I worked in the racing industry for many years and still bet weekly. I love the game and hate the ads just as much as everyone else. I also bet on the footy as many do. 

The issue of the people that dictate what we should be doing or not with our lives is worse. The do-gooders of this world are the same type of people that "took the children away" in their era. The fact that anyone is so arrogant to think they live better, know better, are better, than others are quite possibly the worst people in the world.

All this report will be just like the billion dollar fining industry we have in this State. Its all based on "statistics of the dammed". ie they take their stats from the poor people out there who end up gambling their house away on pokies or unstable people who get behind the wheel of a car and destroy lives.

The end result is we see a different set of adds on tele. Nothing else changes. People still lose the plot and do bad things.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Gumments are addicted to raising revenue and can't live within their means.

Haha, not to open a can of worms, but you realise they're addicted to revenue because they're addicted to thinking of themselves as businesses, rather than governments. If you think federal revenue funds things, you think of tax as a revenue raiser.

As former RBA Governor Bernie Fraser once said "all this folksy nonsense about governments have to live within their means, governments have to behave like households and like businesses, that government spending is bad, deficits are bad, debt’s bad, all this to me is nonsense really, because governments are not like households, they’re not like businesses, they have responsibilities that go beyond".

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by A F

2 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

I worked in the racing industry for many years and still bet weekly. I love the game and hate the ads just as much as everyone else. I also bet on the footy as many do. 

The issue of the people that dictate what we should be doing or not with our lives is worse. The do-gooders of this world are the same type of people that "took the children away" in their era. The fact that anyone is so arrogant to think they live better, know better, are better, than others are quite possibly the worst people in the world.

All this report will be just like the billion dollar fining industry we have in this State. Its all based on "statistics of the dammed". ie they take their stats from the poor people out there who end up gambling their house away on pokies or unstable people who get behind the wheel of a car and destroy lives.

The end result is we see a different set of adds on tele. Nothing else changes. People still lose the plot and do bad things.

I get your point adults will always gamble and how much they gamble is clearly an important issue as well. My issue with the advertising has always been with how it normalises gambling for children.

It is 100% by design and is no different to how adults groom children for exploitation. 

It has to stop and the AFL need to remove themselves from any and all gambling revenue streams.  

20 minutes ago, Trisul said:

70% of a barrel of oil goes to products other than fuel.  Good luck living a modern life without them.

Regarding the report, it will be a challenge for the AFL but as noted they can just move on to another lobbiest captured industry.

Nowhere near as high it was back in the 1970s. Where's that stat of 70% come from?

And it needs to be a transition. Look up Just Transition. 

28 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Why does it take 4 years to implement a ban on this?

By that time a new federal government will be in.

What are the odds of them overruling this decision?

Dutton decided to do something remotely human and watched tv one night with his kids and saw a bunch of gambling ads that didn’t please him. So he’s actually on the record against it.

But the proposal was a staged introduction of restrictions which is totally reasonable.

Tearing up a bunch of ad contracts and a stack of people losing jobs isnt a fair thing to do. 

for me, the question is how does it effect TV rights revenue... surely most of  channel 7's afl add revenue comes from the gambling adds, which pays most of the 4.5 billion deal which is massive for the AFL

2 hours ago, Jibroni said:

I hope they do not raise membership fees to offset the loss of income.

That's a price I'm absolutely willing to pay to see the end of gambling advertisements 

2 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Sugar and junk food also cause harm to society. So what’s stopping the government taxing them? 

Many countries do

https://www.obesityevidencehub.org.au/collections/prevention/countries-that-have-implemented-taxes-on-sugar-sweetened-beverages-ssbs

3 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Be careful what you wish for… maybe fossil fuel companies next? 

I’d take it over gambling money. Only in the context of sponsors in sport and the flow in effect of that money. Maybe we could get some nuclear energy money flowing into the game. 

Player salaries could be cut

along with the ceo’s

i think sugar related advertising in an inapt comparison. Coca Cola hasn’t broken as many families up/ruined lives cf gambling has it 

Jesus if someone comes for my coke mixer I’ll be ropable 

3 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It’s such a huge problem. My 11 yo talks about the odds and multi’s. It is so disgusting how far the AFL and government has allowed this to grow in our community. Thankfully common sense has prevailed. 

Youre not wrong but i don't bet and I use odds as a means to determine likelihood of a certain result.

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

Nathan Brown just logged on to Seek.com

A bonus.

As a reformed addict who probably lost half a million dollars I can't wait for the day it is banned.   It ruined my life and marriage.     Just a terrible part of society.

