Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 37 to 42 of 42

Thread: Club revenue and pokies

  1. #37
    Aut vincere aut mori Thunder Shaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    My secret laboratory in the suburbs of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    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.
    This is a massive problem. I live a few kilometres from Sandown Park (a major racing venue). It's an area that has a lot of people on low incomes. There isn't a pub or similar venue within five kilometres that doesn't have a room filled with these infernal gambling machines. I know of six venues, and there are probably more that I haven't seen yet. Hawthorn's venue is a bit further away from my home, but is within five kilometres of Sandown Park. If it was a posh suburb, there wouldn't be so many venues and so many gambling machines.

    The big failing is that local councils do not have the right to collect their share of revenue from gambling machines. Local councils cannot impose taxes on them, and local councils cannot limit the number of gambling machines in their jurisdiction. This is wrong.

    That's what I call them: gambling machines, not the euphemistic "gaming machines". To me, a gaming machine is a high-performance personal computer that is used for playing computer games. Anyone who calls the gambling machines "gaming machines" must therefore be corrected at every opportunity.
    "Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final

  2. #38
    One of the things I loved about moving to WA was that there's non of these things apart from the casino. When they first came in where I lived I watched as they destroyed the pub scene of music n entertainment n slowly but surely the dance floor disappeared n so did the community. I'm not against them 100% I'm just not in favour of how many there is in pubs n clubs over east. Allow them in casinos n designated areas so the elderly who do like to enjoy them.

  3. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    One of the things I loved about moving to WA was that there's non of these things apart from the casino. When they first came in where I lived I watched as they destroyed the pub scene of music n entertainment n slowly but surely the dance floor disappeared n so did the community. I'm not against them 100% I'm just not in favour of how many there is in pubs n clubs over east. Allow them in casinos n designated areas so the elderly who do like to enjoy them.
    I know a number of people that moved to WA to get away from the pokies, it seems extreme but that's the hold on people they have. I just hope the people of WA never let a government introduce them despite whatever financial stresses the stat budget may be under. Most WA people I meet are proud they don't have them.

    Of course WA will still have problem gamblers, and sports betting is insidious, but it is well documented that pokies are by far the worst form of gambling in terms of accessibility and addiction, hence the crack cocaine of gambling line.

    Plus the fact they are in licensed venues where people are drinking with their inhibitions down and judgement impaired.

    Having them at a Casino is fine. Even having them just in licensed clubs in Sydney you had to seek them out but now they are just everywhere.

    There are three major factors in terms harm minimisation:

    * Accessibility which of course has just gone through the roof, every pub is a casino now where before you had to seek out your local club which at least put "Something" back in the community. The argument that clubs put so much back into the community is largely a hollow argument though - have a look at the financial statements of any licensed club and you'll see that the whole shebang is funded by gambling losses and their "community" funding is usually very modest. They really exist as a reverse form of welfare that feathers the nest of club management.

    * Win limit - gambling experts agree that one single change would probably turn the majority of problem gamblers from the addiction. And that is reducing the win limit to $500 at most or preferably $250. See it is the lure of the big win that keeps people chasing their losses. And going back to coins rather than letting note acceptors take $100 bills at a time (how sick is that) would also help. This second point alone would have been much more effective than the entire Wilkie proposal that failed in parliament which was impractical and impossible to implement effectively.

    * Bet limit - reducing from $5 to $1 would clearly help but many see it as less effective than reducing the win limit

    For all the problems Pokies present a solution that would genuinely ease the suffering are relatively straightforward. But nobody has the political will to make it happen.

    Apologies again for going OT
    Last edited by Mug Punter; 24th August 2017 at 12:15 PM.

  4. #40
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,402
    Yes, it is interesting how areas of pubs that used to be used for live music have been renovated to become pokie rooms.
    Basically successive governments have bowed to intense lobby pressure from the pub industry to allow the proliferation
    of pokies. At least when they where just in licensed clubs (like RSLs etc), which are meant to be non profit
    organisations who are involved in the community, at least some of the money was indirectly distributed back to where
    it came from. Now these big gambling pubs are just vehicles to be grouped together and be traded around between investment
    funds like the one Andrew Pridham and his company has put together. The pubs have become way more valuable because
    of the profits they receive from the poker machines, not because they are selling more beer and $10 steak lunches.
    It's not an accident that the really large gambling pubs are in low income areas. You won't find one in Point Piper or
    Toorak, but you may find some of the residences of the people that own them.

  5. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    I know a number of people that moved to WA to get away from the pokies, it seems extreme but that's the hold on people they have. I just hope the people of WA never let a government introduce them despite whatever financial stresses the stat budget may be under. Most WA people I meet are proud they don't have them.

    Of course WA will still have problem gamblers, and sports betting is insidious, but it is well documented that pokies are by far the worst form of gambling in terms of accessibility and addiction, hence the crack cocaine of gambling line.

    Plus the fact they are in licensed venues where people are drinking with their inhibitions down and judgement impaired.

    Having them at a Casino is fine. Even having them just in licensed clubs in Sydney you had to seek them out but now they are just everywhere.

    There are three major factors in terms harm minimisation:

    * Accessibility which of course has just gone through the roof. I can walk to at least 5 pokie pubs from my place but not one licensed club. This would be common for many people so surely that has exacerbated the issue. The argument that clubs put so much back into the community is largely a hollow argument - have a look at the financial statements of any licensed club and you'll see that the whole shebang is funded by gambling losses and their "community" funding is usually very modest. They really exist as a reverse form of welfare that feathers the nest of club management.

    * Win limit - gambling experts agree that one single change would probably turn the majority of problem gamblers from the addiction. And that is reducing the win limit to $500 at most or preferably $250. See it is the lure of the big win that keeps people chasing their losses. And going back to coins rather than letting note acceptors take $100 bills at a time (how sick is that) would also help. This second point alone would have been much more effective than the entire Wilkie proposal that failed in parliament which was impractical and impossible to implement effectively.

    * Bet limit - reducing from $5 to $1 would clearly help but many see it as less effective than reducing the win limit

    For all the problems Pokies present a solution that would genuinely ease the suffering are relatively straightforward. But nobody has the political will to make it happen.

    Apologies again for going OT
    Don't apologise cause I don't think your OT. To address the issue of AFL clubs dependence on gambling machines I think you have to look at the whole picture not just one thing in isolation. Just like the academies. Your suggestions are very very good and would help communities a lot with the gambling machine issues which then flow onto afl clubs gambling machines. Over here the pub/bar scene is very enjoyable to walk into. A lot like when I was younger over east. A meal, music n jiggle the hips later in the night while meeting people from your local area talking about local issues n national issues, footy, cricket, bands etc Not watching zombies walk in n just hearing ding ding ding all night and watching em walk out with empty pockets wondering how their gona pay the rent.

  6. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    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.
    Here's a link to the audio of the Drive show I heard: ABC Radio. The interview with Stephen Mayne begins about 2 minutes in.

    I like the points you make, Thunder Shaker and MP.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO