Gaming - we are out!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 minute ago, DemonAndrew said:

pre-emptive move - all clubs are preparing for the afl stopping clubs owning pokies licenses, whilst at the same time taking in excess of $10m from crownbet to be official wagering partner, plus all the residuals from the other gambling companies

the afl hypocritical? well, i never...

I would love the AFL and all sports to rid themselves of all gambling revenue and I appreciate that there is some hypocrisy here.

However, in my mind there is a slight difference between sports betting and pokies. At least sports betting has some skill involved, whereas pokies are machines that a designed so that over a period of time the user is guaranteed to lose money.

I'm not trying to defend sports betting (the over saturation of it makes my skin crawl) and I totally agree with your point, but pokies as a product offer its users no benefit at all.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Just announced - Leigh Oak sold & Bentleigh Club to give up gaming rights.

Do we own (and therefore are we selling) the LeighOak freehold or just the leasehold? 

[Deeoldfart 7,999]

I'm proud that our Club has a social conscience, and applaud this decision.  Too many lives and families are 'wrecked' by addiction to pokies.

[Willmoy1947 3,982]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Melbourne and Collingwood meeting the AFL right now apparently 

working out the alternatives....

Melbourne wood.......

[Gator 17,261]

6 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

I'm proud that our Club has a social conscience, and applaud this decision.  Too many lives and families are 'wrecked' by addiction to pokies.

Nothing will change, just the ownership.

[daisycutter 29,432]

5 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

I'm proud that our Club has a social conscience, and applaud this decision.  Too many lives and families are 'wrecked' by addiction to pokies.

that's true dof, but it doesn't mean there will be less gaming machines out there. the same number of lives and families will be wrecked. the licences will just end up owned by someone else

all it means is that the mfc won't be playing a part in it nor profiting from it 

 

[beelzebub 23,247]

Shuffling deckchairs

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

Very pleasing decision.

[Ouch! 2,215]

28 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I'm not trying to defend sports betting (the over saturation of it makes my skin crawl) and I totally agree with your point, but pokies as a product offer its users no benefit at all.

... and yet I defend people's right to play pokies if they so chose. I don't like that it's in all the pubs and clubs, and would prefer that it was in the Casinos. But I am also sick and tired of the way governments all over Australia are making us a nanny state. People have to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of things offer their users no benefit, but that doesn't mean you should ban it either.

It's a sad fact but I believe a lot of people would find another thing if it wasn't pokies. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people who have addictions as a responsible society, but banning something doesn't automatically solve the problem. These people could turn to internet gambling, and that's even less regulated and grey market without any of the 'levies and taxes' that come back into the Govt.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Ouch!

[Brownie 5,921]

it will be challenging but the right thing to do.

Go Dees

[Ethan Tremblay 30,415]

My Opa had a ball spending all of my inheritance on the pokies at the Bentleigh Club. He left me his walking stick though which is pretty sweet. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Demon trucker 1,800]

10 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

... and yet I defend people's right to play pokies if they so chose. I don't like that it's in all the pubs and clubs, and would prefer that it was in the Casinos. But I am also sick and tired of the way governments all over Australia are making us a nanny state. People have to be responsible for their own actions. A lot of things offer their users no benefit, but that doesn't mean you should ban it either.

It's a sad fact but I believe a lot of people would find another thing if it wasn't pokies. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people who have addictions as a responsible society, but banning something doesn't automatically solve the problem. These people could turn to internet gambling, and that's even less regulated and grey market without any of the 'levies and taxes' that come back into the Govt.

They don't have to  find  other forms of gambling , the most happiest people are Woolworths share holder, the pokies will still be at the Leigh club just different owners, this does nothing for problem gamblers, just puts money in a big companies bank account, the hawks will never get rid of their pokies, knowing Kennet the hawks might buy your licence.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,889]

53 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Please, what benefit to society do pokies bring?

Why does there need to be a benefit? 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,889]

31 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Nothing will change, just the ownership.