 

As an aside a ad for crown came up on demonland came up so this place isn't immune 

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by ucanchoose

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. 

The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

Whatever the shortfall of the replacing advertising revenue, it is a lesser evil than 20% of users having their lives trashed. Just say no.

5 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

Nanny's prescribe sugar.

 

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. 

The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

Pretty sure the Saudis won't be backward in coming forward.

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by Queanbeyan Demon

2 hours ago, von said:

I’d take it over gambling money. Only in the context of sponsors in sport and the flow in effect of that money. Maybe we could get some nuclear energy money flowing into the game. 

I mean, if a super expensive energy source that has little chance of gaining a foothold here wants to throw money at AFL , go for it 

5 hours ago, A F said:

Let's hope so. Invest in renewable energy. A major driver of inflation over the past 2 years is the cartel behaviour of local providers, and the price setting power of the OPEC cartel.

Please tell me the cost to transition to renewables? This will be a massive inflationary event. Go do some homework on the matter 

1 hour ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

Whatever the shortfall of the replacing advertising revenue, it is a lesser evil than 20% of users having their lives trashed. Just say no.

20% of users lives trashed. Any chance of stats backing up those baseless claims? 

1 hour ago, ucanchoose said:

As a reformed addict who probably lost half a million dollars I can't wait for the day it is banned.   It ruined my life and marriage.     Just a terrible part of society.

 

As an aside a ad for crown came up on demonland came up so this place isn't immune 

Vices are everywhere.. you can’t ban all of them 

4 hours ago, Smokey said:

That's a price I'm absolutely willing to pay to see the end of gambling advertisements 

Speak for yourself 

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Federal Parliament's committee looking at online gambling has released its report today. In no surprise to anyone, it recommends a ban on all advertising and sponsorship, to be implemented over four years. I'm not particularly interested in prosecuting the argumenmt for or against the ban. What I am interested in is the effect of the lost revenue on the AFL, either as direct payments by betting companies or from reduced broadcast rights which are likely to follow. 

The AFL (or VFL) has previously had to manage when tobacco advertising and sponsorship was banned. But where's the replacement revenue going to come from this time? Different advertisers? Increased ground entry fees? Increased membership fees? Or will costs be cut, and if so, where? Player salaries?

The money will always come. It’s lame to suggest we need gambling advertising to pay for everything. Tobacco and cricket used the same rubbish argument years ago. These gambling companies are scum. Take a look at some of the stories about heavy problem gamblers being propped up by Sportsbet and the like and tell me they should be allowed to advertise. They can also pack up all the low life ex footballers like Daisy Thomas and send them off to the school of life for awhile. 

20 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Please tell me the cost to transition to renewables? This will be a massive inflationary event. Go do some homework on the matter 

Again, look up the Just Transition movement.

Provided the Commonwealth understands its fiscal, regulatory and legislative powers, there'll be no inflation.

Spending in of itself doesn't cause inflation. It's about the availability of real resources (labour, equipment, minerals etc). 

All spending public or private carries an inflation risk, but unlike private spending and consumption, the Commonwealth has levers like say taxation to free up resources. Federal taxation isn't a funding mechanism, it helps maintain the value of the currency and helps to manage resource space for expenditure.

I've had these arguments many times on Demonland and I think I'll leave it at that.

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by A F

13 minutes ago, A F said:

Again, look up the Just Transition movement.

Provided the Commonwealth understands its fiscal, regulatory and legislative powers, there'll be no inflation.

Spending in of itself doesn't cause inflation. It's about the availability of real resources (labour, equipment, minerals etc). 

All spending public or private carries an inflation risk, but unlike private spending and consumption, the Commonwealth has levers like say taxation to free up resources. Federal taxation isn't a funding mechanism, it helps maintain the value of the currency and helps to manage resource space for expenditure.

I've had these arguments many times on Demonland and I think I'll leave it at that.

There will be no inflation to build $400 Billion in new transition lines? That’s got to be the biggest laugh I’ve had all year. Stick to football mate 

6 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Sugar and junk food also cause harm to society. So what’s stopping the government taxing them? 

I am sure they would if they could - and probably will as soon as they figure out how to do so.  

Next - air??

6 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Be careful what you wish for… maybe fossil fuel companies next? 

Fuel taxes are a major revenue source already ... so, too late

5 hours ago, DubDee said:

Why does it take 4 years to implement a ban on this?

By that time a new federal government will be in.

What are the odds of them overruling this decision?

Will have to ask Nathan Brown or Dale Thomas to quote those odds.

Edited June 28, 20232 yr by monoccular