SANFL at risk of pokies ruin

[LBT]

One problem that may be faced by the Footy clubs is that most hotels use the obscene money that they make from pokies to subsidise cheap meals and drinks, making it more attractive to customers to go there rather than the bistro/bar at their local SANFL club. The sooner that some sort of compulsary smart card is brought in to attempt to limit the amount of money spent by addicts in particular the better. It is a depresssing state of affairs i must admit. Arriving at work (a hotel) and seeing people in the gaming room at 9am when I open the bottlo and then the same people still there at 6pm when I go and have a beer, often on the same machine is an eye opener.

[HOORAY PUNT]

I agree Dutchy and I said in another topic that pokies a short sighted and that clubs need to look at other ways to make money .

They are anti social and if clubs have not been thinking of other revenue streams over the last few years then I question those in charge as this has been an issue for a while . Its just been money for jam for some clubs and they have taken it for granted. I certainly dont want to see any club go to the wall but I do want to see clubs think of other ways to make money.

[HOORAY PUNT]

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?

Well the game changed didn't it , AFL came to town and took crowds , sponsorship, membership , licensed venues suffered etc etc.

There are planty of money makers , a lot of franchises that clubs can look into. I know a couple were looking at the Mortgage Broking business for a while as an example.

[Sojourner]

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?

I would advise each of the SANFL Presidents to go spend a week with the Penrith Panthers Leagues Club and look at what they did to invest their income streams, buy further gaming facilities and other businesses like motels and so on and suggest that the SANFL do likewise. If the individual clubs cant do it on their own, then go into together, buy a prospective business, be it a Hungry Jacks / Sports Store franchise or whatever and split the coin nine ways - a pub in the city run like a players bar concept would be a fairly good start IMO.

[Hazydog]

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?

Mainly Sponsorship, Memberships & Gate money Phil. But that dried up dramatically when the AFL hit town and most clubs were on their knees. The pokies enabled clubs to recover somewhat to where they are today.

[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

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?

Any business that relies heavily on one income stream exposes itself to massive problems, due to contracts, legislations, enviroment etc.

Good businesses have diverse income streams.

Some clubs have very good reception/conference rooms that generate few $$$, this could easily be increased with more promotion. When you see some CBD rooms being hired out at $800 a day the potential is enormous.

Glenelg previously have invested into real estate.

I think pokies have saved the day for many clubs but like those that use them many clubs have become addicted to the income they bring and been lazy in many respects on looking at external options.

[Barto]

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?

Mainly Sponsorship, Memberships & Gate money Phil. But that dried up dramatically when the AFL hit town and most clubs were on their knees. The pokies enabled clubs to recover somewhat to where they are today.

Possibly a too simplistic view. Certainly clubs like Centrals managed to profit but others were almost put to the wall with false promises of decent returns from their large capital investments in the machines themselves.

[Hazydog]

Agreed Barto - although it seems to me that the clubs who didnt do well out of the pokies put that down to poor location of their licensed premises more than anything and relocated them to more suitable venues. Sturt & WWT being 2 examples.

[on the rails]

Agreed Barto - although it seems to me that the clubs who didnt do well out of the pokies put that down to poor location of their licensed premises more than anything and relocated them to more suitable venues. Sturt & WWT being 2 examples.

I think you need to include North in that as we were the "pioneers" of moving from a poor location (back St of Prospect) to a main road location which is essentially what saved the club, the appeal from the Northern Tavern against the Sefton Park operation also helped as we ended buying the Tavern and relocating our original 40 machines to Grand North and doubling income - although the debt at that stage was over $5.4 million in loans. Both North's Gaming venues are doing very very well however the proposed changes will slow income and debt reduction no doubt.

As for other business ventures to invest in - all clubs would need to borrow tp purchase or set up and the banks would need to be certain that the income could pay the borrowings and things like bars can be very fickle indeed.

Have to laugh though that the SANFL directed clubs not to rely soley on gaming revnue and seek other income sources and when it looked like the NAFC was going to buy a half share of Adelaide United, the SANFL went "ballistic". I don't think it is overly happy that North have a Management / Share arrangement as it now stands. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[jamdog]

There are some good points being made, however there are some ridiculous ones too.

1. Other revenue streams.
Sponsorship make up a large portion of most clubs income. This is getting harder and harder fo some businesses to commmit significant money too. Many clubs would have had a reduction in the last couple of years due to GFC concerns.
Other revenue streams could involve setting up small/medium businesses. But clubs are here to run football both at league level through to community level. Why should they then diversify in to other areas running other business that they may have no skill set in. Some clubs struggle to run the football side efficiently. Dont make them start other potential businesses that could end up putting further strain on resources.

