SA Footy

Mmmm, interesting...

From Localfootysa

Pokies reform destroying SANFL - By Miles Kemp

I think Nick X sums it up pretty well - "Like the smoking bans in pubs, there will be a reduction in revenue but if, as they say, they don't have problem gambling in their clubs because they intervene at a personal level to stop it, then measures to stop problem gambling won't affect them," Senator Xenophon said.

I would have an expectation that no SANFL club "relies" on funds from poker machines that come from people that are problem gamblers and as community clubs I would expect that they would personally intervene if the club became aware that someone was in fact gambling away what they could not afford in terms of their life savings or their mortgage or so on. No doubt the staff of the SANFL clubs are well aware of who their regulars are and no doubt what their situation is across how much coin they are putting into the machines.

It could well be though that the days of earnings through poker machines may not be the single revenue stream that the club relies upon to keep it solvent however and it may well be that other forms of revenue in terms of increased attendances and memberships are going to be vital along with other revenue streams in investment dividends to keep things going. There is nothing to stop the nine SANFL clubs going in together to buy businesses and running them as community clubs and splitting the revenue nine ways if needed for example. Simply put your head in the sand and do nothing and it could well be that natural selection occurs, its a matter for the boards of the club to be onto if that is the case.

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

Sojourner wrote:I would have an expectation that no SANFL club "relies" on funds from poker machines that come from people that are problem gamblers.

So why are Centrals and North freaking out so much then?

if clubs cant survive without pokies then bad luck, and that includes Glenelg

maybe it will make marketing depts do some work

PhilH wrote an article on this a few years ago if I remember correctly?

Tend to agree with Sojourner:

I would have an expectation that no SANFL club "relies" on funds from poker machines that come from people that are problem gamblers and as community clubs I would expect that they would personally intervene if the club became aware that someone was in fact gambling away what they could not afford in terms of their life savings or their mortgage or so on. No doubt the staff of the SANFL clubs are well aware of who their regulars are and no doubt what their situation is across how much coin they are putting into the machines

However, smac and CP have a good point in the Playford Alive thread. How much do you control people and at what point does it become the responsibility of the individual to make the right decision and either get help or suffer the consequences.

Provided that help is there (just in the form of a warning sign on a poker machine ala cigarette packets with a help line number should be suffice) I don't see an issue. Where do you stop in banning things from people because it might harm them?

Like it or not, pokies revenue is important to SANFL clubs.
It really depends on what the session limit is. It seems $100 being mooted.
If people want to give my SANFL club money through pokies, great, but I don't want my club having to rely on people who are, for whatever reason, are pumping excessive amounts through the pokies.
Perhaps these pokies clubs could bring in some more diverse entertainment?

Out comes the "chook" and "meat tray" raffles again!!!

topsywaldron wrote:

Sojourner wrote:I would have an expectation that no SANFL club "relies" on funds from poker machines that come from people that are problem gamblers.

So why are Centrals and North freaking out so much then?

I agree

I read my club's email to the members about this issue and simply couldn't accept or agree with it.

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.

Having said all that, I'd be disappointed if we're surviving on other people's misery. Too often in this world there are people and organisations who only care that they have money, not how they got it.

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

Probably a bit late for that fish.

Without the support of Hotels, clubs were never going to get pokies. At the end of the day, Hotels pay income tax and this goes back to the community.

Like it or not, the State Government reilies on this revenue (77% of the drop from pokies).

About time australians become responsible for themselves and stop looking to blame others for their predicaments. The more we try and save people from themselves, the more they rely on welfare and handouts. Its about being perosnally responsible. If the government is so worries, then welfare payments should be directed in food coupons or direct rental and utilities assistance.

If you had bought (and no I haven't) a business and spent an enormous amount of money on say gaming machines, you have borrowed sigbnificant sums based on a return. Your bank values your assets accordingly - Then how would you feel if the goalposts were changed. Suddenly, your assett is devlaued, your net return is dimininshed so you cut your labour. The Hotel sector are one of the biggest employers in the state. They complement the building sector with constant venue upgrades. Kiss all that goodbye. Many pubs will go under and so will many community clubs. Its always simpe to say get rid of them but the issues run a lot deeper.

When the State Government removed 8 pokies from each venue, NO pub or club was reimbursed. Each machine costs between 50 and 200,000 each. Imagine losing 8 machines. Then the knocks on the doors from banks who now say that your assett base in 1/5th lower and your gearing of debt is now a problem. THEN the SA Govt brought in a super tax (77%).

Now take the Casino in Adelaide = Owned by New Zealanders. No Super tax > No Limit to gaming machines in a venue > AND NOW they are going to be exempt again. I hope themonster clubs in NSW take on the governmebnt and win. Otherwise all community clubs, many local pubs and thoudands of jobs will go.

Mark_Beswick wrote:About time australians become responsible for themselves and stop looking to blame others for their predicaments. The more we try and save people from themselves, the more they rely on welfare and handouts. Its about being perosnally responsible. If the government is so worries, then welfare payments should be directed in food coupons or direct rental and utilities assistance.

Wonderful point. Although you'd expect the government would be handing out Woolworths and Coles vouchers in the way of food coupons.

I have an idea, I saw it once, it's called entertainment, such as live bands! I remember about 600 people jammed into The K9 Club one Sunday evening to watch Sharon O'Neill, wonder how much money We made THAT night?

SANFL followers its quite simple do you want your club to survive then unfortunately you will have have to put in a lazy $20 into the machine everytime you visit your club.
Since the Crows and Power have come onto the scene all local footy clubs have been stuffed and guess what money is required to keep them going, so to all the footy traitors who have turned their backs on your local clubs to go and follow the greedy insipid AFL its about time you all got back to your roots and maybe then there would not be a need for pokie machines to keep footy clubs afloat.

SANFL club expenditure needs to be considered as well.

Gravel wrote: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.

Does seem to be a damning over-reaction from the SANFL here. While it seems immoral for clubs and pubs to make their profits out of people who can least afford it, the proposed legislation seems a little bit that way too. Unless I've misinterpreted things, will all the clubs be directed to spend some of their profits on a device which will further reduce their profits?

Just read the comments on the story on the Advertiser website, if the SANFL were keen to get negative publicity its definitely worked, really smart move that now has the competition being ridiculed by a large number of posters. Looks like the majority appear to endorse and support Andrew Wilkie. Nice going SANFL...

Sojourner wrote:Just read the comments on the story on the Advertiser website, if the SANFL were keen to get negative publicity its definitely worked, really smart move that now has the competition being ridiculed by a large number of posters. Looks like the majority appear to endorse and support Andrew Wilkie. Nice going SANFL...

Great P.R exercise!!!!