1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

Either is smoking. Would we like the club to sell cigarettes to make some money?

Cigarette advertising IS illegal though; if it were legal I'd be for it. Maybe we should forego our partnerships with The Sporting Globe, Tyrrell's Wines and Coca Cola as well. After all alcohol abuse and obesity are both highly detrimental factors in society so it would be hypocritical to profit from them.

It just seems to me that the club has found a better way to do business going forward.

I wouldn't be to worried about arguing the pros and cons of gambling revenue, as they have said it's not a core business.

Invest in what you know, seems that's what we are doing.

Jackson seems pretty astute to me, I can't see him giving away a revenue stream unless he has something to replace it that is at least on par and maybe better than what we have.

I'm really interested to see where this all leads...

Its a pretty bold move in the scheme of things, but very happy about it. Yes very interesting were future commercial interests will lie, maybe property?

Really proud of the Club for this.

Great news ,  being socially responsible is in line with our clubs approach to a family environment for all to enjoy . 

Im sure the occasional flutter is ok but the reality is different with problem gamblers ripping families apart and leaving kids hungry . 

Serious business if you have had any experience around this . 

Well played dees . 

Proud of the club on this front. It's blood money and we have chosen to rise above it.

I haven’t read this thread but I assume that the sentiment is positive, and I agree. I trust club management. 

But I have a strong family attachment to the Bentleigh Club I won’t go into detail here. I hope this decision doesn’t lead to the demise of this club. Too many strong and pleasant memories involved.

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

So all these machines are going to the tip ? 

Hahaha no way, they will still be in the community, just someone else will be getting the profit from them.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

no decent profits in selling smokes, wyl

Quite, that’s why clubs don’t bother. 

But choices can be made

3 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Oh I don't know, maybe any business that doesn't involve gambling.

Look fwd to your realistic list of businesses for the club to be involved in, It's not that easy you know....

1 hour ago, pineapple dee said:

Clint, are you kidding ???  Revenue from pokies goes to support hospitals , schools infrastructure and not to mention, support programs for people with gambling addictions.  

Pokies bring enormous flow on benefits to the community whilst safeguarding the interests of the vulnerable amongst us.

Furthermore each venue is obliged to demonstrate how some of their profits go to support local community groups.

That money would still go to schools, hospitals etc without pokies, it’s not like it would be saved under a mattress at home, it would be spent and go to state or federal revenues.

As others have said, pokies have been dragons solely to take your money. The fact governments allow them is nonsensical. 

It's quite extraordinary that the 2 clubs to exit gaming are actually amongst the poorest. Makes the decision even more impressive.

Other more financial clubs will need to follow through and do similar or hang their heads in shame.

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Look fwd to your realistic list of businesses for the club to be involved in, It's not that easy you know....

The club can invest their money in lots of things, do you really need a list of everything that isn’t gambling?

https://alignedleisure.com.au/

This is a Richmond non-gaming initiative that delivered $$ for them.....

Richmond have struck a lucrative deal to manage a string of leisure centres on Melbourne's south-east fringe, transforming the club's business plan and making it one of the most diversified in the AFL.

The deal, which will see the Tigers take the management rights of eight leisure centres in the Cardinia Shire for up to nine years, will add about 15 per cent revenue to Richmond's finances or about $5 million annually via a wholly owned subsidiary, Aligned Leisure.

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The club can invest their money in lots of things, do you really need a list of everything that isn’t gambling?

My point is its easy to say 'let's not take pokie revenue' but its much harder to find something to replace it that doesn't take a huge amount of funding, management time or acts as a distraction.

Richmond seem to have found one idea above but its pretty small beer.....

Were the moral crusaders up in arms when we took over these clubs ?

Many posters weren't around when we took over The Bentleigh Club's debts years ago, but many were.  I note the attached thread from 2010 doesn't have too many dissenters, although kudos for America de cali for expressing their concern, which wasn't one I shared.  In fact, there weren't many posts at all.

Seemingly, some of those who now laud this decision either didn't care at the time, or the dreaded pokies wasn't a popular enough cause.  

I'm glad some of you have now finally found your moral compass.  Such a popular thing to do in 2018.  

 

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Were the moral crusaders up in arms when we took over these clubs ?

