On 04/03/2018 at 22:57, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The author of the Monash study is a well-known anti-pokies advocate, Charles Livingstone. He has linked family violence with AFL pokies venues solely on the basis that there are rates of higher family violence recorded in the same locations as there are AFL pokies venues. There is no causality in his assessment - just linking one set of numbers with another with no evidence showing there is a link between the two. (It's very poor research and I'm amazed Monash Uni has published it.) 

I suspect his article is an opportunistic attack through an opening made by the Chairman of the AFL Commission who has made his distaste for poker machines very public. 

 A very good post, which I'm sure will get lost with DaveyDee.

From what i have seen/read of it, the report is quite poor, for many of the reasons that you listed above.

The author is trying to link a 3.5% difference in domestic violence cases between different LGAs from the same region, with the fact that an AFL club/s have a venue with gaming machines in these areas.  Nowhere in the report have I seen information on the amount of gaming machines in each area, or further to that, how many bottle shops there are.

Given the geographical location of our venues, I Can't believe we are being dragged in to this argument... 

 

  On 04/03/2018 at 22:57, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The author of the Monash study is a well-known anti-pokies advocate, Charles Livingstone. He has linked family violence with AFL pokies venues solely on the basis that there are rates of higher family violence recorded in the same locations as there are AFL pokies venues. There is no causality in his assessment - just linking one set of numbers with another with no evidence showing there is a link between the two. (It's very poor research and I'm amazed Monash Uni has published it.) 

I suspect his article is an opportunistic attack through an opening made by the Chairman of the AFL Commission who has made his distaste for poker machines very public. 

Ok so now its clear cut a revenue stream is clearly on the outer, its a matter of when not if, again as I said on the very first post. 

Again , I appreciate everybody bumping the thread but hopefully we get back to the topic seeking alternatives. But then again if it prompts somebody with a great idea to direct contact the club I'm more than happy with that. 

  On 04/03/2018 at 23:31, DaveyDee said:

 

Ok so now its clear cut a revenue stream is clearly on the outer, its a matter of when not if, again as I said on the very first post. 

Again , I appreciate everybody bumping the thread but hopefully we get back to the topic seeking alternatives. But then again if it prompts somebody with a great idea to direct contact the club I'm more than happy with that. 

It all just goes over your head doesn’t it...

  On 04/03/2018 at 23:31, DaveyDee said:

 

Ok so now its clear cut a revenue stream is clearly on the outer, its a matter of when not if, again as I said on the very first post. 

Again , I appreciate everybody bumping the thread but hopefully we get back to the topic seeking alternatives. But then again if it prompts somebody with a great idea to direct contact the club I'm more than happy with that. 

Not necessarily. Just because the Chairman doesn't like pokies, it doesn't mean all the clubs will get out of the pokies business. The ALP just lost an election in Tassie where their biggest policy idea seemed to be removing pokies from all pubs and clubs. I'm not sure the wider community agrees with the AFL Chairman or the Tassie ALP.  And while there is still community support, I expect some clubs will continue to offer the product. 

  On 04/03/2018 at 23:48, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not necessarily. Just because the Chairman doesn't like pokies, it doesn't mean all the clubs will get out of the pokies business. The ALP just lost an election in Tassie where their biggest policy idea seemed to be removing pokies from all pubs and clubs. I'm not sure the wider community agrees with the AFL Chairman or the Tassie ALP.  And while there is still community support, I expect some clubs will continue to offer the product. 

Not a problem! Then an alternative source of income is just a pure bonus to help us further build our FD

look forward to your ideas on that topic

  On 04/03/2018 at 23:35, Sir Why You Little said:

It all just goes over your head doesn’t it...

Nah he's deliberately obfuscating. Wilful ignorance I guess you could call it.

  On 05/03/2018 at 01:10, Dr. Gonzo said:

Nah he's deliberately obfuscating. Wilful ignorance I guess you could call it.

Hmm not sure. He has been hanging around this site for years on & off

Strange one

  On 05/03/2018 at 01:10, Dr. Gonzo said:

Nah he's deliberately obfuscating. Wilful ignorance I guess you could call it.

The person is a troll and a Richmond supporter ... said person comes here from time to time and deliberately tries to undermine our club and our supporters. 

Eventually he/she gets banned and then reappears under another guise down the track.

  On 04/03/2018 at 22:57, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I suspect his article is an opportunistic attack through an opening made by the Chairman of the AFL Commission who has made his distaste for poker machines very public. 

I wouldn’t put too much store in what Goyder says ldc; he was also publicly critical of pokies when he was head of Wesfarmers, but never did anything about it.

Then, as now, he was paying lip service to the issue, and most people, aside from Davey Dee, can see through the spin and window-dressing. 

The notion that some clubs have agreed - in principle - to get rid of their pokies is laughable, a bit like the time I decided - in principle - to give all my money to charity.

  On 05/03/2018 at 02:29, Grapeviney said:

I wouldn’t put too much store in what Goyder says ldc; he was also publicly critical of pokies when he was head of Wesfarmers, but never did anything about it.

Then, as now, he was paying lip service to the issue, and most people, aside from Davey Dee, can see through the spin and window-dressing. 

The notion that some clubs have agreed - in principle - to get rid of their pokies is laughable, a bit like the time I decided - in principle - to give all my money to charity.

Think you will find Collingwood are a long way down the track to selling their machines - 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pies-close-in-on-ground-breaking-deal-to-sell-pokies-to-racing-club-20180215-p4z0ic.html

Yes, but Im sure aside from me that is just more "spin" - but I respect your right as a mod to critique whoever you see fit. 

Dont say you did not hear it here first, Collingwood, Geelong, Richmond & Bulldogs are out. 

Essendon & St Kilda - I cant say for sure, but I suspect Essendon will not want to further upset the AFL, and Saints are so heavily funded by AFL I suspect they will follow suit. 

That leaves 3 teams - not much of a majority -  Hawthorn & MFC - tad more difficult here - time and alternative sources of income are the issues 

Blues - I'm split on this one but i suspect the favourable fixture and new stadium deals are "sweetners" to get the deal done. 

  Quote

While Collingwood has commercial reasons for looking to sell the two gaming venues, there is no question that the prospect of the competition's highest-profile club selling out of poker machines will delight the AFL hierarchy.

 

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:10, daisycutter said:

 

Umm let me see they are making a loss?

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:13, old dee said:

Umm let me see they are making a loss?

iirc they did well with that port melbourne pub too, didn't they?

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:10, daisycutter said:

 

Maybe Doctor Who has put in a very lucrative offer that even Eddie cannot ignore....

It’s got me stuffed. How can the AFL be anti pokies while simultaneously vigorously embracing football betting? It seems so hypocritical. What am I missing?

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:35, fndee said:

It’s got me stuffed. How can the AFL be anti pokies while simultaneously vigorously embracing football betting? It seems so hypocritical. What am I missing?

Exactly. It’s the same thing

both are betting on an outcome. 

The last time i went to a live game the constant advertising of betting made me sick. 

Around the fence and the scoreboard...

 

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:35, fndee said:

It’s got me stuffed. How can the AFL be anti pokies while simultaneously vigorously embracing football betting? It seems so hypocritical. What am I missing?

Excellent point but the cynical might suggest as follows:

Pokies benefit some clubs and the victims are the "Aussie Battlers" who the AFL pretend to support while lapping at the corporate trough.... betting benefits the AFL through endorsements and increased TV rights etc and while perceived as a problem is not as insidious as pokies. (Given time it may well become so.)

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:42, Diamond_Jim said:

Excellent point but the cynical might suggest as follows:

Pokies benefit some clubs and the victims are the "Aussie Battlers" who the AFL pretend to support while lapping at the corporate trough.... betting benefits the AFL through endorsements and increased TV rights etc and while perceived as a problem is not as insidious as pokies. (Given time it may well become so.)

Yes its like Heroin and Methadone

one has a worse name than the other, but they are both very dangerous. 

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:35, fndee said:

It’s got me stuffed. How can the AFL be anti pokies while simultaneously vigorously embracing football betting? It seems so hypocritical. What am I missing?

Where did you get that notion? Nay its all just lip-service - nothing to worry about the clubs poker machine revenues are all fine. ( ???? ) 

But if just on the off chance you are all wrong and DaveyDee is right - an alternative income stream idea would be awesome. 

  On 23/11/2017 at 01:17, DaveyDee said:

WOW - just for the record it was not a "business proposal" - it was an idea.

I'm not wedded to the idea. So far my fav is "unique MFC gear" I would wear that - hell Id even spend money on it.  

Yeah lets get back to - complaining about the fixture, the clash jumper, CC or BP - its much more fun. If you dont like the thread dont post in it, ignore it. 

Well posited. So many responses on DL resort to personal attacks rather than comments and thoughts to stimulate discussion, not abuse or worse. Opinions are rightly held freely and put forward so that others may agree or disagree and this enables to reader/thinker to digest and comment without abuse or directed venom. The quality of the writing can make it difficult for some to rise above the former two observations but these also provide indicators of who might well be largely ignored, in future. DDee, your idea was well put and so is your stance. Persist.

 

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:51, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes its like Heroin and Methadone

one has a worse name than the other, but they are both very dangerous. 

Agree with sentiment but after losing a nephew to heroin addiction I am not sure I can agree with the analogy.

Let's challenge the clubs and the players to using the next increase in TV rights to eliminate sports betting and pokies. I believe the clubs know they have a tiger by the tail in the form of pokies and are desperate to find a way to get off their addiction. Not so sure about the AFL and their new found friends at the betting shops.

  On 05/03/2018 at 04:01, Deemania since 56 said:

Well posited. So many responses on DL resort to personal attacks rather than comments and thoughts to stimulate discussion, not abuse or worse. Opinions are rightly held freely and put forward so that others may agree or disagree and this enables to reader/thinker to digest and comment without abuse or directed venom. The quality of the writing can make it difficult for some to rise above the former two observations but these also provide indicators of who might well be largely ignored, in future. DDee, your idea was well put and so is your stance. Persist.

 

Deemania we are resilient for a reason, we have won the heart of our CEO for that very reason. Some of us will never give up on this great club, we refuse to pick fights with the AFL, we refuse to pick fights with our CEO and board, we will support our coaches and administration staff in a positive manner irrespective of whom they might be.   Every player past and present gets our support ( yes, even reluctantly T Scully ) - we seek an innovative positive culture and I look forward to Demonland contributing with a few positive ideas. 

I love the direction Demonland is heading with the Podcasts - removing the AFL media filter- sorry I have no time for the AFL media. 

Go Dees

  On 04/03/2018 at 22:11, DaveyDee said:

If you are implying Monash University are "agenda pushers" and clearly discrediting their reputation - That is a comment you need to direct towards The Chazz - who bumped the thread.

But it is an interesting twist in your line of discussion - first you where of the opinion that the mere existence of a report was "laughable" now you are discrediting the institutions themselves. 

I'm personally more than comfortable with our association with Educational Institutions - as I said to The Chazz. 

 

Finally, now its clear what is up for discussion. Hopefully we can get back on topic and find ways to deliver alternative revenue streams. Sorry, to repeat myself, I dont care if they stay or go. 

Look forward to reading your ideas on growing our revenue streams. 

Nah, I've never heard of a member of an educational institution undertaking a study to push an agenda 

Ensuring you get the outcome you want is easy if you fix the parameters of your research - for example looking at the impact of AFL club owned pokies on domestic violence rather than pokies in general. Of course you're gonna get the outcome you want if you limit the extent of your study to such an extent. And no, I don't think any institution is above reproach or questioning.

I found it laughable that such a report would exist - I still do.

Revenue stream options are limited. Sponsorship, memberships, game day revenue, AFL dividends, merchandise. Unless the club really wants to branch out into external business operations (something which has been done at the Leighoak club and has been met with questionable success by other clubs and pro sports teams) then the most they can hope for is on field success, favourable fixtures and and growing the supporter base. Other ideas like an online "business directory" are extremely questionable whether they would offer any benefit and even if they do it would be a drop in the ocean.

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:01, DaveyDee said:

Think you will find Collingwood are a long way down the track to selling their machines - 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pies-close-in-on-ground-breaking-deal-to-sell-pokies-to-racing-club-20180215-p4z0ic.html

Yes, but Im sure aside from me that is just more "spin" - but I respect your right as a mod to critique whoever you see fit. 

Dont say you did not hear it here first, Collingwood, Geelong, Richmond & Bulldogs are out. 

Essendon & St Kilda - I cant say for sure, but I suspect Essendon will not want to further upset the AFL, and Saints are so heavily funded by AFL I suspect they will follow suit. 

That leaves 3 teams - not much of a majority -  Hawthorn & MFC - tad more difficult here - time and alternative sources of income are the issues 

Blues - I'm split on this one but i suspect the favourable fixture and new stadium deals are "sweetners" to get the deal done. 

So Collingwood sells their pokies licensed to a racing club and the benefit to the community is????

Again, if idiots are going to pump money into electronic tax machines I'd rather it goes to the MFC than a racing club or some other nefarious operation.

  On 05/03/2018 at 03:35, fndee said:

It’s got me stuffed. How can the AFL be anti pokies while simultaneously vigorously embracing football betting? It seems so hypocritical. What am I missing?

Everything the AFL Commission and Executive do is an attempt to monopolise the sport from grass roots to the AFL. 

The AFL itself does not benefit from pokies that I know of. They DO benefit from betting company sponsorships. 

Clubs benefit from pokies revenue and strengthens their financial positions which the AFL does not like. The AFL would rather clubs stay on the teat so they don't question the AFL whenever they try to implement another half arsed idea, don't question the AFLs restraint of trade on clubs by handicapping them financially with the fixture etc

If the AFL forces us to get rid of our pokies licenses (something which they cannot really do without coercion) then I would tell them fine, you make up the shortfall and by the way we're not playing in NT anymore so you can cover that too with better fixturing.