The "Ask Lions_Insider!" discussion thread

[Jivlain]

mikey127 has asked LI how the club feels making money off problem gamblers....I will be interested in LI's answer.

I like to play the pokies every few weeks or so and I can afford to. I also know quite a few people likewise. From my observations over the years, I'm guessing that the majority of players don't have a problem. Yes, there will be some of course but I really feel that pokies are now not as bad as betting on the racing.

In fact, I think betting on the racing is far more easily addictive now with the phone betting...eg, able to sit in your chair at home and bet on each race as it comes up on the tv, and wherever it might be, all done via their phone......and the ads on tv for gambling is appalling ... easy to see how a young person with free time is hooked (a player for example)

I don't have an issue with our club or any club making money from pokies AND a TAB for race betting, after all, they are legal.....as long as there are all the relevant programs in place for anyone who does have a problem.

At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The help is there if they want it. If they don't, then the club cannot be responsible for it imo.

Our club needs to make money.....and a social club with pokies is a good way to do it. Until all gambling is banned, the club is doing it's best to bring in money. No different than any other organisation who runs a social club..eg RSL, other sporting codes, pubs etc.

There are also a lot of people who go to clubs and don't go near the pokies or TAB section. My in-laws are such people, they go for a meal and love the atmosphere of such clubs..

I think the idea that "the help is there if they want it" is inadequate. A stupendous amount of psychology goes into figuring out how to leech as much money out of people as possible and is all deployed against the punters. Once you're hooked you're up against every trick in the book (and some that haven't even made it that far yet). Gaming truly is a scummy industry.

Unfortunately we're not exactly flush with cash and probably it's hard to stay afloat without levying a tax on "being unfortunate enough to be near a one armed bandit whilst psychologically vulnerable to addiction". I admire the Kangaroos for managing it and, let's be frank, losing all the other purported benefits from those things don't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in WA.

The sooner we can rid ourselves of them the better imo.

 

[Brett C]

Hi Lions insider

I know this may be a little controversial but would really like an answer.

How does the club feel about us making money of problem gamblers and any chance ww will follow the lead of North Melbourne and get rid of pokies?

Maybe the club should verify the financial position of anyone who purchase goods through Lions store or tickets to a games as well. Why not request bank statements before they purchase any food or drinks at the Gabba. Should the club block access to any gambling apps within the Gabba, training grounds, offices as well?

Sorry but what a ridiculous question. People need to take personal responsibility and not expect others to do so, the majority of people aren't problem gamblers.

 

[spotthedog1]

Maybe the club should verify the financial position of anyone who purchase goods through Lions store or tickets to a games as well. Why not request bank statements before they purchase any food or drinks at the Gabba. Should the club block access to any gambling apps within the Gabba, training grounds, offices as well?

Sorry but what a ridiculous question. People need to take personal responsibility and not expect others to do so, the majority of people aren't problem gamblers.

I think you're splitting some pretty poor hairs there.

The ethics of pokie machines are very questionable, and there's been plenty of research done into them to prove it. More than any other form of gambling, it's actually literally designed to addict people, and then obscure the amount of losses. There are several really dodgy aspects of poker machines that are really quite bad.

Blocking gambling at the Gabba is not at all the same thing, even though I think most fans would feel odd if the Lions started LionsBet.com to actually take your money from betting. This is despite the facts that sports betting is significantly less addictive, is designed to utilise your knowledge rather than just luck, and doesn't suffer from the same compounding issues as poker machines. Not to mention that there's also been queries over whether things like betting odds actually should be displayed at sporting grounds.

I don't see the issue with a person asking how a community organisation weighs the cash benefits of getting money from poker machines against the ethical issues of using something that is designed to addict, and where a significant portion of that revenue comes directly from addiction.

 

[mikey127]

mikey127 has asked LI how the club feels making money off problem gamblers....I will be interested in LI's answer.

I like to play the pokies every few weeks or so and I can afford to. I also know quite a few people likewise. From my observations over the years, I'm guessing that the majority of players don't have a problem. Yes, there will be some of course but I really feel that pokies are now not as bad as betting on the racing.

In fact, I think betting on the racing is far more easily addictive now with the phone betting...eg, able to sit in your chair at home and bet on each race as it comes up on the tv, and wherever it might be, all done via their phone......and the ads on tv for gambling is appalling ... easy to see how a young person with free time is hooked (a player for example) Just to use some high profile players as an example, it wasn't pokies that David Schwarz was addicted to, it was racing and table games at the casino.....the same with Fev. I can remember Fev saying when he was "caught" playing pokies, that he didn't have a problem with them just the racing..Yet pokies cops all the flak.