At least Moonee Valley Racing Club will pocket an extra $2 million a year.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

I hope everyone likes selling more home games

[beelzebub 23,247]

By all means get rid of the bandits, get rid of  "too easy" betting. Am all for it. Until you do ownership  , as in who, is somewhat irrelevant.

I hope as a club we don't suffer for our martyrdom.

[red and blue forever 942]

good move i think and it seems we have been sensible about it by giving ourselves 4 years to shift revenue streams before the machines are  removed from the Demons' books at the end of 2022.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,889]

If the club uses the money from the sale that they otherwise wouldn't have had to invest in other areas that will reap similar dividends and if they are able to lure sponsors on board that wouldn't have otherwise come then I have no issues with it.

If it puts a $2 million hole in our books every year it will be an idiotic move. This admin has the runs on the board so I'll hold my fire to see where this goes but it wouldn't surprise if they've been strong-armed by the AFL without having a real sense of how they will cover the loss of this revenue/profit.

[Deeoldfart 7,999]

28 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Nothing will change, just the ownership.

 

27 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

that's true dof, but it doesn't mean there will be less gaming machines out there. the same number of lives and families will be wrecked. the licences will just end up owned by someone else

all it means is that the mfc won't be playing a part in it nor profiting from it 

 

I agree 100% guys, but the key for me is encapsulated in daisy's final sentence. 

[red and blue forever 942]

1 hour ago, Eelesie said:

Makes a difference. Great from a social aspect but the obvious question remains - How to we supplement the revenue?

Gaming & Social Revenue                     

• Collingwood – $22,887,477
• Hawthorn –  $19,087,366
• Carlton – $18,825,869
• Brisbane – $15,687,630
• Essendon – $13,351,296
• Melbourne – $11,641,049
• Geelong – $10,537,358
• Richmond – $7,180,170
• Western Bulldogs – $7,061,232
• Port Adelaide – $6,784,180
• St Kilda – $1,934,045
• Gaming Profit
• Collingwood – $6,037,992
• Brisbane – $3,744,228
• Melbourne – $3,720,679
• Carlton – $3,169,884
• Essendon – $2,276,154
• Western Bulldogs – $1,390,994
• Richmond – $942,060
• St Kilda – $616,340
• Port Adelaide – $301,173
• Hawthorn – No costs available
• Geelong – no costs available

 

 

Melbourne – $3,720,679  

 

I assume this is the figure we will loose, we still should get the other 8 or so million from social revenue right..?.?

[bandicoot 1,395]

58 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

pre-emptive move - all clubs are preparing for the afl stopping clubs owning pokies licenses, whilst at the same time taking in excess of $10m from crownbet to be official wagering partner, plus all the residuals from the other gambling companies

the afl hypocritical? well, i never...

You can’t compare sports wagering and the pokies. The pokies are essentially programmed that you can’t beat the house. Sports wagering is a skill dependent on an ability to pick winners. The house just takes a % of the spread. 

[dieter 3,325]

1 minute ago, red and blue forever said:

Melbourne – $3,720,679  

 

I assume this is the figure we will loose, we still should get the other 8 or so million from social revenue right..?.?

Better to have lost your fortune rather than your soul...

[beelzebub 23,247]

1 minute ago, dieter said:

Better to have lost your fortune rather than your soul...

Shouldn't have though a team called Demons were much into the soul business  ?

Of course...there is Faust !! ?

Edited April 4, 2018 by beelzebub

[red and blue forever 942]

Just now, dieter said:

Better to have lost your fortune rather than your soul...

I agree totally,

 

I was just curious how much we need to make up with other revenue streams.

 

at least we have 4 years to work that out...

[Diamond_Jim 12,390]

Just now, bandicoot said:

You can’t compare sports wagering and the pokies. The pokies are essentially programmed that you can’t beat the house. Sports wagering is a skill dependent on an ability to pick winners. The house just takes a % of the spread. 

Mustn't be many people with the right skills then.

Let's face it .... the problem with sports betting is that it is now pervasive among the young (mainly males) following the game.

It will soon attract the same criticism that rightly we give to the pokies.