2. Imposed gambling limit. Smart Card
How does the card work. Is it based on the coins you put through the machine or on the turn over of the machine.
If you put $20.00 in a machine and while playing that $20 you only spend $10 and win $50 so collect $60. You then go to another machine and put all you $60 form the last machine. What is your spent at, is it now at $10 because you won and have only really spent $10. Is it at the $80, because you have effectively put $80 through the coin slot. It may be that your credit meter ws going up and down before you collected the $60, so your turnover on the machines may be in excess of $100 if you win $5 here and there but continue to play.

3. Imposing limits on harm related activities.
Should we have a card to limit you to only being allowed to buy 1 packet of cigarettes a week. When you walk in to the bar you must take a card and have it stamped every time you buy a drink. You are only allowed to have 2 drinks a day.

No one wants to see any one harmed through gambling or any other addiction. But we don't live in a dictatorial country. The government are tying to controll what people do by stealth. If you think the Greens party who are pushing this reform our the best party to be deciding Australian's decision making I do feel for you.

[Grahaml]

2. Imposed gambling limit. Smart Card
How does the card work. Is it based on the coins you put through the machine or on the turn over of the machine.
If you put $20.00 in a machine and while playing that $20 you only spend $10 and win $50 so collect $60. You then go to another machine and put all you $60 form the last machine. What is your spent at, is it now at $10 because you won and have only really spent $10. Is it at the $80, because you have effectively put $80 through the coin slot. It may be that your credit meter ws going up and down before you collected the $60, so your turnover on the machines may be in excess of $100 if you win $5 here and there but continue to play.

3. Imposing limits on harm related activities.
Should we have a card to limit you to only being allowed to buy 1 packet of cigarettes a week. When you walk in to the bar you must take a card and have it stamped every time you buy a drink. You are only allowed to have 2 drinks a day.

How does the card work - I would assume it would merely keep a track of losses, and the limit was the amount you were willing to lose.

Imposing limits on harm related activities I have felt for a few years that Cigarettes will be banned within my lifetime. Given the danger, medical proof that any cause harm and the effects of passive smoking I think it's clear that no good comes of it, the bad is massive and the cost is astronomical. We get a lot of tax money from cigs, but I doubt it pays the extra cost of the health service. Not to mention if people quit smoking they'll spend money on other things so at least some of the tax revenue will be replaced by other tax revenue.

Alcohol, I'm not so sure will be banned, but quite probably will become more and more restricted. Maximum volumes per purchase and such measure will probably be brought in.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Not alot of thought went into that post Grahaml.

I'm sure smokers would love ciggies banned. They will still be able to get tobacco, and at cheaper tax free price. Grass, speed, ecstasy and coke are all banned as well. No shortage of those substances.

Alcohol was banned in the USA between 1920 to 1933. It was called the Prohibition Era. It was very unpopular and created more social problems.

[therisingblues]

................. proof that any cause harm and the effects of passive smoking I think it's clear that no good comes of it, the bad is massive and the cost is astronomical. We get a lot of tax money from cigs, but I doubt it pays the extra cost of the health service. Not to mention if people quit smoking they'll spend money on other things so at least some of the tax revenue will be replaced by other tax revenue.

I saw a Harvard University lecture on morals not long ago. The presenter put up a number of topics for discussion, one of which was the case of a Czeckoslovakian tobacco company that successfully argued in court, that cigarette smoking saves society money, by (now how can I put this?) cutting down on the number of people claiming old age benefits.

[Grahaml]

Not alot of thought went into that post Grahaml.

I'm sure smokers would love ciggies banned. They will still be able to get tobacco, and at cheaper tax free price. Grass, speed, ecstasy and coke are all banned as well. No shortage of those substances.

Alcohol was banned in the USA between 1920 to 1933. It was called the Prohibition Era. It was very unpopular and created more social problems.

How many people do you know who smoke as much grass as they do tobacco? To replace the amount of tobacco smoked we'd need half of Adelaide to start making it! And for people to decide there's enough money in it to risk jail time, the price will certainly go up from what it is now and by some margin. Ask your smoking buddies if they'd like to buy tobacco if it was the same price as any illegal drug.

I'm aware of prohibition. But nowhere did I suggest this would happen. Just that alcohol would begin to be more restricted. I love how people always bring up that when talking about banning booze though, as if the world were exactly the same now and everywhere as it was then. Don't forget that organised crime was rife as it was and would have found a way to make money another way if it wasn't trafficking alcohol. Plus it was a depression, something we rarely see in major economies anymore.

[Country Cousin]

A little voice inside my head keeps warning me to stay out of this. Unfortunately I never did take any notice of that. The problem I have with government intervention in areas such this, is the double standard applied to gambling. This opinion piece on Wordpress spells out my two bobs worth, if anyone is interested.

http://denscountry.wordpress.com/peters-view/