I like the pokies, but am not the slightest bit interested in betting on races...My husband and son are the other way around, they like to bet on the races sometimes but don't play pokies.

I don't have an issue with our club or any club making money from pokies AND a TAB for race betting, after all, they are legal.....as long as there are all the relevant programs are in place for anyone who does have a problem.

At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The help is there if they want it. If they don't, then the club cannot be responsible for it imo.

Our club needs to make money.....and a social club with pokies is a good way to do it. Until all gambling is banned, the club is doing it's best to bring in money. No different than any other organisation who runs a social club..eg RSL, other sporting codes, pubs etc.

There are also a lot of people who go to clubs and don't go near the pokies or TAB section. My in-laws are such people, they go for a meal and love the atmosphere of such clubs..

Obviously, some will disagree with my views, but they are my views on what is a hot topic and will no doubt court some opposition......so as I said at the start, I will be interested in LI's answer to the question. It will be a tricky one for him I'm guessing.

Macmum respect your opinion as a great contributor to this bboard but Finey wad talking about this on SEN and saying of 24 billion problem hamblers lost in ais last year 18 billion was on pokies.

Yes people like yourself use thrm for entertainment but why do they need pyschologists telling them what colours and sounds will get people addicted?

 

[Hollow Knight]

They are social poison, no question but as long as they are legal I have to admit I am in the "better the Lions get their share than some rugby league club" self-interest camp.

If for some reason down the line we became financially viable and the pokies became the difference between us posting a 500k profit and a 1.5 million profit. I'd take the former.

 

[mikey127]

I think the idea that "the help is there if they want it" is inadequate. A stupendous amount of psychology goes into figuring out how to leech as much money out of people as possible and is all deployed against the punters. Once you're hooked you're up against every trick in the book (and some that haven't even made it that far yet). Gaming truly is a scummy industry.

Unfortunately we're not exactly flush with cash and probably it's hard to stay afloat without levying a tax on "being unfortunate enough to be near a one armed bandit whilst psychologically vulnerable to addiction". I admire the Kangaroos for managing it and, let's be frank, losing all the other purported benefits from those things don't seem to have caused the downfall of civilisation in WA.

The sooner we can rid ourselves of them the better imo.

Yeah we're not flushed with $$ but neither are North.

 

[James North]

Think all sports should avoid sponsorship deals and income streams from alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.

One of those has gone already (I will never forget the Benson & Hedges Series, or the Winfield Cup) and I think the other two will be gone eventually as well.

Sports clubs should have a net positive on the community and I'm not sure halls of pokies is really helping that balance. Plus - getting in the minds of kids (I was a kid when the above cricket and ARL comps were on).

 

[Gadzorks]

Pokies are online; its not just racing and sports bets.

Candy crush was a massive success commercially - it was built using the same heavily researched physiological triggers as poker machines.

I hate the bloody things with a passion.

 

[acuguy]

Yep, i really enjoyed going to Perth in 2011 because they didn't have any pokies in their pubs. I hate pokies and have seen many mates in footy and cricket clubs do their arse on them. They are a stain on society!

 

[briztoon]

I worked in and managed pubs for many years.

For many pubs and clubs, pokies are the main driver, and sole reason for staying afloat.

Pokies are terrible for some families and communities, and the "support" and "gambling hotlines" are a joke within pubs.

In terms of location, Springwood used to be top 3 in the state for pokies derived revenue.


However it is unfair to single out pokies when talking about gambling related problems. I have seen both on premises TAB and online TAB (or similar sports gambling websites) ruin families. So to live, in casino Poker and online Poker.

People with addictive personalities will find the itch that is right for them to scratch. Wether that itch be drugs, alcohol, gambling, thrill seeking, etc.

How can governments genuinely regulate activities such as gambling for the masses and mug punters to enjoy, while saving the problem gamblers from themselves. Unless change come from within communities, noting will happen from an industry or government level.

Personally I would feel better in pokie machines were totally banned within Australia.


But there are also people who make a living from gambling.

My sister has made a living from playing Poker for the past 10 years. She used to play live, at both casino and cash games, and was sponsored for a brief period of time when she was playing on the APPT and online. Eventually her medical disability forced her from live play to strictly online play. However recently there has been a change in Australian online gambling laws, and online real money poker is now banned. So my sister has lost her source of income and now has to solely relay on a medical disability pension.

