The family club reaps $23million from pokies.

[Tassieboy]

It's good business.

 

[Gigantor]

Who do you think contributed to all the money the AFL have thrown your way? All the money came directly from Greater Western Sydney? Don't think so.

It didn't come from pokies.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Also should be pointed out: poker machines aren't gambling.

The result of the wager is not random nor unknown.

 

[bombersfan4000]

IT’S not that I don’t admire Tim Costello. We are a better nation for people being prepared to stand up and advocate for changes that will improve the lives of those who are least advantaged.

But Tim’s sense of direction sometimes lets him down. He raises a valid point when highlighting the role of pokies revenue in professional sport but weakens his position by taking aim at the wrong code.

Don’t get me wrong, the AFL needs to do far more in respect of gambling and its influence on the sport we all love. Its embrace of sports betting, for example, makes many of us feel uncomfortable.

As a sporting code, however, the reliance of its clubs on gaming revenues pales by comparison with what’s happening north of the border.

Tim’s Alliance for Gambling Reform wants to cure AFL clubs of their dependence on gaming revenue.

How bad is it? Collingwood, regularly cited by the campaign, earned $21.6 million from gaming and function centre activity in 2015-16 out of total revenue of $71.5 million. This is equivalent to just over 30 per cent of the club’s earnings. If you think that demands action you’ll be ready to riot over what’s been going on in NSW.

In the NRL, dependence is virtually complete. The Canterbury Bulldogs are the standout, having raised $77 million from pokies in 2014 out of $87 million in revenue.

That’s right, almost $9 out of every $10 comes from the money locals put through endless rows of machines.

By comparison that’s a dependency three times worse than Collingwood’s.

And it’s not likely to slow down. Fellow NRL club Parramatta was able to report in 2015 that its gaming revenue, $54 million out of a total of $82 million had grown by 7 per cent in the preceding year, much higher than the CPI.

So if commentators reckon the AFL clubs’ collective pokies dividend is a problem demanding an answer, surely it ranks as a secondary problem behind what’s going on in NSW where NRL teams are making hundreds of millions from pokies.

Not that it should surprise anyone even half interested in pokies reform. Years before the privatisation of assets became fashionable, NSW governments of both persuasions sold the state’s collective conscience on poker machines. And they’re still at it.

While the Brumby government pushed ahead with reforms around municipal limits, reduced maximum bets and the removal of ATMs, NSW buckled at the industry’s discomfort with the revenue impact of smoking bans and let machines be relocated to designated smoking areas.

When it comes to getting a balanced approach to poker machines Aussie rules leaves the NRL in its wake. Labor’s earlier reforms limited AFL clubs to no more than 420 machines, vastly fewer than they can acquire in NSW, a state that has almost 100,000 machines in operation, three times the Victorian number.

The Victorian tax rate is also much higher, Labor setting a top marginal tax rate for clubs of
50 per cent. Compare this to NSW where the government delivered a tax cut not too long ago resulting in a rate of less than 30 per cent.

So let’s get some focus into the debate and redirect the crusade to where it is desperately needed.

The fact that NSW governments have allowed the NRL to effectively become a franchise of the pokies industry shouldn’t stop the case for change being made.

Focusing the effort on Victorian AFL clubs, where dependence is constrained by sensible changes, simply allows this northern travesty to continue unabated.

Tony Robinson was Minister for Gaming in the Brumby Government
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...m/news-story/f5d80eebffe267042348f0194e6806fb

 

[bombersfan4000]

an interesting article! the AFL clubs and the state government seem to be copping a hard time over the gaming and poke problems whilst the AFL and state government have made some efforts to curb the reliance on them, they cannot be scrapped over night as businesses will calap mean while north of the border its only a growing industry

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Pokies are a tax on the poor and as a society we're now dependent on those taxes.

And the businesses they fund and hence employment they provide are enormous.

It's not a case of just switching them off. Businesses and clubs will need to disappear. Many jobs will be lost.

Removing them will be a decade-long process, at least.