Many posters weren't around when we took over The Bentleigh Club's debts years ago, but many were.  I note the attached thread from 2010 doesn't have too many dissenters, although kudos for America de cali for expressing their concern, which wasn't one I shared.  In fact, there weren't many posts at all.

Seemingly, some of those who now laud this decision either didn't care at the time, or the dreaded pokies wasn't a popular enough cause.  

I'm glad some of you have now finally found your moral compass.  Such a popular thing to do in 2018.  

 

The bottom line is that in 2010 the moral compass on Pokies was just gaining momentum. Woolworths etc were just beginning their immoral buying spree and the drastic effects on the impoverished were beginning to surface loud and screaming strong..

8 hours ago, Jaded said:

Jackson is a very smart operator as we know. I am 100% sure that he already has some revenue supplements lined up to replace pokies. 

There will be more sponsorship opportunities as a result, from “socially responsible” companies who wouldn’t sponsor clubs at the moment due to their involvement in gambling. 

Good on the club. 

Yep, this will align with corporate responsibility in many industries.

I'd be staggered if this decision was made without taking into account the positive package we can now pitch to potential corporates.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

It just seems to me that the club has found a better way to do business going forward.

I wouldn't be to worried about arguing the pros and cons of gambling revenue, as they have said it's not a core business.

Invest in what you know, seems that's what we are doing.

Jackson seems pretty astute to me, I can't see him giving away a revenue stream unless he has something to replace it that is at least on par and maybe better than what we have.

I'm really interested to see where this all leads...

Some good points.

In some ways a pragmatic move. The first few clubs who follw North's lead will get a reputational boost and their sponsors a positive reflection of sponsoring a forward thinking clubs. The middle tranche of clubs who move away from pokies will get less of positive media and reaction and the last few will be seen in a poor light for taking so long to react 

20 minutes ago, binman said:

Some good points.

In some ways a pragmatic move. The first few clubs who follw North's lead will get a reputational boost and their sponsors a positive reflection of sponsoring a forward thinking clubs. The middle tranche of clubs who move away from pokies will get less of positive media and reaction and the last few will be seen in a poor light for taking so long to react 

Fair points Bin, not disagreeing, but i just find it all so hypercritical for the AFL to be pumping Sports Betting ads every 3 minutes at our home games...

Maybe the AFL could ditch that Sponsorship and Gill ( who is looking more like a Thunderbird Super Marionette Puppet every time i see him!) can take a pay cut.....

57 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The club can invest their money in lots of things, do you really need a list of everything that isn’t gambling?

Yeah but there’s not too many others where suckers just hand over their hard earned for no real reason....  except maybe our memberships ?

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Were the moral crusaders up in arms when we took over these clubs ?

Many posters weren't around when we took over The Bentleigh Club's debts years ago, but many were.  I note the attached thread from 2010 doesn't have too many dissenters, although kudos for America de cali for expressing their concern, which wasn't one I shared.  In fact, there weren't many posts at all.

Seemingly, some of those who now laud this decision either didn't care at the time, or the dreaded pokies wasn't a popular enough cause.  

I'm glad some of you have now finally found your moral compass.  Such a popular thing to do in 2018.  

 

You don't think it reasonable that people's view might evolve as life experience grows? 2010 for me was 50% of my adult life ago and I can tell you that my knowledge on the topic at hand and desire to explore it was precisely zero.

We have a long way to go financially before we can afford to jump on the Virtue-Signal train.

All this will do is make us even MORE reliant on the AFL for coin. The League never does anything without expecting some sort of quid.pro-quo. Hope some of you are happy to get more Sunday arvo games, and home games against all the big clubs like GWS and Freo..All without us getting all whiny and making a fuss. Cant risk our head office funding and all that.

We cant expect any free favors from AFL house for being nice corporate citizens.

There had better be something in the pipeworks or this is a stupid idea.

 

The way I read Bartlett and PJ in that press conference is that this is directly related to our new facility. 

2 minutes ago, A F said:

The way I read Bartlett and PJ in that press conference is that this is directly related to our new facility. 

So we would be selling out to fund our new home?

Awesome, somewhere to call home permanently is long overdue.

How do we replace that income ? ( not just  question for you AF )