SA Footy

Just announced this morning, by the Commonwealth Govt:

A new Productivity Commission inquiry was announced this morning. The terms of reference are below. No timelines for the inquiry have been published yet. Information about this inquiry will be posted at http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/problem-gambling.
Terms of Reference
Australia's Gambling Industries
I, CHRIS BOWEN, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, pursuant to Parts 2 and 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998 hereby request that the Productivity Commission undertake an inquiry into Australia’s gambling industries and report within 12 months of the date of receipt of this reference. The Commission is to hold hearings for the purpose of this inquiry.

The Productivity Commission could provide an update of the 1999 Productivity Commission report (1-8) and provide some additional research into the impacts of harm minimisation measures (9-10):

1. the nature and definition of gambling and the range of activities incorporated within this definition;
2. the participation profile of gambling, including problem gamblers and those at risk of problem gambling;
3. the economic impacts of the gambling industries, including industry size, growth, employment, organisation and interrelationships with other industries such as tourism, leisure, other entertainment and retailing;
4. the social impacts of the gambling industries, the incidence of gambling abuse, the cost and nature of welfare support services of government and non-government organisations necessary to address it;
5. the contribution of gambling revenue on community development activity and employment;
6. the effects of the regulatory structures - including licensing arrangements, entry and advertising restrictions, application of the mutuality principle and differing taxation arrangements - governing the gambling industries, including the implications of differing approaches for industry development and consumers;
7. the implications of new technologies (such as the internet), including the effect on traditional government controls on the gambling industries;
8. the impact of gambling on Commonwealth, State and Territory Budgets;
9. Assessment of Harm Minimisation Measures since 1999
10. the impact that the introduction of harm minimisation measures at gambling venues has had on the prevalence of problem gambling and on those at risk; and
evaluate the effectiveness success of these harm minimisation measures used by the State and Territory Governments.

The Commission is to provide both a draft and a final report. The Government will consider the Commission’s recommendations, and its response will be announced as soon as possible after the receipt of the Commission’s report.

It will be interesting to see what impact the outcomes of this Inquiry might hold for sporting clubs like SANFL clubs and others.

The pokies should only ever have been given out to sporting and community clubs and not pubs and casinos, IMHO.

Squawk wrote:The pokies should only ever have been given out to sporting and community clubs and not pubs and casinos, IMHO.

Would be interesting to see how the SANFL would be going if only the 9 SANFL clubs were permitted to have Pokies and unlimited numbers as was the case with the NRL Leauges Clubs in the begining!

Sojourner wrote:

Squawk wrote:The pokies should only ever have been given out to sporting and community clubs and not pubs and casinos, IMHO.

Would be interesting to see how the SANFL would be going if only the 9 SANFL clubs were permitted to have Pokies and unlimited numbers as was the case with the NRL Leauges Clubs in the begining!

Very true Sojourner. All the pokie heads out there would have turned the SANFL clubs into some very powerful businesses by now.

Pokies are regulated by the states, not the Commonwealth. Sending a No Pokies politician to Canberra is rather like electing a PM to improve rubbish collection in your suburb. Xenophon will make a bigger stink, but probably have less actual impact on the ground, in Canberra than he did in Adelaide.

This whole thing reminds me of the TV show The Hollowmen.

Rudd would have agreed in 5 seconds flat to hold an inquiry to keep Xenophon on-side. They need his vote to pass anything in the Senate. Governments love inquiries, and Rudd loves 'em more than most politicians. The 12 month reporting time and the public inquiry part of it (lots of media coverage to make up for the fact that nothing will actually be done), assures me that it's all show and no dough.

More than 12 months from now, the Productivity Commission will return with a report saying 'yeah, pokies are bad in lots of ways, mmm'kay? But lots of not-for-profit sporting and community clubs rely on them to survive, so if you cut them you'd need to give these other organisations a chance to find alternative sources of revenue.' And the Rudd Government will say, 'We are very concerned about this issue, and will be discussing it with the states.' And then after another 12 months to 2 years of discussion, the states will announce some pretty half-arsed tinkering with the rules relating to pokies (bigger signs on ATMs at pubs saying, 'Don't withdraw money from here to pay on pokies', perhaps?). And in the unlikely event that changes are introduced to actually affect pokies' profitability, not-for-profit community and sporting groups will be fenced off so they're not hurt.

Note the terms of reference refer to a previous 1999 inquiry. Despite any forests torn down to produce that no-doubt worthy tome, I'd pretty safely bet that Australians are losing more on the pokies in 2008 than they were in 1999.

SimonH wrote:Pokies are regulated by the states, not the Commonwealth. Sending a No Pokies politician to Canberra is rather like electing a PM to improve rubbish collection in your suburb. Xenophon will make a bigger stink, but probably have less actual impact on the ground, in Canberra than he did in Adelaide.

This whole thing reminds me of the TV show The Hollowmen.

Rudd would have agreed in 5 seconds flat to hold an inquiry to keep Xenophon on-side. They need his vote to pass anything in the Senate. Governments love inquiries, and Rudd loves 'em more than most politicians. The 12 month reporting time and the public inquiry part of it (lots of media coverage to make up for the fact that nothing will actually be done), assures me that it's all show and no dough.

More than 12 months from now, the Productivity Commission will return with a report saying 'yeah, pokies are bad in lots of ways, mmm'kay? But lots of not-for-profit sporting and community clubs rely on them to survive, so if you cut them you'd need to give these other organisations a chance to find alternative sources of revenue.' And the Rudd Government will say, 'We are very concerned about this issue, and will be discussing it with the states.' And then after another 12 months to 2 years of discussion, the states will announce some pretty half-arsed tinkering with the rules relating to pokies (bigger signs on ATMs at pubs saying, 'Don't withdraw money from here to pay on pokies', perhaps?). And in the unlikely event that changes are introduced to actually affect pokies' profitability, not-for-profit community and sporting groups will be fenced off so they're not hurt.

Note the terms of reference refer to a previous 1999 inquiry. Despite any forests torn down to produce that no-doubt worthy tome, I'd pretty safely bet that Australians are losing more on the pokies in 2008 than they were in 1999.

Couldn't agree more.

Interesting to note in Jars' interview on 5AA on Monday Night, that all or most WAFL clubs operate without pokie machines in their establishments, but still seem to be able to deliver good revenue and boast good facilities. This is all according to Jars, and given that I haven't been to a WAFL club before, I'm unsure how accurate this is.

SimonH wrote:Pokies are regulated by the states, not the Commonwealth. Sending a No Pokies politician to Canberra is rather like electing a PM to improve rubbish collection in your suburb. Xenophon will make a bigger stink, but probably have less actual impact on the ground, in Canberra than he did in Adelaide.

Xylophone didn't run for federal parliament on a no-pokies platform.

Pseudo wrote:

SimonH wrote:Pokies are regulated by the states, not the Commonwealth. Sending a No Pokies politician to Canberra is rather like electing a PM to improve rubbish collection in your suburb. Xenophon will make a bigger stink, but probably have less actual impact on the ground, in Canberra than he did in Adelaide.

Xylophone didn't run for federal parliament on a no-pokies platform.

i hate that guy he is just an annoying so and so .should never have gotten voted in in any form .
My 2 cents worth he is a rabbit

Mickyj wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

SimonH wrote:Pokies are regulated by the states, not the Commonwealth. Sending a No Pokies politician to Canberra is rather like electing a PM to improve rubbish collection in your suburb. Xenophon will make a bigger stink, but probably have less actual impact on the ground, in Canberra than he did in Adelaide.

Xylophone didn't run for federal parliament on a no-pokies platform.

i hate that guy he is just an annoying so and so .should never have gotten voted in in any form .
My 2 cents worth he is a rabbit

Without turning this thread into a political discussion, I think this "rabbit" needs to exist in some capacity to keep munching away at the mouldy lettuce leafs that are the pollies aligned to political parties.

Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth

If you can afford to make bets, and our club announces a decline in our pokie revenue, I'll be blaming you Tassie.

PS - don't be so sure about the decline...

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth

I wouldn't bet on that or at least in a reduction of some club's reported profits. I believe one club will announce a very large profit - a huge increase on the previous year.

*shrugs*

Ahh well looks like not for the first time and certainly not the last I'm wrong again.

Here's me thinking in these trouble economic times, decrease in consumer confidence and the new No-Smoking legislation would have had an impact on pokie revenue across the state....

drebin wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth

I wouldn't bet on that or at least in a reduction of some club's reported profits. I believe one club will announce a very large profit - a huge increase on the previous year.

I'm hoping that's Norwood given this is the first full year that we will have received revenue from the Nor East. However, cash flow has also meant we have been able to increase expenditure in football operations so our profit (?) would likely be modest at best.

In WA, I think 2 clubs (Claremont and South Freo) have TAB outlets and Subiaco and East Perth also get some sort of cash over and above the other clubs through Subiaco Oval's tenancies with West Coast and Freo. So they're prob not all as poor as they make out.

Squawk wrote:

drebin wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth

I wouldn't bet on that or at least in a reduction of some club's reported profits. I believe one club will announce a very large profit - a huge increase on the previous year.

I'm hoping that's Norwood given this is the first full year that we will have received revenue from the Nor East. However, cash flow has also meant we have been able to increase expenditure in football operations so our profit (?) would likely be modest at best.

In WA, I think 2 clubs (Claremont and South Freo) have TAB outlets and Subiaco and East Perth also get some sort of cash over and above the other clubs through Subiaco Oval's tenancies with West Coast and Freo. So they're prob not all as poor as they make out.

I also hope its Norwood. I am just trawling through the Redlegs message board and here and only now beginning to piece together how bad the finances at my beloved Redlegs had got in the last 10 years. Still, I'm giving memberships as Christmas presents this year as well as renewing mine, so I guess I'm doing my bit