Dogwatcher wrote:So, no gambling at all, dogger?
Why do we need it "Dogwatcher"

I am a no gambler.

by Dog_ger » Tue May 14, 2013 11:07 am
Dogwatcher wrote:So, no gambling at all, dogger?
by tipper » Tue May 14, 2013 11:21 am
by JK » Tue May 14, 2013 12:13 pm
Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Who is right "on the rails".
Me or You...?![]()
No club is worth the demise of its community.
And that is what will happen through gambling.
The gambling will continue anyway, only via ventures that DON'T put back into their community, unlike the sporting clubs.
Please explain venues putting back into the community through poker machines...?
Like more poker machines..,..
by Dog_ger » Tue May 14, 2013 12:23 pm
JK wrote:Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:Dog_ger wrote:Who is right "on the rails".
Me or You...?![]()
No club is worth the demise of its community.
And that is what will happen through gambling.
The gambling will continue anyway, only via ventures that DON'T put back into their community, unlike the sporting clubs.
Please explain venues putting back into the community through poker machines...?
Like more poker machines..,..
A portion of revenue is returned to grassroots football clubs within the zone, other affiliated sporting clubs and as OTR has said some bodies that aren't even affiliated.
What portion of $$ is returned to community groups from the Casino, or hotels owned by business groups that have shareholders?
by JK » Tue May 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:
The gambling will continue anyway, only via ventures that DON'T put back into their community, unlike the sporting clubs.
Please explain venues putting back into the community through poker machines...?
Like more poker machines..,..
A portion of revenue is returned to grassroots football clubs within the zone, other affiliated sporting clubs and as OTR has said some bodies that aren't even affiliated.
What portion of $$ is returned to community groups from the Casino, or hotels owned by business groups that have shareholders?
Is it $2.50 out of every $100? For Grassroots Footy, or less?
by tipper » Tue May 14, 2013 12:51 pm
Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:Dog_ger wrote:JK wrote:
The gambling will continue anyway, only via ventures that DON'T put back into their community, unlike the sporting clubs.
Please explain venues putting back into the community through poker machines...?
Like more poker machines..,..
A portion of revenue is returned to grassroots football clubs within the zone, other affiliated sporting clubs and as OTR has said some bodies that aren't even affiliated.
What portion of $$ is returned to community groups from the Casino, or hotels owned by business groups that have shareholders?
Is it $2.50 out of every $100? For Grassroots Footy, or less?
by RB » Tue May 14, 2013 12:54 pm
by Dogwatcher » Tue May 14, 2013 1:13 pm
RB wrote:It would be a shame if there were no better ways of obtaining money for grassroots football than to use pokies to suck money out of people in footy clubs. Either way, I think we can all agree that the Sanfl clubs need to find ways to reduce their reliance on poker machines, preferably to the point of not needing them at all.
by RB » Tue May 14, 2013 1:15 pm
by CENTURION » Tue May 14, 2013 3:18 pm
tipper wrote:so because you dont do do something, no one else can either? so we should all stop making sense as well then?
by SDK » Tue May 14, 2013 6:12 pm
by Barto » Tue May 14, 2013 6:30 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:RB wrote:It would be a shame if there were no better ways of obtaining money for grassroots football than to use pokies to suck money out of people in footy clubs. Either way, I think we can all agree that the Sanfl clubs need to find ways to reduce their reliance on poker machines, preferably to the point of not needing them at all.
I agree but I'd rather have the pokies in the hands of community clubs than the pokie barons - Woolies and Coles etc.
by topsywaldron » Tue May 14, 2013 6:36 pm
by CENTURION » Tue May 14, 2013 6:56 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Who'd a thunk demography would have an impact on Centrals flag chances.
by wild dog » Tue May 14, 2013 10:04 pm
topsywaldron wrote:Wasn't this article just another forum for Kris Grant to moan about how he's not very good at his job any more? Been a few of those recently.
by LPH » Tue May 14, 2013 10:08 pm
SDK wrote:Non profit sporting clubs should not be taxed anyway. Would the Government tax a church ? What is the difference ?
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue May 14, 2013 10:14 pm
LEH wrote:
Err... I contend that you might be drawing a slightly long bow comparing a local Church to a local Sporting Club.
Sure they are both Community Organisations but I think a Church probably gives more money to charity, rather than keeping it themselves.
by LPH » Tue May 14, 2013 10:18 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |