SANFL at risk of pokies ruin

[jim5112]

I certainly do not want my club earning revenue from people with a gambling problem.

I totally agree

[CENTURION]

they have "bouncers" that stop you from drinking too much, why not have the same people in the pokies rooms?

[Mr Irate]

[quote="Mark_Beswick"].......

About time australians become responsible for themselves and stop looking to blame others for their predicaments.

.......
quote]


This ^

[Barto]

they have "bouncers" that stop you from drinking too much, why not have the same people in the pokies rooms?

Any excuse for a scuffle.

[sjt]

Why doesn't the Government, just reduce the amount of tax they charge on the club's poker machines? Reduce it to a level, that enables no community club to be worse off.

[therisingblues]

Where do you stop in banning things from people because it might harm them?

Not sure but I think part of it involves the risk that the person poses to the wider community as a result of harming themselves. A family could be blameless in the bread-winner's problem of pouring their food money into a pokie machine, yet they also have to go without because he (or she) yet again failed to hit the jackpot.
Consider the real life problem of second or third generation unemployed people and the strain they place on social services and you can see how ignorance, or non-constructive behaviour passed down by role models within families can burden the community as a whole. Am I stretching it to suggest that pokie addiction could be one of those behaviours?
I reckon there'd be people who write reports the length of books about the repercussions of pokie addiction on the community in general. I guess that a large part of them would be devoted to the damage caused to others besides the addicted individual.

[JK]

Where do you stop in banning things from people because it might harm them?

Not sure but I think part of it involves the risk that the person poses to the wider community as a result of harming themselves. A family could be blameless in the bread-winner's problem of pouring their food money into a pokie machine, yet they also have to go without because he (or she) yet again failed to hit the jackpot.
Consider the real life problem of second or third generation unemployed people and the strain they place on social services and you can see how ignorance, or non-constructive behaviour passed down by role models within families can burden the community as a whole. Am I stretching it to suggest that pokie addiction could be one of those behaviours?
I reckon there'd be people who write reports the length of books about the repercussions of pokie addiction on the community in general. I guess that a large part of them would be devoted to the damage caused to others besides the addicted individual.

I reckon that's all fair enough mate, I truly dont argue with it .. I just have trouble working out how things like Alcohol abuse and problem gambling (via non-poker machine methods) are treated as poorer cousins with regard to addressing the problems they cause .. Just seems very inconsistent to me.

[Brucetiki]

Where do you stop in banning things from people because it might harm them?

Not sure but I think part of it involves the risk that the person poses to the wider community as a result of harming themselves. A family could be blameless in the bread-winner's problem of pouring their food money into a pokie machine, yet they also have to go without because he (or she) yet again failed to hit the jackpot.
Consider the real life problem of second or third generation unemployed people and the strain they place on social services and you can see how ignorance, or non-constructive behaviour passed down by role models within families can burden the community as a whole. Am I stretching it to suggest that pokie addiction could be one of those behaviours?
I reckon there'd be people who write reports the length of books about the repercussions of pokie addiction on the community in general. I guess that a large part of them would be devoted to the damage caused to others besides the addicted individual.

I reckon that's all fair enough mate, I truly dont argue with it .. I just have trouble working out how things like Alcohol abuse and problem gambling (via non-poker machine methods) are treated as poorer cousins with regard to addressing the problems they cause .. Just seems very inconsistent to me.

Was about to say the same myself

[CENTURION]

stop them from putting it in pokies, they will then spend it on drugs, grog, bingo tickets, the TAB, bugger them. survival of the fittest, they will learn the hard way.

[Grahaml]

The new law as I understand it only requires gamblers to set their limits before they gamble. Unless there's some limit to that all it makes people do is be able to put a limit on their losses. If someone really wants to regulate their own losses as they go they can set some crazy amount like $50k.

But if all that is true, and clubs are still trying to claim their revenue will halve, then they are surely admitting that half their revenue is money the gamblers didn't want to lose. That is frightening and certainly doesn't reflect an environment where the clubs help their own problem gamblers.

The new laws are fantastic as I understand them. We should all be embracing them as I can only see them being good and common sense. So long as they are implemented correctly of course.

[MatteeG]

The introduction of pokies in SA was a complete balls up from the start when they were allowed into virtually every drinking venue when it should have been community clubs first.

Thumbs up Barto- totally agree...

[Psyber]

The introduction of pokies in SA was a complete balls up from the start when they were allowed into virtually every drinking venue when it should have been community clubs first.

Thumbs up Barto- totally agree...