A friend of my sisters sole income is professional gambling on the various online sports gambling websites. He has multiple accounts (and is continually on the look out to buy more - but that's another story). But gambling websites don't like winners, so bonuses and promotions get withdrawn, and then accounts get frozen and/or shut down. Hence the need for multiple accounts and always needing obtain new accounts. Interesting tid bit, male members receive higher promotional offers than female members. My sisters friend won't buy a female account as they're not as profitable, and are investigated more heavily.

 

[MSB ROYS]

... But gambling websites don't like winners, so bonuses and promotions get withdrawn, and then accounts get frozen and/or shut down...

This sums up the industry perfectly - suckers welcome and exploited, winners eventually banned.

 

[luthor]

I'm sick to death of the Gambling ads that permeate any form of media you can think of

As for Pokies, they are blight on society in my view. By any logic and the laws of probability you simply just cannot win. Yet,once the disease sets in, normal, rational, intelligent people become crazed addicts. I've seen it first hand in friends of my grown up children. Or friends of friends. They're not stupid uneducated mugs from the lower socio-economic demographic either.

It makes me sad (and mad) to see such profligate waste.

The Lions Club at Springwood would be tha last place I'd recommend to any of them.

 

[Tassie4ever]

I am a board member of one of the largest poker machine habitats in SE Q employing well over one hundred locals. Being not-for-profit, we donate several $000k to many community organisations and we have provided breakfasts to quite a few local schools for ages. If you really want to get into ethics think about kids going to school hungry.

I have never played the pokies. Never. I find them mind-numbingly boring. It's a machine people- you ain't gunna beat them. However, this does not prevent my better half from contributing, whatever my advice. Last time I looked it was a free country.

Here's my tip to those virtuous contributors out there in blog-land who are on the ban whatever thing- if you don't like them, don't go near them. Isn't that hard really.

Let's move on to something vitally important, like joining the latest ABC campaign on bringing in a sugar tax. You know we need one. After all, diabetes certainly kills far more people than pokies. And ban McDonalds. And Hungry Jacks. And PizzaHut. Or alternatively, don't drink fizzy drinks or eat hamburgers. Just some suggestions for starters.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Presumably you are for total, unrestricted drug legalisation too Tassie?

 

[iBeng]

Wait was the $000K donated meant to be a mistype or a deeper meaning thing?

 

[Crimso]

I am a board member of one of the largest poker machine habitats in SE Q employing well over one hundred locals. Being not-for-profit, we donate several $000k to many community organisations and we have provided breakfasts to quite a few local schools for ages. If you really want to get into ethics think about kids going to school hungry.

I have never played the pokies. Never. I find them mind-numbingly boring. It's a machine people- you ain't gunna beat them. However, this does not prevent my better half from contributing, whatever my advice. Last time I looked it was a free country.

Here's my tip to those virtuous contributors out there in blog-land who are on the ban whatever thing- if you don't like them, don't go near them. Isn't that hard really.

Let's move on to something vitally important, like joining the latest ABC campaign on bringing in a sugar tax. You know we need one. After all, diabetes certainly kills far more people than pokies. And ban McDonalds. And Hungry Jacks. And PizzaHut. Or alternatively, don't drink fizzy drinks or eat hamburgers. Just some suggestions for starters.

Definitely with you on the last paragraph!

 

[Jivlain]

When I think about kids going to school hungry, I include in that the kids going hungry because their parents fed the grocery money into a poker machine (or a TAB, or whatever) too.

Yes, the clubs give a few cents on the dollar back. The dollar they got from bleeding the most vulnerable (as the problem gamblers - about 40% of pokie revenues - tend to be) in our community dry. Sans pokies we could fund those things in less destructive ways.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Just on the pokie discussion, I'm halfway through reading Yellow & Black - the book Konrad Marshall wrote about his year at Richmond this year. One of the most interesting books I've read in recent memory (even as somebody who can't stand Richmond - the way the book details the inner workings of a football club is really fascinating and not something I've ever seen before).

In one of the chapters, Marshall sits in on a Tigers board meeting (from early 2017) where the discussion about making money from pokies was one of the talking points.

This is an excerpt from the book (page 157/158) if anybody is interested:

They talk about various projects in their embryonic stages, but discussion moves quickly to gaming, or rather, gambling venues. Specifically, Richmond's investment in the Wantirna Club, where it has 97 poker machine licenses that will expire in 2022.

