No Oppo Supporters Hawks and Pokies

Remove this Banner Ad

So our games would be televised for free?

The elephant in the room is whether the broadcasters will be prepared to continue shelling out billions to broadcast a game with declining ratings

Overall viewership is steady - only the FTA and pay TV ratings are down because people are switching to Kayo. Hence why the next broadcast deal will likely be a hybrid TV/streaming deal. I’ve got plenty of mates who despise FTA TV and won’t watch it but instead watch via Kayo on their smart TVs.
 
We sold our pokies and the sky didn’t fall in. We’re still financial. What a great club.


Great to not be on the s**t list with Carlton, Richmond, Essendon* and StKilda.

The pokies supporters (‘we’ll go broke if we sell them’) are all silent.

GO HAWKS.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

We sold our pokies and the sky didn’t fall in. We’re still financial. What a great club.


Great to not be on the s*t list with Carlton, Richmond, Essendon and StKilda.

The pokies supporters (‘we’ll go broke if we sell them’) are all silent.

GO HAWKS.

Do we actually have an annual report of how we've traveled without the pokies?
 
Caro has gone awfully quiet on the pokies front. Whenever she mentioned them, Hawthorn was always on the tip of her lisps.

nothing but silence from her for almost 2 years on this front, and her beloved tigers are one of the remaining clubs that still takes pokies money.
 
Caro has gone awfully quiet on the pokies front. Whenever she mentioned them, Hawthorn was always on the tip of her lisps.

nothing but silence from her for almost 2 years on this front, and her beloved tigers are one of the remaining clubs that still takes pokies money.
Not just Caro. Remember all the articles of Pokie revenue's next to premiership cups of ours etc? And the Pokie ladder? Even single supporter knew about Hawthorn and pokies. I don't even think anyone would know who has the most at the moment. Probably Carlton I'm assuming (who always actually had more machines, but just their venues didn't bring in as many customers).
 
Yes. Glad we are out of this poor asset class.

The ‘22 annual report says we got $40m for assets that generated $2.8m in income.

Yeah will be interested to see the first full year of not having the pokies. I've found it concerning but hopefully the club has invested well.
 
Yes. Glad we are out of this poor asset class.

The ‘22 annual report says we got $40m for assets that generated $2.8m in income.


That's a pretty good return for an individual holding that amount of money, but not having worked for a company who generates income from steady assets, I'm wondering what is the standard is in business?

If this performance translates across directly between the two that's a very good return, and a huge victory over pokies advocates.
 
Yeah will be interested to see the first full year of not having the pokies. I've found it concerning but hopefully the club has invested well.


I think you could do that math pretty easily if you know how much revenue each machine was going to bring in, and what you needed to replace them.

Those things like pretty much anything hav ea ceiling on what they can take from people's pockets.

Will be interesting times. If we weren't divorcing ourselves from those grubby little money maker's I'd be really disappointed. Bottom of the barrel stuff there.
 
Yeah will be interested to see the first full year of not having the pokies. I've found it concerning but hopefully the club has invested well.
We can and will do better. It’s not a high bar.

Certainly the disclosure puts the claims that we were profiting to the tune of $24m p.a. to rest.

I’m really bullish about our future on and off the field.
 
That's a pretty good return for an individual holding that amount of money, but not having worked for a company who generates income from steady assets, I'm wondering what is the standard is in business?

If this performance translates across directly between the two that's a very good return, and a huge victory over pokies advocates.

It’s a 7% yield. Plenty of other assets would get you a 7% yield that don’t come with the societal harm of pokies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's a pretty good return for an individual holding that amount of money, but not having worked for a company who generates income from steady assets, I'm wondering what is the standard is in business?

If this performance translates across directly between the two that's a very good return, and a huge victory over pokies advocates.
The usual measure is EBIT (Earning Before Interest and Tax) in a corporate sense. In my time a while back where I was involved in M&A of companies in a variety of industries, sale price as a ratio of sale price:EBIT varies from 3 times to a shade over 10. Having said that, I was never involved in the gambling industry, so no idea what the norms are there.

If the "income" from the pokies was $2.8M, assuming "income" means EBIT rather than revenue, this would imply a ratio of 14.3. If it means revenue, the ratio is even higher. [I must say, the numbers seem very neat: as Ned Ryerson notes above, it comes to an even 7%]

If the kinds of sale prices in the gambling industry have ratios comparable to industries I've been involved in, then HFC has done very well out of the sale.
 
The usual measure is EBIT (Earning Before Interest and Tax) in a corporate sense. In my time a while back where I was involved in M&A of companies in a variety of industries, sale price as a ratio of sale price:EBIT varies from 3 times to a shade over 10. Having said that, I was never involved in the gambling industry, so no idea what the norms are there.

If the "income" from the pokies was $2.8M, assuming "income" means EBIT rather than revenue, this would imply a ratio of 14.3. If it means revenue, the ratio is even higher. [I must say, the numbers seem very neat: as Ned Ryerson notes above, it comes to an even 7%]

If the kinds of sale prices in the gambling industry have ratios comparable to industries I've been involved in, then HFC has done very well out of the sale.
Could also be a sign that a buyer thinks they can work the asset harder than us (eg they can get synergies out of owning it and other assets together) or also just a sign that final year earnings were depressed because of COVID.

In any event we do now have definitive data that the assets weren’t earning ‘$24m p.a. in profit’ some had earlier stated, or anywhere near that.

I’d rather have our $40m than the risks and income stream on offer from poker machines.

Bravo to our great club for moving on, and focusing our operational efforts on football.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top