Look at our governments - I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Gigantor]

Pokies are a tax on the poor and as a society we're now dependent on those taxes.

And the businesses they fund and hence employment they provide are enormous.

It's not a case of just switching them off. Businesses and clubs will need to disappear. Many jobs will be lost.

Removing them will be a decade-long process, at least.

Look at our governments - I won't be holding my breath.

A tax on the poor?

Well, if we are to believe posters on this board, the good citizens of Melton and Brimbank are of the same socio-economic standing and have the same education standards as the good citizens of Hawthorn/Hawthorn East and environs.

Hawthorn didn't put a club in Melton because its residents (and those of nearby Brimbank) have a higher propensity to play pokies, they did so because of the very close cultural links between Melton and Hawthorn, and that at least 1% of all of Melton's footy fans barrack for Hawthorn.

 

[telsor]

It's legal, and if they weren't taking it in, somebody else would, and at the end of the day, I'd rather the money go into football than Woolworths bottom line.

I don't like pokies, but attack the government for allowing them, and try and get them to reduce the number allowed (if not remove them entirely), not the specific owners.

 

[madmug]

It's legal, and if they weren't taking it in, somebody else would, and at the end of the day, I'd rather the money go into football than Woolworths bottom line.

I don't like pokies, but attack the government for allowing them, and try and get them to reduce the number allowed (if not remove them entirely), not the specific owners.

Why cant we point the finger at the owners? The clubs claim to be good 'community' citizens.

If so they should consider most of the 'profit' comes from those who are addicted to the machines, people who spend more than they should, people with a problem that affects their friends & families & in many examples, their workplaces. All this is well known.

The machines are not a fair gamble anyway. They are programmed to payout 90% of what they take. Over time you cannot win. They are a leach on the vulnerable in society. People commit suicide because of the position they end up in.

So we close our eyes to this reality? Its footy, so its ok?

 

[telsor]

Why cant we point the finger at the owners? The clubs claim to be good 'community' citizens.

If so they should consider most of the 'profit' comes from those who are addicted to the machines, people who spend more than they should, people with a problem that affects their friends & families & in many examples, their workplaces. All this is well known.

The machines are not a fair gamble anyway. They are programmed to payout 90% of what they take. Over time you cannot win. They are a leach on the vulnerable in society. People commit suicide because of the position they end up in.

So we close our eyes to this reality? Its footy, so its ok?

You can attack the owners all you like, but it's pointless.

If the ownership changes, those who are playing will still be playing, it's just who gets the profits that would alter.

If I was selling cigarettes and stopped for 'moral reasons' and sold the store to you who continued to sell ciggies...What would have actually changed?


The Vic government allows 30,000 such machines. Get them to cut that number, and I'll be totally on board because a real difference can be made by doing that, but making a big drama over who owns them is just a distraction that makes no difference.

 

[telsor]

Just BTW.

It's not just Vic clubs that have these machines....I know Brisbane and Port do, potentially others as well.

 

[madmug]

You can attack the owners all you like, but it's pointless.

If the ownership changes, those who are playing will still be playing, it's just who gets the profits that would alter.

If I was selling cigarettes and stopped for 'moral reasons' and sold the store to you who continued to sell ciggies...What would have actually changed?


The Vic government allows 30,000 such machines. Get them to cut that number, and I'll be totally on board because a real difference can be made by doing that, but making a big drama over who owns them is just a distraction that makes no difference.

If you dont want to admit the wonderful community orientated AFL clubs are directly profiting from peoples misery, then fine.

You can both argue the Gument need to act, but also AFL clubs are duplicitous in saying how wonderful for the community they are but are involved in this incidious activity. Its inconsistent behaviour & its a wrong image.

Not all clubs have them, why?

 

[madmug]

BTW, do you think this is just an 'attack on Vic clubs??

 

[telsor]

If you dont want to admit the wonderful community orientated AFL clubs are directly profiting from peoples misery, then fine.

You can both argue the Gument need to act, but also AFL clubs are duplicitous in saying how wonderful for the community they are but are involved in this incidious activity. Its inconsistent behaviour & its a wrong image.

Not all clubs have them, why?

I do admit that.

but if the money is going to be taken anyway, I'd rather the clubs get it than some company with no social/cultural ties to the community.

You can argue both, but only one will make the slightest change at the end of the day.

 

[madmug]

I do admit that.

but if the money is going to be taken anyway, I'd rather the clubs get it than some company with no social/cultural ties to the community.

You can argue both, but only one will make the slightest change at the end of the day.

I agree with that & we do need to pressure both Gument & the 'owners' to reduce the negative effects of these things ASAP.

Its a bit like the old smoking debate. The sellers argue the rights of people to choose & use legal products & the Gument benefits from the excise it receives.

Of course we realise the huge damage to personal health that we all end up paying for in our over worked hospitals & doctor surgeries, loss of productive people through illness, disability from resultant cardio vascular diseases, cancer etc. And how much free choice is their with an addictive substance or activity anyway?

If clubs can't function without using such means to make money, what does that say???

 

[telsor]

BTW, do you think this is just an 'attack on Vic clubs??

Actually, I mostly just see it as a nonsense argument, providing a distraction from the real problems with pokies by focusing on what is, at the end of the day a pretty trivial aspect of it.

Pokies are bad/wrong. Having clubs and community groups profit from them makes them less wrong, but they're still very bad, and focusing complaints about the lesser evil this represents seems to distract from the larger point.


I don't see the issue itself as an attack on Vic clubs, but I do think some people, like yourself, are always happy to jump in to kick Vic clubs on any topic so take advantage of any opportunity, so pile in on this issue because it suits your agenda. I don't see you complaining about clubs in other states for example, or closer to home, how much effort/interest do you have on the social effects of Wrest point Casino?

 

[telsor]

If clubs can't function without using such means to make money, what does that say???

If they weren't doing this, they'd be doing other things to raise money. These income streams tend to come from considerable investments, and that money could always have been invested elsewhere.

While this is a legal and lucrative investment, why shouldn't the clubs be able to profit from it?

 

[madmug]

Actually, I mostly just see it as a nonsense argument, providing a distraction from the real problems with pokies by focusing on what is, at the end of the day a pretty trivial aspect of it.

Pokies are bad/wrong. Having clubs and community groups profit from them makes them less wrong, but they're still very bad, and focusing complaints about the lesser evil this represents seems to distract from the larger point.


I don't see the issue itself as an attack on Vic clubs, but I do think some people, like yourself, are always happy to jump in to kick Vic clubs on any topic so take advantage of any opportunity, so pile in on this issue because it suits your agenda. I don't see you complaining about clubs in other states for example, or closer to home, how much effort/interest do you have on the social effects of Wrest point Casino?

You can think that. I see it as a much broader social issue. You said yourself other clubs outside of Victoria use them. Well I address my comments to them & NRL clubs, & pubs all over the country as well.

Local clubs here dont have them & we have a major social problem with them in pubs & it affects all society by draining money out of the community that should be spent in shops & paying bills etc. Even in supporting local footy clubs!

If WCE & Freo can do well financially without them, why not the rest of the clubs, in & out of Victoria? Whats the problem with that??

 

[telsor]

You can think that. I see it as a much broader social issue. You said yourself other clubs outside of Victoria use them. Well I address my comments to them & NRL clubs, & pubs all over the country as well.

Local clubs here dont have them & we have a major social problem with them in pubs & it affects all society by draining money out of the community that should be spent in shops & paying bills etc. Even in supporting local footy clubs!

If WCE & Freo can do well financially without them, why not the rest of the clubs, in & out of Victoria? Whats the problem with that??

WCE & Freo are 2 clubs in a state of 2.5Million people with the highest per capita income in the country. As Kwality likes to say, supply and demand means they'll do well regardless, so they're not a great example.


Overall though, pokies represent a very small part of AFL/club income, even more so when you look at the net income from them. Important, sure, all income is important, but it's unlikely to be life and death for these clubs. North survives without them for example.

 

[madmug]

WCE & Freo are 2 clubs in a state of 2.5Million people with the highest per capita income in the country. As Kwality likes to say, supply and demand means they'll do well regardless, so they're not a great example.


Overall though, pokies represent a very small part of AFL/club income, even more so when you look at the net income from them. Important, sure, all income is important, but it's unlikely to be life and death for these clubs. North survives without them for example.

I think they are a good example. Maybe some areas have too many clubs & will do anything for money, even morally dubious ones.

 

[telsor]

Further to that last point about net income.

Just a quick look at Carlton's annual report shows 'member venue revenue' of 18,098,704 which I assume to be their pokies venues (The $ probably includes bar and bistro money too, but it'd be largely pokies). It also reports 'member venue costs' of 15,794,291, which would suggest that a club with one of the biggest collections of pokies only made ~$2.3M out of them.

nb. I used Carlton because they are clearer in their reporting than most on this.

 

[telsor]

I think they are a good example. Maybe some areas have too many clubs & will do anything for money, even morally dubious ones.

If that is the standard required, then Vic gets 4-5 clubs, SA 1, Tas, NSW, QLD 0 I'm not sure that's a viable league really.

 

[madmug]

If that is the standard required, then Vic gets 4-5 clubs, SA 1, Tas, NSW, QLD 0 I'm not sure that's a viable league really.

Ridiculous exaggeration is not a good basis for any discussion. The League is what it is, but it is not impossible for it to develop with reason. Not simply self interest of the 'establishment'.

Having a commission, the AFL by now should have been better at directing sensible balance & sensible economic performance that would include keeping clubs out of the dark area of Pokies. Also a more sensible approach to gambling in general.

And why not? Football has gotten itself out of support by Tobacco companies & Alcohol companies in the past. Do the clubs need to spend $25Million on football departments, How much on its own administration & efforts to control everything?

The number of clubs in each area is a concern. It shows the problem of supporting some of these clubs year on year on year. But they do very little to address this issue. Some rationalisation would benefit the game overall. No doubt.

But at least BE community clubs, dont get involved in the pokies game & its associated community misery. BE what you say you are.

 

[The_Wookie]

And why not? Football has gotten itself out of support by Tobacco companies & Alcohol companies in the past.

The Government got EVERYONE - not just football - out of tobacco advertising - by legislation. Alcohol advertising is still done in football - Carlton and United Breweries has been a major league sponsor for over a century.

 

[telsor]

Ridiculous exaggeration is not a good basis for any discussion. The League is what it is, but it is not impossible for it to develop with reason. Not simply self interest of the 'establishment'.

Ridiculous exaggeration? You were the one who described them as a "good example".

Having a commission, the AFL by now should have been better at directing sensible balance & sensible economic performance that would include keeping clubs out of the dark area of Pokies. Also a more sensible approach to gambling in general.

And why not? Football has gotten itself out of support by Tobacco companies & Alcohol companies in the past. Do the clubs need to spend $25Million on football departments, How much on its own administration & efforts to control everything?

What else should they get out of?

What about sponsorship from Mining companies? Fast food operators? Car companies (pollution...)? Banks?

I doubt there is a sponsor out there that nobody would find an objection to, so what standard should the league maintain?

Richmond has established a sideline in a bunch of fitness companies they lease/operate for a local council (currently one council, but the plan is to expand). Is that 'ripping money out of the local communities'? (to use your view on Vic clubs playing in Hobart, Launceston, Darwin, Cairns, Alice Springs & China)

The number of clubs in each area is a concern. It shows the problem of supporting some of these clubs year on year on year. But they do very little to address this issue. Some rationalisation would benefit the game overall. No doubt.

But at least BE community clubs, dont get involved in the pokies game & its associated community misery. BE what you say you are.

The harder you make it for smaller clubs, the harder it is to justify a new small team in Tas.