Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #26
Maybe because I live in the east and there are plenty of non leafy non affluent suburbs out this way too, and I have friends who have lived in and around some of the suburbs you seem to think are poor and disadvantaged in the west and property there cost more than where I live currently out east which is a leafy but not affluent suburb.1. Of course they are picking disadvantaged suburbs, to underscore the fact that residents from these disadvantaged suburbs lose more on pokies in absolute terms (never mind as a percentage of disposable income) than the residents of more affluent suburbs.
2. The largest earning venue, of all the AFL clubs, is the one on the border of City of Melton and City of Brimbank, two of the most disadvantaged areas in Melbourne. That's Hawthorn's, and that has helped them to the top of the pops in annual revenue. The club from affluent Eastern suburbs has increased its annual revenue by fleecing the most disadvantaged people in Melbourne, from a community that is at the polar extreme of what Hawthorn represents.
3. I find it astonishing that both the Australian Centre of Gambling Research, and this out-of-towner, has no problem with what is intended by a reference to the disadvantaged Western suburbs on the one hand and the affluent Eastern suburbs on the other (including Hawthorn and nearby leafy suburbs, stretching due East as far as the eye can see). Why is is that the posters who live in Melbourne, on this board have such difficulty?
I have no issue with the argument that Pokies are targeted in neighborhoods that are more likely to use them and that those neighborhoods are usually lower income areas
I do have an issue with you acting like it's an east vs west thing and singling out a club that doesn't have its home base in the suburb it is named after and hasn't for years.
So how about you talk about the broader issues of gambling and revenue from that going to clubs or even the fact that the AFL is sponsored by Crown and that gambling advertising on TV is given a free pass to be on during the day if it is part of a live sports telecast because Hawks vs the western suburbs isn't the issue here and half of Hawks revenue from pokies comes from eastern suburbs.
I am interested to know whether the figure reported at $22mil is the entirety of Hawthorns stake or includes the 23% of revenue at one of the venues that doesn't go to Hawthorn though