. Pretty pathetic

 

[Bjo187]

So Essendon rely on pokies yet receive the same from the AFL as many clubs who don't. Goes to show what a s**t show Essendon has been the last 30 years. Pretty pathetic

Says the bloke with the fully tax payer funded stadium. Pathetic.

 

[Tandy]

Says the bloke with the fully tax payer funded stadium. Pathetic.

 

[JGreezy]

Probably not much.

You need supporters to attend games to generate big revenue, as well as having multiple streams outside of that.

Its very simple logic.

Prime time scheduling = more exposure
More exposure = more fans
More fans = more supporters at games and more revenue streams

Some North supporters seem to want to take the moral high-ground about not having pokies venues and being debt-free, when that's entirely down to the AFL completely propping them up.

Saying that it's "entirely down to the AFL" is absolute bullshit, and you know it.

North has made a huge effort to turn things around financially. AFL contributions make an impact but North wouldn't be debt-free based on those alone.

Why would you feel the need to try to discredit North? You're just a constant hater.

They've fought hard to stay in the competition and be financially positive. And they've done it while not falling for the temptation of the easy bucks in the pokies game. Thats something to be proud of.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Does anybody else not give a poop about clubs profiting off of pokies? Blame the dummies who put their coin in. It's simply a wise investment.

You would have to be very dumb if you think you can win on pokies on a regular basis. Just a shame some are too dumb to see it.

 

[JGreezy]

You would have to be very dumb if you think you can win on pokies on a regular basis. Just a shame some are too dumb to see it.

This applies to a lot of things, though. Most people have a vice. People do dumb things, thinking that it'll be a little short-term fun, and they get addicted.

 

[Caligo]

This applies to a lot of things, though. Most people have a vice. People do dumb things, thinking that it'll be a little short-term fun, and they get addicted.

And some things are more addictive than others. Pokies have been engineered with light and sound and payouts to be incredibly addictive and Aristocrat keeps making them more addictive every day.

 

[Bjo187]

Its very simple logic.

Prime time scheduling = more exposure
More exposure = more fans
More fans = more supporters at games and more revenue streams



Saying that it's "entirely down to the AFL" is absolute bullshit, and you know it.

North has made a huge effort to turn things around financially. AFL contributions make an impact but North wouldn't be debt-free based on those alone.

Why would you feel the need to try to discredit North? You're just a constant hater.

They've fought hard to stay in the competition and be financially positive. And they've done it while not falling for the temptation of the easy bucks in the pokies game. Thats something to be proud of.

If that's the case how come north didn't capitalise on the whole 1990's when they were on Friday night, a top team, with the most marketable player in the competition?

I did hear a few years ago they did research and found teams supporter bases once already establish don't move much at all over generations. As in, big clubs stay big, small clubs stay small.

 

[yodellinhank]

If that's the case how come north didn't capitalise on the whole 1990's when they were on Friday night, a top team, with the most marketable player in the competition?

I did hear a few years ago they did research and found teams supporter bases once already establish don't move much at all over generations. As in, big clubs stay big, small clubs stay small.

Friday night footy only really got big once North were punted and people could watch clubs they care about play.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Its very simple logic.

Prime time scheduling = more exposure
More exposure = more fans
More fans = more supporters at games and more revenue streams



Saying that it's "entirely down to the AFL" is absolute bullshit, and you know it.

North has made a huge effort to turn things around financially. AFL contributions make an impact but North wouldn't be debt-free based on those alone.

Why would you feel the need to try to discredit North? You're just a constant hater.

They've fought hard to stay in the competition and be financially positive. And they've done it while not falling for the temptation of the easy bucks in the pokies game. Thats something to be proud of.

North would be dead without gambling revenue. Who cares where it comes from, privately owned pokies or top ups from the AFL Bank of Sportsbet, just as bad as each other.

All forms of gambling revenue should be phased out over the next decade or two but it’s silly to act like any one club is better than another.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

This is your whole argument, Melbourne followed North's courageous decision to get rid of pokies. Your club is still pocketing money from ruining local communities.

You can't handle this fact so you're desperately trying to put down other clubs to make yourself feel better.

How disgusting of Melbourne to make the decision to get rid of pokies as a source of income. That's right, that's how ridiculous your argument sounds.

The reality is that your club is a disgrace. Poor Dan, is triggered by that fact

North's wasn't a courageous decision. Their venues continued to haemorrhage money. It was a business decision and only that. They were smart to get infront of the media and span it to suit the narrative.
A month after getting rid of their pokies they released "roobet" which also tanked.

Melbourne's wasn't courageous either. They got offered a ton of money from the VRC for leighoak club (well above what it was valued at and what would've taken years to make) so they sold. Bentleigh club was losing money years before they got out of it

And before you bring the hawks into it, had the hawks not been offered a sweetheart deal, they'd still be in the pokies game

To pretend clubs give a damn about the community is stupid. Clubs are clubs in name only, they're for all purposes a business who hide behind a club moniker to avoid tax

 

[Danw0w]

Its very simple logic.

Prime time scheduling = more exposure
More exposure = more fans
More fans = more supporters at games and more revenue streams



Saying that it's "entirely down to the AFL" is absolute bullshit, and you know it.

North has made a huge effort to turn things around financially. AFL contributions make an impact but North wouldn't be debt-free based on those alone.

Why would you feel the need to try to discredit North? You're just a constant hater.

They've fought hard to stay in the competition and be financially positive. And they've done it while not falling for the temptation of the easy bucks in the pokies game. Thats something to be proud of.

Delusional. North could get every Friday night game ever and would still be dead in the water without the extra 7.5 million of charity.

 

[Danw0w]

So Essendon rely on pokies yet receive the same from the AFL as many clubs who don't. Goes to show what a s**t show Essendon has been the last 30 years. Pretty pathetic

They also miss out on a lot of games at the MCG.

Yes they took the deal but it also helped the AFL buy Docklands.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Moooooooooooooreeeeeeeeee chilli

This one might go over a few heads

 

[FlyHigh18]

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.

Coteries benefit heavily off them through land leases, building, employment, putting mates in as site managers, but especially and most importantly as preferred vendors / suppliers.

So I doubt it's the 'club' saying no. They're simply one of a handful of remaining clubs who can't rid themselves of these leeches from within.

Basically put, a club still heavily influenced and run by business mates.

 

[Pie eyed]

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

Don't all clubs, barring basket cases, get equal funding from the AFL and if not, why not?

 

[FlyHigh18]

Don't all clubs, barring basket cases, get equal funding from the AFL and if not, why not?

All clubs bar GWS & GC receive the same base amount. Those who miss out on prime time and marquee games get some extra to help equalise.

I tend to think of it as the richer / bigger clubs buying better spots.
Nothing wrong with it, everyone wins out if it one way or another.

 

[JGreezy]

it’s silly to act like any one club is better than another.

This is just some nonsense because you want to blindly defend your club.

Carlton run a gambling business. They are the direct source of the problem and make a conscious decision to profit by tricking people into ruining their lives.

North, and 13 other clubs, are part of the AFL. The AFL decide to let gambling businesses advertise with them.

Say that you work for a law firm as an EA and one of their clients is a drug dealer who sells ice to kids. Who is worse? The drug dealer or the EA at the law firm?

By your logic, the EA is getting money from someone who gets money from someone who sells ice to kids, so they are no better. That's silly.