At issue is the expiration of the venue lease in 2018, four years earlier than the lease of the machines. It's a conundrum because they don't yet know what the Victorian government will say about those machine licenses in 2018 - whether they will renew them for a 20 year period, or a 10 year period. "It's the hot topic in gaming circles," says Stahl. 'First question everyone asks is, 'any word on what might be happening with licenses?'"

One director wonders aloud whether license being renewed for a decade might be a problem from a social responsibility standpoint. "I'm not sure that it's prudent to lock ourselves into gaming for years, given that we've had a number of conversations about starting to move out of gaming."

Gale hears these concerns, but tries to temper such worries. "Unlike most other clubs, we are actually doing something about this," he says. "We're not just talking about it."

The CEO goes into some depth here, talking about AFL club funding models and being financially accountable, and ensuring Richmond continues to perform well in the benchmarked and stratified League. The AFL, he says, has asked clubs to come up with strategic initiatives that might generate non-gambling revenue.

"Not just to hold us accountable, but maybe to support us," he says. "They're also coming up with a new set of models for club governance, club constitutions, the way committees operate, etcetera but I think we're well advanced in that area already."

Not to be deterred, the board asks whether Richmond is continuing to look at funding models for a second gaming venue. "We're always looking at opportunities," says Gale. "But until we're told otherwise, we're open for business. I don't think we're in the position yet where we can say no to gaming - but we are constantly doing things to reduce our reliance."

O'Neal adds her voice to the debate. "We haven't found anything in the last 18 months that has been of interest or suitable or can make money. AFL clubs right now can't afford to be out of gaming."

Later, Malcolm Speed explains this reality in terms of the unfortunately parlous state of finance in almost all AFL clubs: "You have a great season and you might make $1 million. You have a poor season, you might lose $1 million. There's little room for big gains."

I found that quite interesting - just how reliant even one of the bigger clubs is on gaming. That doesn't necessarily justify it and that's not what I'm suggesting, but if a club as big as Richmond needs revenue from gaming, it's fair to say we probably aren't in any financial position to opt out at this stage.

My understanding, though, is that the Springfield plan is just as much about revenue for the club as it is about a new football base. The money we will make from tenants leasing parts of the building among other things is expected to boost us to something of a financial powerhouse in the league, and hopefully put us in a position where we are able to move on from pokies altogether. One of many reasons why it's so essential that project gets off the ground.

 

[MacMum]

The Wantirna Club is my favorite venue....only small in comparison to other clubs in the area. As soon as you walk in the door it screams Tigers, as I hope our Springwood does for us.

If they are making good money from this club, then the likes of the Hawks and others must be making a fortune.....particularly if they have a TAB in there as well, which the Wantirna club doesn't.

 

[Brett C]

When I think about kids going to school hungry, I include in that the kids going hungry because their parents fed the grocery money into a poker machine (or a TAB, or whatever) too.

Yes, the clubs give a few cents on the dollar back. The dollar they got from bleeding the most vulnerable (as the problem gamblers - about 40% of pokie revenues - tend to be) in our community dry. Sans pokies we could fund those things in less destructive ways.

Won’t somebody think of the children!!

So you’re basically advocating a nanny state then? Should we ban all addictive things that are legal activities that cost money. What’s next smoking completely banned, iPhone games, betting apps, casinos, fast food, alcohol, shopping, pr0n, gaming, sports, exercise. The list would be almost endless.

Why don’t we just have people take responsibility for their own lives rather than pandering to a minority of people.

 

[Skoob]

I am a board member of one of the largest poker machine habitats in SE Q employing well over one hundred locals. Being not-for-profit, we donate several $000k to many community organisations and we have provided breakfasts to quite a few local schools for ages. If you really want to get into ethics think about kids going to school hungry.

I have never played the pokies. Never. I find them mind-numbingly boring. It's a machine people- you ain't gunna beat them. However, this does not prevent my better half from contributing, whatever my advice. Last time I looked it was a free country.

Here's my tip to those virtuous contributors out there in blog-land who are on the ban whatever thing- if you don't like them, don't go near them. Isn't that hard really.

Let's move on to something vitally important, like joining the latest ABC campaign on bringing in a sugar tax. You know we need one. After all, diabetes certainly kills far more people than pokies. And ban McDonalds. And Hungry Jacks. And PizzaHut. Or alternatively, don't drink fizzy drinks or eat hamburgers. Just some suggestions for starters.

Not sure what fantasy land you live in, where all people are either able or can be trusted to make the right decisions. "If you don't like it, don't do it" is such a lame argument, because damage caused by others, affects everybody. That fizzy drink that you choose not to drink, is still causing diabetes for others, and before you say "Well that's their problem/choice", it is still mine and your taxes funding an already strained health system. This attitude also ignores any empathy for others unable to be as strong or brave as yourself in making good choices. It's called 'society', which means not just making decisions for yourself, but for the greater good.
Even if one doesn't totally disagree with gaming and is happy with the "free country" narrative, don't try to paint it as some virtuous revenue stream, supporting and making the community a better place. Sounds like you're just trying to justify it to yourself, because "saving the starving kiddies" story isn't fooling anyone else.

 

[Skoob]

Won’t somebody think of the children!!

So you’re basically advocating a nanny state then? Should we ban all addictive things that are legal activities that cost money. What’s next smoking completely banned, iPhone games, betting apps, casinos, fast food, alcohol, shopping, pr0n, gaming, sports, exercise. The list would be almost endless.

Why don’t we just have people take responsibility for their own lives rather than pandering to a minority of people.

No-one mentioned "banning", but all those things you mentioned are governed by law and have some sorts of restrictions placed on them to keep them in check to some degree to varying effect. It is the level of restriction that is argued and the cost of each to society. Most addictive or harmful activities don't just affect the participants, but the rest of society as well.
Are you not in favour of protecting the children? Because allowing everyone to make their own choices does heavily impact them. Smoking in the car, drinking to excess, blowing the household budget on gaming, buying 'bad' foods because they are cheaper and more heavily target marketed. Those choices aren't just about the person making them.
There's a fine line between nanny state and reasonable protections, but to pretend that society can function with total personal freedom is ridiculous.

 

[Brett C]

No-one mentioned "banning", but all those things you mentioned are governed by law and have some sorts of restrictions placed on them to keep them in check to some degree to varying effect. It is the level of restriction that is argued and the cost of each to society. Most addictive or harmful activities don't just affect the participants, but the rest of society as well.
Are you not in favour of protecting the children? Because allowing everyone to make their own choices does heavily impact them. Smoking in the car, drinking to excess, blowing the household budget on gaming, buying 'bad' foods because they are cheaper and more heavily target marketed. Those choices aren't just about the person making them.
There's a fine line between nanny state and reasonable protections, but to pretend that society can function with total personal freedom is ridiculous.

I think your missing the point that there are behaviours that have a greater impact on individuals and children than pokies and the sanctimonious position people take over the issue is laughable. Alcohol would have a greater impact on families so by your logic we should only allow beers to be sold in 2-3 packs and not cartons. Spirits should only be sold in 100ml bottles and wine bottles should be half the size. We should ensure that all licensed premises including bottle shops have a linked central system that regulates a persons alcohol purchasing level.

People make good and bad choices and it's a slippery slope if we start to legislate every so called bad choice. I would hope the people on here saying the club should get rid of pokies are also writing to their local MP both at a state and federal level to have licenses cancelled.

 

[Caiphus]

It's not just the problem gambling though, it's the massive correlation with family violence that concerns me. Now I think that correlation is there with all vices, but it seems easier for governments to ban something entirely/tax or regulate things into oblivion than to dry to deal with the cultural problems that are the underlying cause that allows for the correlation of these vices to the problem.

The idealist in me says we should be looking at real solutions to the problems that don't encroach on individual freedoms. I say this as someone with quite a few vices who is sick of them becoming scapegoats. At the same time as someone who understands the logistics of policy - the scapegoating is often the simplest and most cost-effective solution and the alternatives put it in the "too-hard basket". With the undercurrent of nationalism in current society any grass roots movement that is going to come across as too critical of "Aussie Culture(tm)" is going to find it hard to get traction.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The funny thing is that I've noticed a lot of people who cry "nanny state" are also ironically among the first people to whine about how their taxes are spent.

Profound ignorance to the economic and social externalities of these problems. They don't just affect the individual. All those people who smoke 2 packs /drink 6 litres of rum and coke/eat three quarter pounders a day and ride around without bike helmets utilise the same public healthcare we do. Who will advocate for the innocent child of gambling or alcohol addicts? What do we do when these addicts come to steal your jewellery and electronics to pay for their rent because they blew their Centrelink on the pokies as well. Sure, we can lock them up. But it all costs a lot of money. Think about it next time you say "but muh taxes!!!".

I've also observed that a lot of these "nanny state!" Libertarians usually have a chink or two of hypocrisy in their armour somewhere. There's always something they can't stomach being deregulated despite how much it clashes with the "government should let people decide for themselves" fundamentalist philosophy they use to back up their arguments elsewhere.