Everybody thinks they should have had first go at, and maybe exclusive possession of, the money making machines.
In fact they should never have been allowed into the state unless the state owned them and got all the profits in return for cutting state taxes.
[They could have been put on street corners next to the state owned recreational drug dispensing machines. ]

[JK]

The new law as I understand it only requires gamblers to set their limits before they gamble. Unless there's some limit to that all it makes people do is be able to put a limit on their losses. If someone really wants to regulate their own losses as they go they can set some crazy amount like $50k.

But if all that is true, and clubs are still trying to claim their revenue will halve, then they are surely admitting that half their revenue is money the gamblers didn't want to lose. That is frightening and certainly doesn't reflect an environment where the clubs help their own problem gamblers.

The new laws are fantastic as I understand them. We should all be embracing them as I can only see them being good and common sense. So long as they are implemented correctly of course.

Good post mate

[therisingblues]

Where do you stop in banning things from people because it might harm them?

Not sure but I think part of it involves the risk that the person poses to the wider community as a result of harming themselves. A family could be blameless in the bread-winner's problem of pouring their food money into a pokie machine, yet they also have to go without because he (or she) yet again failed to hit the jackpot.
Consider the real life problem of second or third generation unemployed people and the strain they place on social services and you can see how ignorance, or non-constructive behaviour passed down by role models within families can burden the community as a whole. Am I stretching it to suggest that pokie addiction could be one of those behaviours?
I reckon there'd be people who write reports the length of books about the repercussions of pokie addiction on the community in general. I guess that a large part of them would be devoted to the damage caused to others besides the addicted individual.

I reckon that's all fair enough mate, I truly dont argue with it .. I just have trouble working out how things like Alcohol abuse and problem gambling (via non-poker machine methods) are treated as poorer cousins with regard to addressing the problems they cause .. Just seems very inconsistent to me.

I was thinking of a story I read by Stephen King recently when I wrote this; "Mute" a story of a frustrated husband whose wife embezzeled tens of thousands from her company so she could purchase lottery tickets. Apparently inspired by a true story. Incredible stuff IMO.
But I don't really spend enough time on the net to understand about the issues you mentioned, and most things are different here in Japan, I couldn't comment.

[Dog_ger]

Lets get rid of pokies.

They are the cancer of this century.

Any Millionair's out there from playing the pokies?

Comment Mr Grant.

Comment Mr SANFL....

Comment Mike Rann

Or maybe we should take the suckers for all they are worth...

Great for community football.

Indocrinate your children at under 5's

Lets play Footy.

[Dog_ger]

stop them from putting it in pokies, they will then spend it on drugs, grog, bingo tickets, the TAB, bugger them. survival of the fittest, they will learn the hard way.

Only at the Centrals Club hey Centurion....

What about the electricity/power/water/rates/food/childrens school bill

Mum, I need a new pair of shoes...?

Does Mr Grant Care..?

Does centurion Care..?

[TimmiesChin]

SANFL club expenditure needs to be considered as well.

Or simply the number of teams, revenue streams from the Crows and Power go better into 8 as opposed to 9.

They shouldn't be relying on AFL revenue either, they should be relying on the revenue that their product generates.

I agree with those that consider pokies should only be in clubs, but too late for that now.

But ultimately the SANFL club spending seems to be well above what the game is generating, hence the dividends from the AFL clubs, which in turn hurts the AFL clubs and will have impact in the future. I think the SANFL comp. should stop trying to be the second best comp in Australia and instead live within their means.

[CENTURION]

stop them from putting it in pokies, they will then spend it on drugs, grog, bingo tickets, the TAB, bugger them. survival of the fittest, they will learn the hard way.

Only at the Centrals Club hey Centurion....

What about the electricity/power/water/rates/food/childrens school bill

Mum, I need a new pair of shoes...?

Does Mr Grant Care..?

Does centurion Care..?

you can't save people from themselves, just like people will always die from car crashes. while there are pokies, there are gamblers, while there are ciggies, there are people dying from cancer, while there are cars, peole will die from car crashes. unless you ban everything deemed to be bad, bad things will happen. welcome to the freekin real world.

[Dutchy]

Maybe this might see the clubs focusing on other revenue streams and be not so reliant on Pokies?

Are they afraid of hard work to make other revenue?

Pokies $ has been too easy for too long, anything that protects the addicts is good news IMO

[Big Phil]

Maybe this might see the clubs focusing on other revenue streams and be not so reliant on Pokies?

Are they afraid of hard work to make other revenue?

Pokies $ has been too easy for too long, anything that protects the addicts is good news IMO

Excuse my ignorance, but what did clubs do to raise revenue before pokies came along?

And what suggestions would you (other posters included) put forward as revenue raising possibilities for clubs to perhaps focus on?