by Squawk » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:52 am
by Sojourner » Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:58 pm
Squawk wrote:The pokies should only ever have been given out to sporting and community clubs and not pubs and casinos, IMHO.
by therisingblues » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:25 am
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!
by SimonH » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:51 am
by TigerBoss » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:06 am
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.
by Pseudo » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:28 am
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.
by Mickyj » Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:59 am
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.
by TigerBoss » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:05 am
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
by am Bays » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:12 am
by TigerBoss » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:18 am
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth
by drebin » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:40 am
1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth
by am Bays » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:49 am
by Squawk » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:36 pm
drebin wrote:1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ this year (No Smoking legislation) or at least a decline in profit growth
I wouldn't bet on that or at least in a reduction of some club's reported profits. I believe one club will announce a very large profit - a huge increase on the previous year.
by Sir Red of Norwood » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:14 pm
Squawk wrote:drebin wrote:1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Won't mind betting that all SANFL clubs will have a downturn in pokie $$$ 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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |