I hear the club has now moved their training sessions to the exercise yard so that most of their players can participate.Originally Posted by Ludwig
I hear the club has now moved their training sessions to the exercise yard so that most of their players can participate.
I was in the car listening to ABC radio just after 3 this afternoon and Stephen Mayne (Walkley Award winning journalist, Crikey founder and former consultant of the Australian Shareholder Association Stephen Mayne - Wikipedia) was interviewed about the influence of pokies and gambling on government, especially in NSW. Mayne said that the AFL is making some tentative efforts to combat the destructive influences of gambling under Gill (whereas the NRL are hopelessly in the gambling industry's thrall - Canterbury Bulldogs are apparently almost entirely dependent on pokies revenue). However, Mayne pointed out that Andrew Pridham, in his role as Managing Director and Head of Investment Banking for Australia at NY based bank Moelis & Co, is "fronting" the acquisition of Redcape (a group of gambling pubs that earn a lot of revenue in poor areas of Sydney (like Fairfield) causing particularly high levels of losses per pokie machine and bragging in their prospectus about taking advantage of lax regulations in NSW). He suggested this is quite embarrassing for Andrew Pridham and I tend to agree. Andrew Pridham's contact details at Moelis are published on their website [email protected] and T: +61 2 8288 5537: Sydney – Moelis & Company.
I guess big business gets its hands dirty and if we probe the work of various board members we will inevitably find other distasteful details. Even still, this is fairly high profile and, if it is being discussed on ABC Radio Drive segment, has the potential to embarrass our club significantly - albeit not likely to lead to the same pressure on Pridham that Worner faced after revelations about his (quite different and illegal) scandalous conduct. Watch this space to see if there is any more news about this.
I think you are drawing somewhat of a long bow with your issues with Andrew Pridham and I am as anti-gambling as anyone you will meet. But I must admit if his firm has it's nose in the trough with the gambling industry, as it would appear, then I don't think it reflects well on that firm. I'm not sure what, if any, ownership role Andrew has in that global firm or what his direct involvement in that deal is. Or what influence he could have had over it?
I suspect he is no different from any other greedy merchant banker or businessman and that all he sees in poker machines is profit when all many of us see is human misery.
I also think any comparison to Worner, whose behaviour on any moral, governance or legal perspective was appalling, is not relevant.
The whole issue of the Swans and the gambling dollar is a sleeper for mine. We have a benign dictatorship on our board, the ultimate Boys' club that we are all quite happy to accept (me included) as long as they listen to the members, stay in touch with community expectations and standards and discharge their duties responsibly. And on that front in recent years they have been faultless.
But the reality is that if there was an issue that the board made that we as fans fundamentally and passionately disagreed with we have no real opportunity to vote in directors to right that wrong. And we should have that ability.
If the board takes on even one single poker machine it will be interesting to see how we react as fans. I suspect that most of us would be appalled but I wonder how many of us will be prepared to make some noise and fight the decision and demand a say. I'd like to think I would but I suspect that there would be a large amount of apathy
I think what Andrew Pridham does in his day job is his business. Basically he is the CEO of Moelis Australia. Amongst other things they put
together investment funds, and one of those funds has bought a "gaming focused hotel group" called Redcape. Redcape own 26 pubs, 18 of
which are in the top 200 "gaming establishments" in NSW. Will Moelis & Pridham and the investors in the fund make money from poker
machines? Yes. I'd imagine they'd be pretty disappointed if they didn't. What they are doing is completely legal. But it's not for everyone,
some people wouldn't feel comfortable making money from an investment like this. He is obviously OK with it, and that's his choice, but
I'm not sure how that impacts on the Swans.
Like you Mug, I'd be willing to stand up to the club in whatever way if we ever attempt to get back in on the pokies wheel of shame - I also agree we should have greater rights as members in regards to voting. I do think you are right though in terms of there probably be apathy at most.
As for the Pridham link, I concur that it is unlikely to become a significant issue at club level I don't think - unless somehow it impedes on his ability to act in the best interests of the Swans when acting within his role.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Didn't members supporters play a role in the demise of Robbie Waterhouse as a sponsor? Would not like to see this type of revenue at the club as distict from the merchant bank. Was involved in printing some years ago when the company I worked for was involved withe setting up of Crown Casino. Car park was 90 per cent full of old bombs reflecting socio economic status of owners. I know the argument about freedom of choice etc but it left a sour taste in my mouth.
One of Hawthorn's poker machine venues is not far from where I live. It's in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne, about 25 kilometres from Hawthorn, and located in the lower levels of a large shopping centre.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
As Andrew Ireland has said, it is easier to take the moral high ground when you don't have any pokies, and they are legal but they are a stain on the game as far as I am concerned. Along with the appalling integration of the online sports gambling companies into our matchday experience. Pokies may well be the crack cocaine of gambling (and accessibility is a huge factor in why so many more people have gambling problems) but I also fear we are seeing a generation of children who see gambling on sport as just the natural thing you should do. I know the ex St Kilda President Butterss was was a bit loose but I agreed 100% re his comments about the AFL and their appalling record re gambling and inability to turn away the gambling dollar.
The problem now is that the biggest addicts of all are the Victorian clubs, they now can simply not afford to lose the income streams from the rivers of misery that those machines cause. Just as the NSW government, with 10% of the world's freaking poker machines, the majority strategically located in low socioeconomic areas, is hooked.
I just hope we are better than that and don't go down that path because once we do we'll be hooked as well.
I find it extremely hypocritical and two faced of the AFL to continually promote that that they take the higher morale ground in terms of indigenous affairs, LGBT rights, etc, etc. Yet, when it comes to the pokies and gambling in general which destroys thousands of lives each year they actually encourage it because they can make a buck out of it.
I agree, and it's a relatively small amount of money for the league, about $10m a year I think. This is the perfect example of how the AFL use spin to try and cover over an issue, I'd prefer they did nothing rather than insult our intelligence by pretending they are actually trying
The reliance by the Melbourne clubs in the pokie dollar is almost impossible to wind back. Ultimately I guess they are a legal product, albeit one evil IMO, and it is hard to resist the easy dollar they provide. And I guess if the club's don't own them someone else will. And I'm not sure if the league could stop them having pokies even if they wanted to.
But the league could show some leadership on the sports betting front which I see as the big sleeper in terms of gambling addiction. Show the leadership that governments won't and refuse any formal gambling sponsorship of the league and insist upon no gambling advertisements between the first bounce and the full time whistle. I'd still prefer none at all but that is probably be as far as they can go without getting commercially penalised too much. I wonder if the AFLPA would accept that the pie size get reduced to reflect that? Probably not but I think that the players in many respect have a stronger moral compass on these things than the game's administrators.
I must say that I find the almost 100% opposition to us having pokies very encouraging.
And I also find the general opposition to them on here heart-warming. I think it is virtually impossible for anyone to not know someone directly or indirectly that has had their lives destroyed by these things. And they prey on the weak and vulnerable.
And I've seen community opinion to those things harden too which is nice even though the power and influence of the pubs and clubs is so strong and evil.
As someone who hates them with a passion I nonetheless accept they are probably here to stay but I hope that one of the few organisations I haven't lost faith in (The Swans) never goes near them. And I'll be gutted if they do and I suspect it will probably destroy the love I have for the club.
Apologies for the heavy post
Definite double standard- still a flaw in our society where anyone who opposes gambling/alcohol reform is viewed suspiciously as a 'wowser' despite massive issues. AFL no different especially when big dollars involved.
- - - Updated - - -
No need to apologise MP. Would take the wind out of my sails in terms of huge admiration I have for the culture of the club.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks